This is a collection of fragments based loosely around six themes, mini essays, little stories, some ramblings. These are about an anarchism-type attitude perhaps more than anarchy or anarchism itself, the author talks about adopting an "anarchist squint". It was an intriguing read (and I'd like to read more of Scott's work) and made the case for everyday insubordination in pursuit of justice and freedom but it was rather anarchism-lite.

How to see like an anarchist!

Good intro to anarchism. Scott has some interesting insights on the side effects of institutions, "best practices," and standardized measures of achievement. Very easy read

Recycles some of his earlier work (including Seeing Like A State), making this a good introduction to his oeuvre. That said, it's a great little statement of how anarchism can be a tenable political and personal philosophy in a world in which the existence of the state is pretty much inevitable.

Maybe the best book I’ve read this year.

Definitely a fascinating read. I'm kinda dubious about his definition/usage of 'anarchism', but once you get past that every 'fragment' is packed with tons and tons of useful insights/frameworks for understanding social problems. Worth reading for anyone concerned about the latter, tho I'd definitely look somewhere else if you're specifically interested in learning about anarchism

This is a powerful little book. Scott advocates looking at systems and their processes of standardization, quantifying, and memorializing with distrust (“an anarchist squint”).

The stand out essay here is the first one, in which Scott shares an anecdote about jaywalking in Germany. He referred to this as “anarchist calisthenics” and argues that everyone stays “fit,” so they can break the big laws when they really matter.

scott's account of the way social control operates relies on a pretty solid and unoriginal marxist critique of the capitalist state (e.g. bowles and gintis' correspondence theory is elaborated on at great length). where this book shines is his account of his own theories: "infrapolitics" (the way that subaltern groups have got what they wanted not through democratic institutional engines but through small acts of resistance) and his belief that the petty bourgeoisie represents a space outside the greater machinations of the state. i wish more space had been dedicated to them because reading his thoughts about education was genuinely a slog.