Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-4rdpn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-02T22:46:37.275Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Taking law less seriously – an anarchist legal theory

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 January 2018

A. Bradney
A. Bradney*
Affiliation:
University of Leicester
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

There is, it seems, a revival of interest in anarchist theories of law. But then there is always a revival of interest in anarchist theories of law. In the 1960s Wortley began his text, Jurisprudence, with a study of anarchism, and the early 1980s saw a succession of papers and articles on anarchist critiques of law. Despite this, discussion of anarchist legal theory has rarely moved beyond the introductory stage. Basic tenets have been outlined but detailed analysis eschewed. Part of the reason for this may lie in basic difficulties of definition. The concern has been with ‘anarchist theories of law’, but what is anarchism?

Most writers, whether they be anarchist theorists or academic commentators, begin with the proposition that the word anarchism is derived from the Greek anarchos and means either ‘no government’ or ‘no ruler’. Such etymology cannot take the place of definition but, beyond the bare fact that anarchism involves the rejection of rulers, no further definition seems possible.

Type
Research Article
Information
Legal Studies , Volume 5 , Issue 2 , July 1985 , pp. 133 - 150
Copyright
Copyright © Society of Legal Scholars 1985

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Notes

1. See, for example, Bankowski, Z. ‘Anarchism, Marxism and the Critique of Law’ in Sugarman, D. (ed) Legality, Ideology and the State (1983)Google Scholar.

2. Wortley, B. A. Jurisprudence (1967).Google Scholar

3. See, for example, Wolff, R. P. (ed) The Rule of Lam (1971), R. Tur ‘Anarchy versus Authority: Towards a Democratic Theory of Law’ (1977) 63 Google Scholar Archiv fur Rechts and Social Philosophic 305, Bankowski, Z., ‘Anarchy Rule OK’ (1977) 63 Archiv fur Recht and Social Philosophic 327 Google Scholar, T. Holterman and H. van Maarseveen, (eds) Law in Anarchism (1980).

4. The refusal to use anarchist theory as a basis for a detailed consideration of particular laws has even reached the point where one author, Piers Bierne, who ‘has a personal commitment to anarchist politics’ uses ‘a Marxian methodology’ when analysing rent legislation. See the blurb to P. Bierne Fair Rent and Legal Fiction (1977).

5. See for example Bankowski (1977) 63 Archiv fur Rechts and Social Philosophic 327 at 329 and N. Walter ‘About Anarchism’ in H. Echrlich, C. Echrlich, D. Deleon and G. Morris Reinventing Anarchy (1979).

6. Fowler, R. B. The Anarchist Tradition of Political Thought (1972) 25 Western Political Philosophy 738 at 739.Google Scholar Fowler concludes that, ‘[w]hat joined them [the traditional anarchists] together, above all, was a merciless dismissal of the ordinary values and institutions of their epochs, and a yearning for a life of harmony with “nature” in which government would only be an artefact of the past’ (p 751). This appears to go very little beyond the notion that anarchists do not believe in rulers

7. Wittgenstein, L. Philosophical Investigations (1953), ss 65–71 Google Scholar

8. Quail, J. The Slow Burning Fosi (1978), p xiv.Google Scholar

9. Woodcock, G. and Avakumovic, I. The Anarchist Prince (1971), pp 86–88.Google Scholar

10. Miller, M. A. Kropotkin (1976), p 181.Google Scholar

11. Kropotkin (ed R. Baldwin) Revolutionary Pamphlets (1970). Kropotkin wrote and published in French, Russian and English. Where a translated work is quoted this has been footnoted.

12. Kropotkin Ethics (no date) (translated by L. S. Friedland and J. R. Piroshnikoff), p 5.

13. Ethics, p 12.

14. Miller, Kropotkin, p 182.Google Scholar

15. Revolutionary Pamphlets, p 53.

16. Ethics, p 16.

17. Ibid, p.47.

18. Ibid, p 5.

19. Ibid, pp 196–218, Mutual Aid (no date).

20. Revolutionary Pamphlets, p 60.

21. Ethics, p 22.

22. Timpancro, S. On Materialism (1980), p 34.Google Scholar

23. Op cit n 22 above, p 29.

24. F. Turner Between Science and Religion (1974), ch 2

25. Leopardi ‘La Ginestra’, lines 292–294, quoted at p 43 in Timpancro, op cit n 22 above.

26. Kropotkin, Ethics, pp 249–254.Google Scholar

27. Revolutionary Pamphlets, p 198. 48. Mutual Aid, p 114.

29. Revolutionary Pamphlets, p 212.

30. Ibid, p 202.

31. Ibid, p 202.

32. Ibid, p 202.

33. Ibid, p 202.

34. Mutual Aid, p III.

35. Ibid, p 110.

36. Ibid, p 58.

37. Mutual Aid, p 112.

38. Ethics, pp 64–65.

39. Ibid, p 22.

40. Ibid, p 22.

41. Revolutionary Pamphlets, p 203.

42. Ibid, p 205.

43. Ibid, p 205.

44. Ibid, p 205.

45. Ibid, p 205.

46. Revolutionary Pamphlets, p 205.

47. Ibid, p 205.

48. Ibid, p 218.

49. Ethics, p 252.

50. Revolutionary Pamphlets, p 43.

51. Ibid, p 58.

52. Ibid, p 213.

53. Ibid, pp 214–215.

54. Revolutionary Pamphlets, p 217.

55. Ibid, p 197.

56. Ibid, p 135.

57. Quoted in Davis, D. Wisdom and Wilderness (1983), pp 156–157.Google Scholar

58. Revolutionary Pamphlets, p 66.

59. See, for example, R. Basham Urban Anthropology (1973).

60. See, for example, K. Pryer Endless Pressure (1979).

61. Justice, J. Auerbach Without Law (1983), p 4.Google Scholar

62. Marais, E. My Friends the Baboons (1975), p 101.Google Scholar

63. de Waal, F. Chimpanzee Politics (1982), p 210 Google Scholar.

64. de Waal, op cit n 63 above, p 211 Google Scholar.

65. Hinde, T., ‘The Apes of Amhern’ (1982) Times Literary Supplement, p 1124.Google Scholar

66. Fromm, E. The Fear of Freedom (1960), p 91.Google Scholar

67. Milgram, S. Obedience to Authority (1974), p 189.Google Scholar

68. Bankowski op cit n I above.

69. Kropotkin, Ethics, p 27.Google Scholar

70. Mutual Aid, p 111.

71. Ibid, p 110.

72. Ibid, pxvi.

73. Revolutionary Pamphlets, p 60.

74. Ibid., p 254.

75. Bowler, P. The Eclipse of Darwinism (1983), p 14.Google Scholar