ENGL 298 B: Intermediate Writing Social Sciences   Autumn 2011, University of Washington

Abiding laws are so mainstream, anarchy just screams hipster preying ground for ideals.  Despite, the silly title, this is going to be a really serious constructive post.

Goldman is evidently advocating the thin self.  The thin self entails strict individualism, which Goldman exemplifies in her article “Anarchy: What it really stands for.”  She is advocating rejecting anything that has to do with tying down the individual to any form of thick self.  Which is directed in three sections, and are religion, property, and government.  The thick self being is confined by a preconceived notion of value, restricted in some sense to either external or internal form of law or rule/principle.  Goldman thinks thin self is important because she sees that the thick self is evil and really restricting our natural human capabilities.  It is not “fair” to our being, it is contrary to basic natural law in which was proscribed when we were born, when we were decide to be an earthling, a resident of this planet.  She places large emphasis on the concept of natural law, that is innate within our obligation as a citizen of this earth.

I was also told to be understanding of her position, because of her circumstance in her dealings with the government, leading to her ultimately despising the institution that judged her so cruelly.  However, because of that hatred, it has led her to lead a mass of disillusioned young citizens to rebel against their state of authority.  I think taking it to the extreme in which she did when writing “Anarchy: what it really stands for” is irresponsible as a writer on political matters.  It’s like she doesn’t even try to be impartial in her deliberation in her literature, it’s actually quite ridiculous how far fetched her societal ideals are.  It leads her to reject the very ideals like religion, government, and property that shaped the character she was.  I don’t want to give away too much, because I want to write this in my essay, but Goldman is in her own sense a very contradictory puzzle.  I feel like she also has insufficient warrants in her argument, it’s really all claim, that are mostly empirically denied when we compare her claims to what is reality now. Goldman’s arguments are always really flimsy and inarticulate, they offer obvious room for rebuttal, and I feel like while I do understand her position, I don’t see how she can believe what she is writing, as an educated student of social relations and government.

I truly believe that Goldman is bat shit crazy to advocate such a position..  She seems to understand the purpose of government, natural law, and reality as it is, however, she still resents its benefits.  I do think she is raising this position to gain publicity, and spark a public outrage.  I mean, we shouldn’t totally throw her work astray; there are aspects of her theory that maintains partial truth to the reality of government and social relations.

I apologize for the possible incoherent rambling, because seeing as this is a blog post, I would think just getting some ideas out there and answering the question is the only really necessary objective.  I had to cut and paste from a much more extensive draft of 1.2 I just wrote..  So if you have any questions, I wouldn’t be surprised, I might have a few discrepancies here and there because I failed to explicitly write a step in my logic, but I’d be happy to clear it up to you all, only if you ask though.