It isn't, and this is the vocal anti-anarchist contingent voicing their POV as fact when in reality he had stepped down from IHES after he realized his work was being funded by the French Military [1] in some Academic-Military collusion and couldn't continue any longer--not unlike DARPA has with MIT in modern times.
He had a greater regard and estimation in his colleagues and Academia as a whole that turned out to be false as none followed him in protest and he then dedicated his Life to Environmentalism. He even shunned his Field's medal and rejected all the awards that followed.
He, like many other Anarchists, felt that the State's continual and expansionist military activity needlessly contributes to the haphazard and headlong demise of the World's Ecology--which threatens all of Life on Earth--and wrote at great length about it. And sees the State as an imminent threat to Humanity as it accelerates our demise as a Species.
I learned about Grothendieck's amazing Life and his work upon his death in 2014 (a month or 2 after Hal Finney died) in a very defining period of my Life, not just as an anarchist myself but as a Human and this article's final paragraph summed up what I think he wanted to be remembered the most as it was a Life well lived.:
The man who had advanced mathematics in the most profound ways did not believe that math was the answer to everything. He taught us that life is more valuable than any equation.
I don't regard being antimilitary as being political at all. Maybe the working definition of politics is different, but if you are not involved in a political party that tries to exercise influence and prescription to others, then I would call one apolitical.
In the same way, many Soviet intellectuals that were against their government still referred to themselves as apolitical.
> Maybe the working definition of politics is different, but if you are not involved in a political party that tries to exercise influence and prescription to others, then I would call one apolitical.
Then I don't think you understand what anarchism is at all, here is a working definition from his Biography [1] portion titled Anarchism; it helps elucidate what it is that anarchism is, and what it seeks to achieve (note that no actual Political affiliation is ascribed or required to adhere to these principals, as anarchism carries within it a breadth of sub-types in its mode of operation but carries within it core principals and values):
The first part of this book describes the life of an anarchist, und perhaps it would not be completely superfluous to make a short statement about what Anarchism is:
Anarchism is a world view whose basis lies in the conviction that the domination of people over each other, and every form of hierarchy, leads to the suppression of individual and collective freedom; that it is unjustified, repressive, and results in violence. Anarchism propagates the dissolving of hierarchical state structures. It places individual freedom, equality and collective self-determination at the center of its effort to create a social organization entirely free of coercion.
If you're interested, as you clearly shown that you are to some degree, you can take the the time to read for yourself how he viewed the World with his other Work [2] outside of mathematics and what his aims were from the links below for yourself. The Grothendieck Circle is also another great source for reading his works, it could use some sprucing up as it looks like an 90s Angelfire site, but the links work.
Hm, that seems to be a rather peculiar and particular interpretation of the term. Grassroots organisations, political activist movements of all kinds would then fall outside your criterion. I mean... Women's suffrage movement (which changed the definition of who can vote in the first place), civil rights movement, etc. would also fall outwith your definition of the notion. (edit) The political processes which culminated in the French, the 1917 communist revolutions, etc... I don't see a point in defining the term in that way at all.
I think the discussion is becoming complicated, but I think my key points are this:
1. One can be apolitical by being socially apathetic towards the influences of other people. This describes myself: I am alabellist and as a general courtesy to other mathematicians (as a group in particular) allow them the benefit of the doubt that they would prefer me to not label them either. This is my approach to Grothendieck: I think it's perfectly consistent to have complicated views on politics, but to still remain apolitical in the sense that you don't try to propagate your views other than their inherent merits. Going to live as a hermit in the mountains is the evidence that I use for this; I haven't heard that he tried to lure other people into the mountains or forced an agenda on other people from his stay there.
2. Mathematicians are often an oppressed group of people, as are all scientists, sometimes become oppressive themselves and often have serious mental health issues or other social risks. For this reason one should approach other mathematicians with empathy. It also suggests to not judge people by their worst, but by their best. For me, the best of Grothendieck is not a political environmental crusader, it is a great mathematician with certain idiosyncratic tendencies for isolation and statements on politics. That does not mean that his actions have a political undertone in the sense that they try to exert influence without permission. Such actions to me are apolitical by nature; Youtubers are not all political, but I would have called them so if we were all forced to watch their channels.
"I don't like cats" is a fairly apolitical statement, that is until such point as political parties start taking stances on cats and arguing in favor of who subsidizes what kinds of feline activities.
I have many beliefs that I regard as accidentally political - which is to say that I believe these things regardless of whether or which politicians happen to agree, or what their political affiliations are, or how closely tied their affiliations are to mine. It doesn't particularly matter to me whether others regard those beliefs as political or not, but it seems that we're approaching an era in which anything and everything can be deemed 'political' in some way merely because parties choose to take positions on them, and that may be completely at odds with how an individual may have come to conclusions on their own.
I think I see what you mean, maybe there is a need to differentiate (individual conclusions "on their own", though there'd be arguments in favour of viewing those as political as well, etc.) But perhaps not at the expense of the term "political" (but rather introduction of some other term). Because it's simply not the case that something is necessarily apolitical "until such point as political parties start taking stances on cats". Some revolutions, changes in political regime, etc. happened not via the process of already existing political establishment systems (of which parliamentary parties is a mere (and not necessary (being descriptive here, not prescriptive)) subset of) accepting / incorporating / etc. some views at all (rather the exact opposite, say).
Also, "I don't like cats" is a sort of easy example to use here, but if you take e.g. "domestic violence should not happen", where do you draw the line in terms of when it becomes political (let's say you start a grassroots network where victims of domestic violence can support each other, and gradually build political capital, and so on)...
That said, differentiation along your lines is maybe useful, but severely redefining the scope of the term "political" seems a weird way to go about it.
I think the best way to understand this reality is that when it comes down to it, a lot more things are political than one would think.
For example, "I don't like cats" is apolitical because it doesn't take into consideration anyone but you. But as soon as you say, "we like cats too much", that's political.
An example I would give is someone that's debating which feature an open-source project should work on. That's inherently political. The only difference between that and whether or not we should fund smartphones for homeless people, for example, is a matter of scale.
An issue I see right off the bat, how do you deal with the reality that politics can and does exist without and within, not just between political parties?
I think the best definition of politics is anything that relates to the making of decisions that concern a group of people. If whatever you are doing or talking about concerns how we should make decisions, then it is political. And I don't think that's an issue. To try to limit politics to what happens in an electoral party state is pretty sad and reductive, and contributes to political apathy.
Political - (defn) relating to the ideas or strategies of a particular party or group in politics
Whereas in within the context of this discussion, i.e. is Grothendieck an Anarchist?, political is being used to mean:
Political - (defn) an ethical philosophy of society and government.
However Grothendieck is political under both definitions:
(1). he formed and participated in a political group which attempted to advance policies (defn 1), (2). and those policies were based on an ethical philosophy of society which he believed in (defn 2).
Political—Promoting the influence of a group of people x on some group of people y, often in an insistent manner and often without the critical evaluation of subject matter.
Apolitical—Being opposed, for most x and y, to the influence of some group of people x on some group of people y. When in some unfortunate cases in life, some influence of x on y is tolerated, it is only tolerated because of the subject matter, and not tolerated because of the particular humans that comprise x (promoting them) or the set y (subjecting them).
Hm. But how is the founding of Survivre (a political group publishing antimilitary etc. texts) and serving as its editor apolitical?