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

I don’t see any reason why Goldman would not like the idea of the thick-self versus the thin -self. The ancient people of the world were very obviously more chained to their roles in life than people typically were in Goldman’s era (early 1900), and I think the idea of individualism versus commitment to society would play nicely into Goldman’s ideas about anarchy and obligation to government. Specifically, the ideas of thick and thin selves correlate strongly with “the individual and the social instincts,” she delves into on page 17. She says that the two instincts are opposed because each is “blind to the value and importance of the other.” On one hand, “Anarchism urges man to think” for himself and be free of illegitimate influences like those of most/all governments. Thinking critically about our role in society on an individual level is valuable to Goldman (“for growth, aspiration, self-realization”) while on the other hand the potential exists for social interactions to encourage mutual benefits.

In my opinion Goldman herself isn’t fully a thick or a thin person. She sees value in social cooperation as an alternative to government. She also despises the obligations that aren’t legitimate, and to her most forms of obligation in modern society aren’t legitimate. Her ideal in terms of obligation is an idealistic concept of enjoying labor (not industrialized labor though) and spreading wealth without any overt reason to do so  other than for the sake of bettering society. This requires “complete individual and social freedom”, so one could argue that Goldman is more of a thin self than a thick one. In the end her idea of communally helping one another seems too integral to her implementation of anarchy for me to call her completely a thin self.