Anarchist Studies
<templatestyles src="Module:Hatnote/styles.css"></templatestyles>
 |
|
| Discipline | Political science |
|---|---|
| Language | English |
| Edited by | Ruth Kinna |
| Publication details | |
| Publisher |
Lawrence and Wishart (United Kingdom)
|
|
Publication history
|
1993–present |
| Frequency | Biannually |
| License | CC BY-NC-ND |
| Indexing | |
| ISSN | 0967-3393 |
| OCLC no. | 163567083 |
| Links | |
Anarchist Studies is a biannual academic journal on anarchism. It takes an interdisciplinary approach, examining the history, culture, and theory of anarchism. The journal was established in 1993 and is edited by Ruth Kinna and published by Lawrence and Wishart.
Overview
The journal focusses on three broad themes: the re-evaluation of anarchist history, with regard to issues of culture, philosophy, and political action; the potential future of anarchism as a form of critical political action; and the application of anarchist ideas as an instrument of scholarly research. The journal publishes special issues on topics which have included sexuality, science-fiction, and "anarchism after September 11", as well as historical research articles on Leo Tolstoy, Taoism, John Locke, and post-structuralism. More recently, a central focus of the journal has been anarchism's relation to globalisation.[1] From the journal was established by Tom Cahill, who was the editor-in-chief from 1993-1995 and was succeeded by Sharif Gemie. As of 2007[update], Ruth Kinna is the editor in chief.
Home dispute
The journal had a long-running dispute with Stewart Home after it published a negative review of his books Neoist Manifestos and The Art Strike Papers and denied Home's request to publish his rebuttal as a matter of policy.[2] Home alleges that Gemie wrote him a conciliatory letter dated November 14, 1996, in which Gemie promised to include a positive review of Home's What Is Situationism??? in the Spring 1997 issue. Home subsequently referred to Anarchist Studies as a "sad and reactionary 'academic' journal" that is "patently unable to engage in ... critical debate".[3]
