In this thesis I define and defend the philosophy of critical philosophical anarchism and show it to be superior to alternative (anarchist and non-anarchist) approaches to the problem of justification of political institutions. In general I argue that the anarchist position within the contemporary debate on political obligation has been dismissed too easily and that the value of an anarchist approach to an understanding of (and solution to) the problem of political authority is underestimated in current thought. In particular, my thesis sets out and defends the critical philosophical anarchist approach to the problem of political obligation and contrasts this approach with traditional treatments of the problem. I advance a clearer statement of the critical philosophical anarchist position than those currently available and demonstrate the continued value of taking an anarchist approach to the problem of political authority. This thesis has seven chapters. In the introductory chapter I set out the basic problem of political obligation and the anarchist position I want to defend. The first chapter presents the main aspects of the central problem and the main argument for its solution to be developed in the following chapters. Chapter two provides an analysis and restatement of anarchist arguments against consent and contract theories of political obligation. Chapter three offers considerations against a natural duty theory of political obligation. Chapter four addresses a reciprocity-based theory of political obligation, to wit: the principle of fairness as formulated by Hart and Rawls. The fifth chapter provides a general illustration of the distinctive contribution of critical philosophical anarchism to the problem of political authority. It develops the argument set out in chapter one and references to that argument in the preceding critical chapters on alternative approaches to the problem of political obligation. In the concluding chapter I tie together my argument for critical philosophical anarchism, as developed over the course of the thesis, and set out the main aims of an anarchist approach to society in light of this discussion.

This thesis explores contemporary anarchism, in its re-emergence as a social movement and political theory over the past decade. Its method combines cultural sociology and philosophical argumentation, in a participatory research framework. The first part, "Explaining Anarchism", argues that it should be addressed primarily as a political culture, with distinct forms of organisation, of campaigning and direct action repertoires, and of political discourse and ideology. Largely discontinuous with the historical workers' and peasants' anarchist movement, contemporary anarchism has fused in the intersection of radical direct-action movements in the North since the 1960s: feminism, ecology, and the resistance to nuclear energy and weapons, war, and neoliberal globalisation. Anarchist ideological discourse is analysed with attention to key concepts such as "domination" and "prefigurative politics", emphasising the avowedly open-ended, experimental nature of the anarchist project. The second part, "Anarchist Anxieties", is a set of theoretical interventions in four major topics of controversy in anarchism today. Leadership in anarchist politics is addressed through sustained attention to the concept of power, proposing an agenda for equalising access to influence among activists, and an "ethic of solidarity" around the wielding of non-coercive power. Violence is approached through a recipient-based definition of the concept, exploring the limits of any attempt to justify violence and offering observations on violent empowerment, revenge and armed struggle. Technology is subject to a strong anarchist critique, which stresses its inherently social nature, leading to the exploration of Luddism, the disillusioned use of ICTs, and the promotion of lo-tech, sustainable human-nature interfaces as strategical directions for an anarchist politics of technology. Finally, the lens of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is used to address anarchist dilemmas around national liberation, exploring anarchist responses in conflict-ridden societies, and direct action approaches to peacemaking.

This thesis aims to investigate the way in which anarchism - both as a means of theoretical political dissent as well as a practical tool of shock - was transformed from the `chaotic' intent of first wave punk towards a more informed political ideology in the emerging `anarcho-punk' scene of the 1980s. In particular, I wish to explore the way in which ideas surrounding `anarcho' and `punk' were fused together so as to provide a space where individuals could develop a more `informed lifestyle' in expressing a subversive distaste towards corporate forms of oppression such as multinationals, governments and the police. Chapter one will provide an overview of punk within a wider history of political and philosophical dissent, exploring ideas that link it to a continuing thread of agitation akin to groups such as the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament and Situationism. This debate will be further explored in chapter two. With particular attention to the music of the Sex Pistols, I wish to explore the extent to which the break down of the post-war consensus, and the resultant economic crisis in Britain in the 1970s, nurtured a social, political and musical environment for first wave punk to flourish. The anarcho-punk scene proper is introduced in the main body of this work. Here, I will turn primarily to the way in which the musical characteristics of the anarchopunk movement encompass the twin ideals of `punk' and `anarchism' so as to provide a new form of organised dissent towards a capitalist system seen to embody oppression and uniformity. In particular, I wish to explore the extent to which the practical realities of applying a complex political system such as anarchism had repercussions on the transformation of the British punk scene as a whole.