[DIS]ORDER
Notes Toward an Anti-Political Conception of Blackness

“Blackness is the fertile ground on which the world stands, and when we rise, so too will the world built upon us crumble”[1] This sentence, from Anarkata: A Statement, expresses the core of what we will elaborate in this work: an anti-political conception of Blackness.

Theories of Blackness up to this point have largely sought to explain it as it affects Black people — how it positions us under white supremacist capitalism; how it distorts external perceptions of us and our behavior. They have explored it, and sought to situate it, in the world and revolutionary struggle — as a perpetually subjugated, alienated, demonized element; as a force of resistance; as a source of apocalyptic collapse. But our moment — our struggle, our work — calls for even more pointed, intentional theorization; that which seeks to move beyond the bounds which we have inherited.

The following is a contribution to the theorization of Blackness our moment calls for. It is rooted in the Black Radical Tradition — particularly, the second wave of Black anarchic thought (greatly inspired by Elder Ashanti Alston) — and informed by recent interventions into anarchist thought (notably Daniel Baryon’s / Anark’s). But this work is not aimed at forwarding a political ideology. It, instead, aims to reconfigure the terrain of Black Radical thought: to shift our focus in the conversation about Blackness from individuals, institutions, systems, and even power structures — toward order itself, as made manifest through ‘the political’. And from there, move us toward an anti-political horizon, and vehicle of Black empowerment — a praxis of [DIS]ORDER.

Blackness, here, will reveal itself to be more than a social construct, more than an identity, more than even a force of resistance. Blackness will reveal itself as a force of ‘necessary disorder’ — anti-political in its essence, and ready-made to be harnessed by us in our struggle for liberation.

POWER & ORDER

Here, we want to lay out our framework for understanding, and our conception of, ‘the political’ and the political world. We will present, and elaborate, a multi-faceted conception of power, then relate it to a concept of order to form a basis for our conception of ‘the political’ and the political world.

Power

To understand ‘the political’ and the political world, we need to understand power. This is what’s at the core of everything, and there are two ways it manifests. Power manifests firstly as a capacity, and it manifests secondly, when people are organized together, as a social phenomenon.

As a capacity, we see power manifest as ‘power in’ (or ‘power within’) and ‘power to’. ‘Power in’ is the extent to which one can envision, conceive and synthesize their will / desired outcome. That is saying, “How well can I imagine and understand what I want to happen?” It doesn’t mean the capacity to actualize/materialize anything, just the capacity to see it, to conceive of it. So the greater one can conceive of their will, the more powerful one is internally (i.e. in terms of ‘power in’). ‘Power to’ is the extent to which one can actualize their will (i.e. make their desired outcome materially expressed).[2] This is saying, “That thing I envision, that thing I want to happen, that thing I imagine happening; how capable am I of making it materially be?” These two, again, are capacities. They can be active (i.e. exerted), they can be latent (i.e. unused), they exist in every being, and they interrelate. As a social phenomenon (socially), we see power manifest as ‘power with’ or as ‘power over’.

‘Power with’ is horizontal power, structurally expressed through relationships of mutuality and sustained through autonomous self organization. When we say ‘power with’ is horizontal power, we mean it is the social phenomenon of power between people on equal footing. This power is structurally expressed through relationships of mutuality. That is to say, the more empowered I become, the more empowered you become; the more empowered the person next to us becomes, the more empowered we become; the more empowered anyone becomes, the more empowered everybody becomes; we’re all becoming empowered together. Because here everyone’s becoming empowered together, because we’re all on equal footing, everyone’s autonomy is structurally protected. In order to relate to one another and get things done together, we have to make individual decisions to organize together to get things done through/in an ongoing process of autonomous self-organization (the process of organization anti-politicality lends toward).

‘Power over’ is hierarchical power, structurally expressed through relationships of subjugation and sustained through the imposition of order.[3] We say, ‘power over’ characterizes the political world, and what this means will be made clear throughout the rest of this section.

The Political World

We’re understanding ‘power over’ (i.e. hierarchical power) as the social phenomenon which is the source of subjugation.[4] We’re understanding ‘the political’ as imposed order, made material through political apparatus(es) (for us, broadly, this means the state).[5] And we’re understanding the political world to be: the world shaped by the social phenomenon of hierarchical power, sustained through the imposed order of the political, and manifest as the interplay between these things.

To explain each of these things (hierarchical power, ‘the political’, and the political world), and to give some rationale behind the understandings we’re working with, let’s look at the relationship between subjugation and imposed order.

In The State and Revolution, V.I. Lenin says: “the state arises where, when, and in so far as, class antagonism objectively cannot be reconciled and conversely, the existence of the state proves that the class antagonisms are irreconcilable.”[6]

To elucidate and elaborate Lenin’s claim regarding class antagonisms and the state’s existence, and to forward the understanding of ‘the political’ we presented before, consider this. Someone comes along and encloses the commons, saying forcefully (and, of course, being forceful), “This land is now my private property! Everything produced on it is owned by me, and all of you working on it must work for me [for a wage] or leave!” The people of the commons, who work the land, are now in the position of working for this now owner (so he can make a profit), a capitalist hierarchy is established (necessarily against the will of the workers) in which the owner is necessarily exploiting the workers. What will inevitably end up happening, here, is the workers will say, “We don’t have to be in this position of being exploited, and we shouldn’t be in it at all!”; they will understand that they can rise up against the owner and take back control of the commons for themselves collectively; they will realize that the hierarchy that is the source of their being exploited, itself, is unsustainable, and that it’s in their best interests to destroy it. The owner — recognizing the irreconcilability of his capitalist interests and the workers’ interests, knowing the source of his power is unsustainable on its own — realizes he needs an apparatus outside of himself, an external authority, to sustain the existence of the exploitative dynamic with the workers he’s benefiting from. So he creates a political apparatus (the state) to sustain and perpetuate his power through sustaining and perpetuating the capitalist hierarchy. This social phenomenon of the owner holding ‘power over’ the worker, then, becomes the defined order the state is built to impose.

Taking Lenin’s claim a bit further and expanding it with our terms, we say: The state arises where, when, and insofar as a relationship of subjugation cannot be sustained by the subjugator himself, and the state will only, and can only, take on whatever form is necessary to sustain the relationships of subjugation which define the order it imposes. Conversely, the existence of the state proves the presence of a relationship of subjugation.

For the state (any political apparatus) to arise, hierarchy must be present.[7] For ‘the political’ to become manifest, that social phenomenon which is the source of subjugation, has to be present. We say this because the need for ‘the political’, the need for an imposed order, breeds ‘the political’, and that need only arises when an unsustainable social phenomenon becomes manifest and defines an order to be imposed. As such, when the political comes into being, sustaining and perpetuating hierarchical power, the political world [of subjugation] — shaped by the social phenomenon of hierarchical power, sustained through the imposed order of ‘the political’, and manifest as the interplay between those things — comes into being as well.

NECESSARY DISORDER

What we are striving toward, here, is an understanding of Blackness that can better explain its function in the political world. To do this, we’ll come to understand how, amidst the social phenomenon of hierarchical power, the subjugated respond to subjugation. We’ll come to understand disorder as necessary for the existence and persistence of ‘the political’, and as foundational to the political world. We’ll come to understand the inevitability of Blackness in the political world (i.e. Blackness as expressed through Black resistance under white supremacist capitalism), and come to understand the foundationality of Blackness to the political world (i.e. Blackness as disorder within the political world); and in understanding these two qualities, which Blackness holds, we will elucidate a conception of Blackness as ‘necessary disorder’ in the political world.

Inevitability (Resistance)

If X, then Y — when X equals subjugation, and Y equals resistance. What we’re saying here is that subjugation does not require resistance in order to exist, but there will inevitably be resistance where there is subjugation.

Consider this. There’s a slave and there’s a slave master. The slave does not fight against being subjugated — that is, they do not resist their enslavement. In fact, they lean into the dynamic; they accept their status as a slave and obey every order of their slave master. Here, there is no resistance on the part of the subjugated (the slave), but there is still subjugation (enslavement) because there’s still a slave and a slave master. So resistance is not a prerequisite for subjugation to exist.

But we understand, when looking at the world, historically, slaves have always resisted their enslavement. Historically, workers have always resisted their exploitation. Historically, all subjugated groups have always resisted in some capacity. Understanding this, we can say, just as a socio-historical fact, that there will be resistance where there’s subjugation.

Understanding the political world as being shaped by the social phenomenon of hierarchical power, which is the source of subjugation, we can understand hierarchical power, along with its resulting subjugation, as being a necessary aspect of the political world. With this, we say resistance is inevitable in the political world.

Foundationality (Disorder)

This next quality, which is foundationality, we’re associating with disorder, and it is specifically/exclusively tied to ‘the political’. Foundationality doesn’t have to exist in the context of a social phenomenon, because a social phenomenon doesn’t need any justification/legitimization to exist and persist — it just needs something to sustain it. This, again, is why hierarchical power creates ‘the political’, in order to be sustained and perpetuated, and why ‘the political’ is defined and shaped by hierarchical power.

‘The political’, however, as imposed order, needs justification for its institutions’ imposition; it needs something to legitimize its existence, along with that of its institutions. This need may be clearer when we put it like this: X, only if Y and Z — when X equals imposition of order, Y equals [the existence of a] defined order, and Z equals [the presence of] disorder (i.e. deviance from the defined order). We’re saying, here, that imposition of order is only possible when there is a defined order and disorder is present; for order to be imposed, order must be defined and there must be a situation of disorder. And, regarding ‘the political’, we’re saying that imposed order (i.e. ‘the political’) requires disorder for its existence (i.e. to justify its existence).

Think about it in this way. If I have a bunch of papers, in order for me to put them in order, I have to decide what order is. So I say, concerning the bunch of papers, “These papers being stacked in this particular way, is order.” If they’re already stacked in that way, I have nothing to do; there’s no order for me to impose on the papers. But say I, or someone else, scatters all the papers. Now, we have a situation that misaligns with my defined order. At this point, I have something to do, an order to impose on the bunch of papers, and my job is then to go about ordering (i.e. imposing order upon) these papers. My job, as the order-er of the bunch of papers, is legitimate insofar as there is a particular way the papers should be stacked which is considered “order” (i.e. insofar as there is a defined order), and insofar as the papers are not stacked in that way (i.e. insofar as there is disorder).

Disorder is where ‘the political’ — along with its institutions — finds its justification/legitimacy, and as such disorder is necessary for the existence and persistence of ‘the political’. With this, and understanding the political world as sustained through the imposed order of ‘the political’, we say disorder is foundational to the political world.

Blackness as Necessary Disorder

In relation to ‘the political’, as it’s manifest under white supremacist capitalism, Blackness itself is ‘necessary disorder’. This is both because of its inevitability in, and foundationality to, the political world. Its inevitability is expressed, because of the positionality of Black people under white supremacist capitalism, through Black resistance to subjugation. Its foundationality is made evident in the dissident modes of being, ways of living, methods of surviving, Blackness carries with it (one of these being Black resistance)— given what ‘the political’ relegates Black people to.[8] To understand both of these qualities as features of Blackness — more vital for us is foundationality — we can look at two statements which highlight them.

Hermann Kreige, described in Anarcho-Blackness by Marquis Bey as, “A German American revolutionary and proto-socialist who, incidentally, opposed the abolition of slavery.”, in 1846, said this regarding the prospect of abolishing slavery: “That we should declare ourselves in favor of the abolitionist movement is if it were our intention to throw the Republic into a state of anarchy.”[9]

Now, when Kreige says “state of anarchy”, he is not talking about this way of organizing society according to the principles of freedom, equality and solidarity — as the anarchists of his time and today advocate. What Kreige is talking about is a state of disorder, a state of chaos, and drawing on this, we can elucidate some realities about Blackness’ emergence — and existence — within the political world. We say, Blackness emerges within the political world as an element which must be chained to sustain order, and this enchainment, codified by ‘the political’, relegates Black people — and necessarily, the emergent force of Blackness — to a position of perpetual ordering by the state (as criminal).

Kreige says, if we were to abolish slavery, we would throw the republic into a state of anarchy (i.e. disorder, chaos), and this is his justification for keeping Black people in chains. Now, when slavery was eventually “abolished” in America, more vectors for enslavement (namely, the 13^th amendment) were created through, and tied to, the notion of criminality. The label criminal signifies, in the context of ‘the political’, a threat to order, and serves as justification for putting people identified with the label in chains; it serves as a legitimizing category for repressive political institutions like prisons, police, surveillance/“intelligence” agencies, and others of those sorts. We understand Black people, the Black community, as being over-policed, over-surveilled, over-incarcerated — in a word, criminalized — as consequence of the positionality of Blackness under white supremacist capitalism; we say, in this way, Blackness itself is criminalized under white supremacist capitalism — identified as disorder justifying ‘the political’. Here, we see a display of Blackness’ foundationality.

Calvin Warren’s claim regarding contract law / law of chattel, in chapter 2 of Ontological Terror, further illuminates this foundationality. He says: “Contract law (law of chattel) is perhaps the hallmark of modern legal development, given the need to regulate commerce and specify the rights and entitlement of property holders. But this corpus of law emerges because one needs to integrate the slave into the world.”[10]

Here, the law itself, not the master-slave relation, not the logic underpinning chattel slavery — viewing Black people as property — but the law that codifies this logic, institutionalizes it, and which thus makes a master — chattel slave relation part of the imposed order of ‘the political’, is made to integrate Black people into the world — shaped by white supremacist capitalism — as propertied things. We can see here, Blackness emerges within the political world as that element which can, and must, be propertied to enshrine white supremacist capitalism, and this propertization, codified by ‘the political’, relegates Black people — and necessarily, the emergent force of Blackness — to a position of perpetual subjugation under hierarchy (as chattel slave).

Relegated to this position of perpetual subjugation, Blackness inevitably becomes a force of perpetual resistance under white supremacist capitalism. Here, we see Blackness’ foundationality to the political world expressed through its inevitability in the political world; because resistance against the hierarchy of white supremacist capitalism is also a struggle against the imposed order — against the propertization of Black people, and the perpetual subjugation of Blackness — and such a struggle occurring is disorder in the political world. Here we can see clearly the function of Blackness in the political world. We can see its positionality as making it a force of inevitable resistance, and this inevitable resistance being a force of disorder to ‘the political’.

Understanding the hierarchy of white supremacist capitalism to be a social phenomenon which defines the imposed order of ‘the political’, understanding its resulting subjugation as being a necessary aspect of the political world, and taking what we’ve made clear regarding the function of Blackness in the political world — we say, Blackness is ‘necessary disorder’ in the political world.

Dubian Adi illustrated, and elaborated, this understanding of Blackness as ‘necessary disorder’ beautifully and succinctly in Black is Crime: Notes on Blaqillegalism: “Trapped within the confines of a structural and ontological position of unfreedom… Black enslaved were forced to occupy the cramped positionality… Here, blackness… [necessarily] stretches out against the walls meant to contain and regulate it, and in the most natural of impulses attempts to escape… the law deprived the enslaved not only of… personal freedom… but the very modes of personhood that enable freedom’s possibility… if containerization was the law’s basic function for blackness, then blackness could not help but break the law. Be it by accident, circumstance, resistance or necessity, blackness defied the boundaries of the law every day, precisely as this… struggle intrinsic to a people kept in bondage.”[11]

The law, here, does not serve the purpose of depriving Black people of personal freedom. The source of deprivation is the social phenomenon of white supremacist capitalism which is Blackness’ source of subjugation. The law codified the bounds — shaped by the hierarchy of white supremacist capitalism — of who/what could have access to “the very modes of personhood that [enable] freedom’s possibility”, of who/what are considered human under the guise of ‘the political’, in the political world; and Blackness, in emerging as that element which can/must be propertied under the imposed order, fell outside the bounds. As such, “the containerization”, the ordering, of Blackness; the sustainment of a condition of dehumanization for Black people, perpetual subjugation of Blackness; this “was the law’s basic function for Blackness” and is the basic function of ‘the political’ for Blackness.

Just as “Blackness couldn’t help but break the law”, Blackness can’t help but act as disorder in the political world. And “be it by accident, circumstance, resistance or necessity” Blackness defies the boundaries of ‘the political’ every day — because just to live as human beings, Black people have to deviate from the order defined by white supremacist capitalism. Precisely as a force which struggles “in a way that was intrinsic to a people kept in bondage”, Blackness is, as we have said, ‘necessary disorder’ in the political world.

FROM THREATENING ORDER, TO ESCAPING ORDER

We are striving, here, to expand our conception of Blackness as ‘necessary disorder’ through shifting our perspective from that of ‘the political’ to the anti-political. We’ll elaborate and illustrate how Blackness functions as ‘necessary disorder’ in the political world. We’ll come to recognize the limitations of ‘the political’ in perceiving/understanding Blackness. We’ll come to understand the anti-political, and analyze Blackness’ function through the anti-political lens. And out of this, we will arrive at a — loose and working — anti-political conception of Blackness.

Blackness as [Il]legible to ‘the Political’

Understanding Blackness as ‘necessary disorder’ in the political world [of subjugation], we can identify Blackness as a constant threat in the eyes of ‘the political’. Because Blackness is that force which perpetually deviates from the defined order, that force which political institutions must come into conflict with at all times to impose order, ‘the political’ can only perceive and characterize Blackness — in all its natural expressions — as threatening order.

The defined order, shaped by white supremacist capitalism, categorizes Blackness as that element which can, and must, be chained (as criminal) and propertized (as chattel slave). ‘The political’, therefore, blocks Black people (insofar as they embrace and embody Blackness) from accessing human status, which grants freedom and self-ownership in the political world.[12] In this way Blackness (as an element in the political world) signifies an individual’s non-humanness to ‘the political’, and this non-humanness of Blackness requires that Black people’s struggle for humanization extend beyond the bounds of the defined order.

This is where we see Blackness (as a force / as ‘necessary disorder’) pushing outward against the boundary codified by ‘the political’ — in Black people’s alternative process(es) of humanization — stretching it almost to the point of rupture, threatening to break order itself. Here, we also see how and why ‘the political’ is reproduced — we see how and why imposed order is malleable. Political institutions work to establish the defined order by pushing Blackness back inward — in a systemic process of dehumanization — preventing rupture and reproducing a state of imposed order (i.e. ‘the political’). Because Blackness, as ‘necessary disorder’, cannot stop pushing outward, it is always threatening order — thus, ‘the political’ is continuously being reproduced to prevent breaking of order.

This is why we say, in the eyes of ‘the political’, Blackness is solely a threat. This is why repression [of Blackness], recuperation [of order], and assimilation/whitening [of Black people], is the state’s response to dissidence in the Black community — especially in its overtly constructive (i.e. humanizing) forms.

For us to take on the perspective of ‘the political’, to analyze Blackness only as it relates to ‘the political’, or even to look at Blackness only as it functions in the political world, would be to limit ourselves to a reductive conception; it would be to miss how ‘necessary disorder’ manifests socially, how Blackness relates to power and how it functions constructively. Because, to ‘the political’, Blackness is illegible beyond the bounds of order.

Blackness made Legible through an Anti-Political Lens

We need to move beyond defined and imposed order to understand how ‘necessary disorder’ manifests socially. We need to shift our perspective from one embracing ‘the political’, treating it as permanent/necessary, to one which rejects its legitimacy outright — to one critical of imposed order and the social phenomenon it sustains. As such, here, we’re shifting to an anti-political perspective, and that is to look at Blackness through a different lens — not through that of ‘the political’ but through an anti-political one. What comes with this perspective shift is a paradigm shift, a new power equation, a new social phenomenon held at center.

We say, the anti-political is the negation of ‘the political’. Where ‘the political’ has at its core the social phenomenon of ‘power over’, the anti-political has at its core the social phenomenon of ‘power with’. Where ‘the political’ is defined by hierarchical power (the source of subjugation), the anti-political is defined by horizontal power (the source of mutuality). Where ‘the political’ is the imposed order which sustains the political world, the anti-political is the autonomous self-organization which runs contrary to the political world. The anti-political emerges within the political world (having been expressed outside it) as a subversive undercurrent — undermining the legitimacy of the defined and imposed order by feeding into and playing off of disorder, moving the disorderly toward an embrace of anti-politicality and being moved itself toward a more disorderly expression, cultivating amongst the disorderly and within disorder itself alternative modes of being and ways of organizing which counteract those characteristic of the political world (i.e. liberatory modes of being and ways of organizing).

Blackness, as ‘necessary disorder’, tends toward anti-politicality in its expression at all times, precisely because (as we have said) it must push outward against the boundary codified by ‘the political’, it must move to escape ‘the political’, at all times. Black people must embrace alternatives — dissident modes of being and anarchic ways of organizing amongst each other — to pursue humanization, because the freedom of being human, that was stripped away by white supremacist capitalism, lies beyond the bounds of the defined order, and ‘the political’ lies between us and it.

Blackness here is moving to escape order by rupturing the imposed order. In doing this, it’s struggling not only to free itself, but to free everything contained within ‘the political’ from order.

If Blackness triumphs over ‘the political’ here, if ‘necessary disorder’ triumphs over imposed order, the social phenomenon of hierarchical power will be deprived of its means of sustainment. It will no longer be able to define order, and it will struggle with horizontal power to perpetuate itself. This hypothetical condition, we say, would be a state of disorder; the state out of which the social phenomenon of ‘power over’ may be rendered obsolete by structures of horizontal power, and which would be necessary for the onset of a new world built through relationships of mutuality and sustained through autonomous self-organization. Through an anti-political lens, this state of disorder — what Blackness as ‘necessary disorder’ struggles toward — is liberation from the political world, through the ending of the political world.

Understanding all of this, we can put forward this — as a, loose and working, anti-political conception of Blackness: Blackness is a force of ‘necessary disorder’ in the political world which emerges from the necessary, liberatory, struggle of Black people for humanization; Blackness tends toward anti-politicality in its expression, lending to dissident modes of being and anarchic ways of organizing in Black communities; Blackness moves to escape order itself through the rupture of imposed order (i.e. the dissolution of ‘the political’), and is thus a force aimed toward the liberation of all from the political world.

[DIS]ORDER OF BLACK EMPOWERMENT

With the conception we have put forward come numerous implications regarding praxis. Here, we do not intend to explore and engage all those implications; but we do intend to broadly and explicitly state some of the implicit praxis suggestions embedded in our (again, loose and working) anti-political conception of Blackness. We will, as there may still be room for confusion, clarify what we mean by “[Blackness expressing itself through] dissident modes of being and anarchic ways of organizing in Black communities” and connect that to our identification of Blackness being “aimed toward the liberation of all from the political world”. In doing this, “[DIS]ORDER” will take shape as a vehicle of Black empowerment.

To what End? By what Means?

“What we are fighting for, (and to what end) is not to make this world we inherited better, improve upon it, or even change it in a radical sense. Our end goal is to end it, that is to say, its end is our beginning.”[13] Consider what Blackness, as we are conceptualizing it here, is aimed toward — “the liberation of all from the political world”. We have said, “Blackness moves to escape order itself through the rupture of imposed order”, and we should examine this closely, because here, the end that is “the liberation of all from the political world” is defined in/by the movement of Blackness.

Blackness moves to “escape order itself”, not through an evasion from, not through attained recognition from and negotiation with, not through the transformation of, but “through the rupture of imposed order”. This manifests in two ways — which, as we will see, interrelate: one, Blackness moves to escape order through the sudden destructive-breaking of the imposed order (expressed as insurrectionary revolt against ‘the political’ and its institutions); and two, Blackness moves to escape order through the sustained/perpetual constructive-disturbance of the imposed order (expressed as revolutionary prefiguration against the bounds of ‘the political’).

The former (i.e. destructive-breaking expressed as insurrectionary revolt) is put plainly in Black Armed Joy, when the authors spoke toward “The Coming Insurrection”, saying, “We [that is, Black insurrectionists] seek unmediated and uncompromising conflict with the State and Capital… Living by principle means we dismantle systems (as best we can) in this world at this moment.”[14]

When we say that Blackness moves to escape order through the destructive-breaking of imposed order, we mean Blackness functions — in Black people / Black communities — as an impulse toward pointed, unyielding, direct conflict with white supremacist capitalism and the state (i.e. ‘the political’ made material). This may be most widely visible during moments of Black rebellion, in the burning of police cars, the destruction/defacement of corporate and government infrastructures, and so on; but smaller / more common acts of refusal and rebellion by Black people and in Black communities reflect this impulse as well.

The latter (i.e. constructive-disturbance expressed as revolutionary prefiguration) is elaborated by George Jackson in Blood in My Eye when he says, “We must fill the vacuums left by the established order. We must push the settlers off our land when they won’t cooperate with the new communal life of our system. We must learn from [our] people… the discipline[s] they are so highly skilled in. In return, we must teach them the benefits of our revolutionary ideals.”[15]

When we say that Blackness moves to escape order through the constructive-disturbance of the imposed order, we mean Blackness functions — in Black people / Black communities — as a tendency toward autonomous, mutualistic, communal ways of surviving and building which prove effective and persist without recognition, approval, or support from political institutions. This tendency is easily recognizable when looking at the Black Panther Party’s survival programs (e.g. the Free Breakfast Program for Children), but this has always been at the core of Black life. We just call it, “looking out for each other”.

As we’ve said, these two manifestations of the rupture — destructive-breaking and constructive-disturbance — through which Blackness attempts to escape order, interrelate with each other. They feed into, echo and distort each other, materializing in the “dissident modes of being and anarchic ways of organizing” Blackness expresses itself through. And where Blackness — as ‘necessary disorder’ — is embraced and embodied, where it is harnessed in Black people’s struggles toward “the liberation of all from the political world”, these two manifestations become, and produce, both an end and a means: constructive-destructive-disturbance — a [DIS]ORDER of Black empowerment.

REFERENCES

[1] (Afrofuturist Abolitionists of the Americas, 2019)

[2] (Baryon, 2020)

[3] (Baryon, 2023)

[4] (Baryon, 2023)

[5] (Robinson, 2016, p. 7–8)

[6] (Lenin, 1918, p. 8)

[7] (Baryon, 2020)

[8] (Quan, 2024, p. 38–48)

[9] (Bey, 2020, p. 30–31)

[10] (Warren, 2018, p. 12)

[11] (Adi, 2020)

[12] It’s important for us to emphasize this here: Blackness — as an element — was constructed by white supremacist capitalism, which in the defined order signifies the non-humanness (i.e. criminal, chattel slave, beingness) of its holder(s) (i.e. Black people) to ‘the political’ (this is elaborated in the previous section, and going forward in this section); Blackness — as a force — is the emergent product of the natural/necessary struggle Black people for humanization (this is elaborated throughout this section). Blackness as an element, in the political world, cannot be abandoned by Black people; ‘the political’ marks us with it, and regardless of how “orderly” we act, it will treat us as such. But Blackness as a force can be abandoned — whether through a Black person’s submission to subjugation, pursuit of subjugating power, alignment with ‘the political’ (by repressing Blackness, recuperating order, assimilating/whitening oneself, etc.). So when we say “insofar as [Black people] embrace and embody Blackness” we only mean, and can only mean, embrace and embody Blackness as a force (i.e. as ‘necessary disorder’).

[13] (Afrofuturist Abolitionists of the Americas, 2019)

[14] (Anonymous, 2022)

[15] (Jackson, 1990, p. 176)