The category of anarchy is conventionally associated with the emergence of an autonomous discipline of International Relations. Recently, Donnelly has argued that anarchy has never been central to IR. His criticism targets not just concepts of anarchy but theories of anarchy and thereby expresses an anti-theory ethos tacitly accepted in the discipline. As a form of conceptual atomism, this ethos is hostile to structuralist and normative theories. This article aims to reinstate theoretical holism against conceptual atomism and to defend the (...) enduring relevance of theories of international anarchy for IR. This is done by revisiting two classic, structuralist accounts of international anarchy articulated in Kenneth Waltz’s Theory of International Politics and Hedley Bull’s Anarchical Society. It will be shown that both represent coherent theoretical ‘wholes’ which reveal a more complex relationship between anarchy and hierar... (shrink)

Public reason liberals argue that coercive social arrangements must be publicly justified in order to be legitimate. According to one model of public reason liberalism, known as convergence liberalism, this means that every moderately idealized member of the public must have sufficient reason, of her own, to accept the arrangement. A corollary of this Principle of Public Justification is that a coercive social arrangement fails to be legitimate so long as even one member of the public fails to have sufficient (...) reason to endorse the arrangement. This high bar for justification has led many critics, most notably David Enoch, to argue that convergence models are incapable of vindicating liberalism. They argue that in a sufficiently diverse society, there will always be someone for whom an arrangement is not justified, and therefore convergence liberalism leads to anarchy – the view that no law or coercive social arrangement is legitimate. Other critics accept that convergence liberalism could vindicate core liberal institutions but nothing more, and thus argue that the view makes libertarians effective “dictators”. In either case, critics hold that this objection is sufficient to reject convergence liberalism, either in favor of alternative public reason views or as a means of rejecting all public reason views. In this paper I argue that convergence liberalism can overcome this anarchy objection. I show that the objection largely rests on misinterpretations of convergence liberalism, and thus clarify aspects of the theory. However, I also show that internal debate over the scope of public justification – what stands in need of justification – must be resolved in favor of a wide scope, encompassing both State-based and non-State-based coercion, in order to overcome the anarchy objection. Therefore, my response to the anarchy objection has implications for how convergence liberalism should be developed going forward. (shrink)

L'expression d'"anarchie des valeurs" prête à confusion. Elle peut en effet laisser entendre que dans la réflexion et la vie morale actuelles ne règne plus que confusion, chaos, donc anarchie entendue comme absence de principes organisateurs et structurants de la vie sociale et politique; elle peut aussi suggérer que notre situation éthique ne connaît plus elle-même de "moralité des mœurs"; elle pourrait également ouvrir la voie aux lamentations bien connues sur les malheurs des temps, la décadence morale et (...) spirituelle, ritournelle à peu près constante dans l'histoire de l'humanité, depuis la plus haute antiquité, comme de nombreux témoignages pourraient en fournir la preuve. Aussi dois-je préciser le but de cette conférence: il s'agit de proposer une réflexion philosophique sur les conséquences pour la morale, dans la théorie comme dans la pratique, de la vie dans des sociétés démocratiques pluralistes, ou encore de s'interroger sur la morale elle-même, affectée qu'elle est par la modernité, si l'on veut utiliser ce terme large et parfois flou pour désigner la situation culturelle originale que nous connaissons désormais dans notre histoire. En quoi la spécificité de nos sociétés affecte-t-elle la manière de comprendre et de vivre la morale ? en effet celle-ci ne reste pas au-dessus des évolutions sociales, économiques, politiques et culturelles, impassible et pérenne. Puisque la morale vise à contribuer à la vie bonne des hommes réellement existants, il lui faut bien les rejoindre dans leurs existences concrètes, et du coup elle est affectée par la question de savoir comment on peut mener une vie bonne, ici et maintenant, donc dans une situation neuve et très différente des moments historiques antérieures. Je vais donc tenter d'abord de caractériser notre situation en donnant un contenu à l'idée d'anarchie des valeurs, puis je m'interrogerai sur la place de la liberté morale en ce contexte, enfin j'indiquerai quelques conditions pour la vie morale ici et maintenant. (shrink)

Private-property anarchy is better than the state in the enhancement of liberty and welfare. Strictly speaking, market exchange is one aspect of private-property anarchy. But I here focus on market-anarchy as that is a main source of confusion and debate. Similarly, pluralism is another aspect of private-property anarchy. I focus on pluralism as an example of a currently popular topic where private-property anarchy is misunderstood. ‘Pluralism’ here means ‘(tolerating) different ways of life’. ‘The market’ means ‘voluntary exchange’. ‘Anarchy’ means ‘no (...) rule’. Both interpersonal liberty and private property are inherently anarchic: no one is ruled to the extent that these exist. They are also naturally pluralist. The state, by contrast, coercively imposes ultimate control and is thus inherently illiberal and naturally Procrustean. Democratic prejudice obscures these facts. (shrink)

Cette contribution cherche à déterminer les rapports entre anarchie et démocratie chez Proudhon en partant de la place qu’il accorde au conflit. La première partie revient sur la prise en compte de ce que Proudhon nomme antagonisme ou antinomie et sur les différents types de conflits qu’il range sous cette rubrique, qui est au centre de son projet d’ontologie sociale. La deuxième partie s’intéresse à un cas d’antinomie, à la fois limite et fondamental : celui de la différence sexuelle, (...) qui est désignée comme une antinomie tout en se voyant dénier le statut de rapport conflictuel. La dernière partie montre comment la prise en compte du conflit chez Proudhon conduit à une critique de la démocratie et à un projet positif désigné par le terme de fédéralisme. (shrink)

Winner of the 1975 National Book Award, this brilliant and widely acclaimed book is a powerful philosophical challenge to the most widely held political and social positions of our age--liberal, socialist, and conservative.

This paper seeks to determine the relationship between anarchy and democracy in Proudhon’s thought, considering the place of the conflict in this autor. The first part exposes what Proudhon names antagonism and antinomy in his social ontology and the different sorts of conflicts this ontology takes into account. The second part focuses on a case of antinomy, that is at the same time a basic and a borderline case : sexual difference, that Proudhon considers as an antinomy, but not as (...) a conflict. The last part shows how this theory of conflictuality leads to a criticism of democracy and to a positive federalist project. (shrink)

Dans la pensée philosophique d'Emmanuel Levinas, le mot « Dieu » n'est pas inaudible. Il peut venir à l'idée. Il peut tomber sous le sens – en deçà de tout sens thématisé, à revers des prétentions souveraines de la conscience. À la condition toutefois que parvienne à être décrite l'intrigue anarchique que ce mot noue dans l'idée de l'Infini, dans le Visage, dans la Kénose du sujet, dans le Dire du verset ou l'Emphase de la métaphore.Les articles recueillis dans cet (...) ouvrage tentent, sous ces divers aspects, de décrire l'inouïe Transcendance de ce mot « Dieu » désormais arraché à toute archê – à tout fondement onto-théo-logique. Ils se hasardent aussi à suggérer les résonnances théologiques et bibliques de cet « autrement dire Dieu » préservant l'anarchie du Transcendant. C'est par le Haut que se noue tout vrai dialogue entre le philosophique et le théologique. (shrink)

The Libyan Anarchy: Inscriptions from Egypt’s Third Intermediate Period. By Robert K. Rittner. Writings from the Ancient World, vol. 21. Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2009. Pp. xix + 621. $59.95.

Imagination is important for many things in science: solving problems, interpreting data, designing studies, etc. Philosophers of imagination typically account for the productive role played by imagination in science by focusing on how imagination is constrained, e.g., by using self-imposed rules to infer logically, or model events accurately. But the constraints offered by these philosophers either constrain too much, or not enough, and they can never account for uses of imagination that are needed to break today’s constraints in order to (...) make progress tomorrow. Thus, epistemology of imagination needs to make room for an element of epistemological anarchy. (shrink)

This paper investigates the themes of transcendental anarchy and the practical a priori in Reiner Schürmann’s reading of Heidegger. After elucidating these concepts, as well as showing how they are operative in Heidegger’s own texts, I raise questions regarding the stability of the dependency-claim of the practical a priori once transcendental anarchy has unsettled the very distinction between theory and practice.

(1999). Ontological anarchy, the temporary autonomous zone, and the politics of cyberculture a critique of hakim bey. Angelaki: Vol. 4, No. 2, pp. 115-128.

In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:Reviewed by:Disaster Anarchy: Mutual Aid and Radical Action by Rhiannon FirthJohn-Erik HanssonRhiannon Firth. Disaster Anarchy: Mutual Aid and Radical Action. London: Pluto Press, 2022. Paperback, 243 pp. ISBN 9780745340463The COVID-19 pandemic and the unfolding climate crisis, with the multiplication of unprecedented weather events, have shown how urgent it is to reflect on our responses to disaster. Following up on themes she first broached in Coronavirus, Class, and Mutual Aid (...) in the United Kingdom, Rhiannon Firth throws a fresh, anarchist, and utopian light on disaster relief in Disaster Anarchy.1 In this work, Firth seeks to “consider how [anarchist] social movements’ impressive efforts in mutual aid might contribute to a radical and revolutionary reconceptualisation of disasters and the processes of relief and recovery efforts” (19). To do so, she begins by surveying the dominant approaches to disaster relief (chapters 2 and 3) before offering a comprehensive anarchist theoretical critique of these perspectives (chapter 4). Firth then fleshes out her anarchist theory of disaster and community response through two empirical case studies of grassroots relief efforts. In chapter 5 she looks into the Occupy Sandy movement, a New York area community-based response to the damage caused by Hurricane Sandy’s passage in October 2012 in the United States. The final chapter is then dedicated to the COVID-19 Mutual Aid Groups that emerged in the United Kingdom during the pandemic.In building her argument, Firth mobilizes anarchist (and more broadly radical) theory and interviews with participants in both movements. She engages with how activists motivated and understood their participation in mutual aid groups, perceived disaster and relief organizing, sought to solve practical and political problems, and reflected on their experiences. The empirical sections of Disaster Anarchy are thus reminiscent of investigations into the anarchist connections and orientations of contemporary social movements, such as Occupy Wall Street.2 However, Firth’s is a work [End Page 606] of political theory. Her interviews were not conducted simply to describe and analyze the anarchist components of disaster relief social movements. Echoing Uri Gordon, she proposes to take the “worldviews of activists seriously as sources of theoretical knowledge,” leading us to rethink both anarchism and the politics of disaster as a whole (16).3 There lies a key part of the originality of Firth’s contribution to both anarchist theory and to the study of disaster relief. The utopian core of Disaster Anarchy also shines through this movement-based theoretical elaboration of an anarchist challenge to the dominant theories and practices of disaster relief. By examining mutual aid groups in critical dialogue with anarchist theory, Firth raises the possibility of more egalitarian and democratic “utopian alternatives to the status quo,” though, as she reminds us, they always run the risk of being co-opted (20).To set the scene for the desirability of anarchist approaches to disaster relief, Disaster Anarchy opens with Firth’s dissatisfaction with what she identifies as the two main sets of approaches to disaster studies. The first represents “the dominant neoliberal paradigm of disaster politics” and falls under the umbrella of “Disaster Risk Reduction (DRR)” (21). Firth contends that, despite some internal variety, all DRR approaches share the three same basic assumptions. First, DRR considers disasters to be “ruptures in the normal functioning of society.” They become a “management problem” that must be dealt with using the tools of political governance to restore order and ensure “systemic stability” (39–40). This can be done both directly through state institutions, and through civil society-based nongovernmental organizations (NGOs) that cooperate with state institutions. DRR then evaluates responses using the categories of “efficiency and cost-effectiveness,” leaving aside “the affects and human impacts of disasters” (40). Second, DRR tends to flatten out differences between disasters, and in the ways in which individuals and groups respond to them. Disaster becomes abstract, and authorities can design sets of responses taken to be effective regardless of local contexts and demands. DRR approaches are therefore particularly congenial to the growth of large governmental “specialised agencies like DHS [Department of Homeland Security] and FEMA [Federal Emergency Management Agency]” that produce knowledge and practices linked to the vertical “management of disaster” (41). Finally... (shrink)

Mettre en faisceau, dans un même argument, anarchie, gnose et sagesse pourra sembler peu académique. On trouvera ici des raisons de penser qu'il n'en est rien: une communauté de vues s'atteste non seulement historiquement, mais aussi conceptuellement. En un mot, elle se nomme volonté d'authenticité, qui est exigence d'autonomie. Il faut donc faire prévaloir l'autorité sur le pouvoir, la connaissance sur la foi, et la vie sur la mort."--Page 4 of cover.

When people talk about anarchism, what they have in mind is typically political anarchism, that is, the view that there should be no state. As the philosopher and anarchism scholar David Miller observes, however, anarchism itself is a more general view, namely the view that there should be no rulers. Miller writes that “although the state is the most distinctive object of anarchist attack, it is by no means the only object. Any institution which, like the state, appears to anarchists (...) coercive, punitive, exploitative or destructive is condemned in the same way”—including, for example, religious institutions, schools, or economic systems (Miller 1984: 8). In this sense, one can be an anarchist about different things. Relationship anarchy is anarchism about personal relationships. -/- Several thinkers in the anarchist tradition have held views on personal relationships (e.g., Godwin 1793; Bakunin 1866; Goldman 1910). In what follows, however, our focus is not on the general issue of anarchist views on relationships, but on the ideas of the contemporary movement of self-identifying relationship anarchists. -/- The ideas of relationship anarchy in this sense—hereafter RA—have been developed in queer and countercultural communities over the last two decades. Rather than focusing primarily on mechanisms of political power, RA theorists have been concerned with understanding and challenging the power dynamics at play in close personal relationships. Andie Nordgren, the movement’s central, founding theorist, describes RA as a radical commitment “to avoid defining relationships by attempts to exercise power over each other” (Nordgren 2018). -/- Our aim is to give a concise presentation and defense of RA. We will approach RA as a theory in applied ethics—in particular, as a theory in sexual ethics and relationship ethics—and relate it to ongoing debates in these areas. We, the authors, are both queer men with a background in countercultures where RA is widely practiced and discussed. One of us is an activist working on trans- and sex workers’ rights (Sørlie), the other is a philosophy professor (Moen). Although we make several claims about the scope, content, and justification of RA, we do not claim to speak with any special authority on the issue. Moreover, many of the points that we make here, while not attributable to a specific source, are not original to us, but are the result of several years of fruitful discussion with others in the RA community. -/- We start by considering the cases where, from an RA perspective, current mainstream relationship norms are too restrictive. Then we turn to the cases where current norms are too permissive. Our views on what counts as “mainstream” relationship norms are, no doubt, influenced by the fact that we are writing from a Scandinavian perspective. -/- We then proceed to consider the relationship between RA and polyamory. We argue that RA is compatible with some, but not all, forms of polyamorous practice. We also argue that, from an RA perspective, the increasingly popular term “consensual non-monogamy” is a misleading term that should be avoided. In the conclusion, we explain how RA, as a position in applied ethics, can be justified within consequentialist, deontological, and virtue ethical frameworks alike. -/- We have restricted our scope, in what follows, to chosen relationships between adults. Thus, we are not dealing with, for example, kinship relationships into which one is born, nor relationships between adults and minors. Although many issues and arguments deserve to be explored in greater depth than we can do here, we hope, nevertheless, to be able to convey the main nature and thrust of RA. (shrink)

Modern International Relations theory has consistently underestimated the depth of the problem of anarchy in world politics. Contemporary theories of globalisation bring this into bold relief. From this perspective, the complexity of transboundary networks and hierarchies, economic sectors, ethnic and religious ties, civil and cross-border wars, and internally disaggregated and transnationally connected state actors, leads to a complex and multidimensional restructuring of the global, the local and the uneven connections in between. We ought to abandon the idea of ‘high’ and (...) ‘low’ politics, ‘inside’ and ‘outside’ once and for all. This does not remove the problem of anarchy but rather deepens it, involving multidimensional tensions and contradictions variously described as ‘functional differentiation’, ‘multiscalarity’, ‘fragmegration’, disparate ‘landscapes’, the ‘new security dilemma’ and ‘neomedievalism’. Approaching anarchy from the perspective of plural competing claims to authority and power forces... (shrink)

In this introduction to the Special Issue, we undertake a little ground clearing in order to make room in International Relations for thinking differently about anarchy and world politics. Anarchy’s roots in, and association with, social contract theory and the state of nature has unduly narrowed how we might understand the concept and its potential in International Relations. Indeed, such is the consensus in this regard that anarchy is remarkably uncontested, considering its centrality to the field. Looking around, both inside (...) and outside International Relations, for alternative accounts, we find ample materials for helping us think anew about the nature of and possibilities for politics in anarchy. In the second part of the introduction, we show how our contributors develop and expand on these resources and what we hope the Special Issue brings to International Relations. (shrink)

Anarchy and utopia have traditionally had a contentious relationship throughout the history of political thought. Although some anarchic thinkers have occasionally verged on the utopian genre – for instance, French anarchists Joseph Déjacque and Jean Grave, or anarcho-syndicalists Émile Pataud and Émile Pouget – the anarchic mindset has generally shown a deeply-rooted mistrust towards any representation of systematically planned ideal societies, often seen as intellectualist and fundamentally authoritarian projects.

It is only in the early decades of the twentieth century that the “Hobbesian state of nature” and the “discourse of anarchy” came to be seen as virtually synonymous. In examining Hobbes’ international state of nature, this article rejects two common views. In one, International Relations is seen as a warlike “Hobbesian” anarchy, and in the other, Hobbes is regarded as the progenitor of Realism. Far from defending anarchy of states, Hobbes in fact constructs a largely ameliorative international arena.

Soucieuse d’articuler le concret phénoménologique de la vie et la rigueur éthique de l’altérité, la pensée de Levinas passe de l’extériorité impérative du Visage (TI) à son inscription obsessionnelle dans une subjectivité tout entière à l’accusatif (AE). Ne pouvant échapper sans équivoque au règne de l’archè, elle s’engage dans des dédits critiques sans fin : entre la précédence du fini et la préséance de l’infini, le discours philosophique se tient ici résolument dans la douleur et l’ambiguïté inévitables de l’expression.

_Anarchy, State, and Utopia: An Advanced Guide_ presents a comprehensive and accessible introduction to the ideas expressed in Robert Nozick’s highly influential 1974 work on free-market libertarianism—considered one of the most important and influential works of political philosophy published in the latter half of the 20th-century. Makes accessible all the major ideas and arguments presented in Nozick’s complex masterpiece Explains, as well as critiques, Robert Nozick’s theory of free market libertarianism Enables a new generation of readers to draw their own (...) conclusions about the wealth of timely ideas on individualism and libertarian philosophy Indicates where Nozick’s theory has explanatory power, where it is implausible, and where there are loose ends with further work to be done. (shrink)

« La déconstruction, c’est la pulvérisation d’un socle spéculatif où la vie trouverait son assise, sa légitimation, sa paix. » Autrefois son élève, Reiner Schürmann identifie dans l’oeuvre de Heidegger un impensé, le principe d’anarchie. Contre cette métaphysique occidentale qu'il s'applique à déconstruire, le penseur de la présence aurait fait de l'être et de l'agir une seule et même question. Et sapé ainsi toute possibilité de définir un fondement rationnel sur lequel construire une philosophie pratique. Que l'agir humain, à (...) l'époque technologique, se trouve privé d'arché : voilà ce que cette étude majeure, lisant Heidegger à rebours, a permis de dévoiler. (shrink)

Qu'elle soit entendue comme état de désordre social ou qu'elle soit pensée comme ordre social sans Etat, l'anarchie reste difficilement appréhendée par les juristes autrement que par l'exclusion. Droit et anarchie seraient incompatibles, car le droit impliquerait nécessairement l'autorité (dont l'Etat moderne constitue la forme ultime, par la monopolisation du pouvoir de contrainte) que l'anarchie supprime. Aussi, l'étude de l'anarchie n'aurait plus grand chose à révéler au juriste, et sa marginalisation intellectuelle ne devrait pas surprendre. Pourtant, (...) est-il vraiment satisfaisant de cantonner la question de l'anarchie à l'histoire des idées politiques, alors que l'enjeu du débat touche les fondements mêmes de l'ordre juridique? C'est cette question complexe des rapports entre le droit et l'anarchie que cet ouvrage - qui regroupe les actes d'une journée d'étude organisée par l'Institut d'études de droit public de la faculté jean Monnet de l'Université Paris Sud - se propose d'investir à nouveau. (shrink)

« L’anarchie », comme en témoigne l’omniprésence du qualificatif « anarchique » dans De l’absurdité sur des échasses, est essentielle pour comprendre le chemin argumentatif développé dans la critique benthamienne des droits de l’homme. C’est seulement à partir d’elle qu’apparaissent clairement les différents pans de cette critique, mais surtout son ordre et son sens déterminés par ce qui vaut comme le fondement de toute la critique, la théorie des fictions. Une fois reconnue l’importance de ce fondement, alors la continuité (...) et la systématicité de la critique comme la propension dévastatrice de cette argumentation se déploient entièrement, et devient cette « machine de guerre » contre les droits de l’homme. « L’anarchie » est bien le fil directeur de la critique, en tant qu’elle est le moyen et la fin même de la Déclaration des droits de l’homme pour Bentham. (shrink)

'The men of culture are the true apostles of equality.' Matthew Arnold's famous series of essays, which were first published in book form under the title Culture and Anarchy in 1869, debate important questions about the nature of culture and society that are as relevant now as they have ever been. Arnold seeks to find out 'what culture really is, what good it can do, what is our own special need of it' in an age of rapid social change and (...) increasing mechanization. He contrasts culture, 'the study of perfection', with anarchy, the mood of unrest and uncertainty that pervaded mid-Victorian England. How can individuals be educated, not indoctrinated, and what is the role of the state in disseminating 'sweetness and light'? This edition reproduces the original book version and enables readers to appreciate its immediate historical context as well as the reasons for its continued importance today, in the face of the challenges of multi-culturalism and post-modernism. ABOUT THE SERIES: For over 100 years Oxford World's Classics has made available the widest range of literature from around the globe. Each affordable volume reflects Oxford's commitment to scholarship, providing the most accurate text plus a wealth of other valuable features, including expert introductions by leading authorities, helpful notes to clarify the text, up-to-date bibliographies for further study, and much more. (shrink)

In this paper, I will argue that a number of well-known health interventions or initiatives could be considered anarchist, or at the very least are consistent with anarchist thinking and principles. In doing this I have two aims: First, anarchism is a misunderstood term—by way of example, I hope to first sketch out what anarchist solutions in health and healthcare could look like; second, I hope to show how anarchist thought could stand as a means to improve the health of (...) many, remedying health inequalities acting as a buffer for the many harms that threaten health and well-being. On this second point, I will argue that there are a number of theoretical and instrumental reasons why greater engagement with anarchism and anarchist thinking is needed, along with how this could contribute to health and in addressing broader injustices that create and perpetuate poor health. (shrink)

Most books defending the position now know as “libertarianism”, the thesis that government ought to confine itself only to the most minimal functions of preventing or punishing force and fraud, can be dismissed with little scruple as the work of cranks. And some have already done so with this one as well: but wrongly. It is clearly the work of a person of extraordinary brilliance, penetration, and learning, possessed of a pungent style and an uncommon flair for paradox and counterexample. (...) Those who are inclined to reject it out of hand because its conclusions will seem incredible might also bear in mind that its author is a man to whom his colleague John Rawls has expressed gratitude and indebtedness. At any rate, I propose to take the work with complete seriousness. And after all, should there not be considerable attraction i n the view that the only enforceable duty is that of respecting the freedom of our fellows as completely as possible? Surely it behooves us to see just why this will not do, if it won't; and no better opportunity for examining the view has arisen than that provided by the publication of this book. (shrink)

Private-property anarchism is a political philosophy and set of economic and legal arguments that maintains that markets and contracts should provide law and that the rule of law itself can only be understood as a private institution. This book presents the essays that explain, debate, and examine historical examples of stateless orders.

This book sets out to re-examine the foundations of Thomas Hobbes’s political philosophy, and to develop a Hobbesian normative theory of international relations. Its central thesis is that two concepts – anarchy and authority – constitute the core of Hobbes's political philosophy whose aim is to justify the state. The Hobbesian state is a type of authority (juridical, public, coercive, and supreme) which emerges under conditions of anarchy ('state of nature'). A state-of-nature argument makes a difference because it justifies authority (...) without appeal to moral obligation. The book shows that the closest analogue of a Hobbesian authority in international relations is Kant's confederation of free states, where states enjoy 'anarchical' (equal) freedom. At present, this crucial form of freedom is being threatened by economic processes of globalisation, and by the resurgence of private authority across state borders. (shrink)

Manifesting the special intelligence of a literary critic of original gifts, Culture and Anarchy is still a living classic. It is addressed to the flexible and the disinterested, to those who are not committed to the findings of their particular discipline, and it assumes in its reader a critical intelligence that will begin its work with the reader himself. Arnold employs a delicate and stringent irony in an examination of the society of his time: a rapidly expanding industrial society, just (...) beginning to accustom itself to the changes in its institutions that the pace of its own development called for. Coming virtually at the end of the decade and immediately prior to W. E. Forster's Education Act, Culture and Anarchy phrases with a particular cogency the problems that find their centre in the questions: what kind of life do we think individuals in mass societies should be assisted to lead? How may we best ensure that the quality of their living is not impoverished? Arnold applies himself to the detail of his time: to the case of Mr Smith 'who feared he would come to poverty and be eternally lost', to the Reform agitation, to the commercial values that working people were encouraged to respect, and to the limitations of even the best Rationalist intelligence. The degree of local reference is therefore high, but John Dover Wilson's introduction and notes to this edition supply valuable assistance to a reader fresh to the period. (shrink)

Originally published in 1937 during the Spanish Civil War, the country was split into pro-fascists and pro-communists, the author felt that the conflict in Spain threatened to develop into an international war, perhaps an international civil war since the issue cut across frontier lines. The situation had no parallel at the time. The author looks back to wars of the sixteenth century to find a precedent for this dramatic duel between two political conceptions. Using examples from Europe including the conflict (...) between Catholics and Protestants he shows that, as in England who led their own way at the time, there are alternative solutions and hopefully a way to find a middle ground. (shrink)