Introduction to Political Theory

What makes emancipatory concepts absolute as well as relative is the fact that

our relationships with other humans, like our relationships with the wider world

of nature, are continually changing. We are absolute in the sense that all humans

are the same – they must relate to nature and to one another in order to survive –

but we are also relative to one another. The way we relate depends upon the world

we find ourselves in, and the world we construct, and this makes us different.

Not only are humans both absolute and relative in their rights, but we are agents

whose freedom derives from the recognition and transformation of necessity. This

is why we are both free and constrained at the same time, for this world of necessity

constrains us. Marx and Mill use the term ‘coercion’ to embrace morality and

circumstances, but we favour a narrower view of coercion: coercion involves the

threat of credible force. The kind of pressures that arise from being in society are

better conceived of as a constraint and these constraints arise out of relationships,

and are part and parcel of the price we pay as social beings, who can only become

conscious of our individuality through relationships with others.

It is crucial to make the distinction which anarchism fails to make, between force

and constraint. Force disrupts relationships, because one party loses their subjectivity

and becomes a mere ‘thing’. Constraint, on the other hand, while sometimes

unpleasant, is unavoidable and a condition for freedom. It is not possible to be free

without recognising and transforming the constraints that act upon us, and even

the most spontaneous act can only succeed if it acknowledges and works to change

a world of constraint. When Bakunin took part in the uprising in the French city

of Lyon and proclaimed ‘that the administrative and governmental machinery of

Chapter 11 Anarchism 253

Utopianism and realism

Anarchists are right to see the state as problematic, but to look beyond the state, the state has
to be presented in a way that is realistic. Why should we assume that if an idea is realistic, it
cannot also be utopian? Utopianism and realism need to be creatively combined, but this is
only possible if one makes distinctions of a kind that break with the liberal tradition.
Of course, it is wrong to force a person to act against their will, but it does not follow from
this that force can simply be abolished. The use of force as a way of addressing conflicts of
interest can only be dispensed with when people have sufficient in common that they can ‘change
places’. An opposition to force under all circumstances constitutes utopianism without realism,
for we need to work to create the conditions under which force becomes redundant.
Moreover, realism requires us to face the fact that relationships constrain as well as empower.
This constraint becomes severe when used deliberately as a punishment, and although we would
accept that the less of these kind of constraints the better, it is unrealistic to imagine that
people can relate to one another and to the wider world of nature without some kind of
constraint being employed and involved. Hence the attempt to eliminate force as a way of
tackling conflicts is strengthened by the distinction between constraint and force. Society is
inconceivable without constraint and hierarchy, and anarchists weaken their arguments against
the state by refusing to accept this.

Focus