Book excerpt: This dissertation is an attempt to think through some conceptual issues in Latin American anarchism from the early 20th century, taking seriously the anarchist political imaginary in order to place it into dialogue with some of the lines of inquiry that animate other areas of Latin American literary and cultural studies: the role of the state, political violence, language philosophies, and racial and ethnic politics. I identify a paradox at the heart of the anarchist project - not a paradox that should or even can be undone, but rather a characteristic that is fundamentally part of what makes anarchism go. The main contribution I make is to take seriously the etymology of the term anarchism - an-arche-ism - in order to argue that anarchism is not (indeed, it cannot be) an-arche-ic. What I mean is that whereas much academic writing on anarchism is content to take anarchism at its word (that the term simply means opposition to the state, in the sense of opposition to its institutions of governance like legislatures, the police, etc.), I would like to suggest that in reality what is at stake can be captured by what the Greeks meant with the term arche - a dual foundation and command - of which the modern state is just the most obvious example.The question I ask, then, is this: to what extent can anarchism live up to its own professed goals? Or to put it another way, can anarchism really be an-arche-ic (without arche)? My argument is that it cannot. In its attempt to inaugurate a mode of politics that is not based on authoritative conventions and coercion, were it to be successful anarchism would ultimately bring forth a paradoxical principle of non-foundation. In other words, anarchism substitutes one arche for another.