Apart from being enlightened and entertained, as usual, by the many insights and felicities of thought and expression in Terry Eagleton's piece, I am saddened that he has used the word "anarchy" (and related terms: anarchic, anarchist, anarchism) in only one of its two meanings.
This promotes, by implication, that long-standing myth that "anarchists" support a state of social being without rule or order. The root word and its applications have two, very different, senses: a state of social being without rulers, and a state of social being without rule or order.
Most anarchists whose work I am familiar with would support the former but not the latter, and would condemn violence, asserting that the desired ends do not justify methods that contradict these goals in practice.
Mo Dodson
Register to continue
Why register?
- Registration is free and only takes a moment
- Once registered, you can read 3 articles a month
- Sign up for our newsletter
Subscribe
Or subscribe for unlimited access to:
- Unlimited access to news, views, insights & reviews
- Digital editions
- Digital access to THE’s university and college rankings analysis
Already registered or a current subscriber? Login