design without hierarchy
wha
t
could
de sign
wit hout
hier archy
lo ok
like?
But wait, maybe we’re thinking about this wrong? Would an anarchist attempt to create a form of visual design without hierarchy, or is it that hierarchy itself is intrinsic within the eyes of those who perceive art?
Is visual hierarchy actually the problem in which a young anarchist designer might find themselves at odds with?
Hierarchy, especially that of visual hierarchy, still exists within most work. What an anarchist in the design field might be more interested in working against is the organized structure or hierarchy that is used authoritatively to create power imbalance. Rather than viewing design as a system without hierarchy, perhaps we should view it in which we attempt to make the act of designing a more democratic process for those involved?
When I first set out with this question, I remember being asked the question “What would it look like if you designed a book without hierarchy?” At first, I was entertaining the idea of how that could be done. Would said book have the same font size throughout? Maybe it was done in all lowercase? Maybe it played with color to replace traditional hierarchical form?
Yet something was nagging at me, that this question, although a fun thought experiment, wasn’t getting to the bottom of the nature of my thoughts and work in this space. I started to view the question as a fundamental misunderstanding of anarchistic thought and narratives, no doubt due to society’s current lens on the “anarchist” as a violent or subversive force for radical change.
Thomas Pulliam says this about Anarchy’s modern perception in his 2021 article “Anarchy Against Hierarchy”,
Moving forward is impossible unless we learn each other’s language. In spite of all our similarities, all our shared wants and concerns, misunderstanding convinces us we are enemies. Emma Goldman wrote, “Someone has said that it requires less mental effort to condemn than to think. The widespread mental indolence, so prevalent in society, proves this to be only too true.” Words with multiple definitions that change drastically according to context, group, and setting—like anarchy, communism, nihilism, etc.—contribute to this discord. When most people hear “anarchy”, they will often imagine violence and refuse to listen. This hostility frustrates the anarchist, who views it in terms of cooperative, horizontal living.
In saying so, Thomas concludes that the most common agreement that you can find among anarchists is that our theory would generally be more popular if only it wasn’t so tragically misunderstood.(1)
I can’t help but agree with this sentiment as I hear the word Anarchy uttered in reference to chaos, conveniently ignoring the mountains of work created by anarchism and anarchist-adjacent modes of thought that announce a profound form of equality, peace and community not unlike the original configuration of human society.(2)
This isn’t to say that violence is absent in the arsenal of the Anarchist, but instead a challenge of understanding what situations might have caused such violence to have arisen in the first place. For my modern understanding of Anarchist Theory, I find that violence in this sense nearly entirely surfaces as a reactionary attempt to halt some form of oppression or restriction of another’s freedom.
This could take the form of a protest against the unjust killing of a black man, or as a fight against the restriction of rights, and yes, even as the attack on a person spouting hateful and damaging ideology. Yet this form of anarchy which is often misappropriated by media outlets and misconstrued as radical violence or even terrorism.(3)
But, in a world where oppression by the hands of power did not exist, would Anarchists simply disappear?
The answer to that question, of course, is no!
Taking this necessary yet reactionary form of violence within Anarchy away from the modern lens, ironically, would allow Anarchism to be seen and understood as its true form as the advocation of a lifestyle focused on the basis of personal autonomy, equality, freedom, and the flattening of all hierarchy in societal action.
Yet it seems that this form of “anarchist design” is absent within the lexicon of both the canon of design and of design history. Relegated to being simply considered a subset or part of the punk aesthetic, or represented by splotchy paint and the symbolic letter “A” hurriedly sprayed along the underpass of an American highway.(Fig. 1, pictured left)
Where are the Anarchist designers at? Surely there must be more representation than posters from the Spanish Civil War era?(Fig. 2, pictured below)
This emptiness is particularly felt within the academic space, where I commonly find the same classic misunderstandings among fellow designers I am in community with. The negative connotations associated with the term Anarchism alone has caused some to even suggest attempting to find new rhetoric or identifiers to replace the usage of “Anarchy.”
To replace and censor in this sense would, in my opinion, go against the very idea of the subversive nature of my goal as an anarchist within this design space.
This is why we’ve arrived at the first volume of “Unsolicited Design”, and in this section we will inspect anarchy from differing perspectives to answer the question;
Where are the anarchist designers?
The Elephant In The Room
Addressing uncomfortable truths;
I think it’s important to note in this conversation that due to the nature of the design field in its current state, that is, a highly consumerized and commodified field centered around brands and advertising, that the prominent presence of graphic designers with active knowledge of anarchic theory is unfortunately uncommon.
It’s hard to imagine that many of the artists within this bubble would willingly choose to participate in the field of art which is essentially the most close to capitalism in its modern usage.
This is not an admittance of defeat, however, as I choose to believe that Graphic Designers may exist without the need of markets and profit margin. This is simply a thought that crosses my mind when wondering aloud, “Where are the Anarchist Designers?”
This is reflective even in myself as well, as I gathered and bolstered my political senses and theory, I slowly shifted away from traditional work in the graphic design field. I became uninterested in work for clients and corporations, lost my passion for the design field, and then had to regain that passion once I allowed myself to view design from an entirely different angle.
That led me to the pursuit of education as a means of allowing myself the freedom to both work within the field I’ve dedicated myself to, but simultaneously hoping that my perspective brought to the classroom could change (and hopefully heal) some of the ailments I see so commonly in young, disillusioned designers leaving their undergraduate programs.
This is also reflective of the anarchists focus on individual communities and contributions to small organizations across the world. The collective action of anarchists focusing on contributing art to their causes happens often away from the public eye of the media. This could be for many reasons, a social algorithm that represses anarchistic values, a government keen on keeping collective action hidden, or the grassroots nature of the cause itself, to name just a few.
When searching for modern anarchist graphic designers, typically the results appear very dry. Searching the term “Anarchist Graphic Designers” or any variation will usually yield the following few names repeated; Rufus Segar(Fig. 3), Dennis Gould, Jamie Reid(Fig. 4), Aleksai Gan, Clifford Harper.
Many of these artists have direct ties to what we see as anarchist related design now, ranging from 60s era traditional magazine creation to the album covers of the Sex Pistols. When looking at the body of work created by these artists in their times, it’s easy to see a guiding light which moves from the original roots of constructivism and revolutionary art all the way to the development of modern punk aesthetics.
It’s also impossible not to note Anarchism’s influence on some of the most famous artists discussed today, such as Pablo Picasso, Camille Pissarro, Georges Seurat, Man Ray, Robert Henri, Wassily Kandinsky, Rockwell Kent, Frans Masereel, and even Mark Rothko.(4)
Many artists who’ve had this connection to anarchist levels of thought or influence have typically had their anarchistic roots whitewashed for the sake of the narrative being told. Even today we can see the political nature of figures such as Einstein, Orwell, or Martin Luther King Jr. be conveniently changed or left out to teach a more government favored version of our history.(5)
However, in this association of Anarchism with these artists, we may find ourselves slowly attempting to categorize these artists into the idea of what anarchist art and design might look like. David Graeber says in his Fragments of an Anarchist Anthropology;
…if one compares the historical schools of Marxism, and anarchism, one can see we are dealing with a fundamentally different sort of project. Marxist schools have authors. Just as Marxism sprang from the mind of Marx, so we have Leninists, Maoists, Trotskyites, Gramscians, Althusserians...
Now consider the different schools of anarchism. There are Anarcho-Syndicalists, AnarchoCommunists, Insurrectionists, Cooperativists, Individualists, Platformists... None are named after some Great Thinker; instead, they are invariably named either after some kind of practice, or most often, organizational principle. (Significantly, those Marxist tendencies which are not named after individuals, like Autonomism or Council Communism, are also the ones closest to anarchism.) Anarchists like to distinguish themselves by what they do, and how they organize themselves to go about doing it. And indeed this has always been what anarchists have spent most of their time thinking and arguing about. Anarchists have never been much interested in the kinds of broad strategic or philosophical questions that have historically preoccupied Marxists.(6)
Graeber is speaking here on why there might be more Marxist based thinkers present in the academy rather than anarchist thinkers. Although this writing is not particularly to compare Marxist thought with that of anarchist, I see a value in bringing this up when speaking on what an anarchist designer who is present in the academy(other than myself) might be thinking.
The Neoliberal Punk
So do Anarchists even have a “style?”
Immediately you may be drifting off to The Clash’s London Calling album cover (Fig. 5), diving into cut out text, gritty pattern work, handmade illustration, and poppy colors. When we think of the stereotypical idea of the traditional school punk, a rebel in leather who does graffiti and hates authority, is it correct to call them an anarchist?
This is especially present now, where media literacy is at an all time low. A teen within the city may spraypaint the anarchist A on a wall. Then, putting on their store bought pre-patched leather jacket(an example of anarchist patches found across the internet) and studded jeans, they will go to a party and tout their punk and anarchy. Meanwhile, said person may have absolutely no idea why the punk movement even started in the first place, or the historical significance of the circled A they drew earlier. Have they ever visited the Anarchist Library and read theory? Likely not, yet it does not stop them from calling themselves Anarchists.
So no, the school punk isn’t any more anarchist than the average school student if they lack the knowledge and theory of what makes anarchism work. What I’m describing here is the illiterate use of symbols, or essentially, a neoliberal understanding of Anarchism. The chasing of “punk” and “anarchy” as an aesthetic over an actual political theory.
We, as designers in the trendy hustle culture of consumerism are no different. When a modern design student logs on to Pinterest in interest of looking for “visual influence”, they may come across a grunge or punk poster design and think “wow, cool.” Next day, they arrive at the critique with a poster highly reminiscent of James Reid’s punk style (Fig. 7), but they have no idea why the poster was made to look that way in the first place.
They have taken an aesthetic shortcut, arriving from point A to C without the process of point B, which is the knowledge and understanding of the history and process behind the design. This part is extremely crucial, yet in my experience almost entirely absent due to the nature of how we work in the digital age.
Unfortunately for us as educators, modern design students want those shortcuts. They want to copy the trends and “good” designs imprinted on them by their professors, make it through college, and get a decent job. To win capitalism.
I’ve talked a lot in the past about the nature of the classroom driven by personal aesthetics, which can be found on my blog, but why am I bringing this up?
All of these contribute to the cultural understanding of what makes an anarchist. When the teen punk touts themself an anarchist, they are directly associating themselves with Anarchism and, by extension, creating a cultural image of what an anarchist is. When they make a mistake or commit a crime in their youth such as vandalism (through graffiti, the smashing of windows, or any of said nature) that same image is projected onto all anarchists as violent or vandals, yet most would not even consider the teen an anarchist at all. News and media grapple onto these small stories and blow them up to paint the anarchist as violent. Parents watch the news, teach their children as such, the cultural cycle continues.
The internet reinforces the same ideas, as it can be a space where you can find and interact with real anarchist thought and theory, yet most will find themselves at the surface level, never diving deeper and simply seeing anarchism from the lens of google results and twitter posts.
This extends to the designer who is looking to create something for a project. When searching online for inspiration, they come across an aesthetic that uses blacked out lettering and prints made with older techniques. They like the style, they make the style, they sell the style. Is the style anarchist?
Are they now an anarchist designer?
Who even is an Anarchist Designer?
Okay, but seriously, who even is an Anarchist Designer?
Am I even an Anarchist Designer?
Well, I know Anarchist theory,
I call myself an Anarchist, and I make designs,
so I guess there’s no question right?
Does that make subverting hierarchy in design a necessity?
Or would it be more naturally anarchic to simply make whatever I feel like making?
I think the answer lies in that last line. Anarchy is a theory in which every person who identifies with it will come to a slightly different conclusion, something that makes the idea of anarchist communities so beautiful in the first place. Can we really attempt to categorize and bundle anarchist artists together by visual style, or should we instead attempt to focus on bundling them by their belief in anarchism in the first place. As David Graeber says, we are dealing with a fundamentally different form of project.7
Fig. 7 Issue of Anarchy magazine from July 1968, this issue is focused on the events of May 1968 in Paris.
For myself, there is this weirdness in between. I am in love with the visual style of the post-modern punk, the maximalism and grunge aesthetics are like candy for my eyes. Yet, I also love the minimalist look of modern design, the architecture of Frank Lloyd Wright (Fig. 8), and even the Swiss style that I learned to use throughout my undergraduate degree. (Fig. 9, 10)
What if I reject those labels, what if I design with hierarchy but against hierarchy? Would it be metamodern?8 Would it be hypocritical? Would I not be practicing the ideals I preach?
Design Against Hierarchy, With Hierarchy
Wrapping around from the very beginning, what if you design without hierarchy? Although it is most certainly possible to do so, and I see that there may be room for the usage of such tactics in the future, I choose to remain designing with visual hierarchy. I don’t believe this makes me less of an Anarchist at all, in fact, to simply make what I feel like making is the highest reflection of freedom I could give myself.
I choose, out of my own freedom and autonomy, to use hierarchy as the pendulum between the modern and postmodern as my design swings back and forth. It is not a case of the master’s tools.9 I say this because I reject the idea that the master in this case may own our art or design at all in the first place. Designers may be lost in the complex web of capital, but we will break free of these chains one day.
I believe that, eventually, something beautiful is going to happen.
1 - Thomas Pulliam, “Anarchy Against Hierarchy” 2022
2 - “We are usually told that democracy originated in ancient Athens—like science, or philosophy, it was a Greek invention. It’s never entirely clear what this is supposed to mean. Are we supposed to believe that before the Athenians, it never really occurred to anyone, anywhere, to gather all the members of their community in order to make joint decisions in a way that gave everyone equal say?”
- David Graeber, “Fragments of an Anarchist Anthropology”
3 - US Government Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene introduced a bill in 2023 which would deem the organization “ANTIFA” a domestic terrorist organization and would permit “the use of all available tools to combat the spread of such terrorism (done by) antifa.” This, of course, is an attempt at silencing the voice of the anarchist-based organization and its outreach as a form of government control. (https://www.congress.gov/bill/118th-congress/house-resolution/202)
4 - Josh MacPhee and Erik Reuland, Realizing the Impossible: Art against Authority
(Oakland, CA: AK Press, 2007). Page 4.
5 - “They attempt to silence his cries for a more monetarily equitable society. They deliberately obscure the final few years of his life. This sanitized, “white-washed” version of King, presented in everything from children’s textbooks to internet memes, purges the intense radicalism of the strike-leading preacher.” 50 Voices for 50 Years Series, Poverty, Racism, and the Legacy of King’s Poor People’s Campaign.
By Keri Leigh Merritt
6 - David Graeber, Fragments of an Anarchist Anthropology
(Chicago: Prickly Paradigm Press, 2006), Pages 4-5.
7 - David Graeber, Fragments of an Anarchist Anthropology
(Chicago: Prickly Paradigm Press, 2006), Pages 4-5.
8 - The “metamodern” is a form of design that I have done research on before. It is the consideration of what comes after postmodernism, where designers are now finding an intersection between the postmodern and the modern. By oscillating between these two like a pendulum, the metamodern takes advantage of irony and authenticity, fragility and cynicism. This creates a new form of design synthesized out of all of these concepts, one based on empathy and connection.
9 - “The master’s tools will never dismantle the master’s house” is a quote by Audre Lorde, a Black lesbian feminist writer and activist. Lorde said this in 1979 at a feminist conference in New York.
