I would definitely say that Goldman would have a strong criticism towards the thick self mainly because those being in that role would not be individuals, no longer defined by their commitments and having no clear distinction between the “real me,” and “their roles.” Goldman is all about freedom and in the anarchist lifestyle you must be able to have all duties relinquished in order to be truly thin. To Emma, “the most violent element in society is ignorance.” What I take from that is a sense in that when people are ignorant they are no longer aware of what type of person they are, therefore subjecting themselves to an unfree society and government authority, which by Goldman’s standards is not legitimate.
Saying that, I believe that Goldman would categorize herself and her ideal society as being “thin.” Her society would consist of those who are complete individuals and those who are able to choose their commitments, while sustaining a distinction between their real selves and their roles. That was big for Emma, because being an individual was one of the biggest aspects. She believed separating yourself from the 3 phantoms which were Religion, Property, and Government, was the way of truly becoming an individual. Giving into those things were what separated you from the different societies; individualistic and those who were not. Those who were truly anarchist were those who wanted the “freest expression of all the latent powers of the individual.” To be thin, they would want that goal in order to sustain a completely free society.
It was interesting seeing her point of view. Although I do not agree, I enjoyed seeing her side of anarchism. It’s good to seeing different sides because I feel like i’m more informed and open to different opinions.
Pingback: Sid
Pingback: Jerri