Beyond the democratic state: anti-authoritarian interventions in democratic theory

cooperation without consensus
and 
action 
without agreement
. More broadly, they enable 
democracy without (unified) decision
. I consider 
the applicability of networked self-governance on two very different geographic scales. First, I 
briefly discuss the potential to mobilize networks on a transnational or global level in order to 
“scale-up” democracy. Here, I consider the possibilities for networks to function as coordinating 
mechanisms for democratic action across borders. Second, I argue that networked forms of 
organization can be usefully conceptualized and applied at lower levels of governance, as well.
So, in this sense, I “scale-down” networks and think about their utility on a much smaller scale, 
when people share a similar geographic space. Whereas others have theorized the democratic 
potential of networks on a transnational scale, I theorize their potential as an alternative to the 
general assembly. I argue against “direct democracy” and for “network democracy.” Whereas 
Occupy and other social movements emphasize consensus forms of decision-making when 
sharing a common space, I argue that networks – precisely because they enable people to decide 

---

31 
differently – can be meaningfully applied locally, as well. Finally, I connect the various themes 
of the chapter – self-governance, the challenges of pluralism, and the possibilities of 
decentralized networked organization. I explain how, and to what extent, networks can foster 
self-governance in the context of difference and discuss the implications of this for the way we 
conceptualize democracy. 
Taken together, my dissertation seeks to contribute to the project of radical democracy by 
putting anti-authoritarian perspectives squarely in conversation with democratic theory. On the 
one hand, what would an anti-authoritarian vision of democracy look like? On the other hand, 
what would it look like to defend anti-authoritarianism or anarchism on democratic grounds? 
Engaging in a conversation between anti-authoritarians and democrats promises to enrich both 
interlocutors. First, anti-authoritarians – despite their ambivalent relationship with democracy – 
often couch their political positions in broadly democratic terms. This conversation will help 
anti-authoritarian activists sharpen their evaluation of democratic potentials of their practices.
Second, democratic theory stands to gain from this conversation by considering the insights of 
anti-authoritarian thinkers and social movements on enduring questions, such as the meaning of 
“rule by the people” and the viability of democratic coordination in the context of difference.
Anti-authoritarian theory and practice suggests novel answers to debates within democratic 
theory and may help democratic theorists conceptualize a radical democracy that is viable in our 
contemporary context. As I argue in the conclusion, this encounter between anti-
authoritarianism and democratic theory, should orient us toward a view of democracy as the 
dispersion of power. If radical democracy means a situation in which people have power, the 
challenge for the radical democrat today is one of both resistance and reconstruction: to contest 
all forms of centralized power, while simultaneously building practices that actively disperse 

---

32 
power and enable the decentralized exercise of freedom. It is the concept of freedom that I take 
up in the next chapter.