It seems we’ve taken the first-ever photograph of a black hole, a feat that could test some of the basic laws of physics. But seeing the “unseeable” might also test some basic assumptions of science and how scientists work together. Given a closer look, we might see that science and its practitioners have just put on a master class in future-making. Were anarchist principles central to the syllabus?

By now, most realize the photo was made possible by the Event Horizon Telescope (EHT), a collection of radio observatories that dots the globe and makes for an earth-sized telescope capable of seeing the black hole at the center of the Messier 87 (M87) galaxy. To render the image, the observatories had to cooperate and share data.

In fact, researcher Katie Bouman, who captained a novel algorithm to make imaging the black hole possible, says the photograph is the product of teamwork. The Millennial computer scientist notes that it took several international scientists “years of hard work to develop the instrument, data processing, imaging methods, and analysis techniques that were necessary to pull off this seemingly impossible feat.”

Yet, making the impossible possible is not entirely new to those engaged in the work of science. Anthropologist David Graeber claims that humanity’s most worthwhile achievements have long depended on anarchist principles like cooperation and mutual aid. Albeit science is not the only domain where these values can trump others like competitiveness and authoritarianism, cooperation is still especially important in science: we might never have photographed a black hole without it!

Perhaps this begs the question of whether anarchist principles regularly make the work of science possible. After all, without them, scientists might not share data, email one another, attend conferences, visit foreign labs, or co-author publications, etc. Or, perhaps cooperation might continue among scientists but out of a different, much less charitable spirit. And would that really beget a science, or a future, worth having?

Who’s to say? As for now, our scientific labors seem to suggest that a desirable future — one in which we routinely dream and do the impossible — continues to hinge, at least in spirit, on anarchist principles.

Consider our newly minted black hole photograph. Isn’t it material evidence that we can, and do, routinely organize ourselves? That we don’t need to be forced, threatened, or told how to come together to achieve great things? And, doesn’t scientific collaboration routinely teach that consent is key, meaning none is forced to collaborate? Furthermore, aren’t such collaborative relationships fueled by voluntary dedication and therefore largely egalitarian and marked by horizontality?

The answers all seem in the affirmative. However, as Graeber notes, the anarchist critique of broader society — of which science is an important part — is that so many feel that they and their opinions simply don’t matter. He claims this frustrates and invites anger and apathy, even violence — an observation to which social scientist Richard Sennett might add that “the more incompetent people feel themselves to be in dealing with complexity, the more they revert to very aggressive, hostile ways of dealing with the outside world.”

For Sennett, cooperation may be an antidote, and for those doing the work of science, this antidote gets reflected in their work of building trust and dialoguing across publics and institutions to devise inclusive solutions to problems.

Let’s face it: whether locally or globally, the world seems an increasingly complex, scientific space. Researchers often straddle international, scientific, and technological boundaries to perform their work, to share it, and to aid colleagues and stakeholders alike. Indeed, as historian Rudolf Rocker explained of anarchism in 1938, science today actively promotes that people use their talents and capabilities in the service of others, and for the greater good.

To be sure, just as conflict arises societally, so too in scientific collaboration. And those who study collaboration identify hierarchy as a key source of conflict. What’s more, the observation that hierarchy is problematic owes much to the idea that power corrupts — a largely anarchist critique. In scientific collaborations, sheer hierarchy would be too problematic to be fruitful. So, power ultimately rests with the group, and the members of a scientific collaboration largely determine the fate of the group through the decisions they make.

Of course, photographing a black hole, and seemingly validating Einstein’s general theory of relativity, was made possible by the labors of many. Anarchist principles like cooperation and self-organization doubtless played a role. Perhaps making the impossible possible is part of what we want for ourselves when we imagine the future. Likely, then, ours would require that we continue to do the work of science, and that anarchist principles remain part of that work.