On The Political Philosophy of Poststructuralist Anarchism

This review essay offers a critical evaluation of Todd May’s foundational work, The Political Philosophy of Poststructuralist Anarchism (1994). It examines May’s tripartite taxonomy of political thought – distinguishing between formal, strategic, and tactical political philosophy – and examines his proposition that poststructuralism operates as a tactical framework capable of surmounting the totalizing and representational limits of both liberalism and orthodox Marxism. The essay highlights May’s articulate exposition of French poststructuralism (most notably Foucault, Deleuze and Lyotard), particularly regarding the productive micro-physics of power, micropolitical resistance, anti-representational ethics and the promotion of localized difference. However, the review identifies a major methodological flaw in May’s engagement with anarchist theory. By confining his analysis almost exclusively to Classical Anarchism (Bakunin, Kropotkin, Proudhon) and completely overlooking second-wave and post-WWII developments – such as the Situationist International – May constructs his argument upon a reductive and historically superseded premise. In short, the essay contends that May fails to establish a conceptual synthesis between poststructuralism and anarchism: whereas anarchism demands the complete abolition of hierarchical power relations, poststructuralism relies on the inescapable, creative deployment of power networks. The book thus stands as a compelling contribution to poststructuralist political philosophy rather than a viable theoretical ground for contemporary anarchism.