Overview
Anarchy originates from the Greek word anarkhia, meaning “without a ruler.” The term has different meanings depending on context. In common usage, anarchy refers to a state of disorder or chaos resulting from the absence of government or authority, emphasizing lawlessness and lack of organized control. However, in political philosophy and international relations, the concept takes on more nuanced meanings that go beyond simple disorder.
In political theory, anarchy describes a society without hierarchical government where people organize through voluntary cooperation, mutual aid, and free association rather than through laws or coercive authority. This philosophical tradition, known as anarchism, envisions humans as capable of self-governance without centralized power structures. Anarchists argue that hierarchies and state control are unnecessary and that communities can function effectively through direct democracy and mutual respect.
Anarchist thought encompasses diverse schools with different approaches to achieving a stateless society. Anarcho-syndicalism advocates organizing through federations of self-managing workers’ unions. Anarcho-communism promotes communal ownership and cooperative production. Anarcho-capitalism proposes a society where all services, including law and security, are provided by competitive private entities in voluntary market exchanges. Despite their differences, these schools share a rejection of compulsory government and hierarchical authority.
In international relations theory, anarchy has a distinct meaning. It refers to the structure of the global system where sovereign states coexist without a central world government or overarching authority. This concept underpins realist and neorealist theories, which argue that states, as independent actors in an anarchic international system, are driven by self-interest and the pursuit of power to ensure their survival and security.
Popular culture often misrepresents anarchy as synonymous with violence and mayhem, overlooking its rich philosophical foundations. Philosophical anarchism emphasizes that humans, when freed from hierarchies and coercion, are capable of organizing societies based on voluntary cooperation and mutual aid rather than descending into chaos. Understanding anarchy requires recognizing its varied interpretations across different contexts and disciplines.
In Context
Anarchy, — the absence of a master, of a sovereign, (The meaning ordinarily attached to the word “anarchy” is absence of principle, absence of rule; consequently, it has been regarded as synonymous with “disorder.”) — such is the form of government to which we are every day approximating, and which our accustomed habit of taking man for our rule, and his will for law, leads us to regard as the height of disorder and the expression of chaos. The story is told, that a citizen of Paris in the seventeenth century having heard it said that in Venice there was no king, the good man could not recover from his astonishment, and nearly died from laughter at the mere mention of so ridiculous a thing. So strong is our prejudice. As long as we live, we want a chief or chiefs; and at this very moment I hold in my hand a brochure, whose author — a zealous communist — dreams, like a second Marat, of the dictatorship. The most advanced among us are those who wish the greatest possible number of sovereigns, — their most ardent wish is for the royalty of the National Guard. Soon, undoubtedly, some one, jealous of the citizen militia, will say, “Everybody is king.” But, when he has spoken, I will say, in my turn, “Nobody is king; we are, whether we will or no, associated.” Every question of domestic politics must be decided by departmental statistics; every question of foreign politics is an affair of international statistics. The science of government rightly belongs to one of the sections of the Academy of Sciences, whose permanent secretary is necessarily prime minister; and, since every citizen may address a memoir to the Academy, every citizen is a legislator. But, as the opinion of no one is of any value until its truth has been proven, no one can substitute his will for reason, — nobody is king.