This review reflects on the complexities of Andrew Culp’s “A Guerrilla Guide To Refusal,” acknowledging the reviewer’s struggle with its dense academic style. While the title suggests a practical manual, the book delves into philosophical analyses of media and history through an anarchist lens, potentially limiting its accessibility to a broader audience.
The book explores various themes, including guerrilla forms of organizing, illegalism, decentralized structures, and the challenges of compromise within revolutionary movements. It touches on Queer liberation and Black liberation, referencing specific guerrilla organizing groups.
Culp’s approach to Queer theory is noted, where the term “Queer” is sometimes applied to anything outside the norm. The reviewer also questions certain characterizations of groups, such as the critique of anti-civ, insurrectionist groups, and Bash Back! by “new anarchists” for “resisting legibility.” The reviewer suggests that these groups often have concrete cultures with both positive and negative aspects, including issues like manarchism, ableism, and transphobia. While acknowledging valid critiques of these groups, the author doesn’t delve into them deeply. Culp clarifies that the book isn’t advocating for armed resistance as the sole path and emphasizes the importance of a “battle of intensities.”
The book’s media analyses are varied, with some chapters leaning more towards description than in-depth analysis, making their relevance to the central theme unclear at times. However, the reviewer highlights the chapter “We Are Bad, but We Could Be Worse,” focusing on the feminist project “Public Feelings,” which combines art, self-care, activism, and psychology. Discovering new movements and groups through the book was a positive aspect for the reviewer, despite the disappointment of finding that some of these projects, like “Public Feelings,” were no longer active online.
Ultimately, the reviewer suggests that “A Guerrilla Guide to Refusal” might be best suited for readers with a strong background in leftist philosophy and critical theory. The primary challenge lies in the book’s language and accessibility, potentially hindering meaningful discussions that could arise from its themes and ideas. The reviewer hopes that others might be able to translate the book’s complex concepts into a more accessible language for broader understanding.
