Here is MY practical working definition for/of Anarchy:
The LACK of; the ABSENCE of .... fill in the blank with, Leadership, rulership, authority, government, rules, etc.
Anarchy seems to be a word to describe the absence of something.
MY OPINION
Anarchy is, IMHO, a misused and overused word in too common use today. I would say that while more "wordy" than anarchy but more descriptive of a situation might be words like, disruptive mob, rebellious crowd, lawless behaving group, etc. This gives a descriptive adjective to some sort of group behavior.
And why would I say this is important; because if you use a word with legitimate multiple meanings, then you leave it up to me to choose the one I want. What I choose may NOT be what you mean. Therefore true, effective communication hasn't occurred.
"Anarchy" does not exist, nor can it ever exist, therefore the term itself bears no value in political conversations. Even when a government is dissolved, as with the recent events in Egypt, law still exists. The authority becomes more diffused, more local, and more impotent, but still there is, and always will be, law. Usually it is held by those with the guns, with or without an established "government". I always laughed when my classmates would seriously refer to me as the "anarchist", because it is altogether a misnomer. So I agree that it is overused, and misused, but I feel that its value is the same as a square circle; it is irrational.
ReplyDeleteThank you, well said. jack
ReplyDelete