Episode overview Episode 4 turns to anarchism as a lens for rethinking disasters, governance, and collective action. Through a rich conversation grounded in political theory, history, and pacifism, the episode explores how anarchist ideas—particularly mutual aid, nonviolence, and suspicion of centralized authority—offer critical insights into disaster risk, response, and recovery. Hosts Jason von Meding Ksenia Chmutina Guests Ruth Kinna — professor of political theory and historian of ideas, specialist in anarchism, utopianism, and activism Alex Christoyannopoulos — reader in Politics and International Relations, specialist in anarcho-pacifism, Tolstoy, and religious anarchism Key themes Anarchism as a political and ethical framework for disaster thinking Mutual aid as solidarity, not service delivery Violence, nonviolence, and the role of the state in producing harm Bottom-up governance, trust, and community agency Climate change, adaptation, and early anarchist thought Appropriation of radical ideas by states and institutions Resilience, care, and the politics of responsibility Core discussion highlights Ruth Kinna discusses Peter Kropotkin’s theory of mutual aid and its relevance to disasters, emphasizing cooperation, interdependence, and locally rooted knowledge. The conversation reframes disasters as moments that expose existing power relations, where mutual aid often outperforms slow or absent state responses—especially in marginalized communities. Kropotkin’s early engagement with environmental change and food security is explored, highlighting his concern with climate, production, migration, and adaptation well before contemporary climate discourse. Alex Christoyannopoulos reflects on Leo Tolstoy’s anarcho-pacifism, focusing on violence as a structural feature of the state and on moral responsibility, complicity, and refusal. Nonviolence is discussed not only as a moral stance but as a practical foundation for community resilience, collective decision-making, and resistance. Both guests critique the appropriation of concepts like mutual aid, care, and resilience by governments and institutions, arguing that such moves often strip these ideas of their political substance. The episode challenges disaster scholars to take seriously activism, disobedience, and bottom-up organizing as central—rather than peripheral—to disaster risk and response.