Following a post from several weeks ago, wherein I touched on Tactical Media’s relationship to what Bhaskar Sunkara has dubbed the “anarcho-liberal,” I would like to further explore some of the forebears to the phenomenon referred to by this neologism. The anarcho-liberal character is best summarized, in Mr Sunkara’s words, as “anti-intellectualism that manifested itself in a rejection of “grand narratives” and structural critiques of capitalism, abhorrence for the traditional forms of left-wing organization, a localist impulse, and an individualistic tendency to conflate lifestyle choices with political action.” If, as seems to be the case, OWS marks the passing of the primacy of the anarcho-liberal, then now is the time to start historicizing and anatomizing the bastard in an effort to stave off the recurrence of past foibles. To this end, it may prove fruitful to further discuss the shadow cast by enthusiasm for Tactical Media (TM), and how easily the methods of TM merge with what David Chandler has referred to as “post-territorial” politics. Also, I’m keen to see if we can get liftoff with the term anarcho-liberal. Maybe from this point forward, I’ll never write about anything else.

As many commentators have noticed, OWS has no specific demands. Some have speculated that the presence of the protestors themselves constitutes a set of demands. I don’t think that it does. What matters is that OWS has been truly electrifying. And that perpetual occupation of Liberty Square and its correlates is not tenable, especially what with the impending arrival of winter. So questions of “what next?” are warranted. This question can be framed as as an inquiry about “demands,” but it is maybe easier to simply see it as the comprehension that some sort of follow up is mandated by the passage of time. Accordingly, talk of demands is merely recognizing the oppression meted out by Chronos. The passing of time demands that OWS eventually implement a strategy of some kind. Chronological time is a harsh taskmaster. For OWS to enjoy permanent encampment would necessitate some kind of temporal stasis that I imagine, as someone who never has watched the show Doctor Who might be able to effectuate with that phone booth of his. But Doctor Who, like the proverbial watched kettle, is not going to arrive. And it is because of the merciless forward march of time that recalling the WTO protests in Seattle is worthwhile. Those protests, no less exhilarating than OWS in their impact on global media, were also burdened by the question of “follow through.” If anarcho-liberal denotes the left in retreat, the era of the late- and post-New Left, it must also refer to the “anti-globalization” movement, which can be seen as the apotheosis of what mobilization anarcho-liberalism was capable of. Needless to say, the aftermath of the “anti-globalization” demonstrations — to say nothing of the anti-Iraq war protests of 2003, which constituted the largest demonstrations in the history of the world — was decidedly anti-climatic.

Discussing the political force wielded by the anti-globalization activism of the late nineties and the anti-war protests of the early aughts, David Chandler points to the presence of “post-territorial” politics. This phenomenon is easy to understand: the opposition to globalizing economic trends necessitated solidarity amongst communities across state borders, just as it contributed to the dismantling of faith in representational politics. Consequently, Chandler claims, “territorial state-based politics is held to institutionalize the structuring of grand narratives of ‘the nation’ and to universalize particularist and narrow interests on the basis of those ‘inside’ and ‘outside’ the territorial boundary.” This facilitates the argument that politics are not understood to be “mediated through the divisive institutions of territorial communities, [but rather that] the individual can engage directly in the ‘politics of the human,’ in the ‘global civil society,’ or in the struggle against ‘power’ or ‘empire.’ ” Chandler notes that these developments have had a profound effect on the way that politics are mobilized: