A Review Robert P. Wolff’s In Defense of Anarchism (1970).

Robert P. Wolff’s In Defense of Anarchism (1970): A Review

The concern of Robert Wolff in his In Defense of Anarchism is the compatibility of state authority with individual autonomy: how can the individual be said to be autonomous in a state that commands her obedience? How can the individual who is existentially free and who ought to be a legislator to herself, responsible and accountable to herself about her actions, be subject to external direction? This leaves the human person in a dilemma of which the only possible exit is the way of anarchism – her not accepting the laws of the state as binding on her in any way. Wolff sums it up this way:

The defining mark of the state is authority, the right to rule. The primary obligation of man is autonomy, the refusal to be ruled. It would seem, then, that there can be no resolution of the conflict between the autonomy of the individual and the putative authority of the state. Insofar as a man fulfills his obligation to make himself the author of his decisions, he will resist the state's claim to have authority over him. That is to say, he will deny that he has a duty to obey the laws of the state simply because they are the laws. In that sense, it would seem that anarchism is the only political doctrine consistent with the virtue of autonomy.

It is little wonder then, R. Wolff would aver that human beings lose their autonomy in a political setting. Meanwhile, to lose one’s autonomy is to fall into inauthentic living. This tradition of thought on the autonomy of the individual owes a lot to Immanuel Kant and Wolff acknowledges this fact. For Kant, to be obedient to any external source of authority, say, the state is to be heteronomous. To be heteronomous is not to be genuinely human. This is because to be authentically human is to be autonomous and free. Therefore, statehood is inimical to the actualization of the being of the human person – freedom and the right to responsibility for one’s actions.

            However, one can reasonably acknowledge the concern of Robert Wolff in offering anarchism as an alternative to the problem of compatibilism between the autonomy of the individual and obedience to the state. But, the point can also be made that the individual can reasonably offer, and autonomously so, some of her rights to the state to actualize her potentials in a way that legitimizes her pursuit of her goals even as others pursue theirs too. The purpose of the state then would be to arbitrate between individuals whose pursuit of their individual autonomous ends can cause conflict. This is because conflicts can cause the non-realization of the potentials of the individual.

In this wise, the social contract theory, for instance, balances up the deficiencies of anarchism. To state it simply: anarchism would itself be ultimately unfavorable to the autonomy of the individual insofar as she lives in a community of autonomous individuals also. Hence, the need for political organization is imperative on every human society. And since, the human person is always in society, political organization is necessary even for her self-actualization.