In recent years, anarchist history and historiography have seen a renewed and sustained interest. This has led to new research approaches shaped by cross-contamination between different fields, such as social history, history from below, oral history, public history, cultural history, the history of ideas, microhistory, and a renewed interest in biographical reconstruction, as methods of investigation of collective histories.
This evolving body of work could begin to address questions posed by Ruth Kinna as early as 2012: What are the defining features of anarchist research? What does anarchist research require to be fully suited to its subject matter? Yet it may still fall short of answering a third, deeper question Kinna raises: Is there a “specifically anarchist theory and practice of historiography”?
If we understand “anarchist historiography” as a specific view on history—an ideological framework made up of values, ideas, and theories aimed at interpreting the human past and its meaning (as with Marxist historiography)—then perhaps a different term is more useful. The phrase anarchist gaze on history, understood as a distinctive approach to the practice of historical inquiry, might be more appropriate.
Kinna’s third question challenges us to consider whether there is, or ought to be, such a thing as anarchist historiography—a framework that extends beyond the bounds of anarchist history itself. Does it make sense today to propose such a historiography? Or is it more fitting, and less constraining, to speak of an anarchist gaze on history?
This term—anarchist gaze—avoids the pitfalls of trying to construct a new anarchist historiographical canon or rigid definition, which risks becoming overly academic, institutionalized, or ideologically narrow.
However, asking whether an anarchist gaze on history is possible (and similarly, an anarchist approach to sources and archives, including our own) does not mean we can ignore the core elements of historiographic practice. These include, to mention a few, distinct methodologies, the issue of sources (the question of their preservation and representation, as well as their critique), the selection of subjects and objects of inquiry, the problem of periodisation, and the choice of levels of analysis. We must also consider how, in dialogue with other fields of study, these elements and their definitions can be interpreted through an anarchist lens—take, for example, “history from below” and the possibility of its anarchist reimagination.
Lastly, this reflection inevitably turns toward the role of anarchist archives themselves: the custodians of the movement’s historical memory. What place do they hold in this broader conversation about an anarchist gaze on history?
Useful resources #
- Kathy E. Ferguson, Scrivere l’anarchismo attraverso la “storia dal basso”
- Marcus Rediker, A proposito di storia dal basso
- Ian Forrest, Storia medievale e anarchist studies
Books #
- Lorenzo Pezzica, L’archivio liberato, Editrice Bibliografica, 2020
Presentations #
Mayday Rooms (UK) #
While archives often highlight the intellectual currents that have shaped radical movements, they also preserve the everyday practices—the tactics and strategies—that sustained those struggles. We proceed from the understanding that social change can happen most effectively when marginalised and oppressed groups can get to know – and tell – their own histories “from below.” Archival collections challenge the widespread assault on collective memory and the tradition of the oppressed. They aim to counter narratives of historical inevitability and political pessimism with living proof that many struggles continue.
In this sense, archives are not simply about preserving the past; they are resources for the living movement. They function as toolboxes, holding a wealth of approaches that can be rediscovered, reimagined, and tested against today’s realities.
In this talk, building on the experience of MayDay Rooms, we’ll explore how radical archives can serve as active resources for the present, rather than simple static repositories. We will ask how they can embody the politics they preserve: through developing new free forms of dissemination, access, research, and collective education.
Starting from the idea of the anarchist gaze (or gazes) on history - with its particular attentiveness to the transnational dimension of anarchist histories, the interconnection between different levels of historiographical analysis, the changing nature of basic concepts and definitions which it is based upon and the crosscontamination between different areas of historical inquiry, we will reflect on to how we can adapt a distinctive anarchist historiographical approach that reinforces processes of organisation, struggle, and cultural memory of our history.
While this historical work is a collaborative process, often open-ended, sometimes messy, and not always successful, we hope it continues to build a space of critical opposition to capitalist relations and spark the imagination for future struggles to come.
Isabelle Felici #
What anarchist gaze on research?
Drawing from her research experience on Italian anarchists in Brazil and the Cecilia colony (1890-1894), this presentation offers a methodological reflection on research practices that could characterize an anarchist gaze on history.
The first defining element identified is a rigorous and honest attitude as a means to avoid distortions: always verify sources, cite them correctly, maintain humility in the face of possible error. At the same time, the strong militant presence in anarchist studies offers a valuable advantage: a sense of sharing and the practice of open science, developed in anarchist circles before it became fashionable in the academic world.
This methodological definition of the anarchist gaze can be profitably applied to other objects of study beyond the history of anarchism. Research experience on migratory phenomena and their cultural representations shows how it is possible to escape stereotypical categorizations and simplifications, such as the artificial separation between “political” and “economic” migrations, or the problematic use of the concept of identity that tends to establish uniform models where diverse paths actually exist.
The discussion on identity, nationalism and internationalism highlights how it is more relevant to speak not of a single anarchist gaze, but of plural anarchist gazes on history, each with their own specificities and contributions to historiographical debate.
Lorenzo Pezzica #
Is an anarchist gaze on history possible?
Starting from the questions posed by Ruth Kinna in 2012 about the distinctive features of anarchist research, this presentation examines the possibility of thinking about a specifically anarchist theory and practice of historiography. Is it preferable to speak of “anarchist historiography” or rather of an “anarchist gaze on history”? The latter term avoids creating a new academic canon and allows for the application of anarchist approaches to different historical periods beyond the contemporary era.
An anarchist gaze on history involves addressing fundamental historiographical aspects: methodology, the question of sources and archives (which must always be read “against the grain”), subjects and objects of inquiry, periodization and levels of analysis. “Our archives” preserve restless papers, more fluid and fragile, that combine the tension between archive as memory container and as political tool.
The historiography of anarchism has developed characteristic themes: biographical reconstructions, study of education and non-hierarchical organizational forms, cultural contaminations, political emigration, relationship between art and anarchism, microhistory and informal networks of relationships. These approaches can meet Thompson’s “history from below”, renewed according to Simona Cerutti’s reflections as a history of alternative and antagonistic cultures.
The historian’s work thus assumes a political value in the extended sense of the term, in the awareness that making horizontal history cannot be separated from the verticality of History, contributing to narrate “living stories” of flesh-and-blood women and men.