Emma Goldman and Anarchy

Escaping the rule of law and order as it is traditional for a society is a means of anarchy. Emma Goldman did not want people to be induced and be forced into something that they do not align with, politically, socially or otherwise. “Anarchism could not hope to escape the fate of all other ideas of innovation. Indeed, as the most revolutionary and

innovator, Anarchism must needs meet with the combined ignorance and venom of the world it aims to reconstruct” (Goldman). Here, Goldman is looking at anarchism as a revolutionary and innovative approach, even though it calls for the abolishment of the state. That is, the government and the body of authority are abandoned under the context of anarchy. The people are in control of their own fate, their own laws, and a sense of order that they are able to address in their own capacity.

Goldman uses the ignorant man as one who symbolizes order and consistency. The voice of the people cannot be abandoned, where the state, under anarchy, is responsible for silencing those who are forced into abiding by the rules that they never set in the first place. “The emotions of the ignorant man are continuously kept at a pitch by the most blood-curdling stories about Anarchism” (Goldman). Here, Goldman is outlining the ignorant man as one who follows the order without critical thought. The ignorant person is going to be continuing without any change, because he knows no other way, and cannot envision an alternative. The ignorant man is problematic for those who are seeking development, based on this ideology.

The themes of destruction and violence are clear in Goldman’s argument, but there may be confusion as to the elements of what she is calling on. “Destruction and violence! How is the ordinary man to know that the most violent element in society is ignorance; that its power of destruction is the very thing Anarchism is combating?” (Goldman). There is a level of confusion in who Goldman is speaking about when interpreting the ordinary man. When compared with women, Goldman believes the man only knows standards that are set for the elite. The woman, of course, must fight for all opportunities as nothing is inherited. Opportunity is lost for the woman, where the man never loses this chance to succeed; again, it is inherited. The anarchist wants to disrupt this trend and take away from the man, who is naïve and knows no pain and suffering.

Destruction and violence are means of revolting against an unjust society. Paul Avrich and Karen Avrich contend that the means of changing social situations is through demand. At some point, there can be no more questions as they are falling on deaf ears. One is able to see the coordination between Paul and Karen Avrich and what Goldman is suggesting in her pursuit of anarchy, one that pits the women against the men and demands social change, justice, and equality. If anarchy is not possible, the fear is that equality will not be possible. Without anarchy, social justice is not simply going to develop on its own, as it demands a push for change. Avrich and Avrich are exploring Emma Goldman and her journey, where she coordinated with Alexander Berkman. The two had individual theories about how change should take place in society, but they were collective in the vision, goals, and support for a social revolution.

Tension results in a desire for relief. As the people look to the governing powers, they want relief from the social pressure that is placed on them. The government is the ultimate ruling body. The government or ruling body tends to apologize to the people when their needs are left unmet; yet, one questions whether there is truly any empathy from the government, or the elite

class. “The most absurd apology for authority and law is that they serve to diminish crime” (Goldman). This quote may be the most influential and hold the strongest level of realism. In contemporary society, there is distance between law enforcement and particular communities. In her effort to promote anarchy and take power away from the governing bodies, Goldman is pursuing new goals for people and their placement in communities of focus. Avrich and Avrich find this to be a pursuit of new means of exploration, where one’s enhanced freedom in society is a reflection of critical thinking, pursuit of thoughts, and opportunities. Now, looking at the current socioeconomic environment, there is inequality that is pressing. Goldman is blaming the government for this separation and the tension that exists between people.

Continuing with realism in contemporary society, law enforcement has been combative with respect to the general public. Goldman would find the police to be aggressive, against society, and a full burden to the people looking to protect their own interests. The police are upholding law and order, which on the surface is meant to protect individualism, the rights of people, and justice. Equality is a part of justice, where law enforcement personnel should be treating all individuals with the same level of respect, with no bias or discrimination. Neil Thompson outlines the problems associated with social justice, or an injustice against the people. Thompson believes that there is a responsibility of the state in this capacity, where the state has abandoned common principles that show respect to individualism. Instead of working with the people, law enforcement and the wider criminal justice system has taken efforts to work against certain demographics, causing chaos in these communities (Thompson). Under this premise, chaos is the result of law enforcement picking-and-choosing who to respect and which communities will be given preferable treatment. In this case, Goldman would be calling for anarchy as the solution to this major social problem.

Minorities are given unfair treatment by law enforcement and the government as a whole, compared with the white majority. This is a theme that has become evident in contemporary society. Law enforcement officials claim that they are unbiased. In many cases, a police officer is upholding the law, promoting core standards, and respecting justice and equality to promote equal protection under the law. This is true in many cases, and officers or any government officials should not be categorized as bad, based on rational thought. Of course, Goldman is opposed to this ideology and feels that the only way to overcome these challenges is to re-evaluate past trends and overcome them with new directions. Anarchy is the direction she suggests, as the trends of the past have not worked, or are ineffective in solving the real problems of social justice.

The ineffective trends of the past have led us to this point in history, according to Goldman. “Crime is naught but misdirected energy. So long as every institution of today, economic, political, social, and moral, conspires to misdirect human energy into wrong channels…” (Goldman). Crime is a critical trend here, where the idea of a functioning society is that crime is a distraction from the effective principles. Crime is immoral in this capacity, and does not follow the ethical standards that one is supposed to uphold. However, Goldman believes that crime is a natural reaction to the state that society has inherited, one where there is a lack of balance and equality. Crime is not conscious, and is a reaction to the issues that the people are facing. They react through crime as they need to revolt, where revolting may be a means of crime.

Gary Chartier suggests legal order has limitations. When one is pressed under law and order, and does not feel the system is protective, the concept itself has failed. This is the theme that is being discussed by Goldman in anarchism, where anarchy is the result of people being pressed into their situations. The male is dominant in society, and sets the rules. There is an elite

class in society and a weaker class, where the women would be recognized under the weaker class. Now, we see a division between the classes, where Goldman is firm in her position that women are not appreciated and are rejected as equal citizens.

Equality is never going to be a perfect system in society. Chartier understands this and finds that equality is not going to be inherited, and may not even be earned for many. This is the problem that exists and is the basis of the argument for anarchy, under Goldman’s premise. Emma Goldman was a vocal anarchist. She placed marriage on the same continuum as prostitution, arguing that women are circulated and sold in either position. She even prostituted to fund projects, going against the social norm and demonstrating this anarchist approach to womanhood.

Emma Goldman would blast the women’s suffrage movement. She did not believe that voting was going to bring about change. After all the years of suffrage, Goldman was taking a rational approach. Voting would not magically change anything, she believed, where she looks at “crimes and horrors” against women (Goldman). Under her theory, she believed that it would take much more than a piece of paper giving women the right to vote to bring about this change and move in a progressive direction. She recognized ‘intelligent opponents of woman suffrage” claiming men have been robbed of their independence, and women will have the same fate (Goldman). Now, one could take up an argument with how Goldman recognized women’s suffrage, where there are those who feel this would be regressive, and she should be more appreciative of the progress of women. As history has developed, we notice that women have been able to take on more rights and progress. One then questions whether anarchy was actually the reason, and whether women had to take the dramatic action as outlined by Goldman in order to gain their current social position.

Society cannot function when people are forced to do things they do not want to do. This theme is a premise of the argument. Goldman continues the theme of crime…“so long as most people are out of place doing the things they hate to do, living a life they loathe to live, crime will be inevitable, and all the laws on the statutes can only increase, but never do away with, crime” (Goldman). So, Goldman is arguing that people are forced to do things they do not want to do. Crime is inevitable because people are essentially slaves, even in their home environment. They are dynamic when they are given freedoms; they want to explore in their own capacity and create new value, based on these freedoms. Goldman is arguing this does not work, where a functioning society is only possible when the members of this society are not forced into situations, but are free to grow as they see fit.

Anarchy is not acceptable in a functioning society. This is an argument by Edward Stringham, and it is a counter-argument to that being made by Goldman. Stringham outlines an economy of choice, one where people have decisions to make that are going to enhance their own sense of well-being. When anarchy develops as a means of exploring these values, sensibility is lost and people are going away from what law and order dictates. This is a critical issue, according to the author, where society cannot function if anarchy is the norm. Stringham does not agree that people are put in a position where they are forced into situations. Instead, he is appreciating the freedom and value of exploration that individuals develop in a functional society. Social injustice will lead to anarchy, by default, as Goldman considers this to be a gradual and progressive means of social development. The opposition has been introduced, where the radical and dramatic themes introduced by Goldman are met with resistance, promotion of law and order, and an essential paradox.

Momentum drives social initiative. One of the primary themes offered by Goldman in the reading is untapped momentum, particularly for women who need to explore a new capacity for

growth. She speaks on the materialistic attitude of men, who are upholding their elite social position despite the world crumbling around them. This may appear as hyperbole to an outsider, one who does not agree with Goldman’s view. The following quote is meaningful in presenting Goldman’s vision on exactly how society is so enthralled by materialism to the point change must be forced, where she introduces anarchy accordingly.

“The new social order rests, of course, on the materialistic basis of life; but while all Anarchists agree that the main evil today is an economic one, they maintained that the solution of that evil can be brought about only through the consideration of every phase of life, --individual, as well as the collective; the internal, as well as the external phases” (Goldman).

The new social order is outlined by Goldman in this quote. The materialistic basis of life has been the standard for quite some time. Goldman is looking to push beyond this limit and stretch the limits of reality. Rather than limiting society to materialism, we need to find a means of valuing something different, and better. The materialistic attitude that plagues society is unacceptable and has gone beyond any ethical standards, as Goldman reports. She wants a new means of exploring value, and believes anarchy will force the issue, which will not change under its own momentum.

The argument against Goldman’s pursuit of anarchy is strong. Stringham makes points that anarchy is a burden on entire society, where there is a lack of moral value and ethic. Even in situations where one is in a less-than-favorable position, there are still options available. The pursuit of justice is not limited, as one can explore new boundaries and new dimensions of growth through pursuit of individualized goals. Acceptance of one’s social position is necessary to set and achieve goals. Then, one may manage these goals by appreciating the position that has been inherited. Anarchy would just take away from this pursuit of goals and a visionary element

of moral development. In other words, anarchy is not a proper means of exploring one’s social relationship. Instead of proposing anarchy, Stringham likes to look at the positives before the negatives, where Goldman is elevated in her vision for negative pursuit.

Anarchy is the end result of poor development, meaning there is no other choice but to promote anarchy. This is the theme that Goldman has taken in exploring social relationships, weak development, and pursuit of resources. Goldman is adamant that the government has failed the people, where a revolution is optimal in changing the scope of justice, and better-appreciating human thought and freedom. The counter-argument has been introduced, where Goldman would find this to be unappealing as it does not appreciate the role of women. Again, the basis of this argument is women and their values, which are distorted from those of men. Women hold the inferior position to that of the male, and Goldman believes the women need to revolt through anarchy to change this ideology.

Works Cited

Avrich, Paul and Karen Avrich. Sasha and Emma: The Anarchist Odyssey of Alexander

Berkman and Emma Goldman. Harvard University Press, 2012.

Chartier, Gary. Anarchy and Legal Order: Law and Politics for a Stateless Society. Cambridge

University Press, 2013.

Goldman, Emma. “Anarchism: What it Really Stands For.” From Anarchism and Other Essays,

Mother Earth Publishing Association, 1990.

Stringham, Edward P. Anarchy and the Law: The Political Economy of Choice. New York:

Transaction Publishers, 2011.

Thompson, Neil. Social Problems and Social Justice. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.