In the arena of politics, anarchism existed by letting the senses speak. Anarchism is, simply, senses speaking.
*In “Gramsci is Dead” , very interestingly Day says, “At the same time as he reproduced much of what came before him, however, Bakunin made certain advances that are relevant to the emergence of the logic of affinity”. Basically he means that, although Bakunin repeated many hegemonic, non-anarchistic stuff like Proudhon, Godwin and the like, at certain moments he came close to being anarchistic, and some of his steps were relevant for the emergence of anarchistic politics!
Prejudice about a modernist anarchism is so strong that when these writers see an anti-modernist aspect of Bakunin for example, they either take it as an exception or something said inadvertently, or worse, as a contradiction! For example for Call, “Bakunin provides us, perhaps quite inadvertently, with a point of departure for postmodern anarchism.”  Here, Bakunin says science was marred by a dangerous and disturbing statism. So when Bakunin talks against science, he is talking “inadvertently”, but when he talks for science, that should be what he actually believes wholeheartedly. Why is that? Why then the ‘Bakunin effect’, the ‘Bakunin heritage’ is not the effect of a ‘science admirer’ but a creative man of deed and anarchist theory? How do we know if he said this inadvertently or not? Similarly, when Newman finds out that Kropotkin and Bakunin seemed anti-essentialist in some of their claims, he interprets these as ‘contradictions’! Whereas, the only contradiction is between the modernist image of anarchism and the real ‘anarchist effect’.
*Call sees Bakunin’s politics as a Royal science. But when we see ‘new anarchism’, as formulated by David Graeber, as a movement that takes organization principles as its ideology, what kind of a human essence will we find here? Is ‘new anarchism’ a nomad science or a royal science?
5. Ibid., p. 113.
6. Ibid., p. 68.