SUMMARY Traditionally affinity groups have been one of the main elements of the anarchist movement. The author examines the various definitions of them which have been put forward in our day and in the past, and brings out the contradictions between them and their common points. The main contradiction concerns their theoretically extra~ocietal character on the one hand and the desire to intervene in social conflicts on the other. The common points are anarchist theory, friendship links, small scale, and tie-ups with emancipation movements. In reality, in attempts at formulating theories of affinity groups, more of an effort to justify them can be discerned than a search for the best ways of organizing them. Under the same heading, in fact, can be found quite dissimilar practices and modes of behaviour. The "family.group" lives to a great extent within itself; the "activist.group" is oriented to the transformation of society. Going to the extremes it is possible, on the one hand, to arrive at individualism, rediscovered and idealized by some authors after May '68; and on the other, at the micro-party, which is prey to the temptation of the discipline of collective action. A frequent source of impotence within affinity groups is a tendency to evolve into closed societies, which brings with it, as a consequence, other defects: a more or less disguised "leaderism ", personal antagonisms expressing themselves via ideological conflicts, etc. The author poses two questions; is the affinity group intended to be a means of intervention, or an embryo of a counter~ociety? Secondly, doesn't personal affinity risk gaining the upper hand over the anarchist beliefs? All this opens up a debate about the affinity group as such, and underlines the need for a definition of means, which are inseparable from ends. 20
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MTExMDY2NQ==