I would also like to add that Newman comes to his "post-anarchist" position from within anarchism. In other words, he is an anarchist surveying poststructuralist thought for elements that can be absorbed by the anarchist tradition. This is in contradistinction to the more widely known and, you can laugh about this if you want: he is on the board of the Institute for Anarchist Studies, Todd May. May comes to the anarchist tradition from post-structuralism, using anarchist ideas to compliment his post-structuralism. Cf., Sureyyya Evren's comments on this. Therefore, and this is contributes to another discussion that is happening on this website, Todd May is truly speaking the discourse of the university and post-left anarchists have ever right to be suspicious of his "post-anarchism" and his intentions. I don't think we can say the same thing about Newman, although, admittedly, at times his work does seem to waver between two discourses. Compare, for example, his book ON poststructuralism to his book on anarchism: there are two entirely incompatible political positions being portrayed here. One speaks to a radical audience and adopts a radical line of argument. The other speaks to a university audience and adopts a 'democratic' politics of inclusion sort of argument. Pragmatic? Career oriented? Maybe. But I try not to judge a book by its author.
