CHAPTER THREE
COLIN WARD’S SOCIOLOGICAL ANARCHY
Colin Ward may be one of the few anarchist writers to have a larger reader- ship outside of anarchist circles than within them. This is a testament both to his writing (and the issues he addresses within those writings) and to the rhetorical preferences of contemporary anarchist readers— especially at a time when highly abstract and theoretical post-modern/ anarchist hybrids have provided some footing for academic anarchists and their publishers. Colin Ward is perhaps best known, at least to anarchists, through his third book Anarchy in Action which was—until his 2004 contribution to the Oxford Press “Short Introduction” series, Anarchism: A Very Short Introduction—his only book explicitly about anarchist theory. Longtime anarchist George Woodcock identified Anarchy in Action as one of the most important theoretical works on anarchism and we would have to agree. In fact, we argue that Anarchy in Action is an excellent work of radi- cal, prefigurative sociology, too. It is in the pages of that relatively short work that Ward makes explicit his highly distinctive version of anarchism, what might be called an anarchy of everyday life or, more simply, everyday anarchy. Ward described his approach to anarchism as one that is based on actual experiences or practical examples rather than theories or hypothe- ses. Ward’s anarchism, “far from being a speculative vision of a future soci- ety…is a description of a mode of human organization, rooted in the experience of everyday life, which operates side by side with, and in spite of, the dominant authoritarian trends of our society” (Ward 1973: 11). While having no formal, academic background in sociology he argues for the importance of taking a sociological approach to the world. Taking this approach has consequences simultaneously liberatory and practical since “once you begin to look at human society from an anarchist point of view you discover that the alternatives are already there, in the interstices of the dominant power structure. If you want to build a free society, the parts are all at hand” (Ward 1973: 13). As David Goodway suggests, this approach also addresses two seemingly insoluble problems that have long con- fronted anarchists and socialists alike (Ward and Goodway 2003: 11).
The first is, if anarchism (or socialism) is so highly desirable as well as feasi- ble, how is it that it has never come into being or lasted no longer than a few months (or years). Ward’s answer is that anarchism is already partially in existence and that he can show us examples “in action.” The second problem is how can humans be taught to become co-operative, thereby enabling a transition from the present order to a co-operative society to be attained. Ward’s response here is that humans are naturally co-operative and that cur- rent societies and institutions, however capitalist and individualist, would completely fall apart without the integrating powers, even if unvalued, of mutual aid and federation. Nor will social transformation be a matter of cli- mactic revolution, attained in a millennial movement, but rather a pro- longed situation of dual power in the age-old struggle between authoritarian and libertarian tendencies, with outright victory for either tendency most improbable. (Ward and Goodway 2003: 11) The primary historical influences on Ward’s everyday anarchy are Peter Kropotkin’s anarcho-communism and the libertarian socialism of Gustav Landauer. In Mutual Aid, Kropotkin documents the centrality of co- operation within animal and human groups and links anarchist theory with everyday experience. Ward has modestly stated that Anarchy in Action is merely an extended contemporary footnote to Mutual Aid (Ward and Goodway 2003: 14). As Ward (2004: 29) reminds us: “A century ago Kropotkin noted the endless variety of ‘friendly societies, the unities of oddfellows, the village and town clubs organised for meeting the doctors’ bills’ built up by working-class self-help.” Still, Ward goes beyond Kropotkin in the importance he places on co-operative groups in anarchist social transformation. Thus, Ward’s anarchism openly draws on Landauer’s exhortation that militants prioritize the formation of producers’ and con- sumers’ co-operatives. At the same time Ward follows Kropotkin in identi- fying himself as an anarchist-communist.1
The Propagandist
Ward was won to anarchism through his contact with Glasgow anarchists Eddie Shaw, Jimmie Dick and, especially, Frank Leech, during a posting, ironically, with the Army School of Hygiene in 1943. Leech encouraged the young Ward to put together some articles for the London publication War Commentary—for Anarchism published by Marie Louise Berneri of the
1 For an anarchist-oriented collection of Ward’s writings, please see Wilbert and White (2011).