A Closer Look at Jewish Anarchist Women of the 20th Century and at What Anarchism Might Teach Us: An Interview with Elaine Leeder

For the following Q&A, I corresponded with Elaine Leeder, MSW, MPH, PhD, currently professor emerita of sociology and dean emerita of the school of social sciences at Sonoma State University. 

Elaine has authored multiple books, including, “The Family in Global Perspective: A Gendered Journey,” which explores family life across the globe, and “My Life with Lifers Lessons for a Teacher: Humanity Has No Bars,” derived from her teaching inside Elmira Correctional Facility in New York and her work with prisoners inside San Quentin State Prison in California. 

In June 2021, Elaine delivered a talk – “Jewish Anarchist Women 1920-1950: The Politics of Sexuality” – sponsored by the YIVO Institute for Jewish Research. In her talk, Elaine discussed the anarchist tradition, and she drew on in-depth interviews she did with Jewish women active in anarchist circles in the mid twentieth century. 

For the following Waywards interview, conducted via email, I asked Elaine about her work and what she shared in the talk. I asked her specifically about the basic ideas associated with anarchism, influential anarchist thinkers and ideas, the relationship between Jewish heritage/ethnicity and the anarchist tradition, anarchism vis-à-vis pragmatism, free love and “sexual varietism” (as it was called in that era) in relation to anarchist practice, international/transnational solidarity, anarchist theory and practice as it pertains to dominant institutions (e.g. governments, nation-states, the socio-economic system, the family), the anarchist press and media today, her work inside prisons and connections between anarchism and prison abolition. Here’s hoping you enjoy and can glean meaning from our 12-item Q&A. 

James Anderson: In your YIVO talk last year, titled, “Jewish Anarchist Women 1920-1950: The Politics of Sexuality,” you briefly outlined ideas typically associated with anarchist theory and practice. “In terms of anarchist theory,” you explained in the talk, “there really is the belief that any form of domination inhibits individual freedom, and that there should be in any ideal society the abolition of domination and control by anyone – that no one should have control over the other and that each individual knows what’s best for themselves.” What (if anything) else do you consider important when it comes to anarchist theory/practice, and what do you find most compelling about anarchism, the anarchist tradition, anarchist ideas and/or anarchist ways of relating? 

Elaine Leeder: Anarchism may seem quite idealistic for the lay reader. And it is often associated with chaos. That is far from the truth. Anarchism (at least the anarchism I have studied) is about organizing from the bottom up. The theory argues that all forms of hierarchy and power have inherent in them an oppression of the individual. So the patriarchy, capitalism, nationalism, etc. all have the ability to dominate another human being. And they do! As anarchists we believe in a truly egalitarian society with no one person or group of people dominating. For the brand of anarchism I know we believe in the collective will and that individuals who are charged with making decisions for another must rotate out of those positions. We know that power corrupts, so that power must be disseminated and shared regularly with others. Actually Spain during its civil war did so. The bakers ran the bakeries, the railroad workers ran the railroads and the representatives went to the coordinating groups to discuss how to run the country. Unfortunately, Franco and fascism came in, and those systems were dismantled. The ideas remain alive and well. 

James: I have one longer question to ask, given what’s been on my mind as of late. During your talk, you referenced some of the earlier, influential anarchist thinkers, like Mikhail Bakunin, who criticized patriarchal relations. You noted that, in contrast, thinkers like Pierre-Joseph Proudhon and Peter (Pëtr) Kropotkin tended to defend the patriarchal family, largely failing to connect its hierarchical and (arguably/often) oppressive structure to their own anarchistic opposition to domination. With the re-publication of Kropotkin’s “Mutual Aid: An Illuminated Factor of Evolution,” by PM Press last September – a text featuring illustrations by artist N.O. Bonzo – more folks seem to be thinking about and discussing Kropotkin’s work again. The new edition of “Mutual Aid” PM Press published also features an introduction by the late David Graeber, who died at age 59 in September 2020, and Andrej Grubačić. Circa 2004, Graeber and his good friend Grubačić co-authored a widely-read essay, “Anarchism, Or The Revolutionary Movement Of The Twenty-first Century,” which received renewed criticism as well as a defense by the second author last year. In their introduction to the re-printed edition of “Mutual Aid,” Graeber and Grubačić quoted the Russian anarchist-communist’s call for restoration of “the real proportion between conflict and union” in our affairs. As Graeber and Grubačić noted, Kropotkin encouraged analysis beyond the dominant narratives of social division so that we might “reconstruct stone by stone the institutions which used to unite” and perhaps still provide a real basis for hope and human thriving. Echoing Kropotkin’s call, Graeber and Grubačić entreated readers to examine the ways in which “relations of hierarchy and exploitation are reproduced, refused, and entangled with relations of mutual aid,” as part of a heterodox intellectual project. They suggested exploring “how relations of care become continuous with relations of violence, but nonetheless hold together systems of violence so that they don’t entirely fall apart,” as part of an effort aimed at better understanding how solidarity and subjugation, as well as care and coercion, become enmeshed. 

Graeber and archaeologist David Wengrow took an initial stab at doing that in part in their monumental work, “The Dawn of Everything: A New History of Humanity,” released last year. To his credit, and in relation, I reckon, Graeber also took some pains to address the historically subordinate role of women and unpack the worldviews produced by those relations of subordination in his essay, “Dead Zones of the Imagination,” featured in his book, “The Utopia of Rules,” first published in 2015. He also visited Rojava, the autonomous and predominantly Kurdish-controlled region in territory previously controlled by Syria, and participated in dialogue regarding the emphasis on women’s liberation in the movement for social transformation taking place there. 

Given their own personal blindspots regarding patriarchal authority, you mentioned in your YIVO talk you weren’t seeking guidance from Proudhon or Kropotkin. Do you think that despite Kropotkin’s own shortcomings, some of his work as it pertains to mutual aid and those interpenetrating relations of care and domination could still be useful in grasping any of the particular concerns of women anarchists? Maybe Kropotkin’s ideas could be useful in understanding and overcoming existing relations of gender-based subordination, even though he failed to focus on the oppressive features of those relationships? 

Elaine: I think that Kropotin has much to teach us, especially his work in MUTUAL AID. I learned a lot from him as it relates to groups in the animal world that operate cooperatively rather than through competition. I believe those models have not been emphasized in our society; people always argue that competition is the way of the world. I would say that is not true. When we study Kropotkin we must be aware that he was a product of his historical era and thus unable to see the gendered nature of his observations and thinking. We can use his research to provide a counter narrative but just be cognizant of his limitations as a product of his historical moment as well.

In a capitalist/patriarchal society we are led to believe that competition is the norm but as a feminist, I have been in many venues where women operate cooperatively and equally. In a male-dominated patriarchy, those models are not valued. I visited a group of women in Ghana called the Queen Mothers of Essakado. There the women were in charge of all elements of their culture. They shared decision making and when I asked the men present what their roles were they said, “To do anything that the mothers think need doing.” It was eye-opening and shocking to me and the students present. These women decide all matters needed to be decided, but the roles rotate regularly. It is a matriarchy in the true sense of the word, with no competition or violence! It exists here and now in the world, if we would just open our eyes to the fact such models exist.  

In answer to your question about Graeber and Grubucic, I believe they are onto something about violence and community care — radical feminists have long said that violence and fear of violence are the underpinnings of the capitalist patriarchy — thus always hanging there as a sword waiting to fall on those who challenge patriarchal power.

James: In your YIVO talk, you also highlighted the early twentieth century anarchist Emma Goldman. Like many of the anarchist women you interviewed (we’ll get to those women below), Goldman was born abroad into a rather traditional Jewish family, from what I understand. While, as you pointed out in your talk, Goldman considered marriage tyrannical, some of the Jewish anarchist women you interviewed did marry, if I’m not mistaken. Were the women you interviewed directly or indirectly influenced by Goldman in terms of their anarchist theory and practice, or in other ways? Did many share Goldman’s views on marriage, or did they tend to think about and approach the institution in notably different ways? 

Elaine: Goldman spoke publicly about the ideas that were prevalent in the anarchist community at the time. She was representing the women and men in the movement. I know she is seen as the [“ideal”] woman. But she was part of a much larger and less visible group of radicals who lived their values, as she did. So she was not atypical, but merely part of the larger movement. An interesting fact that I found out during my interviews was that Emma Goldman was not an egalitarian as it related to how she would be treated when she was on the lecture circuit. She insisted on having roses on her podium and, although she often stayed with comrades on her trips, she insisted on having the “master bedroom,” thus putting the hosts out of their own beds! I know she lived a [radical] lifestyle for her era but she had elements of elitism as well. We are all flawed and so was she.

James: Addressing the YIVO audience, you shared that the anarchist women you interviewed didn’t give up their Jewish ethnic identities, although they adopted a more “secular and politicized Jewishness.” You mentioned “some of the Jewish values” they held dear “are really part of the anarchist ideology as well.” Could you elaborate on that connection between Jewish values and anarchist theory/practice, and would be able to comment on whether you see that interplay retaining relevance for Jewish anarchists today? 

Elaine: Jewish values encourage valuing the individual, doing good in the world (making the world a better place), honoring others, giving charity, and loving kindness. Those are similar to anarchist values, although not as clearly articulated. These Jewish radicals were brought up with these values in their orthodox homes. When they became adults it was easy to incorporate those values into their world view. They just did not live religious lives, per se. I often had Friday night dinners with some of the women, although not doing actual Shabbat ritual, we ate traditional Jewish food. But they were iconoclasts as well. For example, they would have Yom Kippur Balls, in which they ate ham sandwiches! So they were Jewish but not religious. But they lived honor-filled lives, carrying out their values in daily life. 

James: You also acknowledged that many of the anarchist women you spoke to at length remained “ideologically pure and not very pragmatic.” Was that true both when they were younger and most active in the anarchist movement as well as later as they got older? 

Elaine: When I said they were “ideologically pure and not very pragmatic” I meant that they were activists who did not make coalitions with people who were not as radical or progressive in their thinking. They were demonstrating a lot, confronting the powers that be in the labor movement and in traditional societal structures but they were so pure in what they believed that they would not compromise. As a result, [they] dealt mainly with each other, and others of their ilk. I respected their purity of thinking but [was] not so impressed with what they actually accomplished on a larger scale. They were able to live their values in their personal lives and their activism. 

James: Aspects of the anarchist movement still today, as far as I can tell, aim to create, cultivate and embody relations of freedom characterized by non-coerced forms of care and mutual aid, even as they try to defend what autonomy from unnecessary authority might be possible in the present. Many anarchists and similarly-minded libertarian socialists refuse to wait for a future revolution to begin realizing a better reality, but they also often recognize and struggle together against real, lived injustices people inevitably face in existing society. With that in mind, do you see any elements of pragmatism compatible with an anarchist approach? That is, insofar as what many anarchists would recognize as injustice still afflicts people, albeit in different ways and to different degrees, as anarchists also emphasize, can pragmatic efforts to deal with unjust institutions while seeking to transform or displace them avoid compromising anarchist values? And how did or how might the women you interviewed think about engaging with those institutions actively imposing forms of repression and domination, be they in amorous affairs, in the family, in the workplace or in the community? 

Elaine: I remember a phrase from anarchists in the 70s-90s who said they “wanted to build a new society in the vacant lots of the old.” That has been happening within all kinds of alternative communities, eco activists, anarchist feminists and other progressives. But to be honest with you, I think many of those folks are white and do not experience the victimization and oppression that BIPOC folks do. It is easy to create a better community when you find a commune in the country or even in progressive cities. But BIPOC folks cannot escape, wherever they go. Pragmatic politics mean lots of compromise. I have long been an anarchist ideologically but practically I try to work with folks of differing ideologies to find a remedy. [It] is not the dramatic transformation that I had hoped for when I was young. The new world will not exist in my lifetime, although some small progress has been made in civil rights, LGBTQ rights, gender, health and some social policies. The women I interviewed were dismayed by the time I interviewed them. One woman told me that she had been so radical that she raised a son who had become a conservative capitalist. She was appalled. They knew that they had not changed society as much as they had hoped. They had an impact on the labor movement but by the time I spoke to them unions were becoming less effective. They died still hoping, but not seeing the revolution in their lifetimes. 

James: From what I gather, most of the Jewish anarchist women you interviewed talked about having (consensual) sex with whomever they chose. Some use the term “polyamory,” or refer to “polyamorous relationships,” to describe that approach to love and sexual intimacy. By the time you interviewed the anarchist women you spoke to, did most still affirm the value of polyamorous forms of free love? Did they ever allude to potential problems caused by a lack of commitment to one individual (e.g. feelings of jealousy; struggles devoting time to different partners fairly without disrespecting anyone involved; experiences of becoming completely in love or rapt with one particular person in ways precluding ideal polyamory), or no? 

Elaine: The term in polyamory and polyamorous relationships are current terms. They did not call it that. They called it “free love,” as well as “sexual varietism,” and tried to live it as best they could. What I really liked when I spoke to them was that they were as sexually free as their husbands or partners. It was not just the anarchist men who were engaging in these behaviors. But jealousy did occur. And the men were still very sexist in their behaviors at home. The women were still expected to cook, clean and provide sex. The women spoke out against it, but they lived in an era of traditional gender roles and did their best to try to live outside those constrictions. It was a challenge. I remember interviewing one very famous couple and the man did all the talking. I had to take the woman into a private room so that I could actually hear her story. He was dominating and arrogant, but a very famous anarchist. 

James: Per your talk, one of the women you interviewed helped raise money to bring Holocaust victims to the US and also assisted Russian fraternal organizations in raising money for people who escaped slave labor camps in their home country. How committed to international solidarity were the anarchist women you spoke with overall and, in your view, how relevant are transnational solidarity movements to people today who want to uphold some of the key values espoused by the anarchist tradition – including support for women’s liberation and sexual freedom? 

Elaine: The fact that they were internationalists was one of the things that I found most inspirational about the women I interviewed. A few had been born in other countries so they knew what it was like in other places; they were not flag waving or patriotic Americans. They knew what was going on in the world; in fact many of the men went to Spain during the civil war, while the women stayed home to raise funds for the cause. They believed in solidarity with workers and those oppressed globally. That was unusual for a time of extreme jingoism in this country. They worked for causes outside of their own lives, understanding that what happened elsewhere impacted their lives as well. They truly believed in radical political actions everywhere. And they were articulate about what was happening in the world, not just about sexual freedom and women’s liberation.

James: Another woman you interviewed, as you explained in the talk, saw governments as inherently corrupt and corrupting. To what extent did the women you spoke with focus on the functions of government, the nation-state and repressive state/government institutions – especially as those might affect gender and sexual relations? In the same vein, to what degree did they focus on capitalism? By capitalism we might consider dominant socio-economic arrangements. Those are (arguably) characterized by workplaces wherein people don’t have a say in the decisions affecting them (or a say in determining how the profits and products they help produce are distributed). Structures associated with capitalism tend to also be characterized by hierarchies of wealth and social stratification driven by status or influence. Capitalism in most forms also entails competitive markets that can privilege people and firms with greater capacity to hold out to reach buying/selling agreements until terms benefit them, putting, say, the strong, unencumbered and able-bodied at an advantage over, say, single mothers with sick children, as market critic Michael Albert has suggested. I’m sure I don’t have to tell you and nobody needed to teach the women you interviewed that the prevailing socio-economic order has also had enormous effects on gender, family and sexual relations. So I’m curious how the anarchist women you conversed with thought about all that. 

Elaine: All of the women I interviewed believe in the abolition of capitalism as we know it. They were anarchist communists who believed in worker self-management. They believed that the workers should own the “means of production” and that the workers should decide what and how their goods (whatever they were making or producing) should be decided by those who do the work, including sharing the profits equally. Teams would work together, with leadership rotating on a regular basis, so that no one would have more power or influence than another. At the macro level federations of citizens would make decisions, and those roles would rotate as well. Consensus decision making  (as hard as it can be at times) should be the norm for most decisions, through open discussion — and I would add, as a feminist, with no men dominating the conversation or [the] decisions being made; workers would rotate jobs as well, with a reasonable balance of work and home life. Men would share equally in house work and child rearing. And these women did try to live these values in their daily lives, as much as they possibly could. They were firmly against the Marxist-communism as practiced in the USSR because they knew that the “dictatorship of the proletariat” would never happen. They fought the Marxists tooth and nail within their unions.

We all know of the toxicity of white supremacist patriarchal capitalism. Although such terms were not used in the era the women I interviewed operated in, they were well aware of the inherent problems/flaws with capitalism. Most of these women were active in the labor movement and knew first hand of the inhumane work conditions under which laborers were exploited. That was their primary activism, focused on changing conditions in the market place. They did have faith in unions, since most of the women I interviewed considered themselves anarchist-communists; that means that [they] believed in the power of the collective. They did oppose the Soviet Union and knew that the “dictatorship of the proletariat” was not a reality; They said the “means are the ends” and wanted collective workers organizations in which leadership rotated. They also lived with others, trying to build the alternative communities they believed in. Thus, they were trying to create an alternative to advanced capitalism. That is still true for many anarchists today. Unfortunately their ideology and life-styles were in the minority; thus they felt demoralized by the time I met them. They saw that the revolution was not just around the corner and that their beliefs were marginalized and scorned as purely utopian. 

James: The same aforementioned woman alluded to in the previous question became involved in newspaper publishing, according to your talk. I gather she contributed to the only English-language anarchist newspaper at the time. Did writing about anarchist sexual politics appear in that paper, to your knowledge? And what relevance do you see media in general (be it oriented toward news, analysis, entertainment or whatever else) playing (or not playing) in the field of sexual politics and among those interested in anarchist theory and practice today (whether interested persons use the term “anarchist” or not)? 

Elaine: Of course the written press played a very important role in the conveying of anarchist ideology, as well as commentary on the issues of the day. A few of the women wrote for Russian language newspapers or the Frei Arbiter Stimmer (Free Voice of Labor), a Yiddish language newspaper that ran for 87 1/2 years. In those papers they fought sweatshops, organized,  agitated and fought for workers equality. They promoted Jewish secular culture and anarchist ideas. They used colorful language about revolution and truly believed that the workers would unite for a revolution. They often wrote about conditions of everyday life. I do not have access to the English language paper that the women I mentioned wrote for, but I do know they did not divulge very personal information because their lives were quite unusual; they did not want to bring attention to their lifestyles. Anarchist ideology played a major role in the politics of the day (unlike today) and many non-anarchists read these papers. They fomented agitation and were active in everyday issues, as well as international politics through their newspapers.

James: As mentioned in my first question, you briefly outlined elements of anarchism in your YIVO talk, highlighting the “abolition of domination and control by anyone” as one key desire and struggle within the anarchist tradition. You’ve personally engaged in and (I believe) helped facilitate restorative justice work inside California prisons. Did the anarchist women you spoke with view prisons and jails as forms of domination inhibiting individual (not to mention communal) freedoms – and if so, did they connect the abolition of incarceration to “the abolition of domination” in any way? Likewise, do you see shades of anarchist theory and practice in the small-but-budding movement for prison abolition today, and how do you see prisoner solidarity and the sort of restorative justice work you do tying into all that? 

Elaine: I did not specifically ask these women about their ideas on prisons because in the 80s  (when I interviewed them) we were not discussing the issue as we are today. I know that they would certainly be abolitionists now, given that most radicals today are. I know that for myself as a progressive person abolitionism is a natural outgrowth of the anarchist ideology. How can you believe in freedom for everyone and not see the inequities in our criminal (in)justice system as it relates to race, class and ethnicity? My own work in prison restorative justice is an attempt to repair the harm done by the carceral state in which we live today. My work is in solidarity with those who have been unjustly incarcerated for long periods of time, for those who have been framed by corrupt DAs and for those who have changed their lives in prison and are still held, for no earthly reason any longer. Like the ideas of anarchism I do not expect to see the dominant society embracing these radical concepts, but it does not mean that we do not fight for them for a lifetime. That is what these women did and now I believe that young anarchists, abolitionists and radicals are working to change a corrupt and inequitable society. Just because I will not see it in my lifetime does not mean we should not keep working towards a society of true equality and freedom.

James: Any final thoughts on the sexual politics of the Jewish anarchist women you had the chance to speak to at length, or anything else you’d like to add? 

Elaine: I appreciate the opportunity to tell the public about these remarkable women and to be a bridge to the next generation of radical thinkers. Many of the ideas and values these women lived on the margins of society have now become more mainstream. Change comes more slowly than I like but it does come eventually. I believe that anarchist ideology is a beautiful and hopeful image of the way a society can be [structured]. Anarchism is not chaos, it is a reasonable alternative to an unreasonable world.