A Better Society?
Bonanno's utopian anarchism
Anarchism has always had a mystification about it. It’s a political philosophy at its origin, but it always runs into trouble with real-world applications. Living Anarchy on a large scale? Unlikely. The idea itself feels impossible. Still, when we consider the historical lineage that planted the seeds for Anarchy, a broad spectrum of both individually and socially liberating ideas reveals itself. Further, one of history’s most overtly radical and violent Anarchists may have synthesized these ideas in a way that anybody can consider and utilize to fulfill themselves.
A World Without Power
Pierre-Joseph Proudhon is typically recognized as the first Anarchist, but his ideology was essentially an offshoot of socialism that involved no state interference. Mainly, Proudhon wanted a society where its members mutually offered each other an economic and social safety net without hierarchy, including ethical product trade and abolishing government in favor of communes and labor associations.
Although Proudhon was essential in coining the term and bringing some genuinely radical ideas to the forefront, even his less problematic ideas were far too romantic for any practical application. For perspective, Proudhon deemed all forms of property as physically and mathematically impossible and had an extremely misogynistic paranoia about feminist movements, proving that the patriarchy was a hierarchy that he had no issue with.
Post-Proudhon saw terms like Anarcho-Communism, Anarcho-Capitalism, and Anarcho-Socialism rise in popularity. This combination of Anarchism, a political philosophy, and the respective economic systems symbolized a critical distinction in Anarchist schools of thought: being an Anarchist was not necessarily meant to fight economic systems; it could also serve as a way to navigate them.
This distinction is crucial because it theoretically allows an individual to identify as an Anarchist within existing socioeconomic systems instead of necessitating that Anarchy replace those systems. In other words, Anarchism could escape the confines of a macro-political philosophy and become more flexible to the individual. These adaptations would eventually create two different yet mutually influential schools of Anarchism: Individualist and Social.
The Crossroads
Individualist Anarchism went on to be influenced by less politically minded philosophical thinkers such as Friedrich Nietzsche and Max Stirner, leading to a greater emphasis on the individual’s efforts and their will than a mass acceptance of Anarchy as a formal system. An Individualist Anarchist would typically shed their perceptions of normative hierarchies in favor of a more fluid and just approach to treating other individuals.
This perspective shift made Anarchy more accessible to revolutionary and social justice movements, as an Anarchist idea of reform in favor of equality no longer needed larger expectations of a system without hierarchy. For example, movements that advocate for LGBTQ rights could adopt an Individualist Anarchist ideology: no sexual identification or orientation shall be treated as more acceptable than another. The advocates could believe this while not necessitating complete Social Anarchy.
On the other hand, advocates for Social Anarchy stuck with more traditional anti-capitalist, anti-state, and anti-authority sentiments, often having their efforts dismissed as futile. This dismissal led to a more extreme school of thought: Insurrectionary Anarchism, which, as the name suggests, treated Anarchism as a revolutionary practice. Insurrectionary Anarchists have been responsible for terrorist attacks, high-profile assassinations, bank robberies, and other anti-social militance; they are often regarded as dangerous and fringe for good reason. However, prominent Italian Insurrectionary Anarchist Alfredo Bonanno (1937–2023) offered a miraculous bridge between his camp’s direct action and the Individualist Anarchist’s personal liberation.
Alfredo Bonanno is a name that sparks fervent debate within Anarchist circles. He stands apart with his radical, borderline utopian critique of modern society and advocacy for violent insurrectionary tactics. Known mainly for his essays on modern Anarchism, one of his most famous works, “Armed Joy,” landed him in prison for a year and a half due to its violent action-based approach toward insurrectionist theory. Bonanno also served time for multiple armed robberies around his home country, Italy.
Even those most charitable to Bonanno and his ideas would likely refer to him as a loose cannon. However, one doesn’t need to be an anarchist or be interested in the movement to pull from some of Bonanno’s more developed ideas that relate to our contemporary capitalist framework. Apart from some run-of-the-mill ideas that stem from Social Anarchist fundamentals, his ideas of affinity groups and goals as a tension instead of a realization are not only relevant to the current socio-political climate but offer serendipity when the capacity for fulfillment seems few and far between.
Affinity Groups
Bonanno’s concept of affinity groups goes beyond traditional notions of community based on shared identity, geography, or even ideology to an extent. Instead, he advocates for small, close-knit groups bound by shared passion, trust, and commitment to direct action to achieve their individual or shared goals. These groups create horizontal relationships that resonate with one of the oldest facets of philosophy and one not typically associated with Bonanno: communitarianism, specifically its preference for common moral values and reasoning within a small group instead of a larger system.
From Aristotle to Alasdair Macintyre, communitarianism and its potential pitfalls have been discussed regularly for centuries. Still, Bonanno’s unique spin is that affinity groups need nothing more than overlapping motivations to function. These motivations can range from the mundane to the extreme, the personally fulfilling to the perceived, widely necessary. So what are some advantages of having nothing but motivations alike?
One is the irrelevance of superficial qualities that typically drive people apart, such as race, gender, orientation, physical build, etc. Another advantage is the inexcusable and ideally nonexistent gap between theory and practice. However, the part Bonanno emphasizes as most important in an affinity group may also be its most problematic: the member’s ability to create “…a deepening of reciprocal knowledge”.
In its worst application, deepening reciprocal knowledge is synonymous with an echo chamber, reinforcing ideas through comradery instead of rational thinking or valid moral groundwork. At its best, it can lead to an assessment of each other’s skills, strengths, weaknesses, etc., yielding more effective collaboration, critical thinking, and trust in the group.
Imagine an affinity group whose motivations overlap so that they collectively decide they’d like to produce a film together. Perhaps one has a passion for writing, one for acting, one for music and sound work, etc. By deepening their reciprocal knowledge of each other, they can determine roles without manifesting vertical relationships and ultimately fulfill the entire group through action.
Licensed from Envato Elements.
For philosophical thinkers, fulfillment is often seen as one of the ultimate goals in life, and Bonanno’s style of affinity groups offers a path to fulfillment that is just as accessible as it is effective. This path can be particularly meaningful within a capitalist framework that often emphasizes individualistic competition and consumerism as the end-all-be-all for fulfillment. The beauty for those who don’t want to challenge or subvert the existing macro power structure is that you don’t necessarily have to do so when finding fulfillment with affinity groups.
Of course, when Bonanno conceived his idea of affinity groups, he had an opposition in mind, that being the existing state or hierarchy. Still, the opposition is optional to make finding fulfillment within affinity groups a challenge to the status quo. Let’s revisit the filmmaking crew; assuming the film is critically praised, they may succeed wildly without adhering to the less artistic aspects of status quo filmmaking: production companies, product placement, focus groups, etc. The filmmaking crew has successfully rebelled against the status quo. Although they didn’t get rid of the problems of traditional filmmaking, they have helped further tension against it.
Goals as Tension
In “The Anarchist Tension,” Bonanno confronts and concedes that visions of an Anarchist future are utopian. He does this in favor of seeing Anarchism as a tension against a system rather than a realization. A tension that exists in how we conceive life and the gaps between our thoughts and actions; one who adheres to a “…continual reversal of theory into action and action into theory” participates in the tension that is Anarchism.
This search for expression through action is opposed to following the status quo and seeing life as a quantitative collection of successes and failures, i.e., what modern society would like from us. This idea of tension, which seems to be generated by unfulfilled ideals, can serve as a way for affinity groups or individuals to keep questioning and subverting the norms and inequalities inherent in the capitalist framework, even when separated from the Anarchic school of thought.
Instead of seeing each goal met as a realization, viewing it as furthering tension will lead to exponential growth in both impact and the potential for fulfillment by treating the aspirations as moving targets instead of part of a permanent attainable condition. Say an affinity group aims to create community gardens for low-income areas; if they view their goal as going from neighborhood to neighborhood planting gardens, they will undoubtedly see great results.
However, suppose they view their mission as a tension against countrywide or worldwide hunger. In that case, the rate and quality of action will be different and ideally lead to a more significant impact. Suppose the community garden group stops receiving funding. In that case, they don’t stop at 15 neighborhoods, wiping their hands and fluffing their resumes. They will do whatever it takes to continue the mission because the goal is to create tension against world hunger, which is likely an impossible realization. Still, it doesn’t change that if they stop planting, the tension will cease.
Aiming to create tension doesn’t mean the group shouldn’t take the time to celebrate small victories, as this would likely lead to burnout and disillusionment with the cause. After all, it might feel draining to know that the end is never in sight. Unfortunately, there is no quick and easy remedy for that feeling. A group’s potential steps may include collective self-care, fostering open communication, and embracing flexibility, as things may not always go according to plan. Still, these tactics may only work for some. With no easy remedy to potential burnout, it’s important to remember the alternatives to a Bonanno-style affinity group: larger organizations or individualism.
Assuming one’s motivations are the same in any of these structures, affinity groups offer the best way to deal with the existential doubt that stems from tackling insurmountable problems. In a large organization, it becomes impossible to maintain horizontal relationships, so any fatigue or changes an individual or group would like to see are decided by whoever is at the top of the hierarchy. In the case of the individual, the feeling of isolation in one’s motivations is likely to hinder more than help. Affinity groups offer the best option for dealing with this type of dread because of the reciprocal knowledge, trust, and lack of hierarchy inherent to them, allowing them to support their members equally.
Navigating the Tightrope
It’s a shame that the power in affinity groups that seek to create tension can easily be misused. Bonanno himself seemed to have a deranged sense of how this power should be applied. His advocacy and tendency for violence, combined with the capacity for him and his adjacent affinity groups to create extremist echo chambers, cannot be ignored. Luckily, these aspects of Bonanno’s thinking are unnecessary to subscribe to in order to reap the benefits of some of his other ideas.
Rightly treating goals as tension demands a nurturing of critical thinking, often allowing people to shed their previously accepted norms and assumptions not in a single act but throughout their lives, creating an evolving and hopefully rational environment that will lead to a more socially just and inclusive world.
The problem arises when a group collectively believes they have cornered a truth that is really more subjective and lacks the moral groundwork for their direct action to be harmless. In Bonanno’s case, this ‘truth’ was that an Anarchic system would be better than the current state. Given the nature of political and economic systems, Bonanno’s idea of truth, in this instance, is no more than an opinion. Therefore, the notion that Anarchy is better than the current state is not comparable to the ideas held by the community garden group because it is true that people worldwide are starving. Or the filmmaking group, where it is true that when like-minded people come together, they can make a great film. This solid adherence to truth, although important, doesn’t mean that all affinity groups need a singular objective truth to motivate their goals; for example, one could imagine affinity groups on both sides of the issue of technological advancement.
Tech Enthusiasts may embrace new technologies as the key to human progress and problem-solving. At the same time, Tech Skeptics are worried about invasions of privacy and job displacement. Both sides likely have many reasons for feeling that way, some based on opinion and some based on fact.
Still, in a righteous affinity group, there also needs to be moral groundwork that prevents them from doing anything harmful, even if they have a clear opposition. In the case of tech, Tech Enthusiasts could focus on developing tech solutions for global challenges, promoting responsible AI development, and ensuring equitable access to technology instead of purging or outlawing Tech Skeptics. On the other hand, Tech Skeptics could advocate for ethical tech development, promote digital literacy, and help draft regulations to mitigate potential harms instead of sabotaging technical development. Ultimately, prioritizing nonviolent, ethical action and nurturing a robust moral compass within affinity groups contributes to positive change, increasing the likelihood of successful outcomes and fulfillment even against opposition, systemic or otherwise.
◊ ◊ ◊
Miles Erickson on Daily Philosophy:
