Passage 8
The history of human growth and development is at the same time the history of
the terrible struggle of every new idea heralding the approach of a brighter dawn.
In its tenacious hold on tradition, the Old has never hesitated to make use of the
foulest and cruelest means to stay the advent of the New, in whatever form or
period the latter may have asserted itself. Nor need we retrace our steps into the
distant past to realize the enormity of opposition, difficulties, and hardships placed
in the path of every progressive idea. The rack, the thumbscrew, and the knout are
still with us; so are the convict’s garb and the social wrath, all conspiring against the
spirit that is serenely marching on.
Anarchism could not hope to escape the fate of all other ideas of innovation.
Indeed, as the most revolutionary and uncompromising innovator, Anarchism
must needs meet with the combined ignorance and venom of the world it aims to
reconstruct…
The strange phenomenon of the opposition to Anarchism is that it brings to light
the relation between so-called intelligence and ignorance. And yet this is not so
very strange when we consider the relativity of all things. The ignorant mass has in
its favor that it makes no pretense of knowledge or tolerance. Acting, as it always
does, by mere impulse, its reasons are like those of a child. ‘Why?’ ‘Because.’ Yet the
opposition of the uneducated to Anarchism deserves the same consideration as
that of the intelligent man.
What, then, are the objections? First, Anarchism is impractical, though a beautiful
ideal. Second, Anarchism stands for violence and destruction, hence it must be
repudiated as vile and dangerous. Both the intelligent man and the ignorant mass
judge not from a thorough knowledge of the subject, but either from hearsay or
false interpretation.
A practical scheme, says Oscar Wilde, is either one already in existence, or a
scheme that could be carried out under the existing conditions; but it is exactly
the existing conditions that one objects to, and any scheme that could accept
these conditions is wrong and foolish. The true criterion of the practical, therefore,
is not whether the latter can keep intact the wrong or foolish; rather is it whether
the scheme has vitality enough to leave the stagnant waters of the old, and build,
as well as sustain, new life. In the light of this conception, Anarchism is indeed
practical. More than any other idea, it is helping to do away with the wrong and
foolish; more than any other idea, it is building and sustaining new life…
A thorough perusal of the history of human development will disclose two
elements in bitter conflict with each other; elements that are only now beginning
to be understood, not as foreign to each other, but as closely related and truly
harmonious, if only placed in proper environment: the individual and social instincts.
The individual and society have waged a relentless and bloody battle for ages,
each striving for supremacy, because each was blind to the value and importance
of the other. The individual and social instincts,—the one a most potent factor for
individual endeavor, for growth, aspiration, self-realization; the other an equally
potent factor for mutual helpfulness and social well-being.
The explanation of the storm raging within the individual, and between him and his
surroundings, is not far to seek. The primitive man, unable to understand his being,
much less the unity of all life, felt himself absolutely dependent on blind, hidden
forces ever ready to mock and taunt him. Out of that attitude grew the religious
concepts of man as a mere speck of dust dependent on superior powers on high,
who can only be appeased by complete surrender…The State, society, and moral
laws all sing the same refrain: Man can have all the glories of the earth, but he must
not become conscious of himself.
Anarchism is the only philosophy which brings to man the consciousness of
himself; which maintains that God, the State, and society are non-existent, that
their promises are null and void, since they can be fulfilled only through man’s
subordination. Anarchism is therefore the teacher of the unity of life; not merely
in nature, but in man. There is no conflict between the individual and the social
instincts, any more than there is between the heart and the lungs: the one the
receptacle of a precious life essence, the other the repository of the element that
keeps the essence pure and strong.
Goldman, E. (2002). Anarchism: What it really stands for. Project Gutenberg.
(Original work published 1910 in Anarchism and Other Essays)
The author implies in the last paragraph that without anarchy, man and society
will interact in what way?
A) The demands of both will conflict
B) There will be unity among them
C) Man will dominate society
D) Society will influence the man to a large extent
Correct answer: A. This is the correct answer because the author
discusses how anarchy is a uniting force that joins facets of life together. Especially
regarding society, the author claims that “There is no conflict between the individual
and the social instincts, any more than there is between the heart and the lungs.”
The autumn here claims that with anarchy, society will stop interfering with a man’s
needs and desires. This allows for both to be in harmony. This is an implication
question, which means an implication must be extrapolated from the main idea.
The main idea of these sentences is that anarchy will make sure that society and
man’s demands don’t oppose each other, and a direct implication of this would
entail that without anarchy, the demands of both will conflict. Therefore, the correct
answer is A.
.svg)
