Spiritualizing Anarchism, Making Spiritual Practices Anarchistic

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

There are some interesting ideas in this paper. In exploring the idea of spiritual anarchism, and the cross over between spirituality and anarchist thought, the author makes a potentially important contribution to a relatively under-researched area of anarchist scholarship; although, contrary to the author's claim in the abstract, this is by no means the first academic study of spiritual anarchism. However, the main issue with the paper is that there is no clear, contained argument here. It is more of a broad survey of different traditions of mystical anarchism - Christian, Buddhist, Islamic (although the Jewish mystical tradition - Buber, Scholem, Benjamin etc - has been largely ignored). It lacks a specific focus and a clearly stated hypothesis and argument. The author makes some good points about the social/political significance (contra Bookchin) of spiritual anarchism, as well as about the largely overlooked connections between anarchist ideas and 'new age' spirituality. But these are not really developed into a coherent argument with a logical flow of ideas. Instead the paper jumps from point to point, surveying different ideas, thinkers, and traditions, at times going back and forth (such as the discussion of Critchley). It does not really read like an academic paper. This is not helped by the writing style which is quite casual and informal in places (like 'Let me give you another example...'). There are also some long run-on sentences that are very difficult to read.

Unfortunately I don't think it can be published in its current form. The argument needs further development and refinement, the structure needs to be improved, and the writing needs to be fixed up. Like I said, there are some good, important ideas in here, but they are not (currently) presented in a way that is publishable as an academic journal article.

See above

Author Response

I am very grateful for your critics regerading the stylse, accorindgly, my article has been greatly modified especially the beginning. As for the content... Unfortunately the author of the review did not realise that this is not what my article is about. I include religious anarchism in all but one paragraph, and otherwise he is also wrong in another respect, namely when he writes:  Jewish mystical tradition - Buber, Scholem, Benjamin etc - has been largely ignored".

In fact, I mention the two of them, although in a wider context: 

1. "just as the oeuvre of authors and activists who can be considered religious anarchists (such as Leo Tolstoy, Martin Buber, Dorothy Day, Jacques Ellul, the anti-authoritarian Ivan Illich or Reiner Schürmann)"

2. "there are also those with whom spiritual anarchism could have a meaningful dialogue, such as Ernst Bloch or Walter Benjamin, who had both Marxist and anarchist ties".

Reviewer 2 Report

I enjoyed reading this paper. It is well written and very well read. My impression is that the way the author speaks of their sources and the wider traditions they’re engaging with is nuanced and respectful of those traditions. The author is clearly knowledgeable when it comes to both anarchism and spirituality and mysticism.

 

My main qualm is with the difficulty in making sense of the direction of the argument. The purpose of the article could be set out more clearly and explicitly from the start. Exactly what the paper establishes or seeks to establish could be spelt out further, more clearly and more explicitly – including how this adds to or modifies the literature.

Relatedly, I’m not convinced by the abstract. I’m not sure this is the first attempt to explicitly define the meaning of spiritual anarchism (Fiscella, who the author cites, seems to be attempting that in part). The abstract is also rather short. There, as well as in the first few pages and returning to it at periodic points, I’d have liked a clearer sense of what the paper adds to the literature, how it does so, why it’s important, and associated questions.

This would also help be more patient with the several tangents the author invites the reader to follow. I don’t want to suggest these need to be cut. They are interesting and do seem relevant. But, again, how and why so would be clearer with a clearer set of intentions and directions set out more explicitly at the start and throughout.

On a more stylistic note, some of the paragraphs are rather long and multi-directional for my personal liking, although this is a matter of style. I also spotted several instances of brackets not being closed.

Overall, however, this is an interesting piece. With the purpose, structure and contribution clearer, this will be a valuable contribution to the literature. I look forward to seeing it published.

Author Response

Thank you so much. I have changed article significanly, have written an introduction, shortened certain sentences, etc.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf