The Anarchist Subculture: A Critique

squats, Catherines a „,r anarchist households,

certainly docs exist Ii k« f- Perspectives most

B«l can a S uXr C "J^rS^^^W**-"
of making .he lives e d rc T h "^ S "^
IW« cer.alnfv h»J T?"''* 7 7hc !™ch»sl subcul-

•■? certainly hasn't, hone c ' "J""* ? **#

article. pC ,0 ^lorc why in this

The anarchist subculture certain!* H™
apparently rebellious acliviS hi Zfe f encon> P a "
social analysis fthcorv) 3 , lo,,cal "P'oration,

•nlcgratedpra^ aimed at undcrsir "*- " ■ an
opening possibilities f„ r y , ^ "W *" d

ourselves, but rather »« L • i , ° Ur bvcs for

--nJy.o. maintain *fc2^£l^J^i?"
-'ucb creates them and which the in t, SUbcU,,Ure
• Politically correct miliiini. i • ' ""' c/ca,e -

in -this subcXre £ T T a,c radical acrl °"
analysis. After U the ^^ ? ?"} f ° T S ^ iaJ
out by left hberais— f,m- ' ifi P** **« W

aniniaJlib.ecoIo^ SOC^T?* 8 ^ *' an,i '^<n.
a dash ofS;^^T;° PpOS,,,on,ow - r ^««d

Well, ain't ft? t£ ulZi ft f°* ^ ^^

their anarchist aeovS ,T a l m onc ^"doubt

sure to sho.? £ IS&iT ^ m, ' ,i,ant5 •" S

few nags and be n ena'i ^^'ations. burn a

RCPerf wheneve' posl Ne° VVhlt $*> '^ and

analy7.e their actiWlicToh;-. ^J" 00 " 1 do «

»f they are reallv?„ 1 1 " !i 0,C ? mi,i,an * '°scc

thev are merely iEfcT, ^""-"g *>cie.y or if

i"g'it by reinKg^hei ^ W?g*» ««"*

cle. Their refu^i . ^ I° ,C W " hin i,s s P ec, a-

Part of a mass movent n ?j ?£3M f lhc * "«
converted to anarchism Birf »« „ u hch m0Sl **
exists on this SETS? ^^■"T"*
militants arc mainly B^Sr r aClm,,cs of ,he
opposition that Jft ' ^ IcfT *. iil1 ° f
nnarchist subculture C " P ' acc in fh «

io ^r^'^Ti"^j", n ^ an ' i . m,x,ru

lie claim Th», 7? d lha ' e K! ^yonJ ">c simplis-
The : h3 of ^7 W ? CrU L hcd b ^ lhc •""■orfic,

Jheu rejection of authority and connection to the
subculture Ihrough their writings nnd friendship*
continues their role within it. And for all the depth of
the* intellccluaJ exploration, a certain level of wnrl
rctusal, shopl.ft.ng and minor vandalism seems to be
ihe sura or their practice. Because thevdonot explore
pract.cal ways or expressing rcr^Ilion against tin
rotality or domination revealed by their critiques
these critiques lose their edge as radical theory and
seem more like philosophy. No longer being a too!
tor active rebellion, their thought instead becomes a
means or defining the intellectual edge of anarchic
thought, a means by which to determine whether an
MM I is radical enough. In this way, the role or the
intellectual is perpetuated in the anarchist subculture-
Creative play has also been specialized within the
• subculture. Forgetting the critique which calls for the
supersession of art through spontaneous, creative, free
P'ay by everyone, mail artists, pcrrormancc artists and
ant.-arlists- claim this category as their own, destroy
mg spontaneity and freedom, and valor izing the
activity as art Many r the activities or these people
j festivals, wild poetry readings, improvisation I noise
jam sessions and interactive theater— can be a lot „f
run and are worth participating in on that level, but
placed within the framework or art, their subversive
O.te is dulled. In valorizing creativity, these artists
have made it more important to "be creative" than to
have Tun, and have reduced their critique to Ihe level
Ot whether something can be utilized in creating art.
Ihe creative process is recuperated into a form of
productive labor making works of art. Play is trans-
formed into perform a or* a..

lion and encountering Ihe unknown.

The nnnrrhiit subculture, then, cannot
be an expression of lived anarchy and
rebellion, but can only be society's way
of defining, limiting and recuperating
tlicm. i^s children of society, wc arc all
wctl-vcrscd in distrusting ourselves, io
fearing the unknown, in preferring
security to freedom. It is no surprise
that wc so easily fall into activities that
create and maintain a subculture. But
it's long past lime that wc admit tliat
this is just nur way of fitting in to the
society w C claim lo hate, of creating a
niclic for ourselves in its structure. For
this subculture is not a real clullcngc to
society; it is merely a loyal opposition
whose rules— like all rules— arc just a
subset of the rules of society.

So the time has come lo throw cau-
tion lo the wind, to diverge absolutely,
as the surrealists say, from all rules, to
leap from the arena of the anarchist
subculture— or to tear the arena down.
Always there will |>c those demanding
to know what well put in its place, but
Uic point is precisely to put nothing in
its place. The problem, the weakness of
those of us who've claimed lo oppose
authority, has been our need to have an
authority inside our heads, an answer, a
way to keep ourselves in line. Wc have

not trusted ourselves, and so at those
momenti when anarchy has »ctualh;
broken forth, when »othorky has tem-
porarily broie* d'arv opening atj posxi-
J" 1 "* «C han: not dared 'lo cq»Jorc
Ihe unknown, lo tKr our desires and
passions. Inslcad wc have channelled
our rebellion into systems and method-
■ olog.es winch turn it from relation into
the mere image of rebellion, but which
keep us safe from ever having to con-
front our real passions and desires.

The refusal of authority, the refusal
of all constraints, must include llic
refusal or the anarchist subculture, for
it is a form or authority. With this sup-
port gone, wc arc left with nothing-but
ourselves. As transient, ever-changing,
pass.onatc individuals, wc each become
the only basis for creating our Eves and
opposing society as it strives lo force
our lives into its mold. Rebellion ceases
r to be a role and instead becomes our
moment-by-moment refusal to lei our
lives l>c stolen from us. Anarchy ceases
lo be an ideal and becomes the havoc
wc wreak on authority, which under-
mines it and opens possibilities, new
realms of exploration for us. To rcali7c
Ibis, wc have to cease to think as vie-
tuns and begin to act as creators. The
negative paranoia that permeates the
way wc relate lo Ihe world needs to be

"*~1«i so that we can accurately as-
"^tiic. strengihsaud weaknesses of
gOCI) ' M we confront it in our dairy
"ves and can inir-rrw.fi. i»rl... 1 tf
Aj^'rve paranoU-a recognition that
«^7 and the heJJ h puUus through
y^ «~1 «h*t the world b

^1 of our deepcsl ^desires and more «n
he ensrh, realrzcd-^ceds lo be cullival-

»nown. | relate to each other freely
fion S5 ,0na,e, y. aiding mere tolera
UOJ and accepting honesi conflict. Wc

Sf'cr^th of our own desires, dreams and

IS/ ' c -, Wc " u rcfusc cas y 3 "^«.

qstcou and security for the prisons
}hcy arc, preferring the freedom found
'" ecstatically exploring || 1C unknown,
the adventure of discovery of the world

is. wE . cr u lh a! au,hor!,y lflcs ,0 dc "y

us What has been denied us, w c must
akc, and wc lake it not by conforming
to a subculiurc, but by plunging head
^ i ? to Ihe unknown, "by SkS g ^he
'"* of leaving behind all that has sup-
pressed us no matter how comfortable
^ rebelling totally agains, sodc|

lo be rtrtcd absolutely. One knows, a,
least, Uwt the Uurad o»e finds in; he
labyrinth must lead eUewhrrr.'

uJ&nAUf

Arl ..f A.

"77ic point is precisely to stop aide, ru
Uiverge, absolutely, frotn Uic rule; to hap -
jrom ilic oicna with hysterical verve; to
elude foievcr llic laps id along the
way...Long live the Inipoaiblct'

To leave a critique of ihc anar-
chist subculture at examination
of some of its more important
roles and structures is to miss its
most important luult-r/urr it is a
subculture. Subcultures constitute a
particular sort of social phenomenon
with particular trails. If those trails
were conducive lo rebellion, if they
moved people lo acl for themselves,
then it might Ik possible to reform the
anarchist subculture^ but those trails, in
fact, lenJ in the opposite direction.
There have been so many icl>cl subcul-
lurcs, so many bohcrxias, all ol them
recuperated. This clcaily indicates tbal
there is something inherent in subcul-
tures that keeps them from presenting
a ical challenge lo the sodcly of which
1 1 icy arc a part. Let me try lo examine
why.

In order for a subculluic to exist, its
parameter! must be defined in a way
tli.il distinguishes it from oilier groups
in society. Because a subculture is not
an official or legal CDlily, these paramc-
leis need not be in any official or readi-
ly definable form. Most often llicy arc
underlying, inherent in ibe nature of the
subculture, consisting of sliaied values,
shared ideals, shared customs and
shared systems of 'relating. This means
ilint participation in a subculture re-
quites a certain level of conformity.
This docs not rule out disagreements
about the interpretation of those para-
meters - such dis-agi cements can be very
intense, since those involved will sec
themselves as upholders of the real
values of the gioup. Hui Ihc ical threat
to any subculture is (lie individual who
icfuscs parameters. Such a one is dan-
gerous, amoral, a threat to all. What
ihc parameters of a subculture really
amount lo is its system of morality. It
provides a way for ihc subculture lo sec
itself as superior lo society in general.
It, thus, aealcs a method for relating to
others through guilt and self- righteous-
ness, two of sulborily's favorite weap-
ons. The existence and nas inlcruncc of
a subculture thus requires an inic real-
ized authority. to maintain itself.

The creation ol paianiclcrs will lead
lo an intolerance towards those per-
ceived as irretrievably outside the para-
inclcrs-espccially if they arc competi-
tors ou some level (e.g. the R.C.I'.,
S.W.P., 2nd the like, lo anarchists), hut
il also leads toward a lolcialioii of
everyone pciccivcd as pari of one's
subculture. Due lo diffcicnt interpreta-
tions of Ihc parameters of the subcul-
ture, irguir.cnls and fights, sometimes
even vicious ones, arc possible, but
there is still a certain unity that is rec-
ognized and lends lo keep disagree-
ments within a certain framework. Such
tolerance is necessary lo maintain the
subculture. Il also has the effect of
reducing everything to a level of mun-
dane mediocrity. Extremes arc permit-
ted only lo ihc cxlcnl that they can be
devitalised, thai llicy can be kcp( from
presenting any real challenge lo the
subculture. Communication is de-
stroyed, because the passion is taken
out of il-cxccpt for a very stylized pas-
sion in conformity with the needs of the.
subculluic. Tad, caution and politeness
arc the order of the day in order to
maintain Ihc 'unity within diveisily" of
the subculture. Conflicts lend lo be-
come ritualized and predictable. In the
anarchist subculture in particular, there
arc rarely any facc-lo-facc, honest and
passionate conflicts. Instead facc-lo-facc
interactions have the gloss of the polite-
ness and subcultural ritual, of tolerance,
and so arc, as often as not, boilng.
Learning to relate ihiough ritual,
through tad, through social masks, lias
left us ignorant of how lo relate freely.
But without these liluals of toleration,
a subculture cannot maintain itself,
because like society at large, a subcul-
ture requires confoi roily, social harmo-
ny and the suppression of individual
passions for its continued existence.

In relating lo people outside, subcul-
tures tend to opt for cither a sort of
scpajal'ism~rninimalizing contad with
the outside world-or evangelism-seek-
ing to win people over lo Ihc perspec-
tive of Ihc subculture. Since the anar-
chist subculture b decidedly evangelis-
tic, il is this the: I'll deal with. All cvan-'
gelislic groups, from the Baptists lo Ihc
R.GP, torn the Moonics to Ihc anar*
chi&f subculture, ore so because (bey
arc convinced that they have the an-
swers to the csscnliaJ pioblcms of Ihc

world. Convincing others of this, be-
comes a major motive l>c lurid the ac-
tions of those within such subcultures.

They acl and speak so as lo present an
image of sclf-assuiaucc as well as a
lind of solidarity with those whom they
Wish lo win over. Individuals within
such subcultures do not live for them-
selves but for the ideal, llic answer that
ihcy arc so certain will cure all. They
live, or try to live, up to a certain im-
age, and so arc confoi mists.

The basics of the anarchist subculture
is an idealization of anarchy. Ilascd on
models from ihc past - ihc Spanish Rev-
olution, Enrico Mal.ilcsla, iMakhno,

etc— and visions of the future, anarchy is
made into an ideal Inline society which
will answer all the CSAI nlial questions
about human relations. It becomes a
gospel to which lo win people, a pod lo
which one can sacrifice oneself. It de-
fines the parameters of thought and
adion for the anarchist subculture,
creating a certain sameness in the way
anarchists live, play and express them-
selves. Idealized,, anarchy loses all
conncdioo lo present lived reality and
becomes a means of enforcing confor-
mity, tolerance and propriety, puaran-
lecing the maintenance ol the anarchist
subculture.

Because of the nature ol subcultures,
the anarchist subculture can only exist
by removing anarchy and rclKllion from
the terrain of our present day lives and
turning them inio ideals with corre-
sponding social roles. Il will praise
■spontaneity* while defining ils content
and, thereby, suppressing il. Free ex-
pression of passions and desires arc not
encouraged, in fad, qirilc oltcn the
opposite. Within ils own framework, the
anarchist subculture is quite conserva-
tive, ils own maintenance being ils top
priority. Every new exploration and
experimentation is a threat lo its exis-
tence and must lie quickly defined,
limited nnd recuperated by it. This
explains both Ihc absurd, defensive
re acl ions of certain anarchists lo mote
daring theoretical explorations, as well
as Ihc tendency for ihcsc explorations
lo remain in a realm of separated theo-
ry, of I hcory without practice. A subcul-
ture is a .place for security, for safely,
for finding social roles and systems of
relationships by which one can define
one's self, not a place for lice eiplora-

tecQnie spectacles in mail-art shows. Subversion is
recuperated by society as art. Ignoring ihc facl that'
art is a social and cultural calcgory, anarchic artists
claim that an opposes cullurc, but ihcir activities
ciealc for them the role of cultural workers within ihc
anarchist subculture.

When the situationists said thai revolutionary praxis
needed lo become lherapcutic,thcy had no idea that
certain North American anarchists would find ways to
wed this and a few othef half-digested siluationis!
ideas to new age psyehotherapics — but, gee, fhose
Yanks (and Canadians) sure are inventive, ain't Ihcy?
New age therapies came into the anarchist subcullurc
largely thrrugh feminist, gay lib and related move-
ments. The reason given for practicing ihcsc therapies
is self-discovery and self liberal ion. But all psycho-
tlicrapics — including those of humanist and "third
force" psychologists; — were developed to integrate
people inlo society. When feminists, gay libcralionists
and similar groups began using bcrapculic tech-
niques, il helped integrate individi ils into a common
framework from which they would view the world and
acl on it. Anarcho-therapists have adapted such
practices as meditation, play therapy, support groups
and separate spaces. Meditation is really just a form
of escape, without the physical damages of drinking
or drugs. It eases the stresses of daily life, keeping
them from becoming loo much to bear. It can, thus,
be useful, but il is not self-liberating. Play as therapy,
like play as art, loses its subversive edge. Its parame-
ters defined, il becomes a safe release, a Idling off of
steam, rather than a true breaking out with all the
risks thai involves. It does not present a challenge to
aulhority or the work ethic, because il is play safely
ensconced in ihc framework of ptoductive usefulness
and brings oul the chaotic energy that could otherwise
challenge authority within a safely ordered frame-
work. Support group therapy is a particular insidious
form of self-deception. A gjoup of people get togeth-
er to talk about a common problem, burden or
oppression they supposedly share. This practice
immediately removes the problem from the realm of
daily life, of individual relationships and particular
circumslances, into ihe realm of "our common op-
pression" where it can be fit into an ideological
framework. Support gjoups are formed with a partic-
ular purpose (otherwise, why form them?) which will :
shape Ihc workings of Ihd group, bias the conclusions
drawn'and mold the participants into the framework
of Ihc gjoup ideology. The creation of separate spaces
(women's only, gay only, etc.) reinforce* the worst
tendencies of support group therapy, by guaranteeing

that no outside element can pcncliald. Anarchists
blithely ignore the authoritarian and propcrtarian
implications of this practice and its inherent bigotry,
excusing them he cause it is the practice of an op-
picssed group. All of ihcsc therapeutic forms separate-
people from Ihcir daily life experience and place Ihem
in a separate "therapeutic" realm where they can be
readily integraled into a particular social and ideologi-
cal ftamewotk. In the case of anarcbo-tberapists, il is
the framework of the anarchist subculture and Ihe
role they play in it.

Most of the people I've met in the anarchist subcul-
ture are sincere people. They truly want to rebel
against authority and destroy it. But they arc products
of society, trained lo distrust themselves and their
desires and to fear the unknown. Finding a subculture
in place with roles to which they can adapt them-
selves, it is much easier to fail into the role or roles
with which they feel most comfortable, secure in the
knowledge that they are part of the rebel milieu, than
lo truly take the leap in the dark of living for them-
selves against society. And these "anarchist" roles plug
into a social struct urc and a way of relating lo the
world at large that arc equally essential to the anar-
chist subcullurc and which also need lo be examined.

"Would il not be an anachronism to cultivate the
taste for harbors, certitudes, systems?"

The structure of Ihe anarchist subculture is
largely centered around publishing pro-
jects, bookstores, collective living situations and
radical activism. These projects and the methods of
running them that reproduce the subculture create
the methods of anarchist "outreach." What they create
in many ways resembles an evangelical religious sect.
Most of the projects that make up the structure ol
the anarchist subculture are run collectively Using a
process of consensus decision making. A few are the
projects of single individuals occasionally helped out
by friends. (On the fringe of the subculture are
numerous flyer projects almost all of which are
individual projects.) I am putting off a thorough
critique of consensus for a later article. For now, let
it suffice to point oul that the process of consensus
does require the subjection of Ihe individual will to
the .will of the group as. a whole and the subjection of
the immediate to the mediation of meetings and
decision-making processes. It has an inherently
conservative bent, because il creates policies that can
only be changed if everyone agrees to it. It is an
invisible authority to which individuals are subject,

which limits -the extent lo which' they question .the
project in which ihey arc involved or Ihc anarchist
subculture.

A large number of anarchists live on their own or
.with lovers. Eut many see a collective living arrange-
ment as better, sometimes for as simpler a reason as
easing everyone's financial burdens (the reason which
involves the fewest illusions), hut more often lo create
a living support group situation, lo participate more
easily in a common project or lo 'put theory into
practice." Having already dealt with support groups,
I will only add thai living together in a support group
will tend to exaggerate all of the insulalory and
ideological aspects of support group therapy. A
collective living situation can certainly ease some
aspects of sharing a common project, from ihc
financial to the trick of getting people together lo
discuss the project. Il can also increase the chances of
the project becoming insulalory, feeding on itself,
losing necessary critical input. But it is those who
claim to be "putting theory into practice* in Ihcsc
living situations who are practicing the highest level of
self-deception. Group living situations could possibly
be a basis for exploring new ways of relating, but the
semi-permanence of such situations lends toward the
creation of social roles and structures, and new
explorations rue not what the households I know of
arc pursuing. The separation between theory and
practice implied by the phrase "putting theory into
practice" is evident in the relative sameness of these
living situations. Most anarchists believe that there
arc certain principles that should govern the way
people interrelate. In their living collectives, land
trusts and squats, they attempt to live by their princi-
ples. Their living situations arc not thcoretico-pracli-
cal explorations into new ways of relating, bul rather,
the submission of individuals lo 3 prc-conccived social
structure. These principles arc not put to ihc lest in
these situations, because the anarchist household is an
insulalory situation, a kind of alternative reality in the
midst of the world. With the exception of anarchist
squals-which do, at least, present a challenge to the
authority of landlords and property— these households
relate to the world of external authorities in the same
way everyone else does: paying their rent (or properly
tax) and bills, and working or collecting welfare.

These households do little, if anything, toward under-
mining society, but they offer a structure for people
to live in that maintains their feeling of rebelliousness
and the subculture which gives them a safe place lo
express this feeling.

The various publishing projects (including periodi-
cals) and bookstores arc the main sources of history,
theory and information for the anarchist subculture.
To some cxlent, these projects have' lo plug into the
capitalist system and so rarely pretend to be inherent-
ly revolutionary. When I hey are group projects, they
are usually run by consensus on the absurd assump-
tion lhal there is something anarchistic about having
lo sit through long, boring meetings to work out Ihc
details of running a small business or producing a
magazine or book. But the aspect of these projects
lhal really bothers me is that they tend lo become
means of defining the framework of thought in th<
anarchist subculture rather than a provocation lo
discuss and explore Ihc nature of alienation and
domination and how lo go about destroying them. 1 o
a large cxlent this lack of provocation is inherent in
what is published. Most anarchist publications,
whether books or periodicals, arc uncritical reprints
of old anarchist writings, uncritical histories, rehash
ing of leftist opinions with a bit of anli-stalism thrown
in or uncritical moderni7Jtions of out-dated anarchist
ideas. Such writings reinforce certain standards and
models of what it means to be an anarchist without
questioning those models. Even those writings which
do present a challenge rarely seem lo evoke the s<>ri
of intelligent, critical discussion that could be pari ol
a stimulating radical praxis. Rather, ihey arc also
often taken as a source of standards, models, ways nl
defining Ihc parameters of revolt. This stems, in pari,
from the nature of the printed word, which seems to
have a permanence about il that is not compatible
with the fluid, living nature of thought or discussion.
Most readers have trouble seeing through the printed
word lo Ihc fluidity of thought behind it. So they react
as though dealing with something- sncrcd-cilher
worshipping it or desecrating it. Neither .reaction
pleases me, because both signify that the ideas have
been reified, have become commodities in the mar-
ketplace of ideas— an image reinforced by the fact that
these ideas are mostly lo be found for sale in book-
stores. Another aspect of anarchist publication is
propaganda. This is the advertising side of anarchism
-the proof that it is largely just a commodity in the
marketplace of ideas. Most anarchist propaganda is
an attempt lo create an image of anarchism that is
attractive lo whomever the propaganda is aimed at.
Thus, much of this literature seems to be aimed at
easing people's minds, at proving that anarchy isn't so
extreme, thai it doesn't challenge people; it reassures
them, showing them thai they can continue lo have

secure, structured lives even after the anarchist
revolution. Since most anarchist literature, including
this sort, is bought or stolen by anarchists, I wonder
if it isn't really an. attempt at self- re assurance, and
reinforcement of the- defining models of the subcul-
ture. The structures which make anti-authoritarian
literature available could provide a network for!
challenging discussion aimed at creating and main-
taining a truly rebellious praxis, but instead it creates
a framework of models and structures for people to
follow— ihc "anarchist principles" lo which so many
blindly cling— which reinforce the anarchist subculture.
Radical activism is another aspect of the public
image of Ihc anarchist subculture, particularly the
militant wing. It largely involves participation in leftist
demonstrations, though occasionally anarchists will
organize their own demonstration on a particular
issue. One motive behind much ol ihis activism is lo
win people over lo anarchism. To accomplish this,
anarchists must separate themselves as a definable
entity and make themselves attractive to those they
arc Irving lo convert. At present, most activism seems
to be trying to attract youth and, particularly, punk
youth. So anarchists tend lo be especially loud and
rowdy at demonstrations, portraying an image of
defiance and showing that anarchists mean "serious
business.' Since other groups, like the R.C.P.. also get
rowdy and defiant, anarchist militants have lo make
the distinction clear by loudly denouncing these
groups and even getting into* fights with lhem-ya!
kinda have to wonder about these anarchist militants,
if their actions arc so similar lo Maoist hacks, that .
Ihey have lo consciously pul out an effort to distin-
guish themselves. Bul evangelism isn't the only reason
anarchists participate in these rituals of opposition.
Many participate because it is Ihc appropriate anar-
chist thing to do. In ihcir minds, "anarchist" is a role
thai involves a specific social aclivity. It is a subspe-
cies of leftist that is rowdier and a bit more violent
than most. This allows them lo separate anarchy and
rebellion from their daily lives. Questions like, "Does
this activity help destroy domination, undermine the
spectacle and create free life?" arc irrelevant since
anarchism is by defined participation in militant
activities, not by rebellion against everything that
stands in the way of our freedom to create for our-
selves the lives wc desire. As long as one is active in
demonstrations in the right way, one is a good anar-
chist, upholding the image and maintaining the
anarchist subculture.
Though some ol these slructures-cspccially those

dealing with publication— have potential for being part
of a truly anarchic challenge to society, tbc anarchist
subculture diverts their energy to maintain and
reproduce itself. The subculture ofTcrs us 'harbors,
certitudes, systems," tending to make us cautious,
leading us lo embrace the known rather than face the
adventure of challenging the unknown. So anarchists
and anti-authoritarians, thinking themselves rebels,
arc, in fact, the ones who define Ihc limits of revolt
and so recuperate it. Tbc anarchist subculture has
undermined anarchy, turned it into another commodi-
ty on the ideological marketplace and so made it into
another category of society.