Anarchy Strikes Portland State University : New Visions For the Future 
Proves the Best Path Out of Apathy

By Jason Wehling and Ken Spice

We're sure the PSU administration wasn't very excited about us teaching a
class on Anarchism, but we jumped through all the proper hoops, so what
could they say? 

PSU is a fairly conservative school oe a large portion of students are
business majors. So, we were unsure what kinds of people would sign up for
our class. Or if anyone would sign up at all. On the first day, we were
surprised to find that there were 20 students. For a student-taught class,
this was a new record. 

The students were diverse. They were equally spread between freshmen and
seniors. There were a few people in their 30's or 40's oe several looked
like they were fresh out of high school. Some were completely normal
looking college students, while others had nose-rings and tattoos. You
might expect English, Philosophy and perhaps History majors, but we even
had one from Accounting. The best first impression: there were a few more
women than men. The worst first impression: not a single person of color
(but this is a college campus located in the whitest metropolis in America).

It took several class meetings for us to get a sense for the political and
philosophic backgrounds of our students. It became clear early on that
most were not activists. Surprisingly, we lacked even one Marxist in the
group, let alone an Anarchist. Students gave two main reasons for taking
the class. First, most had heard about Anarchism, but really didn't know
what it was oe they were curious. The second reason was interesting: many
had a sense that our world has serious problems, and wanted to hear about
a possible solution.

In order to teach a course about where society should be headed, it was
necessary to spend a couple of classes examining the problems with the
system we currently have. Students said they knew things were bad. After
reading essays by people like Noam Chomsky and Helen Caldicott, many
expressed amazement at how deep the problems actually were. Few were
familiar with even a basic Marxist critique of capitalism, so we attempted
to present explanations in non-dogmatic terms and they quickly became
interested in this new way to look at the world.

>From the beginning, we tried to use a discussion format. Each day, we
assigned reading material. After a ten or twenty minute lecture on the
day's topic, the class would be opened up for discussion. This was an
immediate success. The students were very enthusiastic during the group
discussions and nearly everyone participated regularly. Debates erupted
spontaneously, often passionately, as the students explored issues like
environmentalism and feminism, and how these issues related to Anarchism.
One of our students, Kjersti, mentioned that the discussions pushed her to
define her ideas and helped her envision what a world without oppression
might look like.

We were pleased by the amount of energy the students put into the class.
>From the discussions, it was apparent that most did the required reading,
even though they knew early on that they were not going to be tested on
the material. They were obviously eager to participate in discussion and
interact with the class. 

Explaining a completely new and very different world-view to a group of
people who have never come into contact with it is no easy task. Going
slow and easy, making sure each point was understood, seemed the best
course of action. A basic outline of the philosophy of Anarchism emerged
over the course of a few class periods. At first the students were
frustrated. "What exactly is Anarchy?" they demanded. 

We had to explain that Anarchism tries to avoid blueprints for the future.
Anarchism, in particular libertarian-communism, is more of a process than
an all-encompassing end result. This method paid off in the end. Each
issue, such as decentralization, the dissolution of hierarchy, the
application of Mutual Aid and the contradictions of representative
democracy, was presented oe followed by fierce debates. Often the debates
would break out between the students themselves, and many defended the
ideas of Anarchism against the more skeptical.

We approached the class as an attempt to explain, not to convert, and this
proved to be particularly important. We laid out our bias in favor of
Anarchism from the very beginning, while encouraging the students to be
very critical. 

We also felt it was beneficial to cover a large amount of material
quickly. We discussed events such as the Haymarket Tragedy, the Spanish
Civil War and the Parisian General Strike of 1968, as well as people, like
Emma Goldman, Peter Kropotkin and Murray Bookchin. The writing assignments
allowed the students to explore specific areas of interest on their own.
While one commented that the class was too loosely organized, the
overwhelming majority found this approach very attractive.

We also asked our students to write a response oe what did they get out of
the class? For some, the class merely gave form to pre-existing, but
unarticulated ideas. Alexandra wrote that "this class did not so much
change my thinking, but rather gave substance to my beliefs." For others,
Anarchism was a shocking new way to interpret reality. Jamie said "right
now I'm angry and confused because all of this goes against what I've been
taught and socialized to believe." James agreed, saying "I would like to
thank you for the spectacles... now I see everything in a new and
different light."

Most expressed new-found inspiration from learning about the history of
Anarchism, albeit a brief overview. Most said that this was completely new
material that had been neglected in past courses. While classes were
dominated by discussions, to teach the history of the movement we opted
for the traditional lecture. When the students appeared bored in relation
to the enthusiasm generated by the discussions, we considered dropping
this material for fear of alienating the students. But the students
disagreed. They stated that while it was always difficult to assimilate
new-found information, they found it very beneficial to find examples in
history that contradicted the system that many had long accepted as
inevitable.

Most also said they were going to read more. Mark was grateful that he now
knew where to look for more information. Many mentioned in their responses
that they were currently in this exploratory process. Krystian said he had
already begun to read Kropotkin's Conquest of Bread on his own oe his
curiosity was stimulated by Kropotkin's Mutual Aid. Several said that they
planned on exploring Emma Goldman and Peter Kropotkin further. While this
may appear as merely good intentions on their part, more than a few
students went beyond what we asked on their own initiative, reading more
books than we assigned them to read.

Not everyone agreed that Anarchism was workable. Ideas like the abolition
of money and spontaneous production of necessities were problematic for
many students. "Why wouldn't people just hoard what they produced oe what
would stop them?", some asked. We discussed the ease of accumulating
capital in today's system, but one could only hoard so much grain or any
only necessity. Without money, what would a large pile of grain be worth?
Many felt that cooperation seemed much more rational in a moneyless
society. But for others, "human nature" too often dictated selfish
responses, thus Anarchism remains ultimately flawed. This dissent made the
discussions more lively and interesting, and also helped us to better
explore the issues. 

Everyone felt the idea was noble, but a few maintained that humans needed
to do a great deal of changing before Anarchism would be viable. Most
seemed to believe that the current system is not only unjust, but will
soon reach a point where it will break down. Even the skeptics felt that
drastic change is desperately needed.

Nearly everyone appreciated the Anarchist critique of power. The class
discovered that the concentration of power, in all its manifestations,
inherently leads to abuse and should be avoided. Sexism, racism,
homophobia, the destruction of the environment and the class structure, in
other words, all master-and-servant relationships, emerge from the problem
of power. Anarchists make a moral decision not to oppress others and
therefore will not tolerate oppression.

The teaching experience was truly unforgettable. We came away from the
class inspired. The apathy of our consumer society often appears
insurmountable. Many members of our so-called "X generation" know that the
world is corrupt. Ask a young person if she or he is familiar with the
fact that the CIA is involved in the international narcotics trade. "Yeah,
so what" with a shrug of the shoulders is too often the response.
Isolation and extreme pessimism have left much of the populace with a
destructive cynicism. 

A brief introduction to a sense of community and human interaction is
often enough to break this apathy. According to one student, the knowledge
that others also seek a healthier society, not founded on exploitation,
was very empowering; he said that he would think more about the
consequences of his choices and act accordingly. 

Not only did some students display interest in a further exploration of
Anarchism, but a few were intent on participating in change. We were
approached by two students who were interested in helping us publish the
University Sentinel, an alternative monthly at PSU. Another student is a
member of a musical group and inquired about passing out some of the
material we used in class to his audiences.

We came away with proof that people can feel empowered if they can
envision an alternative. This class taught us that optimism can emerge
from a new vision of the future offered by Anarchism, an optimism capable
of scaling the apathy barrier. It wasn't just the students oe as teachers
we also came away with new hope.

PSU = Portland State University

