Queering Anarchist Futures – Transcript

We live in chaotic and unprecedented times. With a growing ecological collapse fueled by neoliberal capitalist expansion, rising militant white supremacy and fascism, constant conflict induced by imperialism and neo-colonialism, and ongoing genocides in post-empire colonial states (like canada). As such, it is extremely pressing that people have access to alternatives to the current systems of governance in which we may build new routes towards a better future. This video is titled “Queering Anarchist Futures” and will explore the ideological roots of classic and contemporary anarchism, and will serve as  an introduction to a future lecture series I intend to produce using open-access, public domain, and video content. In the description you’ll find first a PDF resource to help orient to the topics we are going to discuss today, then the videos which inspired me to start this project, followed by a bibliography with citations in APA 7th edition as well as links to where the content can be accessed online.

While there are many videos discussing anarchism, it is important to note that anarchism is more than just theory. While I will be primarily discussing the theoretical aspects of it from a sociological perspective, please keep in mind that Praxis, or doing anarchism, is, in my opinion, more important than knowing the ins and outs of anarchist thought. In that spirit, then, at the end of this video I’ll be discussing ways to live anarchism and discuss ways in which some anarchists are promoting biodiversity through direct action.

To benefit those who may be listening to the video, rather than watching it, I have made the decision to use minimal on screen graphics. 

So, what is Anarchism?

Anarchism means a lot of things depending on who you speak to, so if we want to discuss it as an intellectual tradition, we’ll have to look to someone like Proudhon. Proudhon is important for a number of reasons, being the first person in mainstream european discourses to refer to himself as an anarchist for one, but it is important to recognize that while some of his contributions are important: he was still a white, cishet man writing in the context of 19th century France. Not only this, he and his collaborator Mikhail Bakunin were both well documented antisemites. For more on this, I will direct you to the helpfully titled video from Zoe Baker, an anarchist historian, called Bakunin was a racist (Baker, 2021). It will be the first link in the description. I have chosen to cite Proudhon here not because I agree with much of his work, but because his work influenced many later anarchists who I will be citing and discussing here. Popular media often depicts and describes anarchy as senseless violence, a desire to destroy, and chaos. In his 1840 work, What is Property? An Inquiry into the Principle of Right and of Government, Proudhon defines Anarchy as “The absence of a master, of a sovereign” and notes that “The meaning ordinarily attached to the word “anarchy” is absence of principle, absence of rule; consequently, it has been regarded as synonymous with “disorder” (these quotations can be found on page two-hundred seventy-seven) (Proudhon, 1876, p. 277). 

But what did Proudhon actually envision for society? In the conclusion to What is Property, Proudhon draws upon and critiques early communist thinking by advocating a synthesis of Communism, in this instance represented by Equality and Law, and Property, by which he means Independence and Proportionality. The synthesis of these two points he calls “Liberty”. This section is long, and not entirely straight forward, so we’ll work through each of his points one at a time.

First, Proudhon discusses what a society based upon the synthesis of Communism and Property would, in his view, look like: He notes that Equality would consist of Equality of conditions, or means, rather than equality of comfort as a way to enable each person to use their means to achieve a comfort suited to them. Following that, he suggests that law results from a combination of the knowledge of facts and necessity. These two points come with the assumption that they will exist within the context of community seeking to engender equality, not uniformity. It’s worth bringing special attention to this because, as we’ll discuss later, there are significant problems with much of this work but these points are very useful. 

The next point in Proudhon’s constructed society is that independence, which he also refers to as “The Autonomy of the Private Reason”, has its genesis in the “difference of talents and capacities”. This is to say that because society should be organised such that everyone has access to equality of means, and that law will be constructed by both knowledge and necessity, it follows that the autonomy of an individual is both a necessary part of society, and can exist alongside equality of conditions. On top of this, Proudhon describes property as a form of theft and tyranny over others. So within this context, it is clear that Proudhon is suggesting that the autonomy of the individual should exist insofar as it does not infringe on the autonomy of others and it continues to function within the facilitation of the two prior points. Without getting too far into Proudhon’s economic writings on Mutualism, this is the basis for the combination of free association and democratic means of production. 

Finally, from all of this, he argues that Proportionality, or the balance of relationships, should be expressed in communities not by things, but by ideas. This point in particular is somewhat unclear, but what Proudhon appears to be arguing is that because material objects should be distributed such that there is an equality of means, relationships between communities and people should be defined by common ideals. In effect, Proudhon is noting that unequal access to the material goods creates power inequalities, and the only way to remove these inequalities would be to create a culture with the prior three points as well as non-hierarchical means of creating relationships on an individual and community level (Proudhon, 1876).

From these four major principles, Proudhon lays out ten propositions:

First, that Individual possession is the condition of social life, whereas strict property is the “suicide of society” (p. 285).

Second, that because each person would have equal rights and equality of means, property would not be able to establish itself to construct hierarchies.

Third, labour as a means to facilitate equality and prosperity would make property unnecessary and undesirable.

Fourth, labour as a collective practice to produce collectively owned materials creates a culture of collectivity and unity.

Fifth, collectivity and unity in labour, possession, and accumulated capital would, through cultural shifts, construct the idea of inequality of wages and fortunes as a means of injustice and theft.

Sixth, because the value of products that are exchanged are created by labourers, the wages of labourers, as well as their rights and duties, should likewise be equal.

Seventh, products should be exchanged for equivalent products in order to make the accumulation of profit impossible.

Eighth, because people should be associated through voluntary choice, justice should be constructed through equitable and proportional law formulated through equal social relationships.

Ninth, Free association and liberty is the only just form of society, as it has the sole function of maintaining equality in the means of production.

Tenth, Government of one person over the other is oppression, and “Society finds its highest perfection in the union of order with anarchy.”

These points inform much of what comes after him, but it’s worth noting, as we’ll discuss further in the next section, that Proudhon held and wrote deeply misogynistic, eurocentric, and heteronormative views. It can be argued that he was writing in his historical context, or that he was a product of his time, or that he shouldn’t be judged by contemporary standards; but none of that changed the fact that heteronormativity, eurocentrism, and misogyny informed his understanding of anarchism and his vision for how a stateless society should be organized. These ideas need to be confronted and not glossed over in the work we cite or analyse.

But what about other “classic” anarchist thinkers? Let’s turn to some of the ground left uncovered by Proudhon’s body of work. 

In her 1897 essay “What is there in Anarchy for Women?” Emma Goldman, as you might expect, discusses the need for the liberation of women through Anarchy and Anarchism. First she notes that marriage, as understood in the European legal tradition, is a means through which the arms of the state, those being ministers and the court, interfere with the means by which people, note that she mentions people and not men and women, express love for one and other (Emma Goldman, 1897). She goes on to say that “The Alliance should be formed… not as it is now, to give the woman a support and home, but because the love is there, and that state affairs can only be brought about by an internal revolution, in short, Anarchy” (found on page 21 of the PM press edition) (Goldman, 1897, p. 21). The “internal revolution” here is not an outright revolution against the state, but a revolution against the arms of the state and the ways we reify the state through everyday processes and legitimizations. Marriage, then, should be understood not as the sole means of the expression of love, but as a means of patriarchal state control. To partake in marriage, for Goldman, is to legitimise the means by which women are subjugated by men. She reinterprets the idea of the woman at home not as “the Household queen, told about in story books” but as “the servant, the mistress, and the slave of both husband and children.” 

This last note begs the question: So what about the children? If children have a role in the subjugation of women as Goldman suggests, what is the role of children in anarchism? In response to this, Goldman says that children will be provided with “common homes… where they will be properly cared for and educated and in every way as good, and in most cases, better care than they would receive in their own homes” (Goldman, 1897, p. 22). Goldman here is saying that in “the Anarchistic era”, the liberation of women will be achieved through the common practice of education. In this vision, children will be raised by the community so that they do not grow up in poverty, and educated by the community so they may receive the collective wisdom of the community so that children may have education without worrying about costs of accessing education. When asked by the narrator of this essay “Who will take care of the children?” Goldman responds “Everyone” and “They will be the children of love – healthy, strong-minded – and not as now in most cases, born of hate and domestic dissensions” (Found on page 23) (Goldman, 1897, p. 23). Goldman’s points serve as a partial rebuttal to Proudhon’s earlier statements about the role of women in Anarchism: Where Goldman seeks the liberation of women and the deconstruction of patriarchy as she knows it, Proudhon writes of women and children “We need to love our wives and children. It is our duty to protect and support them. It is our right to be loved in preference to all others. Conjugal fidelity is justice. Adultery is high treason against society” (Proudhon, 1876, p 282). The need for the liberation of women is clearly outlined by Goldman based on her experience, and the privileged context occupied by Proudhon is clearly seen in his writing. I want to bring attention to this because there is a tendency to construct a canon of “legitimate knowledge” in the social sciences, and within the context of any political movement we must be aware of the social forces that shape any given author’s perspective and theories. 

And what about democracy? Or consensus? We’ve discussed at some length the need to rethink social bonds, the structure of our communities, and the organisation of society, but what does it mean to have a voice in Anarchy and Anarchism? The first thing to understand in the context of these writings is how representative democracies are understood. Errico Malatesta in his 1924 essay Democracy and Anarchy described both the need to have a means of solidarity-informed decision making as well as the understanding that representative democracies represent an oligarchy elected by the majority of the electors (Malatesta, 1995). Representative democracy, for Malatesta, is a means through which the use of coercive force is legitimised by the majority of electors over the minority. More than just this, he argues that the idea of representative democracies as “the government of the people” is a lie to justify the rule of one group over another (Malatesta, 1995, p. 77). Much like Proudhon did earlier, Malatesta argues that there is a need for voluntary associations,  and that through voluntary associations, as well as free access to the means of decision making, Anarchy can be constructed such that no person may force their will upon another (Malatesta, 1995). Malatesta will come up again in this discussion, but I feel the need to discuss the conception of representative democracy in this section.

So, to answer the question I asked roughly fifteen minutes ago: What is Anarchism? Well, Anarchism is a lot of different things. Broadly speaking, it is a commitment to free association, the abolition of means of coercion, the abolition of the state, and a commitment to equal access to the means of production and decision making. Anarchism is both anti-statist and anti-capitalist, and in favour of direct access for labourers to the means of production. In many ways, anarchism is informed by the phrase “From Each according to their ability, to each according to their need.”

But… this is weird, right? The whole of anarchist thought, even the dawn of anarchist thought, coming from three white people from Europe in the late nineteenth century and early twentieth century? This is, for a variety of reasons, false. Anarchism is a complex ideology drawing upon intellectual traditions all over the world. While the works of Malatesta, Goldman, and Proudhon have served as an inspiration for many anarchists and many anarchist theories, the whole of human experience cannot be theorised about, or truly understood, simply by reading the work of three white, cis, people. In order to create an accurate understanding of the complexities of contemporary anarchist theory, we’re going to need to queer the ideas presented by Proudhon, Malatesta, and Goldman. This is not to say that we wholesale reject these problematic works, but rather that we unsettle them and recode their meanings. But what does it mean to Queer a theory? Rather than thinking of “Queer” and “Queering” in their common useage, Queering in this context is a process of destabilising and unsettling a dominant order (Moussawi & Vidal‐Ortiz, 2020). In this case, this includes making visible the dominance of whiteness in theorising anarchism, examining the axes and structures of power that attempt to make whiteness invisible, and critically engage with texts and the ways they may reinforce hegemony. Moussawi and Vidal-Ortiz in their 2020 paper A Queer Sociology: On Power, Race, and Decentering Whiteness suggest that a queer sociology centers race and the processes of racialization as a means to decenter whiteness (Moussawi & Vidal‐Ortiz, 2020). To this aim, they indicate that a Queer sociology must recognize and recover the contributions of Women of Colour feminisms, Black feminist thought, and queer of colour critiques as foundational elements. A queered anarchism is no different and to this aim, and as such I will be drawing largely upon scholarship from Rojava, Black anarchist thought from the United States, and queer anarchist thought. 

By doing this, we’re engaging with a deliberate strategy called Disidentification. This is the practising of recycling and rethinking meaning to challenge existing discourses without fully rejecting their content (Muñoz, 1997). José Esteban Muñoz describes disidentification as “a performative mode of tactical recognition that various minoritarian subjects employ in an effort to resist the oppressive and normalising discourse of dominant ideology”, found on page eighty-three of “The White to be angry” for those following along in the reading (Muñoz, 1997, p. 83). I really want to emphasise this point: Disidentification is an active, tactical choice that is employed with reason for specific aims. He further notes that “Disidentification resists the interpellating call of ideology that fixes a subject within the state power apparatus. It is a reformatting of self within the social, a third term that resists the binary of identification and counteridentification.” (Muñoz, 1997, p. 83). Muñoz is making it clear that disidentification is not an acceptance of dominant narratives, nor is it a rejection of those narratives. This is important for a queered anarchism for much the same reason it is important within a queer sociology: because the process of rejecting dominant narratives created through eurocentric, cisgender, heteromonogomous contexts can and often are legitimized and reinforced through a wholesale rejection of those narratives. To queer these narratives, we must engage with disidentification as a strategy to critically engage with all narratives, even and especially those we agree with. Disidentification is not just something that we must do to texts within anarchism, I would argue that it should be the foundation that informs anarchist discourses with respect to understanding institutional discourses, however that is a discussion for another day.

So… What is Anarchism Really?

Now as I mentioned at the start, anarchism is extremely complicated, and we cannot cover everything in one video. However, there are a few important points regarding epistemology, the role of the individual, education in anarchism, and the difference between doing anarchism and being an anarchist.

In theory, with the frameworks we identified earlier, anarchism should be opposed to all forms of domination. However as Marquis Bey identifies in their 2020 work Anarcho-Blackness: Notes Toward a Black Anarchism; the authors considered fundamental to the “cannon” of anarchism did not talk about Blackness, nor did they, with the exception of Goldman, discuss gender (Bey, 2020). In a summary of what anarchism is, they state “While there has been much less explicit meditation on the anarchist stance toward transantagonism than, say, capitalism, the overarching claim of anarchist ideology is that any kind of coercive, dominative, oppression is to be quashed. To be established instead is a society based on direct democratic collaboration, mutual aid, diversity, and equity” (found on page thirteen) (Bey, 2020, p. 13). So to ask the question they ask at the start of chapter 2 of their book, “What is to be done?” What must be done to achieve the aim of the abolition of the state, and cisheteronormative patriarchy, and what is to be done when that world is achieved? Moving back to the first chapter, Bey notes the need to challenge western conceptions of universality in the world, and deconstruct the monoliths of The West and The Other by actively drawing upon and recentering the contributions of colonised people. However, they also note that the critique of implicit whiteness in classic anarchism cannot be the end of the process of reunderstanding anarchism (Bey, 2020). 

On page seventeen and eighteen, they note that, to construct a Black Anarchism, there must be an understanding and examination of how “Blackness and those in proximity to its work and histories operate anarchically” (Bey, 2020, p. 17-18). This can, and should, be applied more broadly to anarchism more generally: not to construct a monolith of peoples, but to understand the ways that government forces and forces of racialization are understood by colonised peoples, and to understand the ways in which communities of colonised peoples don’t involve the state or police. Understanding strategies of living without the influence of state can inspire strategies of building community connections and ties to reject state influences. This is not to say that we should create tenets of anarchism by appropriating these strategies, but rather that we should create strategies by being informed by the knowledges of peoples who, to paraphrase the Ashanti Alston quote on page 18, can resist, who can see differently when they are stuck, and thus live differently (Bey, 2020).

And the process of doing anarchism does not stop when these aims have been met, as indicated earlier. The strategies of building communities, of building societies free of coercive power and informed by mutual aid and equity are active decisions we must continue to make. What is needed is the act of faithful witnessing, or the act of sensing resistance and collaborating with the side of resistance while one lives and benefits from the side of power (Lugones, 2003). To be a faithful witness is hard, and it is an active strategy. As such, it must be maintained by actively listening to the knowledges of colonised peoples, engaging in directly democratic and consensus based decision making processes, and engaging in mutual aid such that the principle of “to each according to their need” is actually met. What Bey (2020) is arguing for society is stated clearly on pages twenty three and twenty four: drawing upon The Undercommons  by Stefano Harney and Fred Moten, Bey states “It [being Anarchism] is the eradication “of a society that could have prisons, that could have slavery, that could have the wage, and therefore not abolition as the elimination of anything but abolition as the founding of a new society” (Bey, 2020, p. 23-24). From this, they argue for a way of life that is anarchy, not within a structure of anarchy. To found a society not by violence and destruction, but to create spaces that challenge the notion ‘that what now is will always be.’

The construction of this non-coercive society requires some sort of means of decision making. As mentioned earlier, Malatesta discussed the need for directly democratic practices within anarchy. He stated that, with regards to the idea of representative democracy, “The sovereign people’ is a clown of a sovereign, a slave with a papier-maché crown and sceptre” (Malatesta, 1995, p. 77). He further notes that democracy within government is itself a form of oligarchy that “sooner or later leads to war and dictatorships” (Malatesta, 1995, p. 77). But in this essay, Malatesta does not really describe what direct democracy actually looks like. He discusses that free agreements can benefit one side more than others, by virtue of some people having access to greater social and intellectual capitol (my words, not his) (Malatesta, 1995). But to really discuss what decentralised, direct democracy looks like, we need to discuss anarchism in practice.Take the case of Rojava. 

Rojava, or the Autonomous Administration of North and East Syria, is a de facto autonomous region in Syria governed by decentralised practices (Cemgil & Hoffmann, 2016). These practices draw upon Libertarian municipalist and social ecology from Murray Bookchin, as well as the writings of Abdullah Öcalan. For this section, we’re going to look at Section three of Öcalan’s Democratic Confederalism, as well as Democracy and Anarchy by Malatesta (Malatesta, 1995; Öcalan, 2011). 

More than just a description or program discussing what and how to do direct democracy, Öcalan describes the need for a diversity of methods of participation in a variety of political landscapes (Öcalan, 2011). The varying form of political landscape creates a need for a diversity of means to achieve equal coexistence, meaning that rather than a centralised power enforcing its will upon subject municipalities, decentralised self-administering groups have the opportunity to directly shape their realities through local meetings (Öcalan, 2011). Through these local meetings, in conjunction with the act of faithful witnessing, politics becomes intertwined with life with each act reifying the processes of mutual aid and decentralised decision making (Öcalan, 2011). The framework of Öcalan’s Democratic confederalism (2011) firmly puts the power of decision making in the hands of municipal meetings and groups, with the process of decision making being made directly through democratic processes. As I noted before, the act of faithful witnessing should also be used in conjunction with directly democratic procedures to ensure that not only is everyone’s voice being heard equally, but also that hegemonic discourses aren’t reconstituted through the limitation of voices in the formation of legitimate knowledges. To achieve these aims, however, there needs to be a reconstruction of communities informed by communication and cooperation. An example of a means to achieve this is through a process known as mutual aid.

The term Mutual Aid has often been used to mean, in many cases, charity, but that’s not exactly correct. What Mutual aid means is actually very much what it sounds like: the mutual process of aiding someone in need as a form of community building and non or anti-statist praxis. I’ve deliberately chosen not to call it a form of anarchist praxis because, while the term was invented by Kropotkin, processes of community building through mutual aid are, in many ways, foundational to the construction of any community (Graeber, 2014). In his 2011 book Debt: The First 5,000 Years, Anthropologist David Graeber refers to this as “Baseline Communism”, which he describes as “The understanding that, unless people consider themselves enemies, if the need is considered great enough, or the cost considered reasonable enough, the principle of “from each according to their abilities, to each according to their needs” will be assumed to apply.” found on page 98 of the 2014 printing (Graeber, 2014, p. 98). But is mutual aid simply an expansion of “baseline communism”? Let’s take a closer look at that definition again.

Graeber notes that “unless people consider themselves enemies, if the need is considered great enough, or the cost considered reasonable enough…” (Graeber, 2014, p. 98). These three criteria must be met in some combination before this baseline communism is enacted. But an anarchist critique of the state is one that recognizes that the individual, that is to say each person, has a responsibility not only to ensure that they are aiding in the processes of maintaining equity but also to work to engage directly with others in their community to construct a sociality that accurately represents everyone in said community. This means working with people that you may not like, even if the cost is high. So how do we create a more useful definition of mutual aid?

The means of challenging state power requires equal access to the means of staying alive. This means that if the community has a responsibility to maintain social means via constructing non-coercive structures that maintain equality of means, the community also has a responsibility to work together to ensure that “to each according to their need” is fulfilled in its totality. The means of keeping oneself alive should be shared equally across the community to ensure that everyone has access to the “Equality of means” that Proudhon spoke of earlier (Proudhon, 1876). Rather than focusing on Do-it-yourself individualist forms of anarchism,strategies of mutual aid highlight collectivist-Do-It Together forms of anarchism (Daring et al., 2012). The Text Queering Anarchism notes that this means both  challenging state power through relying on each other for things like food, shelter, and funds, but also relying on community support for emotional and well-being support. A collectivisation of the means of knowledge, alongside the means of sustenance and production.

So how then do we live anarchism now? 

Anarchism as a lifestyle is a means of engaging in these principles, helping organise alongside anarchist principles, and engaging in direct action. Simply put, doing anarchism by resisting state power through engaging with mutual aid rather than attempting to build a means to overthrow the state. This must be understood within the context of anarchism fundamentally rejecting the notion that there is one way to understand the world or one way to resist the state. The means of resisting state power depend very much on what state is being resisted and the means that said state expresses state power. Likewise, we also have to understand that anarchism does not mean creating a world that is exactly as the world is now, but without states. Anarchisms, doing anarchism, and achieving anarchies means social and cultural shifts that promote collectivity, mutual aid, and active commitments to anti-racism.

But the centralization of the means of knowledge production presents a challenge to achieve these aims. There was a reason we started by discussing Proudhon, Goldman, and Malatesta, just like there was a reason we recovered the contributions of Anarchists of colour. However the use of academic citations, using academic papers that are behind paywalls, and the use of academic books inherently produces a hierarchy of knowledges and makes claims to certain knowledge while simultaneously restricting access to that knowledge. So how do we rationalise the claims made by anarchist and anarchic theory while also participating in a hierarchical practice? The answer is the production of open-access resources and the dissemination of text through open-access libraries, like through The Anarchist Library. This is the resource I used to access the writing from Öcalan, Malatesta, Proudhon, and Goldman, and served as a launching point for starting to write this script. But as I’ve mentioned, doing anarchism is more important than being able to reference the wide array of theories regarding anarchism. 

So to build a queer, anarchist future we have to build these communities by engaging with the principals of mutual aid, which does mean working together when it is neither easy nor popular. It means building community power by directly engaging with our neighbours, and to build means of constructing knowledge beyond colonial and state controlled institutions. This involves active strategies like disidentification, in praxis and theory, queering activism, and direct action. This queered anarchism includes interrogating and engaging with strains of colonialism that exist at the grassroots level in daily life, working actively beyond simply colonial state structures.   Case in point, a means of challenging ecological colonialism is to engage with processes of Guerilla Gardening. Guerilla gardening means very much what it sounds like: Engaging in the practice of planting indigenous flora in publicly accessible areas to promote biodiversity. While this process is illegal in many jurisdictions, the process does see an increased presence of local plants that benefits non-human residents of the city. To queer anarchist futures, then, we need to actively engage with the writings and work of the activists of colour, while also engaging in lifestyle anarchism as a means to challenge state power and benefit people in the community.

This lecture was made possible by the support of my colleagues and friends in my Sociology 485 class, so I wanted to say thank you again for the aid and support. As I mentioned at the start, sources can be found below, as well as the inspirations for this video with the transcript.

Bibliography:

Baker, Z. (2021, October 31). Bakunin was a racist [YouTube Video]. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OMOmzWneHUk&t=1s

Bey, M. (2020). Anarcho-Blackness: Notes towards a black anarchism. AK Press.

Cemgil, C., & Hoffmann, C. (2016). The ‘Rojava Revolution’ in Syrian Kurdistan: A Model of Development for the Middle East? IDS Bulletin, 47(3). https://doi.org/10.19088/1968-2016.144

Daring, C. B., Rogue, J., Shannon, D., & Volcano, A. (2012). Queering Anarchism: Addressing and Undressing Power and Desire. AK Press.

Emma Goldman. (1897). What is There in Anarchy for Women? In Shawn P. Wilbur (Ed.), Anarchy and the Sex Question: Essays on Women and Emancipation, 1896-1917 (pp. 20–24). PM Press.

Graeber, D. (2014). Debt: The First 5,000 Years. London.

Lugones, M. (2003). Pilgrimages/Peregrinajes: Theorizing Coalition Against Multiple Oppressions. Rowman & Littlefield Publishers.

Malatesta, E. (1995). The anarchist revolution: Polemical articles 1924-1931 (V. Richards, Ed.). Freedom Press.

Moussawi, G., & Vidal‐Ortiz, S. (2020). A Queer Sociology: On Power, Race, and Decentering Whiteness. Sociological Forum, 35(4), 1272–1289. https://doi.org/10.1111/socf.12647

Muñoz, J. E. (1997). “The White to Be Angry”: Vaginal Davis’s Terrorist Drag. Social Text, 52/53, 80–103. https://doi.org/10.2307/466735

Öcalan, A. (2011). Democratic Confederalism. Transmedia Publishing Ltd. https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/abdullah-ocalan-democratic-confederalismProudhon, P.-J. (1876). What Is Property? An Inquiry into the Principle of Right and of Government. B.R. Tucker. https://books.google.ca/books?id=K_8wAAAAMAAJ&redir_esc=y