What a fascinating resource this is: Sociologists’ Knowledge of Anarchism Project. Thanks to Martyn Everett for passing it on.

To explore sociologists’ knowledge about an alternate theoretical paradigm also concerned with society: anarchism. Sociologists tend to have an extremely variable familiarity with anarchist ideas—some who know a lot and others who know very little beyond crude, popular caricatures. This project engages with those sociologists who have substantial familiarity with, knowledge of, or experience with anarchism. The interviews will hopefully constitute discussion fodder for communities interested in sociology, anarchist studies, and anarchist movements.

This looks like a fascinating call for papers:

Anarchist Technologies Repair Manual
fixing the world through resistance and repair

CFP: Call for Papers for an Edited Book

Anarchism is experiencing a renaissance in locations all across the
world. Facilitated by information technologies, new anarchist
communities are forming and more established ones are gaining greater
recognition. The decentralized, non-hierarchical, peer-to-peer nature of the relationships and social bonds which characterize these communities has inspired a recent surge of interest within both scholarly geographic and activist circles. Articles, conference sessions, and special issues of geographic journals have all appeared in recent years provoking debate and research within scholar-activism. Meanwhile, on the streets, these social forms which have recently become a subject of geographic study are broadening their scope, coalescing to form non-hierarchical movements which directly enable more equitable resource distribution while demanding an end to structural violence.

Anarchism in its most basic form is the theory and practice of
resisting, organizing, living and creating worlds without domination.
Anarchist practice of resistance is twofold: firstly, fighting the range of exploitations and oppressions imposed by nation-states, corporations, international oligarchies and other systems of domination. Secondly, applying techniques of self-critique, acknowledging that the exercise of power results in an internalization of oppressive mechanisms, and fighting these as well. Organizing in spaces where the state does not provide reliable basic services such as health care, education, or access to food and clean water, collectives of people practicing horizontal decision-making work to meet basic needs and repair their communities.

Within the domain of information technologies anarchism has also driven projects to protect populations from structural violence by creating security infrastructures which shelter their communications from surveillance. Rather than approaching internet surveillance with a “nothing to hide” attitude, anarchists understand governments as
oppressive institutions; based on an arcane calculus of power justified as morality, governments are liable to arbitrarily categorize any number of activities sanctioned one day as prohibited the next. As people living on lands that have been privatized by capitalist property relations backed with state force, we are constantly subject to the whimsical decisions of those in power about who will constitute the oppressed class, be that on gender, class, racial, sexual, ethnic or spiritual lines.

Information technologies have largely facilitated communication across many regions of the Earth, inspiring new ways of approaching problems, increasing access to resources and forming a new space for radical subjectivities to emerge. With the exponential expansion of information technologies over the past decades we have seen the practices of resisting violence and oppression change in spontaneous, dramatic and creative ways that have captured the attention and inspired the imagination of people all around the world. We need not describe here the manifold ways in which the networked world enables collaborationsand intersections only dreamed about in the past, but it is important to be reminded of the material base it is built upon. Alluded to in the saying “there is no cloud, it’s just other people’s computers,” data centers share with popular movements the fact that there are actual physical locations where they exist. Counterposed to this, the non-physicality of internet communications creates a theoretical and practical space like none we have known before.

However, alongside growth of information technologies it is important to also recognize that the creation of these technologies themselves are subject to the often blood-drenched flows of capitalist commodity
production and distribution. From the war-zones of coltan ore-mining
operations in the Congo to the sweatshop conditions of the Shenzhen
assembly line, the construction of the microchip leaves in its wake a
fallout of both human and environmental destruction. The use of these
devices enables massive industries to capture billions of dollars even with business models based solely on metadata, creating a massive concentration of wealth and new lines of exclusion. And finally when the machines are discarded, toxins are released damaging and transforming both the living and non-living environment.

This book requests proposals for chapters exploring anarchism in both
theory and practice as it relates to all aspects of information
technologies for audiences that include the general public, activists
and early career scholars. While the call is open, preference will be
given to proposals for chapters that specifically focus on anarchism and information technologies within repair (in all metaphorical and material aspects), security, communications, organizing resistance movements, access to hardware and approaches to dealing with the destruction of both the human and more-than-human that occurs from creation to wasting.

Please submit abstracts of up to 350 words, a short bio of up to 200
words and any other pertinent information to the editors by July 1st,
2016. Authors will be informed of selection by September 1st, 2016.
First drafts of chapters will be due February 28, 2017, then following
revisions, a final publication date will be around September 1st, 2017.
Please feel free to contact the editors with any questions.

Contact information:

Erin Araujo: ela120 <at> mun <dot> ca
Bill Budington: bill <at> inputoutput <dot> io

About the Editors:

Erin Araujo is a PhD Candidate in the department of Geography at the
Memorial University of Newfoundland in Canada as well as a member of the Cambalache Collective, a money-less economy located in San Cristobal de las Casas, Chiapas as well as other parts of Mexico. She has resided in Chiapas for around nine years, is a life long anarchist and artist and has participated in a number of resistance movements throughout the
Americas.

~~~~ https://www.embersrekindled.org/cfp/

My commitment to anarchism is something which ended with sociology, more specifically when I realised that I understood anarchism to entail the overcoming of social structure. Seeing that as a conceptual impossibility, I came to see anarchism as untenable. But I’ve been thinking about this a lot recently, not least of all because it’s become clear to me that it was my conception of anarchism that was untenable. 

There’s an interesting section in Zizek’s Trouble In Paradise in which he discusses the ‘triple impossibility’ of a social order constituted through nothing more than free association. He doesn’t use the term anarchism, but I think he is effectively talking about the aforementioned conception of it. From pg 126:

The idea of organizing society in its entirety as a network of associations is a utopia which obfuscates a triple impossibility: 39 –there are numerous cases in which representing (speaking for) others is a necessity; it is cynical to say that victims of mass violence from Auschwitz to Rwanda (and the mentally ill, children, etc., not to mention the suffering animals) should organize themselves and speak for themselves; –when we effectively get a mass mobilization of hundreds of thousands of people self-organizing themselves horizontally (Tahrir Square, Gezi Park …), we should never forget that they remain a minority, and that the silent majority remains outside, non-represented (This is how, in Egypt, this silent majority defeated the Tahrir Square crowd and elected the Muslim Brotherhood); –permanent political engagement has a limited time-span: after a couple of weeks or, rarely, months, the majority disengages, and the problem is to safeguard the results of the uprising at this moment, when things return to normal.