of propriety, commodification and wage labor. However, the differential in anarchism hasbeen the thorough rejection of representative politics, in its electoral anddictatorial forms. This critique ofrepresentation, together with anarchisms critiques of metaphysics, domination,and its valorization of social difference, have recently made thinkers suspectthat a conversation between anarchism and poststructuralism might provideimportant insights. In fact, in somedegree both legacies shared histories with many other social movements in art,culture, and emancipatory thought and practice. Suffice it to say that poststructuralism appeared more prominently afterMay 68 in France, when anarchist thought had a major contribution to thepractical critique of Marxism-oriented representative politics. The issue of oppressivepower came to the fore again in the 60s. The failure of the dictatorship ofthe proletariat having become obvious, the links between power, authority,truth, and subjectivity became central concerns to many. These were treated invarious manners by different thinkers, including Foucault, Derrida, andDeleuze. It would not be possible tospeak to all their contributions and differences within what has been termedpoststructuralism here. I will discuss,therefore, what postanarchist authors have sensed is important for anarchiststo consider from those thinkers, and will provide thoughts that have notappeared in discussions. These arelinked to the dualistic and reactive mode in which postanarchism is operatinguntil now.Monolithic RepresentationsIn their portrayals of anarchism andpoststructuralism, authors Saul Newman, Todd May, and Lewis Call haveinvariably represented both legacies as monolithic. They all understand anarchism as beingsuitably represented by the classical anarchists such as Proudhon, Bakunin,and Kropotkin. Not only have theyreduced their reading of anarchism to these few authors, but so-calledpostanarchists have also made totalized and reductive readings of what thosefew authors sustained. The charge, forexample, that classical anarchists reproduced the belief in a human naturethat would be freed from external powers can certainly be made. However, a poststructuralist reading ofanarchism should do more. If we takeDerridas claim seriously regarding the internal contradiction of texts, weshould, for example, understand together with most anarchist writers, thatfreedom is socially constructed. Thus,despite Bakunins claim that liberty is to obey natural laws that one hasrecognized himself as such[2] andhere is one place where postanarchists charge him of essentialism he alsosays such things as the general idea is always an abstraction, and for thatreason, in some sort a negation of real life[3] and Ican only consider and feel myself free in the presence and in relation to othermen[4]. Although Bakunin can certainly be critiqued,from a poststructuralist perspective, for believing in a linear, teleologicalhistory that would lead to salvation[5], he doesput forward the practice of freedom as an ongoing practice, by understanding itas relational. Thus, Bakunin appears,under a poststructuralist reading that looks for difference within texts, asboth reproducing beliefs in a human nature that is the origin of freedom, byits capacity to align itself with natural laws, and as making freedom a socialpractice that is ongoing and relational, even though he also believed in a telos for it. We have to askourselves now why it is that postanarchist authors have not paid attention tothe contradictions within anarchist texts, if that is precisely one of themajor characteristics of so-called poststructuralism. Surely, the contradictions referred to do notnecessarily exclude