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

After reading Goldman’s piece on anarchism I find my whole conception of anarchism has changed.  Prior, I’d never really attempted to understand it, and to be honest bought in with the stereotypes about the movement and its supporters.  While I wouldn’t call myself an anarchist, I admire their devotion to the cause and insistence on individual importance.  This stress on the individual is what leads me to align Goldman with the thin self Prof. Distefano discussed in lecture.  Goldman asserts, “Anarchism is the only philosophy which brings to man the consciousness of himself,” she continues that government, religion, and society preach, “man is nothing, the powers are everything.”  Her disgust at any coercive establishment that inhibits both self-thought and growth highlights her emphasis on the individual.  The thin self puts him or herself before commitments and societal roles, and Goldman tells us that anarchism liberates people from these obligations that at times can feel like orders.  An open mind and the freedom to choose your own commitments are essentially what both anarchism and the thin self are all about.  I don’t think that Goldman would sympathize with the thick self simply because societal commitments define who the thick is.  Whether or not you want to go through with a civil obligation, the thick self will do it anyway.  This choice to forgo the freedom to make up your own social agendas, directly contradicts with anarchism and Goldman’s points of individual importance and significance.  The thick self probably wouldn’t think or judge for himself if a higher authority told otherwise, according to Goldman humanity needs to do the exact opposite and, “Stand for the spirit of revolt and against everything that hinders human growth.”