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

After reading Emma Goldman and her ideas about religion, property, government, and above all Anarchism, I tried to put her philosophy in the context of thick and thin selves. However, I couldn’t quite get either one to fit. I don’t think Goldman would put faith into either definition, thick or thin. Professor DiStefano has told us already that in terms of Anarchism the question is not “What makes a government legitimate?” but rather “Why should we ever consider a government legitimate?” So in the context of thick and thin selves, I think Goldman would be most likely to ask why the definition of a human being has to be grouped into such polar opposites. At one point she even makes the claim that “they [Anarchists] maintain 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…” Goldman often made more arguments for individuals, only to bring it back to how it could affect a community.

I tried to see if Goldman leaned a certain way, and if I really had to pick I think she would tend to advocate more of a thin self definition, as she often talks about individual liberty. However, her definition would always come back around to how once an individual is satisfied with his/her freedom, that individual would then contribute to the kind of society an Anarchist dreams of. Goldman said “the individual instinct is the thing of value in the world.” To one this may seem as though she would be inclined to adopt a thin-self attitude, but earlier she states that the individual and society are tied together, there cannot be one without the other, using the “heart” and “lungs” analogy. A thick-self person has strong obligations to their community. Goldman would most likely argue that a person has an obligation to himself first, and then to others; a person cannot fully commit to others if he/she is not satisfied in himself. “Only in freedom will he realize the true force of the social bonds which knit men together, and which are the true foundation of a normal social life.” I honestly don’t think Goldman would be inclined to advocate for either a thick or thin self, but rather she would argue that a person cannot and should not be grouped into such terms.