Dogmatism and Anarchism

My recent exchange with Francois Trembley, who thought is would be fruitful to call me a poser (for reasons still unclear to me), has led me to ask the question, "how do we define what and who are anarchists, and who or what is given the authority to make the definition as well as to make the judgment as to who or what 'fits' said definition?"

First, it seems clear to me that an-archism is a social environment without rulers or masters (as directly indicated from the Greek root). So at what point can someone sympathetic to anarchism charge that another's actions or words are outside the scope of anarchism? By who's definition and on what authority? Would it not be an infringement on another's freedom to implicitly coerce someone else's thought -- rather than using the cogency of reason -- by manipulating another's emotions into thinking that she is somehow an impostor, or should be shamed, or are somehow a hypocrite or not "pure" enough in their thought or action?

I agree with Trembley's assertion (see number 7 in the linked page) that there are limits to which we can sever our ties to the state. I would go further, and I hope he would agree, that those limits are contingent on an individual's situation, i.e., there is no one catch-all system of rules by which one can say "I am being anarchist enough" or "I am cooperating with the state too much." Take Trembley's own example - having a driver's license. Indeed, it is not necessary for many people to have a driver's license (ask any New York City resident, many of whom have ever had a driver's license in their life); however, for many might need a driver's license for operating their farm trucks or other work vehicles. So who is any one person to say if another needs a driver's license or not? Who is one to coerce another into abiding by the rules they set for themselves in their own contingent situation?

However, on the other hand, there has to be some way to say what is anarchistic and what is not. A case that shows this clearly is one taken ad absurdem: someone running a death camp who says that my charge against her actions (of not being a real anarchist) do not take into account her contingent situation and thus I have no right to call her actions into question or to coerce her into acting otherwise.

We cannot apply some general set of rules which do not take into one's contingent situation, but on the other hand, we cannot just allow anything to be accepted as "anarchism" without making the definition empty and meaningless. Furthermore, if we do find an action unacceptable -- oppressive or coercive -- what are the appropriate means by which the problem is addressed? Is the person ostracized (a form of coercion to make someone change) , is the person merely reasoned with (I think this option places too much faith in reason alone and does not account for the pluralities of reasoning)?

Finally, we have to understand that, as I think Foucault rightfully pointed out in general, all thought has normative power. That is, even to use anarchism as a means by which we judge ourselves is coercive -- anarchism as an idea undermines itself and imposes its order. It is under constant threat of becoming a dogmatism by which people want to assert their own rules about being an anarchist onto others; anarchism's adherents become veiled ideologues, who, if they had the power of the state would use it; or, just as bad, without the overt institution of the state, use other social norms to coerce others into being a "real" anarchist.

Perhaps we do need to lean heavily on reason and justification. I agree with Chomsky that there might be cases for authority, but that authority cannot be arbitrary, it must be justified and requested. Similarly, there might be cases where any number of actions would acceptable fall under being anarchist and at other times might not. Ultimately, it depends on the justification and reasoning for such actions. So what does it mean to be an anarchist? Perhaps we can start with the general definition taken strictly from the etymology of the word: one is an anarchist if one does what they can not to instantiate, sustain, or participate in systems or actions that act to (arbitrarily?) rule over others by any means. Any further than that, and we run into the problem of the individual's situatedness.

I don't claim to have the answers; these thoughts are open to revision, so feel free to comment (or post links to webpages/blogs on the topic. I only have one request: please don't start the conversation by slapping your interlocutor-to-be across the face (me or anyone else). That rarely ends well, and it draws attention away from the ideas that are being discussed.