????探索“抵抗的日常形式”（斯科特語）是這本書的中心議題。權力和制度通常是在它們引發的不聽從、顛覆性和不服從行為的背景下得到確立的。斯科特指出，具有諷刺意味的是，盲目地遵循規劃和政策往往是最有效的抵抗方式。他非常喜悅地列舉了許多“照規則行事”——即不折不扣地遵守正式的制度準則和法規——幾乎使運營陷入停頓的例證（參見阿林斯基的第4條規則：“讓對手踐行他們自己設定的規則。可以通過這種方式干掉他們，因為他們根本不能完全遵守他們自己的規則，就如同基督教教會無法完全遵行基督教教義一樣”）。

????《為無政府主義喝兩聲彩》一書顯得散亂無章，不成體系。無論是從語氣，還是從內容來看，這本書都與斯科特另一部權威著作《國家的視角》（Seeing Like a State）有著很大的不同。這部出版于1999年的巨著摧毀了技術專家治國論的虛飾，以及他所稱的“高度現代主義”的囂張氣焰——這種帶有政治敏感性和美感的觀點認為，結構復雜的城市、國家和地區可以由富有經驗的精英來規劃和設計。

????斯科特以一種幾乎毫無感情色彩的冷靜筆觸，探索了那些宏偉規劃不那么宏偉的失敗，以及規劃者為何一以貫之地自欺欺人的原因。相比之下，他對來自民間，自下而上的創新行為的熱情支持清楚地表明，他曾經非常嚴肅地認為，組織應該努力在個人首創和制度性強制力之間創造一種有意義的平衡。這是一本不可思議，令人驚嘆的好書。

????《為無政府主義喝兩聲彩》同時也是一部更加個性化、更加親密，坦率地說，也更加自我放縱的著作。這本書最精彩、而且最能引起共鳴的一部分是它的“前言和致謝”。讀完這部分后，讀者就會深刻理解，斯科為什么要撰寫一本如此凸顯無政府主義美德的小書。斯科特內心的矛盾和自我懷疑其實也是讀者所具有的。每一位為授權與監督或非正式與正式流程之間的取舍（抑或如何區別建設性的異見分子和不服從行為）感到擔憂的領導者或管理者，都會在這本書中看到他們自己的影子。

????筆者個人最喜歡的一部分是“第16片段——一個樸實無華，、反直覺的例證：移除紅燈”。斯科特在這里介紹了荷蘭交通工程師漢斯·毛德曼通過移除市中心的交通燈提高交通安全和公民禮儀的成功實踐。放棄交通燈使得每個人（行人、騎自行車者和司機）都更加警覺，更加自覺地意識到他人的存在。為什么呢？因為強制性外部控制的消失催生了更大的個人自主權和責任心。

????“交通管理模式的轉變帶來的影響令人陶醉，”斯科特寫道。“荷蘭小鎮驕傲地豎起了一個寫著‘沒有交通標識’字樣的標牌，還舉行了一個會議，討論宣稱‘不安全即安全’的新哲學。”

????Exploring "everyday forms of resistance," as Scott calls them, is central to his work. Power and institutions are frequently defined in the context of the disobedience, subversiveness, and insubordination they provoke. Ironically, Scott points out, slavish adherence to plans and policies often proves the most effective way to revolt. He delights in examples of how "work to rule" -- that is, ruthlessly following formal institutional guidelines and regulation to the letter -- virtually guarantee that operations will grind to a halt. (Cf. Alinsky's Rule 4: "Make opponents live up to their own book of rules. You can kill them with this, for they can no more obey their own rules than the Christian church can live up to Christianity.")

????Discursive and impressionistic,?Two Cheers for Anarchism?is different both in tone and substance from Scott's magisterial?Seeing Like a State, his 1999 opus that dismantled the technocratic pretentions and arrogance of what he called "high modernism" -- the political sensibility and aesthetic that complex cities, states and regions can be meaningfully planned and programmed by sophisticated elites.

????With an almost clinical dispassion, Scott explored the not-so-grand failures of grand planning, and the reasons why grand planners so consistently delude themselves. His passionate support of vernacular, bottom-up innovation, by contrast, made abundantly clear that he had thought seriously about how organizations should strive to create meaningful balances of power between individual initiative and institutional imperatives. It's a wonderful, breathtaking book.

????Two Cheers?is more personal, more intimate and, frankly, more self-indulgent. The best and most resonant part of the book is the "Preface and Acknowledgements." The reader will come away with an excellent sense of Scott's reasons and rationale for writing a smaller book in which anarchism's questionable virtues loom so large. Scott's internal ambivalence and self-doubt become those of his readers. Every serious leader or manager worried about the trade-offs between empowerment and oversight, or informal versus formal processes, or drawing lines between constructive dissent and insubordination, will see themselves here.

????My favorite slice was "Fragment 16 -- A Modest, Counterintuitive Example: Red Light Removal." Here Scott describes Dutch traffic engineer Hans Moderman's successful effort to improve traffic safety and civic comity by removing traffic lights from city centers. Abandoning traffic lights made everyone -- pedestrians, bicyclists, and drivers alike -- more alert and aware of one another. Why? Because the absence of imposed external controls elicited greater personal autonomy and responsibility.

????"The effect of what was a paradigm shift in traffic management was euphoria," Scott writes. "Small towns in the Netherlands put up one sign boasting that they were 'Free of Traffic Signs' ... and a conference discussing the new philosophy proclaimed 'Unsafe is safe.'"