The Anarchy of A Smile

In case you haven't noticed it yet (or seen it too many times to notice it anymore), the title of this blog is The Anarchy of Thought, and there is even a small poll at the bottom of this page about what you think Anarchy is. It is time, perhaps, for me to explain what I mean by that somewhat ponderous term, and I shall start with a definition. I shall describe an Intellectual Anarchist (IA) as any person who, on the one hand, is fully aware that her views are socio-historically conditioned and, on the other, is able to put foward arguments to justify these views, and to defend them in the face of criticism from her detractors. Such a form of anarchy I call the Anarchy of Thought, and this anarchy is the base, the ground, or the substratum from which other forms of anarchy emerge, such as Economic Anarchy (EA), Social Anarchy (SA), and Political Anarchy (PA).

Moreover, it is possible to be IA and to adopt and live by one (or more) of these latter anarchies. For example, you can simultaneously be an IA and an EA : Vladimir Lenin, in my opinion, was one such person. Again, you can be both an IA and a SA : most radical feminists and cultural theorists fall into this category. And then, you can also choose to be an IA and a PA : Rousseau was arguably such a writer.

I leave you to think over precisely what type of an anarchist (or anti-anarchist!) you are. For the present, however, I shall point out the danger of a highly fashionable (and 'politically correct') mode of opposing the notions of Power, Authority, and Law, and confusing this opposition with 'anarchy'. Many people in our generation are suspicious of these notions which they routinely castigate as corrupt and negative entities to be dismissed to some quarantine camp. This is an excellent example of how human beings whose hearts are, as we say, in the right place can get carried away precisely by this 'language of the heart that the mind knows not of'. It is an undeniable truth that we have, in the name of Power and Authority, humiliated, oppressed, tortured, and degraded billions of individuals not only in distant lands but also in our own back-yards. However, the way to redress the balance now is not by rejecting all systems of Authority but by devising mechanisms through which Power can be exercised in more just ways.

Shall we reject the Power of the law through which gender discrimination, patriarchal injustices, and violence against women are prohibited? Shall we oppose the Authority of a constitution which declares various forms of racial, cultural, and ethnocentric supremacy to be illegal? Shall we repudiate the Laws of a country, written or unwritten, which seek to establish certain basic human rights for all? If we do not wish for any of these, Anarchy, whether Intellectual or its products Economic, Social and Political, must not be confounded with an unequivocal rejection of all Authority and Power as perfidious, debauched, nefarious, and elitist. To put it more pointedly : the fundamental question in such contexts should be not Whether Authority? but Whose Authority? (As an overgrown teenager You might still defiantly claim, 'I shall accept no Authority in this world but My own', but this reply proves my very point : there is someone Whose Authority You accept, namely Your own.)