Themes in current portion of dissertation writing:
Analysis of moments where we see how political beliefs take primacy over political strategizing.
That is, an anarchist who does not vote (belief) is unlikely to engage in discussion of strategic uses of voting (even by others, not requiring her to vote) because it is ‘wrong’ because ‘it wont fix anything.’ While it sounds like strategy, it essentially returns to positing insurrection vs. reform, with reform being ‘wrong’ or ‘undesirable.’ However, anything that cannot be paired/aligned with (stylistically violent mass) insurrection is thus ‘othered’ as reformist and, thus bad.
The implication is that reform is pushed by reformists, who are morally in the wrong. This limits political imagination, and, further, may be dangerous in the sense of opening up radical politics to the pitfalls of being comfortable with failure (supports moral high ground) which is fine for essentially ‘safe’ upper mid class whites, AND in the sense of pitfalls/traps of commodification and even cooption of practices (blind to fact that they are approaching it morally, and seem to think it is strategic). But if these were strategic (rather than moral) debates, there would be actual debate, experimentation, exploration, imagination.
The question ultimately becomes, then, is where is room for strategic thinking that allows beliefs to be maintained but bracketed such that they do not immediately forestall exploration and experimentaiton with possibilities.