Contemporary Anarchist and Anarchistic Movements

Received: 24 August 2017 Revised: 3 January 2018 Accepted: 26 February 2018 DOI: 10.1111/soc4.12582 ARTICLE Contemporary anarchist and anarchistic movements Dana M. Williams California State University, Chico Abstract Correspondence Dana M. Williams, California State University, Although the period of highest activity for anarchist move- Chico, Chico, CA, USA. ments peaked in the early 1990s, such movement continues Email: dmwilliams@csuchico.edu in the present. Contemporary antiauthoritarian movements are a product of the 1950s and New Left, as well as the USSR's demise. Antiauthoritarian movements are either explicitly anarchist or implicitly anarchist (thus, simply “anti- authoritarian,” “autonomist,” or “libertarian‐socialist”). Anar- chist identity is diverse, although anchored around an opposition to dominant culture, institutions, and hierarchical norms. The values and goals pursued revolve around a prin- cipled adoption of horizontalism, direct action, antiauthori- tarianism, decentralization, anticapitalism, and mutual aid. These anarchist movements are unique movements, yet they also run parallel to certain movements—in both the adoption of anarchist strategies and membership overlap— such as antifascist, global justice, and squatter movements. Confrontational and playful street tactics combine with strategies of reclamation of radically egalitarian space, in opposition to hierarchical society. Despite their association with violence, contemporary anarchist movements are fairly nonviolent; however, many anarchists do not disavow the selective use of violence. Thus, massive efforts of social control through police and mass media attempt to moder- ate, disrupt, and suppress anarchist movements. 1 | I N T RO DU CT I O N Anarchism is a social, economic, and political philosophy, whose ideas are pursued by various antiauthoritarian social movements (Gordon, 2008; Marshall, 2010). Due to anarchism's various and complicated strands, there is no one, Sociology Compass. 2018;12:e12582. wileyonlinelibrary.com/journal/soc4 © 2018 John Wiley & Sons Ltd. 1 of 17 https://doi.org/10.1111/soc4.12582 2 of 17 WILLIAMS singular anarchism or anarchist movement. Anarchist ideas and movement tactics have gained wider influence on a growing variety of other social movements since the last decades of the 20th century. Anarchist movements have themselves grown during this same time period and have arguably become more prevalent than they were during the mid‐20th century. Despite these developments, there is not a cohesive research literature on anarchist and antiauthoritarian social movements, as these movements are rarely studied as instances of the same phenomenon. Consequently, research is scattered among a variety of disparate academic disciplines and subfields. This literature review gathers together recent studies that focus on these movements and organizes this scholarship into common themes. Distorted conclusions about anarchism—an association with violence, chaos, and naiveté—derive from popularly propagated notions by media, educators, and state actors. Anarchists themselves reject such caricatures and consider anarchism a rational and constructive response to hierarchy and domination (Ferretti, 2016; Williams, 2017). “Anarchism” literally translates simply as “without rulers” (Gordon, 2006) and is not only misunderstood by but also understudied within the academy. Historians have been anarchism's most common scholars—referencing an over‐century‐old past—although political scientists and anthropologists have also dedicated attention to anarchism. In the social sciences, sociology may be the least common discipline for analysis but also one of the best analytical fits (Williams, 2014a; Williams & Shantz 2011; Shantz & Williams, 2013; Bamyeh, 2009). While anarchism fits all the criteria for a social movement prominently described by both Diani (1992) and Tilly and Wood (2009), anarchist movements are typically smaller than other major movements. Thus, sociologists who have studied anarchist movements have done so rather ad hoc, by focusing on particular anarchist organizations, localized “scenes,” protest events, or indirectly on a specific style, identity, or theoretical trait. Rarely has the focus been on anarchist movements per se. Recently, there has been an increase in scholarship about anarchism. The trend may continue and even acceler- ate, since an insurgent cross‐disciplinary tradition emerged in the 1990s called anarchist studies.1 In addition to the anarchist studies discipline described above, sociologists have begun to explore connections between sociology and anarchism generally, and the sociological analysis of anarchist movements in particular. These efforts within anarchist studies may initiate a growing legitimacy of anarchist sociology (see Shantz, 2014; Simon, 2014; Williams, 2014b). Herein, I review recent research on anarchist and other antiauthoritarian movements throughout the world but emphasize most heavily European and North American movements, which have been the focus of the majority of the English‐speaking literature. 2 | ANARCHIST MOVEMENT HISTORY Contemporary anarchism is best understood as an outgrowth of classic anarchism, whose most dramatic moment occurred during the Spanish Revolution (1936–1939). However, most historians identify the period of the 1870s through the 1920s as anarchism's highest period of activity. Although classic anarchism has many premodern ancestors, it is a decidedly modern phenomenon, evolving during the industrial revolution of Europe (Purkis, 2004; Williams, 2014a). Anarchism involved not only revolutionary anticapitalist struggles, and attempted soviets and attentats (attempted assassinations of elites), but also peasant and student struggles, countercultural movements, nationalist and anticolonialist movements, and intersections with many movements throughout the world from the mid‐1800s to early 1900s (Marshall, 2010). An abeyance period occurred following WWII, continuing into the Cold War; for example, echoes of American anarchism endured in a variety of White ethnic syndicalist, pacifist, and cooperativist forms (Cornell, 2016). However, new forces emerged in the mid‐20th century that modified classic anarchism and posed new challenges and questions: postcolonialism, intersectionality, powerful states and surveil- lance systems, advanced policing and war‐making infrastructures, and further global economic integration. The New Left of the 1960s marks the beginning of contemporary anarchism. Numerous connections exist between the New Left and this reconfigured anarchism. While most widely characterized as “neo‐Marxist,” the WILLIAMS 3 of 17 New Left also had a “tendency of anarchism” (Yonghong, 2013, p. 37), and the committed New Leftists of the early 1970s who founded the feminist, environmentalist, and antinuclear movements were arguably closer to anarchist positions than Marxist‐Leninist positions (Epstein, 1991).2 Community organizing was a common theme advanced by the New Left (Breines, 1982), which also reflected anarchist concerns about building horizontalist, empowered, antiauthoritarian movements. A clear influence of this community organizing approach favored by certain anarchists is found in the civil rights and Black power movements (Cornell, 2012), as well as influential Black anarchists who emerged from these movements (Williams, 2015), such as Lorenzo Kom'boa Ervin (Heynen & Rhodes, 2012) and Kuwasi Balagoon (Umoja, 2015). The New Left preference for participatory democracy was an outgrowth of the civil rights movement—principally the Student Nonviolent Coordinating Committee—and has had deep symbolic consequences for later movements, including anarchism (Polletta, 2002, 2005). Other New Left values and practices of democratic collectivism, such as those found in worker cooperatives of the 1970s, also mirror anarchist concerns (Rothschild‐Whitt, 1979). The movement wave of the 1960s involved the adoption of various anarchist tactics (e.g., affinity groups; Bookchin, 2004), which also spread to various movements in the 1970s, such as feminist and antinuclear movements (Cornell, 2011; Epstein, 1991). Contemporary anarchism mushroomed internationally in the 1990s (Shantz, 2003), coinciding with the fall of the Berlin Wall and the end of the Left's attachment to the Soviet Union. Just as anarchism had generally receded with the political successes of the Bolsheviks after the October 1917 Russian Revolution, subsequent blows to the USSR's reputation—and its eventual demise—served to reestablish the popularity and prevalence of anarchism among the Left (Williams & Lee, 2012). During the democratic transition of socialist states, antiauthoritarians emerged as impor- tant forces: anarchist collectives and anarcho‐syndicalist unions appeared in the USSR (Ruff, 1991), while Chinese autonomist student and worker groups were important nuclei precipitating the democracy movement that culmi- nated in Tiananmen Square (Calhoun, 1997; Katsiaficas, 2013). The explosion of anarchist movements and organiza- tions post‐USSR is reflected in movement‐created directories, like the International Blacklist and the Anarchist Yellow Pages. The number of anarchist organizations continued to grow into the 2000s, from 808 in 1997 to 2,171 in 2005, and were found in 63 countries around the world. These organizations—the number of which is surely dramatically underreported—were highly diverse in character, ranging from physical locations (e.g., collectively run bookstores) to class struggle organizations and unions, to media organizations and simple anarchist collectives (Williams, 2017; Williams & Lee, 2008). 3 | D E F I N I N G A N A RC H I S M A N D A N A R C H I S T I C M O V E M E N T S Research on contemporary anarchist and other antiauthoritarian movements has focused on the identities of move- ment participants, the values and goals that drive movements, and the strategies and tactics pursued. These topics and the current scholarship on them are presented below. 3.1 | Anarchist values and goals As with other socio‐political ideologies and movements, anarchism possesses a unique combination of values and goals, which share overlap with numerous antiauthoritarian movements. These values include horizontalism, direct action, antiauthoritarianism, decentralization, anticapitalism, and mutual aid. Horizontalist organizations aim to be popular, autonomous from centers of powers, collectivist, and directly democratic (Sitrin, 2006). These orientations are at odds with hierarchical decision making and top‐down leadership. This “anarchist sensibility” (Epstein & Dixon, 2007) encourages organizing structures, communication, and deliberative approaches to maximize these values. Relatively small organizations, impermanent or limited leadership, inclusive communication styles, and consensus decision‐making strategies are manifestations of these directly democracy anarchist values within organizations (Cornell, 2011; Ehrlich, 1996). Such values are ideals and thus are never fully realized in practice. For example, despite 4 of 17 WILLIAMS their strong commitment to egalitarianism, the German Autonomen are often governed by informal hierarchies that can contradict their nonhierarchical beliefs (Leach, 2009). In order to overcome potential inequities, anarchists and other antiauthoritarians have developed a tool‐kit of horizontalist strategies, such as formal and informal consensus decision making (see Cornell, 2011; Gelderloos, 2006). Direct action is a key anarchist value, which aims to achieve ends immediately without appeal to intermediaries— especially politicians, elites, or other state actors. Mediated or representative “action” is avoided by prefigurative practices, and thus, anarchists disavow electoral strategies (Franks, 2003). Direct action includes a variety of approaches, from confrontational street tactics to the creation of counterinstitutions (Graeber, 2009). More broadly, direct action works with the goal of antiauthoritarianism, opposing not only the power of hierarchical institutions to dominate but also the “rights” upon which they exist and purport to exercise such power. This antiauthoritarianism extends to a wide array of institutions, such as capitalism, patriarchy, White supremacy, colonialism, militarism, and the state (Gordon, 2008; Milstein, 2010). To achieve horizontalist ends directly in an antiauthoritarian fashion, anarchists advocate for the decentralization of power, decision making, and organization. For example, anarcho‐syndicalism's notable “rhizome” quality results in a decentralized network of connections without a central, controlling node (White & Sproule, 2002). These connec- tions are linked by a logic of “affinity” (Day, 2005). Counterhegemonic and antiauthoritarian projects that embody this decentralized network or federated ideal include Peoples' Global Action (PGA; Wood, 2005), “consultas” (meetings where people consult each other to share ideas and coordinate future actions), No Border camps in Europe (Mueller, 2003), the Indymedia network (Downing, 2003), the Zapatistas, and antinuclear spokes‐councils (Epstein, 1991; Katsiaficas, 2006). Since anarchism arose as an explicitly anticapitalist movement, this value remains strong in contemporary anar- chist movements. Even though some anarchists do not consciously identify as “class struggle” anarchists, anarchist movements often revolve around class issues and anticapitalist campaigns (Robinson, 2009). In lieu of capitalist exploitation, profit‐seeking, and competition, anarchists propose strategies of mutual aid. For example, the Anarchist Black Cross (ABC) creates infrastructures of resistance to capitalist inequity, while emphasizing the generous impulses of solidarity and support between people—ABC's goal is to provide mutual aid for arrested and imprisoned anarchists and other political prisoners (Hackett, 2015). In pursuit of a radically egalitarian society, anarchists have advocated the reclamation of public space from authoritarian and profit‐motivated behaviors. 3.2 | Movement strategies and tactics There are some broad strategic tendencies within anarchist movements. For example, in the United States, anarchists have tended to pursue three distinct strategies (Cornell, 2016). Mass organizing involves anarchists working alongside nonanarchists to build social movements capable of challenging capital, state, and other adversaries. Insurrectionism includes efforts to directly and violently attack those adversaries, typically through assassination attempts and bomb‐ throwing upon the rich and powerful. Finally, prefiguration incorporates anarchist values into practical actions, such as the creation of alternatives to mainstream social organization, lifestyles, and counterinstitutions (e.g., communes and cooperatives). While insurrectionism has been the loudest and most feared tendency, the total number of participants in these practices has been far less substantial than those engaged in mass organizing and prefiguration. Many anarchists utilize multiple strategies concurrently, albeit in different avenues of their movement activity (Cornell, 2016). The strategies pursued and tactics employed by anarchists are not exclusively anarchist in origin, nor do the peo- ple who use them necessarily self‐identify as anarchists. Most prominently, anarchists use a variety of street‐based tactics that attempt to control the streets, demonstrate the practicality of anarchist values and ideas, and achieve short‐term tactical goals. Some of these tactics—like black blocs, blockades, projectiles—are perceived to be either assertive or even aggressive in character (Starr, 2006), while other tactics are far less dramatic or even controversial outside of anarchist movements. Avant‐garde and guerrilla theater tactics from the 1960s to the present have been WILLIAMS 5 of 17 influenced by an antiauthoritarian, ludic, playful approach (Shepard, 2013) that continues to generate spectacle‐laden “protestivals” (St. John, 2008). The diversity of these movement tactics is sometimes connected to the ideological subvariants that anarchists prefer; “red” anarchists tend to be more interested in community organizing and activism and tend to prioritize labor strikes, while “green” anarchists tend to favor insurrections, rioting, and property destruc- tion (Williams, 2009a, 2009b). Contemporary red and green approaches both reflect the anarchist tradition of insur- rections, dual power, and revolutionary class conflict. In anarchist movements, the goal is to form democratic and antiauthoritarian organization structures that are responsive to needs for autonomy (Ferretti, 2016), like affinity groups (Graeber, 2009; Murray, 2010). The general anarchist goal of reclaiming and then controlling public space in a radically egalitarian manner is pur- sued in various ways. Infoshops are buildings owned, rented, or squatted by anarchists that serve a free space for learning about anarchism, meeting others, and collaborating on campaigns (Atton, 2003; Polletta, 1999). Many other spaces serve comparable purposes as hangouts for dissemination of anarchism: squats, social centers, and pirate radio stations (Kitis, 2015). During large protest actions, more temporary convergences spaces may form; these function as a place for anarchist interaction, and the planning and coordination of direct action for the protests (Lacey, 2005; Routledge, 2003). Anarchists often refer to these locations as “temporary autonomous zones” (Bey, 1985). Anarchist controlled spaces reconfigure mainstream norms. For example, at the anarchistic Rainbow Gatherings— wherein anticonsumerist, countercultural, and eco‐peace communities camp in forests, using nonhierarchical means— order is maintained through nonhierarchical (and nonviolent) means, specifically smiling, chanting, listening, social pres- sure, conflict resolution, and the deployment of social capital (Amster, 2003; Niman, 2011). During antiauthoritarian Critical Mass (CM) bicycle rides, participants use nonhierarchical strategies to guide the ride, temper threats from cars, and create a form of do‐it‐yourself (DiY) policing that reinforces community. When CM cyclists go through an intersec- tion, one rider will stop in and interact with stopped cars, “corking” the flow of automobile traffic until all cyclists have safely passed through (Ferrell, 2011). Autonomous queer spaces challenge mainstream values, such as the homo‐ and hetero‐normativity of many gay and straight spaces, aiming to create transformative, empowering structures (Brown, 2007). A comparable “reterritorialization” occurs on the margins, allowing alternatives to safely exist, such as at the 1990s Active Resistance anarchist conferences (Shantz, 1998). The decentralization and spatial antagonism (i.e., being positioned outside the status quo) existing in such spaces is commonplace within anarchist movements. British protest camps, for example, position themselves as a combination of a network structure and a full organization (Feigenbaum, Frenzel, & McCurdy, 2013; Frenzel, 2014). In more local terms, antiauthoritarian movements utilize “scenes” where participants are able to interact without the intrusion of the state or other elites, thus providing autonomy and agency (Leach & Haunss, 2009). Within scenes, which are both social and territorial, oppositional consciousness can be developed, self‐governance experimented with, and movements can survive abeyance (Haunss & Leach, 2007). 3.3 | Movement identity The defining characteristics that place an individual or organization into an antiauthoritarian camp, such as anarchism, are professed values, preferred movement structures, and chosen actions (Williams, 2017). An established anarchist identity is what separates explicit anarchists from implicit anarchists. Thus, antiauthoritarians fall into two categories: anarchist‐in‐name or anarchistic‐in‐style. Explicit anarchists—also called “capital‐A anarchists”—are most apt to form consciously anarchist collectives, create federation structures among multiple organizations, and identify strongly with past anarchist movement waves. Class struggle and anticapitalist values and campaigns are common within this tradition. For example, the British miner's strike in 1985–1986 closed the divisions between classic class‐struggle anar- chists and an individualist anarchism less concerned with capitalism (Franks, 2005). These conscious anarchists may identify with a variety of ideological subvariants, such as anarcho‐communism, anarcho‐syndicalism, anarcha‐feminism, and eco‐anarchism. Such distinctive subvariants also possess spatial patterns: American anarcho‐communists and anarcho‐syndicalists (so‐called red anarchists) were more likely found in the Northeast, while primitivists and eco‐anarchists (“green anarchists”) on the West coast (Williams, 2009a). Explicit anarchists often include the word 6 of 17 WILLIAMS “anarchist” in their literature, external discussions, and even their organizational names. For example, the ABC is an international network of political prisoner aid collectives that identifies as anarchist and seeks to support anarchist prisoners, as well as other liberatory political prisoners and prisoners of war (Hackett, 2015). Explicit anarchism is not necessarily the same as in the classical era: For example, while many radical U.S. youth in antiwar and global justice movements identified as anarchists, Epstein and Dixon (2007) argued the philosophical perspective holding sway was more of an “anarchist sensibility” than a consciously stated connection to classic age anarchism. Implicitly anarchist—or anarchistic—individuals and organizations are attracted to a variety of other labels, such as autonomist, antiauthoritarian, and libertarian‐socialist, as well as by no special identifier at all. Overlap exists between anarchistic individuals, and more Left libertarian and antiauthoritarian Marxist ideologies, like autonomism which advocate for the self‐managed resistance to state and capitalism, and the “decolonization of everyday life” (Katsiaficas, 2006). For example, the Autonomen of Germany do not necessarily identify with anarchism but share many commonalities. They have previously composed the militant factions within antinuclear and squatter movements, they value independence from Left political parties and labor unions, and they oppose all hierarchical organization (Leach, 2016). Many antiauthoritarians have eschewed the formal label “anarchist,” while still adopting anarchist values and strategies. For example, the Independent Media Center (IMC)—an outgrowth of the global justice movement—has an affinity with anarchism. While IMCs rarely declare themselves anarchist, they focus their reporting on radical social movements and form a larger decentralized network of consensus‐based collectives (Downing, 2003). Likewise, the PGA network drafted anarchistic hallmarks, including the rejection of hierarchical systems, opposition to all forms of domination, an extrainstitutional and confrontational approach, direct action tactics, and a preference for organiza- tional decentralization and autonomy (de Marcellus, 2000). Such prefiguration—using the methods in the present you wish to be the future's status quo—is a central aspect of both contemporary anarchist and autonomist Marxist thought (Cornish, Haaken, Moskovitz, & Jackson, 2016; Van de Sande, 2015). Other anarchistic affinity can be seen in the adoption by Occupy Wall Street (also not explicitly anarchist) of a variety of anarchistic techniques, like consensus, speaker stacks (order of who speaks next based on when people raised their hands), hand signs, and facil- itators. Occupy did not itself develop these techniques but rather adopted them from experienced antiauthoritarian participants who initially helped create Occupy (Graeber, 2013). These techniques led to the creation of “bureaucracies of anarchy” within Occupy, which, while similar in some regard, involved more structure and formalized roles than the informality of Autonomen action camps' “full gatherings” and “delegate councils” (Leach, 2013). The growth of an antiauthoritarian tendency or “another politics” in North America has borrowed from antiracist feminism, prison abolitionism, and “reconfigured anarchism” (a modern strand, less indebted to the Industrial Revolution era), incorpo- rating four “anti's”: antiauthoritarianism, anticapitalism, antioppression, and anti‐imperialism (Dixon, 2012). Many antiauthoritarians may not have any affinity with anarchist ideas or traditions, although they may be “fellow‐travelers.” Thus, North American strains of prison abolitionism and antiracist feminism have strong conceptual overlap with anarchist ideas, but such shared characteristics are incidental, not conscious (Dixon, 2012). Numerous similarities may exist among “cousin” antiauthoritarian strains, despite no deliberate connection (e.g., Ramnath's (2011) study of antiauthoritarians in India). Finally, many collectives, communes, and cooperatives have been studied (see Fitzgerald & Rodgers, 2000; Horrox, 2009; Kanter, 1973; Lindenfeld, 2003; Rothschild‐Whitt, 1979), which utilize anarchistic and antiauthoritarian strategies, while rarely associating with such political identities. Anarchistic franchise organizations (AFOs) are projects with many geographically dispersed collectives that adopt anarchist organizational traits and tactics—and enjoy considerable anarchist support—while rarely formally identifying as anarchist projects (Williams, 2017). These AFOs are akin to “nonbranded tactics” (Day, 2005), ideas (Graeber, 2009), or banners and umbrellas that anarchists organize underneath (Gordon, 2008). An example is Food Not Bombs (FNB), which gleans food for free redistribution, often the homeless. FNB is anarchistic because it provides mutual aid as resis- tance against neoliberal forms of charity (Parson, 2014) and is urban direct action opposing growing injustices at the expense of fundamental rights (Heynen, 2010). Other examples include Anti‐Racist Action (ARA) and Anti‐Fascist Action, CM, Earth First!, Homes Not Jails, and IMCs. WILLIAMS 7 of 17 Anarchist identity is diverse, mirroring the diversity of the ideological subvariants, political issues of concern, and anarchist participants themselves. The common values of anarchist identity are, minimally, an opposition to systems of hierarchy and domination in the abstract, and the coercive mechanisms that impact individuals directly. For exam- ple, anarchist politics are infused with a strong DiY approach that counters classic notions of citizenship (Blackstone, 2005). Consequently, anarchists often see themselves as outsiders. In recent years, queer theory and queer movements have influenced anarchism, as queer identity challenges hierarchical society (Brown, 2007) and is rather common in anarchist movements itself, providing support for resistance to dominant norms, while still struggling with resulting accusations of “inauthenticity” for both queer‐identified and nonqueer anarchists (Portwood‐Stacer, 2010). Eco‐anarchists (such as those within Earth First!) have constructed an identity that prioritizes the “ecological self” and the “wild within,” which are expressed in gatherings and direct actions and represent symbolic challenges to hierarchy (Ingalsbee, 1996). Egalitarian and anticapitalist narratives are commonplace within anarchist movements and easily found in anarchist gatherings of all kinds (Atkinson, 2006). This does not mean that anarchist and antiauthoritarian identity is always uniform or uncomplicated. For example, Autonomen identity is an expression of certain contradic- tions that they struggle with when putting that identity into practice in their internal debates and self‐reflection (Leach, 2009). Religiosity, secularity, indigeneity, and feminism also complicate traditional understandings of anarchist theory, pushing antiauthoritarianism in new, complicated directions (Lagalisse, 2011). Anarchist identity may constitute an “imagined community,” where identity is formed and maintained through resolving conflicts about means and ends, by defining antagonists and protagonists, and by the ritualistic repetition of movement narratives (Wright, 2003). Strong influences upon this constructed identity include punk rock subcul- ture (O'Connor, 2003; Willems, 2015), as well as other subcultures of resistance (e.g., Blackstone, 2005). Despite commonalities with other movements, anarchists' habitus is distinct and separate from socialists, like Trotskyists and Maoists (whom anarchists often call “authoritarian socialists,” to distinguish from libertarian‐socialists), given differing protest preferences and methods of action (Ibrahim, 2011). Syntheses do occur, such as the integration of “green” anarchism alongside traditional “red” identities (of class struggle, or organized workers fighting against capitalism), such as the Industrial Workers of the World/Earth First! coalition in the U.S. Pacific Northwest (Shantz, 2002; Shantz & Adam, 1999). 4 | E X T RA M O V E M E N T R E L A T I O N S W I T H O T H E R SO C I A L A C T O R S In addition to participation in antiauthoritarian movements and scenes, anarchists also actively participate in a variety of other movements. Studies have focused on these movements and their intersections with anarchism; these connections are presented below along with some exemplary case studies. Finally, research has also focused on the issues of violence related to anarchist movements, particularly how the state and media have attempted to suppress anarchist movements. 4.1 | Intersections with other movements Like all modern movements, anarchist movements are situated in a complex field of social movements (McCarthy & Zald, 1977). Some of the closest connections between such movements and anarchism involve heavy participation of anarchists within those other movements. Thus, while radical ecological movements are not explicitly anarchist, many radical ecological movements involve active anarchist participation as well as the usage of anarchist‐honed tactics. The same can be said for antiwar, feminist, and antinuclear movements.3 A few of the other recent movements that have seen participant overlap and tactical diffusion between anarchist movements include antifascist, global justice, and squatter movements. The scholarship describing these intersections is described below. Most of these studies have noted the influence of anarchism upon the practices of nonanarchist movements, rather than focusing on anarchism per se. 8 of 17 WILLIAMS Antifascist movements date back to the 1920s in countries where fascist movements first arose: Germany, Italy, and Spain. These antifascist movements (or “antifa”) were often Leftist movements and thus featured active anarchist participation. The most prominent case of anarchist antifascism is in the Spanish Revolution when the anarcho‐ syndicalist CNT labor union helped to form fighting units, like the Durruti Column and Iron Column (Paz, 2006, 2011). These antifa efforts were stymied first by Stalinist intervention, then by Franco's fascist army itself (Peirats, 2005). Antifa can still be seen as “anarchy's police”: an organized effort to oppose racism, anti‐Semitism, and fascist violence in the streets; to protect against fascist threats; and to prepare for confrontation with fascists (Vysotsky, 2015). While the Autonomen were the backbone of German antifascist movements in the 1990s (Knütter, 1995), ARA chapters formed in the late‐1980s and mid‐1990s to oppose American Ku Klux Klan and neo‐Nazi organizing (Bray, 2017).4 Starting in the 2000s, some fascists have attempted to inappropriately claim the anarchist mantle for themselves (Macklin, 2005), organizing under the label of “national anarchists” (Sunshine, 2008). Despite anarchists and fascists being long‐time enemies, there is a complicated “fascist creep” wherein the extremes of both Left and Right ideologies are incorporated into fascist tendencies (Ross, 2017). The global justice (sometimes called “anticorporate globalization”) movement focused many disparate movements' concerns about capitalist globalization. The radical, anticapitalist wing of the global justice movement often deployed anarchist tactics, such as decentralized and horizontal direct actions, intended to prefigure the kind of global world desired (Graeber, 2009). In order to oppose corporate‐led globalization, activists disrupted interna- tional meetings—like the World Trade Organization in Seattle 1999, the International Monetary Fund/World Bank in Prague 2000, and the G8 in Genoa 2001—using strategies reliant upon decentralized networks, such as clusters of affinity groups and color‐coded protest systems to allow a diversity of tactics. In order to guarantee that militant tactics (e.g., the black bloc) did not put other activists at risk, a system was devised to separate nonconfrontational, pro‐civil disobedience, and aggressive marchers from each other, while still voicing solidarity for each other's actions (Juris, 2008; also see Dupuis‐Déri, 2010). The “anarchist sensibility” of the global justice movement used decentralized organizing structures like affinity groups, along with a morally indignant and expressive politics focused on antiauthoritarianism and egalitarianism (Epstein, 2001). One network that helped to coordinate “days of action” was Peoples' Global Action (PGA). Although not all organizations participating in the PGA network were antihierar- chical, PGA horizontally planned and executed worldwide direct actions in opposition to “free trade” conferences and capital (Maiba, 2005; Wood, 2005). Anarchist influence has also been felt in the horizontalist and autonomist debates within the World Social Forum (Gautney, 2007). The ability of global justice activists to diffuse tactics from one location to another was not simple or straightforward (Wood, 2014). Squatter and “plaza” movements have aimed to occupy private and public space, particularly in cities. These movements have tended to emerge as a response to neoliberal crisis and austerity. Squatters take over unused build- ings or land for their own individual and collective use. Political squatting by antiauthoritarians in Central European countries has been particularly prominent (Cattaneo & Martínez, 2014; Katsiaficas, 2006; van der Steen, Katzeff, & van Hoogenhuijze, 2014). Active squatter movements in both Amsterdam and Berlin were led by antiauthoritarians from the 1960s through the 1990s (Owens, 2009; Vasudevan, 2015). The disappearance of public space in Italy led to the squatting of hundreds of nonhierarchically organized and self‐managed social centers for the explicit pur- pose of opposing neoliberal globalization and the establishment of resources for the general public (Mudu, 2004). Autonomist Copenhagen squatters engaged in numerous solidarity actions, using a wide variety of often confronta- tional tactics that were planned within squats (Mikkelsen & Karpantschof 2001). The direct action approach taken by groups like the Ontario Coalition Against Poverty in Canada—such as their establishment of the Pope Squat in Toronto—intrudes immediately upon the capitalist and legalistic system of housing ownership and rights to provide radical social services to people in need (Lehrer & Winkler, 2006; Shantz, 2010). In the 2010s, plaza movements like Occupy Wall Street had clear anarchist derivation (Bray, 2013; Williams, 2011), in terms of both decision‐making pro- cess and tactical preferences (Khatib, Killjoy, & McGuire, 2012). Occupy animated anarchists in the United States, but their presence in the movement (and their tactical tendencies) clashed with hierarchical and cooptative unions and nongovernmental organizations (NGOs; Gitlin, 2013).5 The anarchism of Occupy was pronounced in contrast to other WILLIAMS 9 of 17 crises protests, like the German protests of 2009–2010, which were Marxist and reformist in nature, while others like the Mietshäuser Syndikat was a convergence of both direct action and engagement in the political arena—thus anarchist and reformist (Vey, 2016). Some have argued that these antistatist orientations prevent the creation of a Left counterhegemonic project (Ross, 2008), but the “anarchist spirit” of this wave of mass protest prominently featured and spread values of nonhierarchy, horizontalism, and antistatism (Sitrin, 2015). The predecessor to these movements was the Arab Spring, especially the 2011 Egyptian Revolution, which featured an “anarchist method” alongside a generally “liberal intention,” in both philosophical and tactical senses (Bamyeh, 2013). As the above suggests, anarchist movements can be found in most countries (Williams & Lee, 2008) where they often collaborate with other radical movements. This collaboration is seen in the unique conditions of the following two examples: Greece and Israel–Palestine. Greek anarchists were active in the opposition to the military junta in the 1970s, participating in the student strikes and actions that eventually led to the junta's collapse. The junta stormed a university building (with soldiers and a tank) on November 17, 1973. Since the junta's fall, anarchists commemorate this date with protests and attacks on Athenian capitalist, police, and other state symbols. This annual meme of protest serves as a rite of passage and militant socialization for Greek anarchists (Karamichas, 2009). After the 2008 killing of a radical teenager in an anarchist‐dominated neighborhood in Athens (Exarchia), a month‐long uprising occurred, which included property destruction, battles with police, and also labor strikes against the neoliberal economic crisis affecting the country (Makrygianni & Tsavdaroglou, 2011; Memos, 2010). An illegalist strain of anarchism—active lawbreaking and criminality—has influenced a wave of expropriations at grocery stores in Greece, in which anarchist thieves steal food and then redistribute it to poor community members (Pautz & Kominou, 2013). In Israel and occupied Palestine, anarchism has a historical connection to the radical kibbutz movement (Horrox, 2009) but also roots in peace, animal rights, and punk movements. Since the 2000s, much of Israel's anarchist move- ment focused on solidarity with Palestinian human rights. A notable example is the loose network called Anarchists Against the Wall (AAtW), which supports Palestinian protests against a separation border being established within the West Bank annexing Palestinian land for illegal Israel settlements. AAtW attends Palestinian demonstrations (to lessen the threat of violent Israeli attack upon Palestinians), pressures Israeli society to shed anti‐Palestinian views, and engages in direct action to disrupt and destroy the border, such as cutting and pulling down fences (Gordon & Grietzer 2013; Lakoff, 2005; Pallister‐Wilkins, 2009). 4.2 | Violence and social control The issue of violence has always haunted anarchist movements, due to their professed intentions to overthrow existing social systems. For classical anarchists, these targeted systems were industrial capitalism, the solidifying nation state, and conservative and hierarchical religion (Marshall, 2010). In particular, the 1890s saw a number of attempted assassinations of royalty, heads of state, and captains of industry (Abidor, 2016), that combined with the already negative caricatures offered by media, to solidify anarchism as a movement of “propaganda by the deed” and terrorist violence. However, research has demonstrated that anarchists are far less violent than other revolution- ary movements and those deemed as “terrorists.” Asal and Rethemeyer (2008) found that anarchists “are the least likely to kill of ideological types that we could test probabilistically” (p. 257). The lack of physical harm inflicted by anarchist movements, including those that engage in intensive property destruction—like the Earth Liberation Front (ELF)—results from world views (e.g., that all life is sacred, an opposition to charismatic authority) that drastically reduce the likelihood that destructive acts would result in harm (Taylor, 1998). Still, anarchist movements often use incendiary language that frames an intense and revolutionary message and mission. Press releases issued by the ELF and others throughout Europe deliver symbolic and meaning‐rich messages that accompany property destruction (Loadenthal, 2015). In the United States, the post‐WWII period through the 1980s is arguably best exem- plified by anarcho‐pacifism, in particular anarchist participation in the antinuke movement, which was considerable (Cornell, 2011, 2016; Epstein, 1991; Pauli, 2015). 10 of 17 WILLIAMS The most popular current symbol of anarchist movements in the mainstream media has been the black bloc, a tactical street formation of antiauthoritarians borrowed from the 1980s Autonomen in Germany. Black blocs may engage in a variety of actions, like targeted property destruction (e.g., banks, government offices, and police stations), militantly pushing through police lines, dearresting people who police attempt to place in custody, and an active self‐defense orientation toward police attacks. As a radical tactic, it breaks free of established, formulaic Left practices and reflects the “ungovernability” of anarchists within a hierarchical society (Paris, 2003). In Europe and North America, White activists have used black bloc tactics (and their own privileges) to monkey‐wrench the smooth functioning of capitalism, White supremacy, and militarism (Thompson, 2010). Black bloc militancy and use of force are deployed in a complex ethical and strategic context (Dupuis‐Déri, 2014). In Germany, Autonomen feminists have attempted to assert their militancy vis‐à‐vis “nonviolent” feminists, through the former's opposition to the state and by rejecting negotiation with police (Melzer, 2017). In general, anarchists have argued that commit- ted nonviolent advocates—who often enjoy NGO backing—have relied upon mainstream media and government to drown out critics within the Left and radical movements (Gelderloos, 2007). Thus, while anarchists expect that revolution will likely involve violence, they are not pleased by this and they do not view their movement as violent but rather as efforts to eliminate widespread violence persistent in capitalist economies and militarized nation‐states (Chan, 1995). Partly due to anarchists' purportedly violent reputation, but also because of the real threat they pose to status quo relations, states have been keen to control them. Law enforcement—local, national, and international—has pursued a combination of surveillance and intelligence gathering, intensive policing, targeted arrests, and disruption and repression (Boykoff, 2007). Modern intelligence and police agencies emerged in tandem with anarchist movements—and often in reaction to them (Jensen, 2013).6 Some police are aware that anarchism is not a mere “protest group” but instead a revolutionary movement. Still, police are apt to denigrate the quality of anarchist theory and to arrive at inaccurate conclusions about anarchist movement behavior (see Borum & Tilby, 2005). Certain European states define anarchist and other Left militant groups as terrorists (Beck & Miner, 2013), emblematic of a “threat amplification” tendency designed to accumulate popular and political support for repression, by associating anarchism with criminality (Monaghan & Walby, 2012). Past repressive efforts have been fairly successful, helping to disrupt the protest cycle associated with the global justice movement in North America (Wood, 2007), as well as other large protests featuring anarchist participation (Malleson & Wachsmuth, 2011). In reaction to these efforts, anarchists have created techniques—called “security culture”—to resist surveillance and repression in the post‐9/11 “War on Terror” era (Robinson, 2008). Mass media also plays a role in social control of anarchist movements (Boykoff, 2007). Despite anarchism being a coherent intellectual tradition, media commonly uses “anarchy” to signify chaos and disaster, as with Hurricane Katrina's effects (Stock, 2007). The term “anarchist” is used by media to invoke a dangerous “folk devil,” associating anarchism with violence in order to produce a moral panic (Rosie & Gorringe, 2009). The violent anarchist frame presented by media has a chilling effect (Fernandez, 2008). Anarchists' self‐view is starkly different than this media construction (Donson, Chesters, Welsh, & Tickle, 2004). Corporate mainstream media's typical depiction of anarchists is far more critical and imbalanced than local or alternative media, presenting little contextual information, only reporting police statements and ignoring activists' words, and depicting anarchists as instigators of trouble, regardless of objective reality (Koca‐Helvaci, 2016; McLeod & Detenber, 1999; McLeod & Hertog, 1992). In order to limit negative media publicity stemming from black bloc tactics at the World Trade Organization meeting protests in Seattle (1999), anarchists used the Internet to wage a counterpublic relations campaign that strategically presented their ideas, to avoid reliance on the mainstream media's filter (Owens & Palmer, 2003). This follows a longer trend of anarchists using opportunities offered by the Internet, to supple- ment traditional outreach and propaganda strategies like print‐based publishing (Atton, 1996). Anarchists have also been able to use the focused attention of media during large protests, such as the 2009 G‐20 meetings in Pittsburg, to present a partially favorable framing in major newspapers (Kutz‐Flamenbaum, Staggenborg, & Duncan, 2012). WILLIAMS 11 of 17 5 | F U T U R E R E S E A RC H Given the disjointed nature of the social science research literature on anarchist and antiauthoritarian movements, there is ample opportunity to expand and better organize future scholarship. The following is a short list of research questions that are ripe for attention. Inside antiauthoritarian movements, what factors catalyze anarchist identity and help to direct individuals' actions within movements? How do antiauthoritarian movement participants understand anarchist values and how do they deploy those values within movements? And, since anarchist movements and campaigns have been generally unsuccessful by most measures, how do anarchists deal with failure and adjust their strategies and tactics for future mobilizations? In cross‐movement relationships between antiauthoritarians and non‐anti‐authoritarians, how do strategies and tactics continue to spread and evolve? How are self‐identified anarchists received in nonanarchist movements and how do they gain influence over such movements? In other words, how many anarchistic participants in such nonanarchist settings are necessary to both initiate and sustain antiauthoritarian practices (e.g., general assemblies and consensus decision making)? Finally, due to the cyber age's reliance upon technology (e.g., the Internet, social media, and cellular phones), a new and ever‐changing terrain for both horizontal organizing—as well as surveillance and suppression—exists. Future research will need to be attentive to how antiauthoritarians seek to control their own technological, communication, and organizing tools, and how the state seeks to intercept and disrupt these movement tools. As social movement theory remains a complex and ever‐shifting terrain of ideas and paradigms, a more in‐depth attempt to interrogate the validity, benefit, and explanatory power of existing theories to describe antiauthoritarian movements is welcome. While a cursory attempt at this can be found in Williams (2017), such a project is still incomplete. An effort to clarify the contributions of social movement theory for anarchist movements will also likely help to clarify the distinctions between an “anarchist sociology” and a “sociology of anarchist movements” (Shantz & Williams, 2013). ENDNOTES 1 These efforts have been driven by the U.K.‐based Anarchist Studies Network and the North American Anarchist Studies Network. 2 The FBI's counterintelligence apparatus known as COINTELPRO also targeted “anarchist groups,” which were labeled as general subversives, like Yippies (e.g., Abbie Hoffman and Jerry Rubin) and other local, loosely organized “hippie‐type groups” (Cunningham, 2004). 3 Anarchist intersections with the antinuclear movement have been described by many previous researchers (see Cornell, 2011; Epstein, 1991; Harris & King, 1989; Katz & List, 1981). 4 Some 1990s‐era ARA chapters attracted nonanarchists who lacked a critical analysis of race domination, and thus some ARA activists adhered to a color‐blind ideology (O'Brien, 1999). 5 Gitlin (2013) also claims that black bloc tactics alienated observers. 6 The FBI director J. Edgar Hoover became famous investigating anarchists and other Left radicals in the United States, assisting with the Palmer Raids, and deporting anarchist Emma Goldman (Schmidt, 2000). The U.S. Secret Service's pres- idential protection begun in the aftermath of the anarchist assassination of William McKinley (Melanson, 2005), and Interpol was established due to similar actions in Europe (Jensen, 1981). ORCID Dana M. Williams http://orcid.org/0000-0002-2997-7072 RE FE R ENC ES Abidor, M. (2016). Death to bourgeois society: the propagandists of the deed. Oakland, CA: PM Press. Amster, R. (2003). Restoring (dis)order: Sanctions, resolutions, and ‘social control’ in anarchist communities. Contemporary Justice Review, 6(1), 9–24. Asal, V., & Rethemeyer, R. K. (2008). Dilettantes, ideologues, and the weak: Terrorists who don't kill. Conflict Management and Peace Science, 25, 244–263. 12 of 17 WILLIAMS Atkinson, J. (2006). Analyzing resistance narratives at the North American anarchist gathering: A method for analyzing social justice alternative media. Journal of Communication Inquiry, 30(3), 251–272. Atton, C. (1996). Anarchy on the Internet: Obstacles and opportunities for alternative electronic publishing. Anarchist Studies, 4, 115–132. Atton, C. (2003). Infoshops in the shadow of the state. In N. Couldry, & J. Curran (Eds.), Contesting media power: Alternative media in a networked society (pp. 57–69). Lanham, MD: Lowman & Littlefield. Bamyeh, M. (2013). Anarchist method, liberal intention, authoritarian lesson: The Arab Spring between three enlightenments. Constellations: An International Journal of Critical & Democratic Theory, 20(2), 188–202. Bamyeh, M. A. (2009). Anarchy as order: The history and future of civic humanity. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield. Beck, C. J. (2007). On the radical cusp: Ecoterrorism in the United States, 1998–2005. Mobilization: An International Quarterly Review, 12(2), 161–176. Beck, C. J., & Miner, E. (2013). Who gets designated a terrorist and why? Social Forces, 91(3), 837–872. Bey, H. (1985). T.A.Z.: The temporary autonomous zone, ontology anarchy, poetic terrorism. New York: Autonomedia. Blackstone, L. R. (2005). A new kind of English: Cultural variance, citizenship and DiY politics amongst the exodus collective in England. Social Forces, 84(2), 803–820. Bookchin, M. (2004). Post‐scarcity anarchism. Edinburgh: AK Press. Borum, R., & Tilby, C. (2005). Anarchist direct actions: A challenge for law enforcement. Studies in Conflict & Terrorism, 28, 201–223. Boykoff, J. (2007). Beyond bullets: The suppression of dissent in the United States. Oakland, CA: AK Press. Bray, M. (2013). Translating anarchy: The anarchism of Occupy Wall Street. Winchester, UK: Zero Books. Bray, M. (2017). Antifa: The anti‐fascist handbook. New York: Melville House. Breines, W. (1982). Community and organization in the New Left, 1962–1968: The great refusal. New York: Praeger. Brown, G. (2007). Mutinous eruptions: Autonomous spaces of radical queer activism. Environment and Planning A, 39, 2685–2698. Calhoun, C. (1997). Neither gods nor emperors: Students and the struggle for democracy in China. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press. Cattaneo, C., & Martínez, M. A. (2014). The squatters' movement in Europe: Commons and autonomy as alternatives to capital- ism. New York: Palgrave Macmillan. Chan, A. (1995). Anarchists, violence and social change: Perspectives from today's grassroots. Anarchist Studies, 3, 45–68. Cornell, A. (2011). Oppose and propose!: Lessons from movement for a new society. Oakland, CA: AK Press. Cornell, A. (2012). ‘White skins, black masks’: Marxist and anti‐racist roots of contemporary US anarchism. In A. Prichard, R. Kinna, S. Pinta, & D. Berry (Eds.), Libertarian socialism: Politics in black and red (pp. 167–186). New York, NY: Palgrave Macmillan. Cornell, A. (2016). Unruly equality: U.S. anarchism in the 20th century. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press. Cornish, F., Haaken, J., Moskovitz, L., & Jackson, S. (2016). Rethinking prefigurative politics: Introduction to the special thematic section. Journal of Social and Political Psychology, 4(1), 114–127. Cunningham, D. (2004). There's something happening here: The New Left, the Klan, and FBI counterintelligence. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press. Day, R. J. F. (2005). Gramsci is dead: Anarchist currents in the newest social movements. London: Pluto Press. de Marcellus, O. (2000). Peoples' Global Action: A brief history. Race & Class, 41(4), 92–99. Diani, M. (1992). The concept of social movement. The Sociological Review, 40(1), 1–25. Dixon, C. (2012). Building ‘another politics’: The contemporary anti‐authoritarian current in the US and Canada. Anarchist Studies, 20(1), 32–60. Donson, F., Chesters, G., Welsh, I., & Tickle, A. (2004). Rebels with a cause, folk devils without a panic: Press jingoism, policing tactics and anti‐capitalist protest in London and Prague. Internet Journal of Criminology. Downing, J. D. H. (2003). The independent media center and the anarchist socialist tradition. In N. Couldry, & J. Curran (Eds.), Contesting media power: Alternative media in a networked society (pp. 243–257). Lanham, MD: Lowman & Littlefield. Dupuis‐Déri, F. (2010). The black blocs ten years after Seattle: Anarchism, direct action, and deliberative practices. Journal for the Study of Radicalism, 4(2), 45–82. Dupuis‐Déri, F. (2014). Who's afraid of the black blocs?: Anarchy in action around the world. Oakland, CA: PM Press. WILLIAMS 13 of 17 Ehrlich, H. J. (1996). Anarchism and formal organization. In H. J. Ehrlich (Ed.), Reinventing anarchy, again (pp. 56–68). Edinburgh: AK Press. Epstein, B. (1991). Political protest and cultural revolution: Nonviolent direct action in the 1970s and 1980s. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press. Epstein, B. (2001). Anarchism and the anti‐globalization movement. Monthly Review, 53(4), 1–14. Epstein, B., & Dixon, C. (2007). A politics and a sensibility: The anarchist current in the U.S. Left. In A. Anton, & R. Schmitt (Eds.), Toward a new socialism (pp. 445–462). Lanham, MD: Lexington Books. Feigenbaum, A., Frenzel, F., & McCurdy, P. (2013). Protest camps. London: Zed Books. Fernandez, L. A. (2008). Policing dissent: Social control and the anti‐globalization movement. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press. Ferrell, J. (2011). Corking as community policing. Contemporary Justice Review, 14(1), 95–98. Ferretti, F. (2016). Organisation and formal activism: Insights from the anarchist tradition. International Journal of Sociology and Social Policy, 36(11/12), 726–740. Fitzgerald, K. J., & Rodgers, D. M. (2000). Radical social movement organizations: A theoretical model. The Sociological Quarterly, 41(4), 573–592. Franks, B. (2003). Direct action ethic: From 59 upwards. Anarchist Studies, 11(1), 13–41. Franks, B. (2005). British anarchisms and the miners' strike. Capital & Class, 29(87), 227–254. Frenzel, F. (2014). Exit the system? Anarchist organisation in the British climate camps. Ephemera: Theory & Politics in Organization, 14(4), 901–921. Gautney, H. (2007). Political organization on the Global Left. Berkeley Journal of Sociology, 51, 150–182. Gelderloos, P. (2006). Consensus: A new handbook for grassroots social, political, and environmental groups. Tucson, AZ: See Sharp Press. Gelderloos, P. (2007). A survey of the US anarchist movement. Social Anarchism, 40, 9–16. Gelderloos, P. (2015). The failure of nonviolence: From the Arab Spring to Occupy. Seattle, WA: Left Bank Books. Gitlin, T. (2013). Occupy's predicament: The moment and the prospects for the movement. The British Journal of Sociology, 64(1), 3–25. Gordon, U. (2006). Research note: Αυαρχια—What did the Greeks actually say? Anarchist Studies, 14(1), 84–91. Gordon, U. (2008). Anarchy Alive! Anti‐authoritarian politics from practice to theory. London: Pluto Press. Gordon, U., & Grietzer, O. (2013). Anarchists Against the Wall. Oakland, CA: AK Press. Graeber, D. (2009). Direct action: An ethnography. Oakland, CA: AK Press. Graeber, D. (2013). The democracy project: A history, a crisis, a movement. New York: Spiegel & Grau. Green, J. (2005). The globalization of a memory: The enduring remembrance of the Haymarket martyrs around the world. Labor: Studies in Working‐Class History of the Americas, 2(4), 11–23. Hackett, C. (2015). Justice through defiance: Political prisoner support work and infrastructures of resistance. Contemporary Justice Review, 18(1), 68–75. Harris, A., & King, Y. (1989). Rocking the ship of state: Toward a feminist peace politics. Boulder, CO: Westview Press. Haunss, S & Leach D. K. (2007). Social movement scenes: Infrastructures of opposition in civil society. In D. Purdue (ed.), Civil societies and social movements: Potentials and problems (pp. 71–87). London: Routledge. Heynen, N. (2010). Cooking up non‐violent civil‐disobedient direct action for the hungry: ‘Food Not Bombs’ and the resur- gence of radical democracy in the US. Urban Studies, 47(6), 1225–1240. Heynen, N., & Rhodes, J. (2012). Organizing for survival: From the civil rights movement to Black anarchism through the life of Lorenzo Kom'boa Ervin. ACME: An International E‐Journal for Critical Geographies, 11(3), 393–412. Horrox, J. (2009). A living revolution: Anarchism in the Kibbutz Movement. Oakland, CA: AK Press. Ibrahim, Y. (2011). Political distinction in the British anti‐capitalist movement. Sociology, 45(2), 318–334. Ingalsbee, T. (1996). Earth First! activism: Ecological postmodern praxis in radical environmentalist identities. Sociological Perspectives, 39(2), 263–276. Jensen, R. B. (1981). The international anti‐anarchist conference of 1898 and the origins of Interpol. Journal of Contemporary History, 16, 323–347. Jensen, R. B. (2013). The battle against anarchist terrorism: An international history, 1878–1934. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 14 of 17 WILLIAMS Juris, J. S. (2008). Networking futures: The movements against corporate globalization. Durham, NC: Duke University Press. Kaltefleiter, C. K. (2016). Start your own revolution: Agency and action of the Riot Grrrl Network. International Journal of Sociology and Social Policy, 36(11/12), 808–823. Kanter, R. M. (1973). Utopian communities. Sociological Inquiry, 43(3/4), 263–390. Karamichas, J. (2009). The December 2008 riots in Greece. Social Movement Studies, 8(3), 289–293. Katsiaficas, G. (2006). The subversion of politics: european autonomous social movements and the decolonization of everyday life. Oakland, CA: AK Press. Katsiaficas, G. (2013). Asia's unknown uprisings: People Power in the Philippines, Burma, Tibet, China, Taiwan, Bangladesh, Nepal, Thailand, and Indonesia, 1947–2009. Oakland, CA: PM Press. Katz, N. H., & List, D. C. (1981). Seabrook: A profile of anti‐nuclear activists, June 1978. Peace and Change, 7(3), 59–70. Khatib, K., Killjoy, M., & McGuire, M. (2012). We are many: Reflections on movement strategy from occupation to liberation. Oakland, CA: AK Press. Kitis, E. D. (2015). The anti‐authoritarian chóros: A space for youth socialization and radicalization in greece (1974–2010). Journal for the Study of Radicalism, 9(1), 1–36. Knütter, H.‐H. (1995). The ‘antifascism’ of ‘autonomen’ and anarchists. Telos, 105, 36–42. Koca‐Helvaci, Z. C. (2016). Anarchy or utopia? Turkish media representation of the Gezi Park protests. Research in Social Movements, Conflict & Change, 39, 221–250. Kutz‐Flamenbaum, R. V., Staggenborg, S., & Duncan, B. J. (2012). Media framing of the Pittsburgh G‐20 protests. Research in Social Movements, Conflicts and Change, 33, 109–135. Lacey, A. (2005). Spaces of justice: The social divine of global anti‐capital activists' sites of resistance. The Canadian Review of Sociology and Anthropology, 42(4), 403–420. Lagalisse, E. M. (2011). ‘Marginalizing Madgalena’: Intersections of gender and the secular in anarchoindigenist solidarity activism. Signs: Journal of Women in Culture and Society, 36(3), 653–678. Lakoff, A. (2005). Israeli anarchism—Young, queer, and radical in the Promised Land. Anarchist Studies, 13(2), 118–126. Leach, D. K. (2009). An elusive “we”: Antidogmatism, democratic practice, and the contradictory identity of the German Autonomen. American Behavioral Scientist, 52(7), 1042–1068. Leach, D. K. (2013). Culture and the structure of tyrannylessness. The Sociological Quarterly, 54, 181–191. Leach, D. K. (2016). When freedom is not an endless meeting: A new look at efficiency in consensus‐based decision making. The Sociological Quarterly, 57, 36–70. Leach, D. K., & Haunss, S. (2009). Scenes and social movements. In H. Johnston (Ed.), Culture, social movements, and protest (pp. 255–276). Burlington, VT: Ashgate Publishing. Lehrer, U., & Winkler, A. (2006). Public or private? The Pope Squat and housing struggles in Toronto. Social Justice, 33(3), 142–157. Levy, C. (2010). Social histories of anarchism. Journal for the Study of Radicalism, 4(2), 1–44. Lindenfeld, F. (2003). The Cooperative Commonwealth: An alternative to corporate capitalism and state socialism. Humanity and Society, 27(4), 578–592. Loadenthal, M. (2015). The politics of the attack: A discourse of insurrectionary communiqués. Unpublished dissertation. George Mason University. Macklin, G. D. (2005). Co‐opting the counter culture: Troy Southgate and the National Revolutionary Faction. Patterns of Prejudice, 39(3), 301–326. Maiba, H. (2005). Grassroots transnational social movement activism: The case of Peoples' Global Action. Sociological Focus, 38(1), 41–63. Makrygianni, V., & Tsavdaroglou, H. (2011). Urban planning and revolt: A spatial analysis of the December 2008 uprising in Athens. In A. Vradis, & D. Dalakoglou (Eds.), Revolt and crisis in Greece: Between a present yet to pass and a future still to come (pp. 29–57). Oakland, CA: AK Press. Malleson, T., & Wachsmuth, D. (2011). Whose streets? The Toronto G20 and the challenges of summit protest. Toronto, Ontario: Between the Lines. Marshall, P. (2010). Demand the impossible: A history of anarchism. Oakland, CA: PM Press. McCarthy, J. D., & Zald, M. N. (1977). Resource mobilization and social movements: A partial theory. American Journal of Sociology, 82(6), 1212–1241. McLeod, D. M., & Detenber, B. H. (1999). Framing effects of television news coverage of social protest. Journal of Commu- nication, 49(3), 3–23. WILLIAMS 15 of 17 McLeod, D. M., & Hertog, J. K. (1992). The manufacture of ‘public opinion’ by reporters: Informal cues for public perceptions of protest groups. Discourse & Society, 3(3), 259–275. Melanson, P. H. (2005). The Secret Service: The hidden history of an enigmatic agency. New York: Carroll & Graf. Melzer, P. (2017). “‘Women of peace’ we are not”: Feminist militants in the West German Autonomen and the Women's Movement. German Studies Review, 40(2), 313–332. Memos, C. (2010). Reconsidering the Marxist‐Anarchist controversy in and through radical praxis: Lessons taken from the Greek uprising, December 2008. Theory in Action, 3(4), 17–37. Mikkelsen, F., & Karpantschoff, R. (2001). Youth as a political movement: Development of the squatters' and autonomous movement in Copenhagen, 1981–95. International Journal of Urban and Regional Research, 25(3), 609–628. Milstein, C. (2010). Anarchism and its aspirations. Oakland, CA: AK Press. Monaghan, J., & Walby, K. (2012). ‘They attacked the city’: Security intelligence, the sociology of protest policing and the anarchist threat at the 2010 Toronto G20 summit. Current Sociology, 60(5), 653–671. Mudu, P. (2004). Resisting and challenging neoliberalism: The development of Italian social centers. Antipode, 36(5), 917–941. Mueller, T. (2003). Empower anarchy: Power, hegemony, and anarchist strategy. Anarchist Studies, 11(3), 26–53. Murray, D. (2010). Democratic insurrection: Constructing the common in global resistance. Millennium: Journal of Interna- tional Studies, 39(2), 461–482. Niman, M. I. (2011). The Shanti Sena ‘Peace Center’ and the non‐policing of an anarchist temporary autonomous zone: Rainbow family peacekeeping strategies. Contemporary Justice Review, 14(1), 65–76. O'Brien, E. (1999). Mind, heart and action: Understanding the dimensions of antiracism. Research in Politics and Society, 6, 305–321. O'Connor, A. (1999). Who's Emma and the limits of cultural studies. Cultural Studies, 13(4), 691–702. O'Connor, A. (2003). Punk subculture in Mexico and the anti‐globalization movement: A report from the front. New Political Science, 25(1), 43–53. Owens, L. (2009). Cracking under pressure: Narrating the decline of the Amsterdam squatters' movement. Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press. Owens, L., & Palmer, L. K. (2003). Making the news: Anarchist counter‐public relations on the world wide web. Critical Studies in Media Communication, 20(4), 335–361. Pallister‐Wilkins, P. (2009). Radical ground: Israeli and Palestinian activists and joint protest against the wall. Social Movement Studies, 8(4), 393–407. Paris, J. (2003). The black bloc's ungovernable protest. Peace Review, 15(3), 317–322. Parson, S. (2014). Breaking bread, sharing soup, and smashing the state: Food Not Bombs and anarchist critiques of the neoliberal charity state. Theory in Action, 7(4), 33–51. Pauli, B. J. (2015). Pacifism, nonviolence, and the reinvention of anarchist tactics in the twentieth century. Journal for the Study of Radicalism, 9(1), 61–94. Pautz, H., & Kominou, M. (2013). Reacting to ‘austerity politics’: The tactic of collective expropriation in Greece. Social Movement Studies, 12(1), 103–110. Paz, A. (2006). Durruti in the Spanish Revolution. Oakland, CA: AK Press. Paz, A. (2011). The story of the Iron Column: Militant anarchism in the Spanish Civil War. Oakland, CA: AK Press. Peirats, J. (2005). The CNT in the Spanish Revolution: Volume 2. Hastings, East Sussex: Christie Books. Polletta, F. (1999). ‘Free spaces’ in collective action. Theory and Society, 28(1), 1–38. Polletta, F. (2002). Freedom is an endless meeting: Democracy in American social movements. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press. Polletta, F. (2005). How Participatory democracy became White: Culture and organizational choice. Mobilization, 10(2), 271–288. Portwood‐Stacer, L. (2010). Constructing anarchist sexuality: Queer identity, culture, and politics in the anarchist movement. Sexualities, 13(4), 479–493. Purkis, J. (2004). Towards an anarchist sociology. In J. Purkis, & J. Bowen (Eds.), Changing anarchism: Anarchist theory and practice in a global age (pp. 39–54). Manchester: Manchester University Press. Ramnath, M. (2011). Decolonizing anarchism: An antiauthoritarian history of India's liberation struggle. Oakland, CA: AK Press. 16 of 17 WILLIAMS Robinson, C. M. (2008). Order in chaos: Security culture as anarchist resistance to the terrorist label. Deviant Behavior, 29, 225–252. Robinson, C. M. (2009). The continuing significance of class: Confronting capitalism in an anarchist community. Working USA: The Journal of Labor & Society, 12(3), 355–370. Rosie, M., & Gorringe, H. (2009). ‘The anarchists' world cup’: Respectable protest and media panics. Social Movement Studies, 8(1), 35–53. Ross, A. R. (2017). Against the fascist creep. Chico, CA: AK Press. Ross, S. (2008). The strategic implications of anti‐statism in the global justice movement. LABOUR, Capital and Society, 41(1), 7–32. Rothschild‐Whitt, J. (1979). The Collectivist organization: An alternative to rational‐bureaucratic models. American Sociolog- ical Review, 44(4), 509–527. Routledge, P. (2003). Convergence space: Process geographies of grassroots globalization networks. Transactions of the Insti- tute of British Geographers, 28(3), 333–349. Ruff, P. (1991). Anarchy in the USSR: A new beginning. London: ASP. Schmidt, R. (2000). Red scare: FBI and origins of anticommunism in the United States. ( pp. 1919–1943). Copenhagen: Museum Tusculanum Press. Shantz, J. A. (1998). ‘Don't go in the pit’: Active resistance and the territories of political identity. Post Identity, 1(2), 84–103. Shantz, J. (2002). Green syndicalism: An alternative red–green vision. Environmental Politics, 11(4), 21–41. Shantz, J. (2003). Beyond the state: The return to anarchy. disClosure: A Journal of Social Theory, 12, 87–103. Shantz, J. (2010). Constructive anarchy: Building infrastructures of resistance. Farnham, Surrey: Ashgate. Shantz, J. (2014). Seeds beneath the snow: The sociological anarchy of Paul Goodman, Colin Ward, and James C. Scott. Contemporary Sociology, 43(4), 468–473. Shantz, J., & Williams, D. M. (2013). Anarchy and society: Reflections on anarchist‐sociology. Leiden, Netherlands: Brill. Shantz, J. A., & Adam, B. D. (1999). Ecology and class: The green syndicalism of IWW/Earth First Local 1. International Journal of Sociology and Social Policy, 19(7/8), 43–72. Shepard, B. (2013). Play, creativity, and social movements: If I can't dance, it's not my revolution. New York: Routledge. Simon, R. M. (2014). The foundations of an anarchist sociology: Max Stirner and the alternative to the collective human pro- ject. Contemporary Sociology, 43(4), 473–478. Sitrin, M. (2006). Horizontalism: Voices of popular power in Argentina. Oakland, CA: AK Press. Sitrin, M. (2015). The anarchist spirit. Dissent, (Fall), 84–86. Smith, M. (2007). Wild‐life: Anarchy, ecology, and ethics. Environmental Politics, 16(3), 470–487. St. John, G. (2008). Protestival: Global days of action and carnivalized politics in the present. Social Movement Studies, 7(2), 167–190. Starr, A. (2006). ‘Excepting barricades erected to prevent us from peacefully assembling’: So‐called ‘violence’ in the global north alterglobalization movement. Social Movement Studies, 5(1), 61–81. Stock, P. V. (2007). Katrina and anarchy: A content analysis of a new disaster myth. Sociological Spectrum, 27, 705–726. Sunshine, S. (2008). Rebranding fascism: National‐anarchists. Public Eye, 23(4), 12–19. Taylor, B. (1998). Religion, violence and radical environmentalism: From Earth First! to the unabomber to the Earth Liberation Front. Terrorism and Political Violence, 10(4), 1–42. Thompson, A. K. (2010). Black bloc, White riot: Anti‐globalization and the genealogy of dissent. Oakland, CA: AK Press. Tilly, C., & Wood, L. J. (2009). Social movements, 1768–2008 (2nd ed.). Boulder, CO: Paradigm. Umoja, A. K. (2015). Maroon: Kuwasi Balagoon and the evolution of revolutionary new Afrikan anarchism. Science & Society, 79(2), 196–220. Van de Sande, M. (2015). Fighting with tools: Prefiguration and radical politics in the twenty‐first century. Rethinking Marxism, 27(2), 177–194. van der Steen, B., Katzeff, A., & van Hoogenhuijze, L. (Eds.) (2014). The city is ours: Squatting and autonomous movements in europe from the 1970s to the present. Oakland, CA: PM Press. Vasudevan, A. (2015). Metropolitan preoccupations: The spatial politics of squatting in Berlin. Chichester, West Sussex: Wiley‐Blackwell. Vey, J. (2016). Crisis protests in Germany, Occupy Wall Street, and Mietshäuser Syndikat: Antinomies of current Marxist‐ and anarchist‐inspired movements and their convergence. Capital & Class, 40(1), 59–74. WILLIAMS 17 of 17 Vysotsky, S. (2015). The anarchy police: Militant anti‐fascism as alternative policing practice. Critical Criminology, 23, 235–253. Western, S. (2014). Autonomist leadership in leaderless movements: Anarchists leading the way. Ephemera: Theory & Politics in Organization, 14(4), 673–698. White, R., & Sproule, W. (2002). Don't mourn the Death of Theory, Organize! Globalization and the rhizome of anarcho‐syn- dicalism. Continuum: Journal of Media & Cultural Studies, 16(3), 317–333. Willems, J. (2015). Why ‘punk’? Religion, anarchism and feminism in Pussy Riot's Punk Prayer. Religion, State & Society, 42(4), 403–419. Williams, D. M. (2009a). Red vs. green: Regional variation of anarchist ideology in the United States. Journal of Political Ide- ologies, 14(2), 189–210. Williams, D. M. (2009b). Anarchists and labor unions: An analysis using new social movement theories. Working USA: The Journal of Labor and Society, 12(3), 337–354. Williams, D. M. (2011). The anarchist DNA of occupy. Contexts, 11(2), 19–20. Williams, D. M. (2014a). A society in revolt or under analysis? Investigating the dialogue between nineteenth century anar- chists and sociologists. Critical Sociology, 40(3), 469–492. Williams, D. M. (2014b). A new, complicated, and discomforting mission for the discipline: The radical challenge to study, envision, and practice social alternatives. Contemporary Sociology, 43(4), 479–482. Williams, D. M. (2015). Black panther radical factionalization and the development of black anarchism. Journal of Black Studies, 46(7), 678–703. Williams, D. M. (2017). Black flags and social movements: A sociological analysis of movement anarchism. Manchester: Manchester University Press. Williams, D. M., & Lee, M. T. (2008). ‘We are everywhere’: An ecological analysis of organizations in the anarchist yellow pages. Humanity and Society, 32(1), 45–70. Williams, D. M., & Lee, M. T. (2012). Aiming to overthrow the state (without using the state): Political opportunities for anarchist movements. Comparative Sociology, 11(4), 558–593. Williams, D. M. & Shantz, J. (2011). Defining an anarchist-sociology: A long anticipated marriage. Theory in Action, 4(4), 9–30. Wood, L. (2007). Breaking the wave: Repression, identity, and Seattle tactics. Mobilization: An International Quarterly, 12(4), 377–388. Wood, L. J. (2005). Bridging the chasm: The case of Peoples' Global Action. In J. Brandy, & J. Smith (Eds.), Coalitions across borders: Transnational protest and the neoliberal order (pp. 95–117). Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield. Wood, L. J. (2014). Direct action, deliberation, and diffusion: Collective action after the WTO protests in Seattle. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Wright, N. (2003). Chaos, organization, and imagined community: An ethnography of an anarchist collective. American Sociological Association. Yonghong, Z. (2013). Commentary about the assertion and impact of the New Left movement in America in the 1960s. Canadian Social Science, 9(5), 37–41. Dana Williams is an Associate Professor of Sociology at California State University, Chico, with specialties in social movements and social inequality (class, gender, and race). How to cite this article: Williams DM. Contemporary anarchist and anarchistic movements. Sociology Compass. 2018;12:e12582. https://doi.org/10.1111/soc4.12582