Anarchism Through Time - France, Feneon and - Jane Austen?! The Connection is Real
Trial of the Thirty, History, anarchism, and ponderings
Hello! In this week’s post I want to talk about anarchy - again! Yesterday I was in a store, and saw a magazine I sometimes look at. I was thrown by the coincidence of the person on the cover and the music I had just been listening to. A definite sign from the universe! When I opened it, I saw that PIL (John Lydon’s band) were touring and that there was a long interview with him inside.
So I read the interview with John Lydon, one of the very few men who’s perspective and opinion I agree with and respect. It was such a feeling of relief to know that someone, somewhere out there, still believes in true anarchy. What’s true anarchy? Well, let’s get into it all.
I woke up this morning thinking about how there are certain aspects of Jane Austen’s works and words that have anarchism woven through them. I remembered speaking a long time ago with a friend about the similarities of certain anarchist views or positions and the opinions in Austen’s work. Some of the most straightforward examples of this would be the way she sometimes presents some of her female characters, but some of her male characters can equally be seen this way.
Let’s use arguably the most famous of her works, Pride and Prejudice, for a straightforward example that doesn’t necessitate extensive familiarity with Austen’s work nor the intricacies of anarchism (through time and in its truest correct application).
Elizabeth can be seen as an anarchist. She rejects that one should marry for money, status or protection - her friend, Charlotte Lucas, however, says to her:
I am not romantic, you know; I never was. I ask only a comfortable home; and considering Mr. Collins's character, connection, and situation in life, I am convinced that my chance of happiness with him is as fair as most people can boast on entering the marriage state."
I’m 27 years old. I’ve no money and no prospects. I’m already a burden to my parents. And I’m frightened. So don’t judge me, Lizzie. Don’t you dare judge me.
Her friend is her direct opposite. Where Elizabeth views marriage as something sacred to enter into only if you truly love someone, Lucas views it as a matter of practicality and necessity.
However, the point here is that Charlotte Lucas’ view was not a deviation from the norm - that was standard.
A woman had to marry, and an ideal marriage is one where she benefits from increased wealth and status. Status and wealth were everything in Elizabeth’s society; the class system and the moral and ideological values held by the majority of her time were all centred on one’s position in society. Even simple things like saying hello to someone improperly would become an ordeal; these unspoken yet ardently followed rules prohibited even simple things like introductions from those of lower classes to people of a higher social status. Society’s entire purpose and a woman’s place in it, was all to do with class.
So, without expanding any further, you should be able to see how Elizabeth’s views on a woman’s position in society can be viewed as anarchic. In a time where it was pretty much unsought to consider marriage as a choice, Elizabeth takes her beliefs so seriously that she is set on never marrying unless she meets “an equal”.
She rejects the narrative and status quo of her time completely. But what really makes her able to be viewed as an anarchist is that she is taking this contrarian position against “all odds”, against everything in her life and against everything that is known to be of utmost importance in her time: Her livelihood, her prospects, her standing in society, the status quo, etc.
It is not just that she holds those values, and beliefs in secret or private.
The character of Elizabeth makes conscious choices against the prevailing system and rules, in a conscious act of defiance and rebellion in order to align with her beliefs.
The rules she stands against are the spoken and unspoken rules of her time that ordain how all ladies should live their life. So really, Elizabeth’s positions and opinions can very much be seen as a progressive women’s rights stance. Wanting to break free and dismantle a rigid system of rules is definitely in line with anarchism, though of course, this does not completely encompass what anarchism is.
However, I argue that she is far more of an anarchist than many believe themselves to be today. Just as Thoreau’s act to stay in prison in defiance of paying taxes for a government he did not believe in - any position or real world action that will disadvantage you - whether in the eyes of society or materially - is an act of anarchism that I can respect.
If you call yourself an anarchist but never take any steps, make any choices, or take part in any actions in your life that place you in a “disadvantaged” or “odd one out” position, you are nowhere near even beginning to be an anarchist. This is step one of anarchy: break away from societal norms and standards - mentally, emotionally and materially. Have your own mind.
You then have to continuously live your life in this way and never compromise on your core values, barring a few exceptions where it may be necessary, you do it knowingly, or there are certain special circumstances. Otherwise, if you continuously act in a matter contrary to your supposedly held beliefs, and worse - not even realize that your actions are contrarian - you are simply a hypocrite (and quite possible stupid) but most definitely not an anarchist.
Although, ironically, you are being an anarchist against anarchy (laugh) by not following the “rules” of what it means to be a true anarchist.
Finally, however, to conclude on Elizabeth: she truly lives by her beliefs, as explained above, even at the potential cost of her livelihood and indeed to her detriment. It is all this which leads to my conclusion of seeing her as an anarchist - at least insofar as this precise extraction of her character (and text) discussed here.
Let’s move on to the French - where’s the connection you ask!
Well, in my search for a spanish translation of Austen’s works, I came across a list of French translations, where there were concise biographical notes next to each author. One of these said “Felix Feneon - anarchist and art collector”. Intrigued? Me too.
After much research, because it’s hard to find a factual account of what precisely makes Felix Feneon an anarchist, I finally pieced together a decent amount of information. He is very unknown outside of this very niche circle and he is a largely unknown historical figure anyway so there isn’t exactly extensive accounts of his life.
However, by association to others, and the movements he was supposedly involved in, I managed to find information on where he stands and see for myself whether he is deserving of the title of anarchist.
Probably the most known fact about this man is that he was part of “The Trial of Thirty”.
“The Trial of the Thirty was a trial in 1894 in Paris, France, aimed at legitimizing the lois scélérates passed in 1893–94 against the anarchist movement and restricting press freedom by proving the existence of an effective association between anarchists”
Sure. It was a trial aiming to prove that anarchists worked together, and were plotting things, etc, among other things.
But the questions is what was anarchy in 1894? What was defining it then? What did it mean to be an anarchist in France? Why are these men considered anarchists? What are their beliefs? Their actions? Their livelihoods?
It’s long and detailed but in short, in some very small ways, they were true anarchists. Anarchism in France began with the French Revolution, as you may know.
“the communes of France began to organize themselves into systems of local self-government, maintaining their independence from the State and organizing unity between communes through federalist principles.”
So, this position is already miles better than the unfortunate belief that most common-place people hold today: the belief in voting and government and electing people. The belief in needing to be governed.
However, unless the federalist principles are applied sans organized governmental forces, anarchism is still losing there. But let’s continue.
“Direct democracy was implemented in the local districts of each commune, with citizens coming together in general assemblies to decide on matters without any need for representation.”
True anarchism in a nutshell. This is perfect.
“When the National Constituent Assembly attempted to pass a law concerning the governance of the communes, the districts instantly rejected it.”
Ok again, this is good. Otherwise it’s just central government again if the communes are being governed somehow.
“French anarchists fought in the Spanish Civil War as volunteers in the International Brigades.”
Ok, ugh. Not good. An anarchist would never go to war. An anarchist would never fight for a country, or a political party. Huge, huge fail.
However, it’s not that Feneon himself did this, but other French anarchsits did. I would love to find historical accounts of Feneon speaking against this, that way I could say, “Yes, he does have the title of anarchist, pretty much.”
“The International Brigades were soldiers recruited and organized by the Communist International to assist the Popular Front government of the Second Spanish Republic during the Spanish Civil War. The International Brigades existed for two years, from 1936 until 1938. The International Brigades were strongly supported by the Comintern and represented the Soviet Union's commitment to assisting the Spanish Republic (with arms, logistics, military advisers and the NKVD), just as Portugal, Fascist Italy, and Nazi Germany were assisting the opposing Nationalist insurgency. The largest number of volunteers came from France (where the French Communist Party had many members) and communist exiles from Italy and Germany.”
I mean, there is a lot wrong here. Again, a true anarchist would have no political affiliations or leanings. An anarchist does not believe in politics, a system, or being governed in any way. Sorry. The last thing you would do would be to assist in any wars or political parties.
I understand they were against fascist Italy and Germany, and that’s good, obviously, but
simply standing against fascism does not make you an anarchist. Not least of all because true anarchy requires serious commitment, but it also requires adaptability, intelligence and discernment. Fascism takes many forms as it continues to evolve in its quest to take over the world.
Without most people noticing, fascism continues perfectly alive and well in things like the “Democractic” party of the US and most current leftist positions, ideaologies and parties.
So if you don’t have your own mind (true anarchism) you’ll stand against nothing.
After reading what I could on Feneon, I concluded that he is an “anarchist” because, there is no real other way to define him, for his time. Yes, he was against the system at the time. Yes, he took some steps in his life to stand against it. But at the same, I got a very laissez-faire vibe from his “anarchism” - and most of those around him at the time.
It seems they were against certain things, but their entire lives were not devoted to living outside the status quo; some felt oppression because they held beliefs about how to live their personal lives, and ever the provocatives I feel like I can see him enjoying taunting officials in an effort to prove that he is not one of the many masses who lacks the intelligence to think for himself.
Take an excerpt of his trial:
He (the judge) cross-examines F.F. himself: "Are you an anarchist, M. Fénéon?"
"I am a Burgundian born in Turin."
"Your police file extends to one hundred and seventy pages. It is documented that you were intimate with the German terrorist Kampfmeyer."
"The intimacy cannot have been great as I do not speak German and he does not speak French." (Laughter in courtroom.)
"It has been established that you surrounded yourself with Cohen and Ortoz."
"One can hardly be surrounded by two persons; you need at least three." (More laughter.)
"You were seen conferring with them behind a lamppost!"
"A lamppost is round. Can Your Honour tell me where behind a lamppost is?" (Loud, prolonged laughter. Judge calls for order.)
I like him, I think. But I’m too much of an anarchist to be invested in him or in this any longer - or is that a because I am a stoic after little to no sleep?
Either way, hope you have enjoyed this food for thought. What do you think?
