Thoughts on an Anarcho-Pragmatism
I must preface this with the fact that I am not much acquainted with Anarchism as many long-time Anarchists and theorists may be. I consider myself one but I am very much still learning, so please do not attach to my words any value that might not immediately be apparent.
The Anarchist tradition strikes the eye as a kaleidescope of difference. The project against authority has, rather nicely, produced a variety of camps each with their own unique ideas and method. All of these we can consider as leading toward the same goal, with exception of anarcho-capitalists (although they will have to explain to me exactly how they plan to rid authority with such an authoritarian structure.)
That they all tend toward the same general goal must, of course, mean that they differ precisely within method. These methods may be tied up to differing ideological values, but even these values are influenced by the particular method in question. The tradition presents itself with a myriad of methods, many of which may appear antagonistic to eachother. The belief I wish to disseminate here is, that as we as people are presented with a kind of "toolbox" of different means of achieving some goal, that we must also treat this toolbox exactly for what it is, a set of tools to be used. And these tools of course, may be more preferable in different contexts, different environments and differing needs. This is precisely my interest in taking a pragmatic approach to the many systems (And non-systems) of Anarchism.
There is a very intelligent camp in this tradition which deals with the nature of Anarchist plurality, the "Anarchists without labels", and some "Post-Anarchists" who are influenced by the developments of the post-modern era. I am much sympathetic towards Post-Modernism, and as a person I find it to be most illuminating to my identity. However, though Post-Modern thought does deal with concepts of plurality, it does not nessecarily posit any attempt at direction or use. These differential camps may blend into one another and freely move about, but there is a decicive lack of a "use" mindset that could potentially be mended to these methods. This is perhaps a direct result of the Post-Modern tendency; Its origin in the arts displays exactly that value of the arbitrary, wherein a method may not be assigned a use, except to be used in however way it can be. (Carl Schwitters displays this well in his assemblages, a collection of drawn, printed, sculpted, and real objects)
The "practical difference" of this pragmatic anarchism would principally be that each method becomes more relevant depending on the context of the individual (Or group). There are many overarching political issues worldwide, but situationally some may be exacurbated in local contexts more than others. Some may become more prominent periodically, and thus there are many anarchist methods that become more relevant as these particular issues flare up. A medic may bring with them a variety of medicines, each of which become valuable depending on one's situation, but all equally valuable to hold together.
Of course, pragmatism as a school of thought has been rather dismal in generating any stimulating political thought. Only William James displayed any real interest in anarchism, and John Dewey, for all his laudable efforts, was a liberal at the end of the day. But I believe there is a potential for it to be used within and expanded upon within Anarchism, and I do believe they show some form of compatibility, in a way which is beneficial to Anarchist method.
My apologies if my writing is not clear, or if this is perhaps charted territory. It would be good to be corrected or critiqued in order to sharpen my thinking. Thank you to anyone who had read with some interest, or those who had skimmed or so on.