•'I MUST FIRST TAKE STOCK OF MY OWN SELF:" THE INDIVIDUAL & THE NOT-MASS IN 'S

A Thesis Submitted to the Committee on Graduate Studies in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Master of Arts in the Faculty of Arts and Science

TRENT UNIVERSITY

Peterborough, Ontario, Canada

(c) Copyright by Laura Greenwood 2011

Theory, Culture and Politics M.A. Graduate Program

October 2011 Library and Archives Bibliotheque et 1*1 Canada Archives Canada Published Heritage Direction du Branch Patrimoine de I'edition

395 Wellington Street 395, rue Wellington OttawaONK1A0N4 OttawaONK1A0N4 Canada Canada

Your Tile Votre reference ISBN: 978-0-494-81100-9 Our file Notre r6f6rence ISBN: 978-0-494-81100-9

NOTICE: AVIS:

The author has granted a non­ L'auteur a accorde une licence non exclusive exclusive license allowing Library and permettant a la Bibliotheque et Archives Archives Canada to reproduce, Canada de reproduire, publier, archiver, publish, archive, preserve, conserve, sauvegarder, conserver, transmettre au public communicate to the public by par telecommunication ou par I'lnternet, preter, telecommunication or on the Internet, distribuer et vendre des theses partout dans le loan, distribute and sell theses monde, a des fins commerciales ou autres, sur worldwide, for commercial or non­ support microforme, papier, electronique et/ou commercial purposes, in microform, autres formats. paper, electronic and/or any other formats.

The author retains copyright L'auteur conserve la propriete du droit d'auteur ownership and moral rights in this et des droits moraux qui protege cette these. Ni thesis. Neither the thesis nor la these ni des extraits substantiels de celle-ci substantial extracts from it may be ne doivent etre im primes ou autrement printed or otherwise reproduced reproduits sans son autorisation. without the author's permission.

In compliance with the Canadian Conformement a la loi canadienne sur la Privacy Act some supporting forms protection de la vie privee, quelques may have been removed from this formulaires secondaires ont ete enleves de thesis. cette these.

While these forms may be included Bien que ces formulaires aient inclus dans in the document page count, their la pagination, il n'y aura aucun contenu removal does not represent any loss manquant. of content from the thesis.

1+1 Canada ABSTRACT

"I Must First Take Stock of My Own Self:" The Individual & The Not-Mass in Emma Goldman's Anarchism

Laura Greenwood

This thesis, which aims to interrogate Emma Goldman as an innovative anarchist

thinker, seeks to illuminate her conception of the individual and its implications for

radical political organizing by focusing on three texts. The individual is first described in

relation to Goldman's Nietzschean essay "Minorities versus Majorities;" while the essay's

title suggests a simple dichotomy, Greimasian semiotics reveals the not-mass as a tactic of

individuals' political organizing. Goldman's notion of the individual is further developed

in her autobiography ; this thesis argues that not only does Goldman

constitute herself an anarchistic individual through this text, but also that the text

advances a notion of the individual as open, becoming, unfixed, and self-creating.

Finally, Goldman's My Disillusionment in Russia is read as an exploration of the

downfalls of mass and the possibility of individuals engaging in not-mass radical politics.

Keywords: Emma Goldman, anarchism, , subjectivity, writing, autobiography, , political organizing ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

As I entered the Theory, Culture and Politics Masters program, I did not plan to write a thesis focusing on Emma Goldman. Prior to the writing of this thesis, my anarchism and my academic work have, for the most part, been two components of my life which have remained relatively separate; while I expressed interest in writing a thesis on anarchism prior to my arrival in Peterborough, I always harboured some doubts about whether the project would materialize. Two years later, I am very pleased that it has; I am especially glad that Emma Goldman, one of the first anarchists whose work I encountered a decade ago and whose books have been a constant presence on my shelf ever since, became this project's focus. This work would never have come to fruition were it not for those who have generously offered their friendship, guidance, support, constructive criticism, and thoughtful insight.

I first wish to extend my thanks to my thesis supervisor, Alan O'Connor, for his support and encouragement since the very beginning of this project, when the ideas that would inform this work were still very much in their formative stages. His insightful lines of questioning, suggestions of resources and new ideas, and willingness to meet for frequent discussions have all been invaluable to the completion of this thesis. I also thank

Nadine Changfoot for her contributions to this thesis as a reader and committee member; her input has greatly enhanced this work. I am thankful to Kathy Ferguson for serving as external advisor; her reading of this work and her participation in the thesis defence process are tremendously appreciated. Finally, I wish to thank Davide Panagia for serving as chair of my thesis defence.

The supportive environment created by those involved with the Centre for the

iii Study of Theory, Culture and Politics at Trent University has contributed greatly to my ability to complete this project. I would like to thank those whom, as Centre directors and professors during my first year of graduate studies, offered their support and guidance: the discussions I have shared with Doug Torgerson, Andrew Wernick, David Holdsworth, and Veronica Hollinger have contributed to my thought and have, in surprising ways, emerged in this work. I also extend my gratitude to my fellow students at the Centre, with whom I have had the privilege of sharing many a conversation over evening drinks; these conversations not only contributed to the content of this project but also bolstered my ability to navigate the stresses of life as a graduate student. I also thank Nancy

Legate, the Centre's administrative assistant, for all her kind words, support, and invaluable advice.

Having presented a version of the first chapter of this work at the North American

Anarchist Studies Network (NAASN) Conference in Toronto on 15 January 2011,1 had the opportunity to share many thoughtful conversations with other presenters and attendees; I thank them for their input, which has enriched both this work and my own anarchist perspective. I also extend thanks to my friends. Specifically, I wish to thank

Nick Day, a friend and conference co-panelist, for his support as well as his suggestions about the first chapter of this thesis. I thank Josh Clark for proofreading my final draft. I thank Tricia Morris, who has likely read the majority of this work via online chatting and email, for her many valuable insights as well as her support and encouragement. I thank

Stu Morris for the great many discussions in which he has shared his knowledge of Emma

Goldman. Lastly, but certainly not least, infinite gratitude is owed to my family. Their support and encouragement enabled me to begin this project as well as to complete it.

iv TABLE OF CONTENTS

Abstract ii Acknowledgements iii Table of Contents v List of Figures vi

Introduction 1

Individuals and Masses: Expanding a Dichotomy I. Minorities Versus Majorities: An Overview 9 II. The Not-Mass: Illuminating a Fourth Position 16 III. A More Complex Individualism 28

An Individual Living Her Life IV Flux and Becoming 32 V The Autobiographical Individual 44 VI. Constituting a Self, Writing a Self 54 VII. Disjunctures & Discontinuities 59 i. Haymarket 59 ii. Homestead 66 iii. Russia 75 VIII. New Possibilities 85

Lessons from a Non-Revolution IX. Critique of Bolshevik Politics 87 X. The Bolshevik Mass, The Revolutionary Not-Mass 96 XL Goldman, The Not-Mass, and Radical Politics Today 106

Conclusion 112

Bibliography 115

v LIST OF FIGURES

Figure I Basic semiotic square representing the elementary structure of meaning

Figure II Semiotic square modelling sexual relations according to Claude Levi-Strauss' division of the semantic universe into the dimensions of nature and culture

Figure III Semiotic square modelling the dichotomy of individual versus mass in Emma Goldman's "Minorities versus Majorities'

Figure IV Semiotic square modelling the individual versus the mass incorporating Berkman's attentat as biographical trace

Figure V Semiotic dichotomy modelling Goldman's contrast between Revolution and

Figure VI Semiotic square modelling the dichotomy of Goldman's Revolution versus Bolshevism

VI 1

Introduction

Emma Goldman was born in 1869 in what is today , , to a "petit bourgeois Orthodox Jewish family of declining fortunes."1 Her family moved several times, but she spent most of her childhood in Konigsberg and later . She immigrated, along with her older sister Helene, to the in late December

1885. It was shortly after her arrival that she first began to identify herself as an anarchist. Though she had some radical political influences as a child, especially in

Russia, it was the Haymarket strikes, bombing, and the subsequent conviction and execution of four prominent anarchist organizers that she cites as radicalizing her political views. In her autobiography, Living My Life, she recounts her strong emotional response to a public speech about the ; it was upon learning of the executions of several of the anarchists that Goldman first "had a distinct sensation that something new and wonderful had been born in [her] soul. A great ideal, a burning faith,

[and] a determination to ... make their cause [her] own."2

Goldman is most well-known for her activities in the United States. While in

America, she published books, essays, pamphlets, and articles on a wide variety of topics including anarchism, as well as the merits of , the dangers of militarism, the need for libertarian education, the repressive effects of religion, the radical potential of theatre and drama, the shackles of marriage, and the fight against labour exploitation. It was during her time in the United States that Goldman published her two earliest books,

1 Alice Wexler, Emma Goldman: An Intimate Life (New York: Pantheon Books, 1984): 6. 2 Emma Goldman, Living My Life (New York: , 1970): 10. 2

Anarchism and Other Essays (1910) and The Social Significance of the Modern Drama

(1914), as well as the radical journal , one of "the longer lived, best written, and best produced" anarchist magazines and newspapers ever published in the country3

In addition to writing and publishing, she was also well-known as a powerful public speaker, in one lecture tour alone, following the release of Anarchism and Other Essays, she gave 120 lectures and addressed a total of 25,000 listeners 4 Though she was controversial even within anarchist circles, particularly for her strong emphasis on gender and sexual freedom, she also amassed an impressive and diverse following In addition to writing and lecturing, Goldman also worked as a nurse, and she lent her support to a variety of political projects including the Anti- League and the Francisco

Ferrer Association

She did, for many years, endorse the strategic use of violence and was particularly infamous for her close association with two acts of political violence First, in 1892, one of her long time partners, , attempted to assassinate Henry Clay

Fnck, a manager at Carnegie Steel Company who ordered strikebreakers and Pinkertons to clash with staking workers, resulting in several fatalities Goldman published articles expressing her support for Berkman's act,5 and she responded to fellow anarchist Johann

Most's condemnation of Berkman by confronting him while he was giving a speech, lashing him with a horsewhip, breaking the whip, and throwing it in his face 6 Secondly,

3 Peter Glassgold, "Introduction The Life and Death of Mother Earth,' Anaichy1 An Anthology of Emma Goldman's Mother Earth, Ed Peter Glassgold (New York Counterpoint, 2000) xvi 4 Pete" Marshall, Demanding the Impossible A History of'Ana-chism (London Harper Perennial, 2008) 399 5 Emma Goldman, "Alexander Berkman," ! An Anthology of Emma Goldman's Mother Eaith, Ed Peter Glassgold (New York Counterpoint, 2000) 16 6 C Bud Nicholson, Emma Goldman Still Dangewus (Montieal Black Rose Books, 2010) 79 3 when assassinated President McKinley in 1901, Goldman was accused of inciting him to commit the act.7 Though she was never charged due to a lack of evidence and had no direct ties to the incident, she took a stance unpopular even amongst anarchists and published articles in his defence.8 Ultimately the media associated her with the assassination and this, combined with her open support for Berkman, solidified her reputation as violent. She was the subject of constant media scrutiny, vilified as "Red

Emma," and even famously referred to as "the most dangerous woman in America" on several occasions.9 During her time in the United States alone, she was arrested so many times that she always carried a book with her so she would have something to read were she jailed.10 For a myriad of historical reasons, including the beginning of the , the frequency of rioting and striking, anti-Semitism and xenophobia, and several incidents of targeted violence by anarchists, an Immigration Act was passed in 1918 which barred

"alien" anarchists from the country." Goldman's final arrest was for speaking publicly against conscription; she was charged with conspiring to obstruct the draft and eventually deported, along with Alexander Berkman and 247 others, to Russia in .12

Goldman embraced the opportunity to return to Russia; she believed strongly in the revolution, and eagerly planned projects to further advance it. Her attitude toward the

Soviet government, however, soon turned sour; though she initially accepted it as necessary during the time of transition, her opinion shifted dramatically once she had 7 Goldman, Living My Life, 296 8 Emma Goldman, "Leon Czolgosz," Anarchy1 An Anthology of Emma Goldman's Mother Eaith, Ed. Peter Glassgold (New York Counterpoint, 2000) 20-1 9 Paul Avnch, Anarchist Voices An Oral in America (Oakland AK Press, 2005) 31 10 Alix Kates Shulman, "Emma Goldman's A Reappraisal," Red Emma Speaks, Ed Alix Kates Shulman (New York Schocken Books, 1983) 3 11 Nicholson, Emma Goldman Still Dangerous, 25-37 12 Ibid, 23 4 spent enough time there to "look behind the scenes of the revolutionary drama and to behold the dictatorship without its stage make-up."13 After witnessing the harsh realities of life under Bolshevik rule, Goldman felt that she needed to "raise [her] voice against the crimes committed in the name of the Revolution;" thus, in December 1921, Goldman and

Berkman left Russia for Europe.14 It was this experience that led Goldman to write her third book, My Disillusionment in Russia (1923), and have it published in the United

States. The publishers renamed the book (the title chosen by Goldman was "My Two

Years in Russia") and omitted the final twelve chapters and afterword, but they were published a year later under the title My Further Disillusionment in Russia}5

Upon arriving in Europe, Goldman took up residence in Germany, but was arrested and ordered to leave the country; she departed in 1924 for England.16 In 1925 she married rebel coal miner in order to obtain citizenship.17 Somewhat disappointed with the absence of a strong anarchist movement in England despite the presence of many anarchist colleagues, Goldman travelled to a small cottage in St-Tropez,

France in 1928. It was here that Goldman wrote her autobiography, Living My Life

(1931).18 She did return to the United States once, briefly, in 1934 on a special travel permit to present a ninety-day lecture tour on theatre.19 She spent many of the later years of her life in England working with propaganda in support of the Spanish revolution;

13 Goldman, Living My Life, 754 14 Emma Goldman, My Disillusionment in Russia (Mmeola Dover Publications, 2003) 241 15 Ibid , xvn-xvni This 2003 Dover Publications edition includes the entirety of the work, including both prefaces (the latter preface addressing the publishing issues Goldman faced and explaining that the two books were intended as one) 16 Goldman, Living My Life, 951 -7 17 Ibid . 981 Goldman's desire for English citizenship was, in large par*, because it >^ou!d allow hei to visit Canada and the United States 18 Ibid, 984-5. 19 Bonnie Haaland, Emma Goldman Sexuality and the Impurity of the State (Monteal Black Rose Books, 1993) xni 5 during this time she also took three trips (in 1936, 1937, and 1938) to Spain, each for two to three months.20 In 1939, Goldman left Europe for Canada; she took up residence in

Toronto, where she created the Emma Goldman Spanish Refugee Rescue Fund and gave lectures in Yiddish and English.21 After suffering a cerebral hemorrhage and later a stroke, Goldman died on 14 May 1940.22 A eulogy was delivered at the Labour Lyceum in Toronto, and she was buried, following her own wishes, in Forest Home Cemetery in

Chicago, Illinois near the graves of the Haymarket anarchists and many other well-known radicals.23

Goldman's death did not mark an end to interest in her life; she has been the subject of numerous biographies, appeared as a major character in multiple plays, and inspired several songs. In many radical circles she has become a sort of cult figure; her face has adorned t-shirts and banners, and as Candace Falk recounts, in the 1960s and

1970s "almost everyone in the new women's movement was naming things after [her] - health collectives, dogs, even babies."24 Her large body of published writing, which includes essays, books, and pamphlets, has received comparatively limited attention in academic circles. The few non-biographical academic writings that exist typically do so in isolation rather than in lively debate with one another, and almost no one takes her theoretical contributions seriously or attempts to synthesize them.25 Even Richard 20 Porter, David, ed, Vision on Fire Emma Goldman on the Spanish Revolution (Edinburgh. AK Press, 2006)- 30-1 21 Alice Wexler, Emma Goldman in Exile From the Russian Revolution to the ( Beacon Piess, 1989)- 235. 22 Ibid, 240-1. 23 Haaland, Emma Goldman Sexuality and the Impurity of the State, xm 24 Candace Falk, Love, Anarchy and Emma Goldman (New York: Holt, Rmehart and Winston, 1984)- xm 25 Penny A Weiss and Loretta Kensmger with Berenice A Carroll, "Digging for Gold(man) What We Found," Feminist Interpretations of Emma Goldman, Eds. Penny A. Weiss and Loretta Kensingei 6

Drinnon, a biographer who acknowledges that he was wrong in initially assuming that she was "too extraordinary a woman to be taken seriously,"26 concludes his biography by stating that she was "by no means a seminal social or political thinker."27 In part, this dismissal of Goldman is not surprising, for as Penny A. Weiss and Loretta Kensmger write in the introduction to their recent feminist anthology on Goldman, there are a variety of methods by which women are deprecated as intellectuals; one of the most frequent of these tactics of exclusion is denying female theorists' originality.28 The style of her writing also means she is less likely to be considered a serious political theorist: as

Jonathan McKenzie and Craig Stalbaum point out, her writing is "fluid, dynamic, passionate, and aggressive," and draws from a diverse array of sources as well as from life experience.29 They argue that Goldman's style can be starkly contrasted to that of

Kropotkm, whose writing was "systematic and analytical" and whom thus fits with masculinized ideals of the theorist as detatched, scientific, and focused on abstract concepts.30 Because she lived such an intensely controversial and interesting life, it is perhaps not surprising that so many scholars have taken Goldman's biography as their focus. However, the lack of academic literature on Goldman's work is problematic insofar as it is indicative of a widely accepted view that Goldman was "more of an activist than a thinker"31 and that she is "by no means the ablest thinker in the libertarian

(University Park: Pennsylvania State University Press, 2007): 3. 26 Richard Drinnon, Rebel in Paradise A Biography of Emma Goldman (Chicago Univeisity of Chicago Press, 1961) vn 27 Ibid. 314 28 Weiss, Kensmger and Hall, "Digging for Gold(man) What We Found," 4 29 Jonathan McKenzie and Craig Stalbaum, "Manufacturing Consensus Goldman, Kropotkm. and the Ordei of an Anarchist Canon," Feminist Interpretations of Emma Goldman, Eds Penny A Weiss and Loretta Kensmger (University Park Pennsylvania State University Press, 2007) 212 30 Ibid , 212-3 Kiopotkin's work is never subject to the accusations of failing to qualify as theory that Goldman's is 31 Marshall, Demanding the Impossible, 396 7

pantheon."32

Given that anarchist theory is often motivated by a desire to dismantle oppressive,

hierarchical, unjust institutions and practices, the ways we live and act are of central

importance. Many anarchists, including Emma Goldman, not only produce theoretical

writing but also work tirelessly toward realizing their ideals through activism; this does

not mean that they are not "thinkers." For anarchists theory is itself activism - theorizing

(through both writing and speaking publicly) is not divorced from Emma Goldman's

activism but a central part of it, and to say that she is more of an activist than a thinker

only serves to perpetuate the tendency to separate her work from the rest of her life and to

"[use] her passion ... to dismiss her intellect."33 The traditional separation between theoiy

and practice cannot be maintained when considering anarchist work for, as Jesse Cohn

writes, for anarchists both reading and writing "can be and are a means of

transformation."34 More attention to Goldman's writing that acknowledges it as a

contribution to anarchist political theory is sorely needed; as she once asserted, "[she] and

her ideas are inseparable," so the imbalance in scholarship between biography and theory

needs to be redressed.35 It is out of a desire to contribute to the body of theoretical work

on Goldman that this work emerged.

The scope of this work has been limited to providing close readings of one essay

and two books written by Goldman, with the aim of extracting ideas hitherto unaddressed

in academic anarchist literature but of direct relevance to contemporary anarchist thought.

32 Bookchm, Murray or Lifestyle Anarchism An Unbridgeable Chasm (Edinburgh AK Press, 1995): 13. 33 Weiss, Kensmger and Hall, "Digging for Gold(man): What We Found," 9 34 Jesse Cohn, "What is Anarchist Literary Theory?" 15, no 2 (2007) 118 Italics are original 35 Goldman, Living My Life, 268. Here only a few works of Goldman's written oeuvre have been discussed in detail. It is hoped that this modest contribution to anarchist scholarship might constitute a small part of a shift towards (re)considering Emma Goldman as an innovative theorist with much to offer contemporary debates on a wide variety of themes. 9

Individuals and Masses: Breaking A Dichotomy

Minorities Versus Majorities An Overview

Goldman's first book, Anarchism and Other Essays, was published in 1910 In her original preface, she elaborates her motivation for compiling the collection and seriously embracing writing By this time, she had already given many public speeches but felt frustrated at what she considered obstacles to adequately conveying theory via oral communication She writes that "no one, unless intensely interested in progressive ideas, will bother with serious books" whereas many attend lectures due to newspaper sensationalism or "because they expect to be amused "' She also explains that the written word is preferable for sharing her ideas on important topics because she considers the relation between writer and reader to be more intimate and sees communicating through writing as a way to avoid the distractions that come along with a crowded lectuie hall2 It is clear that, contrary to the frequent dismissal of her work by past and contemporary academics, Goldman did in fact consider herself a theorist, take the writing process seriously, and consider Anarchism and Other Essays a "serious book " She clearly states, however, that she did not write it with the aim of convincing readers of the superiority of her view or converting readers to her particular form of anarchism, much as she realizes that her spoken words will not convince anyone but rather might serve to rouse people from their lethargy, she acknowledges that all she might do by theorizing m writing is

"plant the seeds of thought "3

The second essay in Anarchism and Other Essays is 'Minorities versus 1 Emma Goldman, "Preface," Anarchism and Other Essays (Mineola Dover Publications 1969) 42 2 Ibid 42 3 Ibid 42 10

Majorities." It is one of only two essays in the collection that Goldman actually explicitly

addresses in the preface; she knew that it was one of the most likely to be misunderstood

and criticized. The essay is constructed as a comparison between the "individual" and the

"mass" (also called the "majority"). For Goldman the mass is not comprised of

individuals, but is rather a unit unto itself. She says absolutely nothing positive about it.

For Goldman, the mass "cannot reason," "has no judgement," and is "lacking utterly in

originality and moral courage."4 The mass lacks ambition, and "hates nothing so much as

innovation."5 The aim of the mass is, and historically always has been, "to make life

uniform, gray, and monotonous as the desert" and thus to eliminate creativity and

individuality.6 Because of this, the mass taste (or, the most popular taste) in art reflects a

"palate ... like a dumping ground" and does not recognize the true artistic skill of the

genius.7 The mass of course creates things, but because it is comprised of "brainless,

incompetent automatons" it can only "turn out enormous quantities of things, valueless to

[itself], and generally injurious to the rest of mankind."8 Goldman names independent

thought as the worst enemy of the mass.9 The mass thus, by definition, works against not

only progress but also justice; she argues that "principles, ideals, justice, and uprightness

are completely swamped by the array of numbers" that comprise the mass.10

Because of its lack of ambition and creativity, the mass "has always placed its destiny in the hands of others;" the mass will follow leaders even if it means its own

4 Emma Goldman, "Minorities versus Majorities," Anarchism and Other Essays (Mineola. Dovei Publications, 1969): 70. 5 Ibid , 70 6 Goldman, "Minorities versus Majorities," 78. 7 Ibid., 71. 8 Ibid, 69. 9 Ibid, 73. 10 Ibid, 69. 11 destruction." As an anarchist, Goldman clearly acknowledges that all people are oppressed by hierarchy; the mass, however, she considers responsible for its own position because it "wants to be dominated, to be led, to be coerced."12 Despite the fact that the mass are "the very victims, duped, betrayed, outraged a hundred times" by leaders, they continue to "decide, not against, but in favor of the victor."13 For Goldman, this is especially apparent in the United States, a democratic country; she quotes Wendell

Phillips, who argued that the American mass feels that the favourable opinion of others will yield benefits, so "instead of being a mass of individuals ... [Americans] are a mass of cowards" and public opinion reigns as tyrant.14 The American mass is not the only one that garners Goldman's fierce criticism; she also argues that it is most apparent in Russia that the mass is "immobile," "drowsy," and the "leaden weight" that hampers any attempt at liberation.15 Ultimately, the mass is entirely responsible for the oppression and domination that Goldman's anarchism vehemently opposes:

It clings to its masters, loves the whip, and is the first to cry Crucify! the moment a protesting voice is raised against the sacredness of capitalistic authority or any other decayed institution. Yet how long would authority and private property exist, if not for the willingness of the mass to become soldiers, policemen, jailers, and hangmen.16

In contrast to the mass, individuals are responsible for "every effort for progress,

for enlightenment, for science, for religious, political, and economic " in any given

historical period.17 Goldman argues that without individuals, those "innumerable ...

11 Ibid, 70. 12 Ibid, 71. 13 Ibid, 70. 14 Ibid, 73. Wendell Phillips (1811-1884) was an outspoken critic of slavery as well as the oppression of Native Americans. He was well-known as a public speaker. 15 Goldman, "Minorities versus Majorities," 75-6. 16 Ibid, 77. 17 Ibid, 74. 12 giants who [have] fought inch by inch against the power of kings and tyrants," the entire human race would be completely politically enslaved.18 Individuals come from many walks of life and pursue a variety of ends via a variety of paths; they include "the individual educator imbued with honesty of purpose, the artist or writer of original ideas, the independent scientist or explorer, [and] the non-compromising pioneers of social changes."19 In the realm of art, the individual might appear as a "true artistic genius, who will not cater to accepted notions, who exercises originality, and strives to be true to life;" artists that Goldman considers individuals include Emerson, Thoreau, Whitman, and

Ibsen, and these artists are, in her view, relatively unknown and unappreciated.20 For

Goldman, individuals are people "of refinement, of culture, [and] of ability" who go against popular opinion in the pursuit of justice.21 She provides some specific examples, citing John Ball,22 Wat Tyler,23 ,24 Camille Desmoulins,25 Thomas

18 Ibid, 75. 19 Ibid, 71. 20 Ibid , 72 Goldman expands on the theme of the radical potential of art in her book The Social Significance of the Modern Drama, m which she examines several playwnghts in detail 21 Ibid, 74. 22 John Ball was a Lollard priest who played a central part in the Peasants' Revolt of 1381, a widespiead rebellion against feudalism, and whose advocacy of social equality landed him m prison sevcial times and resulted in his excommunication. 23 WatTyler was a leader of the Peasants'Revolt of 1381 Like John Ball, he opposed feudalism He led a group of peasants who stormed Canterbury and the Tower of London and ultimately beheaded the Archbishop of Canterbury 24 Francisco Ferrer was a radical anarchist educator who created the first Modern School in Spam in 1901, Goldman wrote on Ferrer and was involved in the Francisco Ferrer Association and the Modern School movement in the United States 25 Camille Desmoulins was a journalist who played a central role in the French Revolution, he initiated the riots which were the precursors to the storming of the Bastille, and was ultimately executed at the guillotine 13

Jefferson,26 Patrick Henry,27 and Thomas Paine28 as individuals. She also refers to the

earliest proponents of the abolition of slavery, Lloyd Garrison, Wendell Phillips, Margaret

Fuller, and Theodore Parker, as individuals, in contrast to Lincoln who "followed only

when abolition had become a practical issue, recognized as such by all."29

The individual is never well-received by the mass. Goldman argues that it is

absurd to talk of an "era of individualism" when, as has been the case throughout history,

"the few [individuals] are misunderstood, hounded, imprisoned, tortured, and killed" by

the mass.30 Those who are innovative, espouse free thought, and work for justice are

"daily pushed to the wall" by the mass and thus often lead "an obscure and wreched

existence."31 On the rare occasion that the individual does gain some popularity with the

mass, his or her individualism has disappeared; Goldman writes of the artistic genius that

"his (sic) work may some day become the fad of the mob, but not until his heart's blood

has been exhausted; not until the pathfinder has ceased to be, and a throng of an idealless

and visionless mob has done to death the heritage of the master."32 Similarly, she argues

that the individual Jesus, "agitator of Nazareth," was a force for justice and truth until the

majority turned his teachings into "a shibboleth and harbinger of of bood and fire,

spreading suffering and disaster" and that Luther and Calvin fighting the dominance of

26 Goldman has, m a number of works, expressed support for Jefferson's support of religious freedom, attempts at ending slavery, and his view that rebellion to constrain government could be necessary and justifiable 27 Patrick Henry, a governor of Virginia in the 1770s and 1780s, is famous foi demanding "Give me Liberty, or give me Death1" in a 1775 speech to the Virginia Convention He played a central part m the American Revolution. 28 Thomas Paine was active in the French and American , and authored several radical pamphlets including Common Sense and Vindication of the Rights of Men, he was a very early critic of slavery 29 Goldman, "Minorities versus Majorities," 76 30 Ibid , 74. 31 Ibid, 71-2 32 Ibid, 72. 14 the Catholic Church was "like a sunrise amid the darkness of the night" until they began to cater to the mass, which turned out to be just as cruel as the Church they initially resisted.33 While Goldman argues that this treatment of individuals has occurred throughout history, she clarifies that despite the so-called contemporary "era of individualism" the individual actually has less chance of expression than ever before 34

Despite the title of the essay, Goldman's "Minorities versus Majorities" deals rather with individuals versus masses The shift from the language of 'majority' to 'mass' is relatively unproblematic for Goldman she explicitly uses the two interchangeably, and both appear throughout the essay Conversely, the term 'minority' only appears four times in the entirety of the essay (excluding in the title) The term's first appearance does not serve to illuminate the concept because it is used in the context of the popular view, a view that Goldman explicitly disagrees with, that we live in an "era of individualism, of the minonty "35 As her subsequent negative comments about those who appear to succeed under 'individualism' reveal, this is clearly not the minority that Goldman wishes to contrast with the mass. The second and third appearance of the term 'minority' both occur within a discussion of Luthensm and Calvinism emerging against the dominance of the

Catholic Church but ultimately becoming "cruel and bloodthirsty" themselves, Goldman writes "woe to the heretics, to the minority, who would not bow down to its dicta" and argues that "the minority has gone on in pursuit of new conquests, and the majority is lagging behind, handicapped by truth grown false with age "36 The fourth, and final, appearance of the tenn 'minority' is in the essay's concluding sentence "In other words,

33 Goldman, "Minorities versus Majorities," 74 5 34 Ibid , 71 35 Ibid , 70 36 Ibid, 75 15

the living, vital truth of social and economic well-being will become a reality only

through the zeal, courage, the non-compromising determination of intelligent minorities,

and not through the mass."37 The three latter usages are much closer to the one implied in

the title and to the descriptions Goldman offers of 'individuals', yet it remains unclear how

exactly individuals comprise, are related to, or function as minorities. They certainly

cannot function in any way similar to the mass but on a smaller scale, caring tremendously about each others' opinions and seeking to satisfy one other rather than being innovative and potentially controversial. A minority is not simply any smaller group espousing an unpopular opinion: Goldman's description of the individual makes it clear that they work for justice and freedom, so those who lead racist groups, for instance, would not seem to qualify. However, the minority also cannot simply be any small group advocating precisely the same ideals that Goldman herself supports; the individuals she cites were not anarchists, and her list includes priests and politicians though she herself was an anti-state atheist. Perhaps most puzzling is the fact that not a single example of a minority appears in the essay: while John Ball and Wat Tyler worked together to advance an egalitarian project, they are mentioned individually and, while the Peasants' Revolt included countless others, only these two particular men are mentioned. Ball and Tyler are mentioned but the peasants themselves are not, several artists are mentioned but neither artistic circles nor appreciators of these individual artists are mentioned, politicians are included but their supporters are not.

37 Ibid, 78. 16

The Not-Mass: Illuminating a Fourth Position

Despite the clarity of the title of the essay "Minorities versus Majorities," it seems that Goldman is relatively silent on the topic of minorities despite considering them infinitely more preferable than majorities. A turn toward Algirdas Julien Greimas' work in semiotics, and particularly his development of the semiotic square, is fruitful here. As

Frederic Jameson writes in the foreword to Greimas' book On Meaning: Selected

Writings in Semiotic Theory, the semiotic square is useful because it "is a decisive enlargement on the older structural notion of the binary opposition" by revealing the existence of several more available positions than the readily apparent two which appear to constitute a strong opposition or contrary.38 As he suggests, Greimas' semiotic square might offer a sort of "discovery principle" allowing one to bring to the surface terms hidden or obscured by apparent binaries.39 Such a tool proves useful in the case of Emma

Goldman's "Minorities versus Majorities" because the nature of the minority is obscured by the apparent binary created by individual and mass.

In Greimas' semiotic square, two terms, Si and S2, form an initial binary. These are then taken to indicate their contradictions, not -Si and not-S2. Greimas describes S as

"uniting Si and S2 in a double relation of disjunction and conjunction" and thus represents the elementary structure of meaning with the following basic semiotic square40:

38 Frederic Jameson, foiewoid to On Meaning Selected Writings in Semiotic Theory, by AJgirdas Julien Greimas (Minneapolis University of Minnesota Press, 1987) xiv 39 Ibid, xv 40 A J Greimas and F Rastier, "The Interaction of Semiotic Constraints," Yale French Studies no 41 (1968) 88 17

g2 < -...... -> Sl s Figure I: Basic semiotic square representing the elementary structure of meaning

Two forms of disjunction are readily apparent in the square: the disjunction of contraries

(Si and S2are contraries, not-Si and not-S2 are contraries) and the disjunction of contradictories (Si and not-Si are contradictories, S2and not-S2 are contraries).41 S is in hyponymic relation with Si and S2(they are subcategories of the more general class S); the same is true of the relation between not-S and not-Si and not-S2.42 Finally, a relation of implication exists: not- S2implies Si, whereas not-S 1 implies S2.43 As Jameson indicates, there are a few crucial moments when utilizing the square. The initial decision regarding the terms of the initial binary Si and S2 as well as the order in which the terms appear is an important decision because it "already [implies] something like a dominant/subordinate" and "the placement of the terms ... is not indifferent but actively determinant in astonishing ways."44 The binary present in the text is not always clear, and even when the binary is readily apparent the decision remains as to which term will occupy Si and which term will occupy S2 (for instance, whether a binary is ordered white versus black or black versus white does matter to the outcome).45 Jameson indicates that this is, at least in part,

41 Ibid, 88. 42 Ibid, 89. 43 Ibid, 90. 44 Jameson, foreword to On Meaning- Selected Writings in Semiotic Theory, xv. 45 Ibid, xv. 18 because the final term (not-S2) is of a particular sort: this is "the place of novelty and of paradoxical emergence: it is always the most critical position and the one that remains open or empty for the longest time."46

Greimas and Rastier apply the semiotic square using the terms "prescribed" and

"forbidden," arguing that a system of rules is always defined positively and negatively: one can define the rules (the prescribed) but also that which the rules prohibit (the forbidden). Considering this model in relation to the system of sexual relations, they construct the following semiotic square47:

Permitted relations Unacceptable relations (Culture) (Nature )

Matrimonial relations "Abnormal" relations (prescribed) (forbidden) > eg

c% < 'Normal" relations Non-matrimonial relations (not forbidden) (not prescribed) Figure II: Semiotic square modelling sexual relations according to Claude Levi-Strauss' division of the semantic universe into the dimensions of nature and culture

Here, Greimas and Rastier begin with the dichotomy of prescribed versus forbidden, with prescription hierarchically taking the first position (in this case, ci). While these tenns are

46 Ibid, xvi. 47 Greimas and Rastier, "The Interaction of Semiotic Constraints," 93. 19 not static (which types of sexual relations are prescribed or forbidden varies widely across societies and time periods), one can consider equivalences for each term. For instance, with reference to "traditional French society," the authors offer conjugal love as prescribed (ci) and incest and homosexuality as forbidden (C2).48 Since the semiotic square serves, as Jameson suggests, to open up new possibilities by expanding on apparent binaries, this particular example clarifies that not all sexual relations present (in this case, in traditional French society) fit neatly into the binary of prescribed versus forbidden and is useful insofar as it forces one to consider possibilities beyond the obvious few. They identify adultery as a form of sexual relation which is neither prescribed nor forbidden; adultury on the part of the wife fits best into "not prescribed"

(not-ci). It is not, strictly speaking, forbidden in the same manner as incest, but it is not prescribed (marriage is, for women, certainly the sole prescribed relation).49 Finally, adultury on the part of the husband is "not forbidden" (and thus fits into not-C2): rather, it is tolerated in traditional French society.50

Turning back to Emma Goldman's "Minorities versus Majorities," a semiotic square is a useful tool to consider possibilities beyond the individual and the mass, which form a clear binary in the text. Without question, the individual and the mass, respectively, must be assigned the positions Si and S2. Insofar as Jameson is correct that the placement of these initial terms form a binary that at least implies a dominant/subordinate, it is important that the individual take the first position, Si, with the mass taking the secondary position, S2, as throughout the essay the individual is

48 Greimas and Rastier, "The Interaction of Semiotic Constraints," 94. 49 Ibid , 94 50 Ibid, 94 20 offered as the far superior of the two. This means that not-Si would be "not individual" whereas not-S2 would be "not mass." Employing these four terms, a semiotic square would appear as follows:

kl Si <- individuat l V>

not mass —» not individual

Figure III: Semiotic square modelling the dichotomy of individual versus mass in Emma Goldman's "Minorities versus Majorities"

In this square, as in the first example provided by Griemas and Rastier, the solid lines indicate contradiction: individual and not-individual are clearly contradictory, as are mass and not-mass. The dotted lines indicate the other form of disjunction: individual and mass are contraries, while not-mass and not-individual are contraries. Finally, the thicker solid arrows have been added to indicate the relation of implication: the existence of the not-mass implies the existence of the individual, whereas the existence of the not- individual implies the existence of the mass.

The individual and the mass are thoroughly described within Goldman's essay; however, the not-individual and not-mass are, unsurprisingly, less clear. The not- individual is certainly present in Goldman's essay: she argues that there are people who stand out from the mass and that are therefore often cited as evidence for an era of 21 individualism, though these people in fact stand out for the wrong reasons and thus do not qualify as individuals. Not-individuals' success "is due not to [their] individualism [in the positive sense], but to the inertia, the cravemiess, the utter submission of the mass."51

They rise to distinction not because they are original, just, or progressive, but because the mass propels them. Because the mass is cowardly, it is "willing to accept him who mirrors its own soul and mind poverty" and put him in the most powerful positions.52

Conversely, the not-individual knows enough to exploit the mass sentiment, and thus

"political cunning ever sings the praise of the mass."53 As an example of a not-individual,

Goldman cites Theodore Roosevelt; she argues that only the mass can account for his success as he himself embodies what the mass craves, showing "display" rather than

"ideals or integrity."54 Another president she seems to consider a not-individual is

Lincoln; though he appears to stand out from the mass as an individual as the president who abolished slavery, Goldman argues that he cannot truly qualify as an individual because he "and his minions followed only when abolition had become a practical issue, recognized as such by all" whereas other true individuals had been fighting to abolish slavery long before public opinion swayed against it.55 Not-individuals, like individuals, can be found in all professions; for instance, she cites Professors Eliot56 as a not-

51 Goldman, "Minorities versus Majorities," 71. 52 Ibid, 73. 53 Ibid, 77 54 Ibid , 74 55 Ibid , 76. 56 Charles William Eliot was a professor who served as president of Haivard fiom 1869-1909. He is responsible for transforming Harvard into a prominent research school at a time when businessmen were increasingly vocal about the need for education that served a more pragmatic function within the capitalist system 22

individual educator, and Humphrey Ward57 and Clyde Fitch58 as not-individual literary

figures.

The not-mass does not appear in the essay "Minorities versus Majorities," but

some clarity may be gained by further considering the relations mapped by the semiotic

square. The most straightforward relations are the terms which are contradictory: Si

(individual) and not-Si (not-individual) clearly contradict one another, as do S2 (mass) and

not-S2 (not-mass). These logical relations of contradiction to not illuminate anything

about the not-mass that its name does not already imply. Considering the contrary

relationships, however, is more fruitful. In this case, Si (individual) and S2(mass) are

contraries; the individual, by definition, cannot be a part of the mass and the mass, by

definition, cannot be comprised of individuals. Though Goldman ultimately elaborates

her goal by quoting Emerson in saying that she wishes to "drill, divide, and break [the

masses] up, and draw individuals out of them," the language of division and breakage

makes it clear that the emergence of individuals necessarily means either that they

completely divide from the mass or that the mass ceases to exist.59 Not-S 1 (not-

individual) and not-S2 (not-mass) are also contraries: it follows that the not-mass,

whatever sort of collectivity or grouping it is, cannot, by definition, be comprised of or

include not-individuals (those who appear to be individuals but whose success is

symptomatic of the dominance of the mass rather than indicative of their own greatness).

57 Mary Augusta Ward, who wrote under her married name Mrs Humphrey Ward, was a Butish novelist whose work contained strong elements of religion and Victorian values She was extremely popular in the United States, writing several books that became bestsellers She was a member of the Women's National Anti-Suffrage League m Britain, and believed women were not capable of the types of decision-making that holding office required 58 Clyde Fitch was the first American playwright to publish his work He wiote on a variety of topics and his work was very popular during his lifetime 59 Goldman, "Minorities versus Majorities," 78 23

Finally, the relations of implication offer further insight. In the semiotic square, not-Si

(not-individual) implies S2 (mass). This relation is clear in Goldman's essay, as she argues that the mass' cowardice and desire to be led (specifically by someone who possesses its own negative qualities) necessarily leads to the emergence and rise to prominence of the not-individual. The very existence of the not-individual, the one who deceives people into believing in an era of individualism when precisely the opposite is true, depends on the dominance of the mass. The square also demonstrates that not- S2

(not-mass) implies Si (individual). This relation is perhaps the most illuminating. The not-mass, it seems, is a sort of collectivity, group, or relationship that can only exist between true individuals as its existence implies the individual's presence. The not-mass, however, is not clarified beyond this in Goldman's "Minorities versus Majorities," as all of her examples of individuals are lone figures considered in isolation.

Frederic Jameson, in applying Greimasian semiotics to the work of Balzac in his book The Political Unconscious, takes a unique perspective on the role of biography in criticism: for him, the life of the subject (in his case, Balzac) is neither "a set of empirical facts, nor ... a textual system of characteristic behaviour, but rather ... the traces and symptoms of a fundamental... situation which is at one and the same time a fantasy master narrative."60 This fantasy master narrative, which Jameson calls a fantasm, is the

Imaginary in its initial form but demands repetition and "resolutions" which are never satisfactory.61 In Goldman's "Minorities versus Majorities," elements of her biography are evident as traces that echo throughout the text. Most clearly, the essay very clearly

60 Frederic Jameson, The Political Unconscious: Narrative as a Socially Symbolic Act (Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1981): 180. 61 Ibid, 180. 24

parallels other pieces of her written work that concern her partner Alexander Berkman's

attempt to assassinate in an act of propaganda of the deed. In order to

consider the essay in this light, a new semiotic square can be constructed with figures

from Goldman's life fitting into each of the four terms:

s Si <- —> $2

Figure IV: Semiotic square modelling the individual versus the mass incorporating Berkman's attentat as biographical trace

Her description of the individual in "Minorities versus Majorities" bears striking

resemblance to her writing on Berkman himself, particularly on his attempt to assassinate

the industrialist Henry Clay Frick. Though many anarchists condemned his act, Goldman

defended Berkman. In an article that appeared in her journal Mother Earth in May 1906,

she described him as "a youth with a vision of a grand and beautiful world based upon

freedom and harmony, and with boundless sympathy for the suffering of the masses."62

She went on to explain his actions by stating that he was "one whose deep, sensitive

nature could not endure the barbarisms of [the] times."63 Berkman could even be

62 Goldman, "Alexander Berkman," 16. 63 Ibid, 16. 25 considered the very highest expression of the individual: he was so wholeheartedly committed to justice and freedom that he was willing to give up not only favourable public opinion but his very life to "protest against tyranny and iniquity."64 Goldman suggests that not only was Berkman willing to die for these causes, but that he was such an individual that he needed to act as he did: his hypersensitivity to inequality, suffering, injustice, and oppression made him unable to witness the slaughter of Homestead without responding to it directly.

Though Berkman acted in response to the exploitation of labour and the killing of striking workers, the vast majority of the American did not support his actions. Goldman's scathing criticisms of anyone who spoke against Berkman, particularly members of the working class whom Goldman and Berkman believed would greatly benefit from the assassination were it successful, strongly resonate throughout her description of the mass in "Minorities versus Majorities." Goldman recalls feeling particularly angry and disgusted when she discovered that it was working men who restrained Berkman during his attempt, preventing him from actually succeeding; she was dumbfounded that workers would assist Frick, whom she clearly considered "their enemy."65 When she discovered that her former mentor , a fellow anarchist, was publicly speaking against Berkman, she wrote an article in response that referred to him as "a traitor and a coward" for denouncing a fellow anarchist and disavowing tactics he had once supported.66 Goldman viewed those who opposed Berkman's act as supporting their own oppressors and failing to revolt despite it being in their interest, just

64 Ibid, 16. Berkman presumed that he would be successful in assassinating Frick and thus would be sentenced to death. 65 Goldman, Living My Life, 97. 66 Ibid, 105. 26 as she described the mass.

Though she does not explicitly cite him as an example, Goldman's descriptions of

Henry Clay Frick elsewhere in her work bear notable similarity to her discussion of the not-individual. She first introduces Frick in her autobiography by referring to him as a man "known for his enmity to labour."67 Though in a position of power, he is hardly a great individual; rather, she goes as far as accusing him of "inhumanity."68 His position as business leader might lead some to erroneously consider him a success in an 'era of individualism;' Goldman, however, describes him as merely "the symbol of wealth and power, of the injustice and wrong of the capitalist class."69 He has, like the examples of not-individuals given in "Minorities versus Majorities," risen to a high position but certainly not due to his own positive qualities. Frick, at least after the Homestead shootings, may be considered a sort of unsuccessful not-individual, for in ordering

Pinkertons to shoot at striking workers he went far enough that he alienated the mass rather than pandering to it just enough to remain in power as the not-individual does: indeed, as Goldman wrote, after the shootings "the whole country was aroused [and] everybody was considering Frick the perpetrator of a coldblooded murder."70

Not surprisingly, looking to Berkman's attempted assassination for clues to the nature of the not-mass is more difficult. Since the not-mass must be considered the sort of collectivity or group that directly implies the existence of the true individual, looking to the act of propaganda of the deed to elaborate its nature means considering what kind of collectivity Berkman himself belonged to or worked with in carrying out the act.

67 Ibid, 83. 68 Ibid, 85. 69 Ibid, 88. 70 Goldman, Living My Life, 87. 27

Though he entered Frick's office to assassinate him alone, others were indirectly involved

in both the planning and the aftermath. Goldman herself of course knew of the plot beforehand, and helped to raise money for the necessary supplies (including by

attempting prostitution, albeit unsuccessfully). Their friends Nold and Bauer offered hospitality to Berkman while he was in , but they did not know anything of his plan.71 After the attempted assassination, many anarchists and allies attempted to assist

Berkman any way they could; Joseph Barondess, Dyer D. Lum, and Saverio Merlino

helped Goldman organize a large meeting to explain the act72 and an entire issue of the publication The Anarchist was dedicated to Berkman.73 Despite the clear involvement of

others, however, Berkman did, for the most part, act alone; he did not act on behalf of, or

as a member of, a defined group or collectivity. This, in itself, however, may be a clue to the nature of the not-mass. The collectivity that Berkman worked with was not a tightly knit group with a set of uniting principles or doctrines and a membership whose approval he sought in acting: such a group, emphasizing collective opinion, would far too closely resemble a mass, and might prevent individuals from acting autonomously. It seems that the not-mass also cannot be long-term, enduring or permanent: such groups, like the mass, constrain individual action and prevent the emergence of new possibilities by maintaining a rigid structure and "[imposing] an iron-clad program or method on the future."74

71 Ibid, 100. 72 Ibid, 101. 73 Ibid, 98. 74 Goldman, "Preface," 43. 28

A More Complex Individualism

Goldman has been criticized for presenting a strong individualism which some

interpret as leading to both elitism and an inability to organize collectively. As Janet E.

Day writes, at first glance her "statements concerning the capacity of the masses ...

suggest that she believes that many people are [simply] merely mediocre."75 Kevin

Morgan, for instance, writes that Goldman's individualism, heavily influenced by the

work of , speaks to Goldman's own deep feeling of "aversion to the

constraints of collective obligation."76 He addresses propaganda of the deed specifically,

including Berkman's act, and suggests that it may be interpreted from this individualist

perspective as an instance of a dauntless individual expressing a sensibility far beyond

that of the herd (rather than the instrumental rationale of the act as a catalyst to initiate

revolution often offered by anarchists, and indeed also offered by Goldman at several

points in her writing).77 He argues that her dismissal of the mass also seems to render

ambiguous the "agency of the afflicted in the removal of their suffering, as she sees

those who comprise the mass as oppressed but as both perpetuating their own oppression

and incapable of the free thought and courage required to resist it.78 While Morgan

acknowledges that Goldman's individualism seems to suggest that those exceptional

qualities currently found only in true individuals are to eventually become "generalized," he argues that for Nietzsche (and anyone using his terms "intelligibly") that this is not the

75 Janet E. Day, "The 'Individual' in Goldman's Anarchist Theory," Feminist Interpretations of Emma Goldman, Eds Penny A Weiss and Loretta Kensmger (University Park Pennsylvania State Press, 2007) 114 76 Kevin Morgan, "Herald of the Future7 Emma Goldman, Friedrich Nietzsche and the Anaichist as Superman," Anarchist Studies 17, no 2(2009) 61 77 Ibid , 65. This interpretation of propaganda of the deed is supported by accounts given by both Goldman and Berkman 78 Ibid , 56 29 case.79 Rather, for Morgan "the imagery of mountains and limitless space, compellingly rendered in Nietzsche's Zarathustra, suggested aspiration and the impulse to freedom.

But there was also a somewhat ambivalent attitude to the teeming cities left behind."80

When she published Anarchism and Other Essays, she foresaw such objections; thus, in the preface, she states that she will likely be misinterpreted as an enemy of the people because she sees no creative potential in the mass. She clarifies that she:

[realizes] the malady of the oppressed and disinherited masses only to well, but [she refuses] to prescribe the usual ridiculous palliatives which allow the patient neither to die nor to recover. ... [Her] lack of faith in the majority is dictated by [her] faith in the potentialities of the individual. Only when the latter becomes free to choose his associates for a common purpose, can [she] hope for order and harmony out of [the] world of chaos and inequality.81

There are, as Morgan indicates, clear Nietzschean undertones to Goldman's essay. She draws attention to this influence in her preface, expressing frustration at many authors' rejection of Nietzsche's Uebermensch as symptomatic of their failure to realize that "this vision of the Uebermensch (sic) also called for a state of society which will not give birth to a race of weaklings and slaves."82 Similarly, in her autobiography she recalls defending

Nietzsche by arguing that his philosophy, much like her interpretation of anarchism, sought to undermine old values and moral codes and that "his aristocracy was neither of birth nor of purse; it was of the spirit."83

Some of Morgan's criticisms seem misguided. Firstly, the idea that her

Nietzschean individualism entails a lack of agency for the those who are oppressed in the

79 Ibid , 67. 80 Ibid, 66. 81 Goldman, "Preface," 44 82 Ibid, 44. 83 Goldman, Living My Life, 194. 30 struggle against their oppressors seems particularly problematic In her essay "The

Tragedy of Woman's Emancipation," which also appears in her 1910 book Anarchism and

Other Essays, Goldman wrote that "history [told her] that every oppressed class [gams] true liberation from its masters through its own efforts" rather than by the efforts of others 84 Morgan's criticism that individualism denies the oppressed agency only holds if the individuals Goldman speaks of are not themselves oppressed in any way and cannot struggle against their own oppression, given the list of examples she provides in

"Minorities versus Majorities" as well as her own position as a raciahzed working-class woman, this can hardly be reasonably assumed Secondly, his argument that individuality, conceptualized as an "aristocracy of the spirit" specifically, cannot be universalized is a claim which requires more elaboration In a certain sense, individuality cannot, by definition, be universalized in that individuals are creative, innovative, and refuse to bend to popular opinion, such traits would lead every individual to express himself or herself m different ways, and individuals thus might appear to have very little in common Goldman's definition of the individual is not a doctrine for others to simply adopt, as this would be itself antithetical to individuality In another sense, however,

Goldman's writing seems to suggest that individuality can be universalized or, at the very least, proliferated In particular, her writings on education and her work with the

Francisco Ferrer Association and the Modern School movement85 suggest that she held a deep faith in the ability of education to enable young people to develop their own individuality Morgan's criticisms of Goldman's individualism do, however, prompt

84 Emma Goldman,' The Tragedy of Woman s Emancipation " Anarchism and Other Essays (Mineola Dovei Publications, 1969) 224 85 For instance, her essay 'Francisco Ferrer and the Modern School also published in Anarchism and Other Essays 31

further questions He concludes his article by describing "the paradox of Goldman's

elitist hbertananism" as awaiting resolution, while the term 'elitism' may be somewhat

inaccurate, the nature of the individual and his or her relation to wider society is a

dominant theme in Goldman's work which requires further consideration 86

In examining Goldman's essay "Minorities versus Majorities" via Greimas'

semiotic rectangle, it is clear that her apparent individualism is considerably more

complex than her critics acknowledge Her dismissal of the mass does not, as Morgan

suggests, necessarily paralyse the possibility of collectively organizing politically, though

it does complicate it by maintaining the importance of individual creativity and autonomy

This tension between individual freedom and collective living runs throughout much of

anarchist theory, and is certainly present throughout in Goldman's written work The

essay "Minorities versus Majorities" seems to leave open a few central questions, which

are important to consider both within the framework of Goldman's own thought as well as

for anarchists more generally what is the nature of the individual subject and how exactly

does one constitute oneself as an individual7 How can individuals work collectively

without compromising their individuality7

86 Morgan, "Herald of the Future9 Emma Goldman, Friedrich Nietzsche, and the Anarchist as Supeiman," 73 32

An Individual Living Her Life

Flux and becoming

When considering Goldman's thoughts on the constitution of the individual,

perhaps the most important source to consider is her own autobiography, Living My Life,

in which she gives an account of herself. The autobiography places a stronger emphasis

on the formation of her theories, ideas, and personality than it does on simply recounting

the sequence of historical events that she experienced. As C. Brid Nicholson writes, in a

sense "the 'Emma Goldman' created in and by Living My Life ... [has become] the most well-known and highly popular version" as many authors who have written on Goldman have relied heavily on it and treated it as a historically accurate albeit personal source.1

Nicholson, herself quite critical of the autobiography, argues that few past biographers have criticized Goldman or her work. In examining letters written by Almeda Sperry to

Goldman (as well as correspondence between Goldman and her lover ) which appear to imply the two women shared a sexual relationship, a relationship that (if it existed) is not mentioned in Living My Life and is either unknown, ignored, denied, or downplayed by Goldman's many subsequent biographers, Nicholson argues that:

Goldman's autobiography is an example of a bizarre but careful construction, one in which even a radical... agrees to be silenced and to silence herself in order to fabricate a simple story of a misunderstood, adventurous American who sought to promote American ideals and to improve the working and living conditions of the poor.2

Nicholson seems to take up the reading strategy of past biographers in viewing the book

1 Nicholson, Emma Goldman: Still Dangerous, 188. 2 Ibid, 177. 33 as both historical and personal, as it is along these lines that she criticizes it: she questions its historical accuracy and completeness and suggests personal motives for apparent inconsistencies. For example, with reference to the omission of the aforementioned relationship between Goldman and Sperry from the pages of Living My Life, she offers as one likely explanation Goldman's concern (as expressed in a 1927 letter to Evelyn Scott) about publicizing other peoples' private lives contrary to their wishes.3 A close reading of

Goldman's work however, particularly of Living My Life, draws assumptions about the individual subject (and thus the author) as discrete and unchanging into question, and thus complicates readings of the text as simply a historical account to be judged on the basis of completeness or accuracy with regard to the facts of one person's life; rather, with an understanding of the subject as constantly changing and seeking to constitute itself, an understanding in keeping with Goldman's own thought, the autobiographical text may be considered as a tactic of this self-constitution.

According to Lynne M. Adrian, between 1890 and 1915 it became increasingly common for American thinkers to extend the notion of artfulness to forms beyond theatre, visual arts, and music; thus, "unique historical conditions during the modernizing era allowed Goldman [and others] to construct an aesthetic that shifted the concept of art from a. product to ^process. Because of this shift all creative human endeavours, and indeed life itself, could be regarded as artful."4 She further argues that artful living meant

"creating a unity and meaning out of all the experiences of life" and that this commitment

3 Ibid, 172 4 Lynne M Adrian, "Emma Goldman and the Spirit of Artful Living: Philosophy and Politics in the Classical American Period," Feminist Interpretations of Emma Goldman, Eds. Penny A Weiss and Loretta Kensmger (University Park' Pennsylvania State University Press, 2007) 217. Italics are the author's 34

stemmed in part from the anarchist principle of consciously striving for consistency and thus living in accordance with one's principles.5 Adrian's discussion of artful living fits well with Goldman's Nietzschean influence and may serve as a point from which to begin considering her understanding of the self, but the latter point regarding the importance of consistency must not be overstated; while her discussion of Goldman's organicism is a fruitful one, Goldman's autobiography Living My Life illuminates her criticisms of both accounts of the individual or self as stable, fixed, and unified as well as the commitment to consistency between principles and actions.

Though Nicholson is right to problematize traditional readings of Living My Life, such readings which focus on the text as a historical document infused with personal situations are, to some extent, faithful ones. The nine hundred and ninety-three page work encompasses the historical events that Goldman experienced, focusing primarily on the time period between 15 August 1889, the date she first arrived in ,6 and the late 1920s when she wrote the book in Saint-Tropez, France.7 She emphasized the importance of conveying historical information accurately in the text's preface, and was initially apprehensive about beginning the project because the majority of material she had amassed over the course of her time in the United States had been confiscated, including even her copies of her journal Mother Earth} It was not until several friends came to her assistance by providing material and conducting historical research that she was able to begin writing. The autobiography, like her other writing, is also certainly

5 Ibid, 218 6 Goldman, Living My Life, 3. 7 Ibid , 993. Though the text primarily concerns Goldman's life after her arrival in the United States, it also includes accounts of her childhood 8 Ibid, v. 35

deeply personal. In addition to aiming for the inclusion of historical information, her

preface emphasizes her desire to "re-create the atmosphere of [her] own personal life: the

events, small or great, that had tossed [her] about emotionally" for the purposes of writing

the autobiography; similarly, she turned to her friends to provide her with over a thousand

letters she had written to assist her in fulfilling this goal.9 Living My Life must, however,

be read as more than simply the final product of the arduous technical task of merging

historical accuracy with a perspective eschewing the ideal of detached neutrality in favour

of expressing emotional investment. The frequency of such readings, much like the

consistent emphasis on the events of her life rather than her political theory as elaborated

in her written work, perpetuates the commonly accepted opinion that she was not a

'theorist.' This is because, as Jason Wehling indicates, such analyzes weigh her ability as

a sort of storyteller (often measured against the 'true' story of history); for instance, Alice

Wexler's criticisms focus on the book's factual inaccuracies while Martha Solomon

"primarily criticizes Goldman's literary style."10 Where such personal-historical readings

fall short is in their failure to interrogate what the story she tells might mean within the

framework of her political thought as conveyed in her wider body of published work.

Considered in these terms, Living My Life constitutes Goldman's most complex,

lengthy, and comprehensive reflection on the nature of the subject; while "Minorities versus Majorities" concisely describes the autonomous political actor, Living My Life probes Goldman's own status as an individual. The image of the subject she presents, primarily by considering herself, gestures toward Adrian's account of artful living as

9 Ibid, vi. 10 Jason Wehling, "Anarchy in Interpretation: The Life of Emma Goldman," Feminist Interpretations of Emma Goldman, Eds. Penny A. Weiss and Loretta Kensinger (University Park: Pennsylvania State University Press, 2007): 28. 36 striving to create unified meaning of all of one's experiences yet also offers an account of the individual as unstable and in constant flux.

At several points in her autobiography, Goldman emphasizes her disagreement with those who sought to fracture the individual into discrete components. In particular, she troubles the suggestion that the revolutionary or political facet of an individual's life can be considered separate from other aspects. Even very early in her life as an anarchist, shortly after her entry into the politically active milieu of New York City, Goldman challenged the assertion that anarchist ideals and activities could exist as a neatly compartmentalized realm of one's life separate from all else. When Alexander Berkman made the accusation that Johann "Most the man meant more to [her] than Most the revolutionist [she] could not agree with [his] rigid distinctions" as for her one's anarchism and one's humanity were not so easily separable." This troubling of the cutting up of the individual is paralleled in a second passage in Living My Life, in which

Goldman responds to another's assertion that her thought and politics are separate from other aspects of her life. After expressing an interest in studying medicine, acquaintances

Herman Miller and Carl Stone agreed to finance her with a monthly income for five years' study.12 After her arrival in Europe, she began a romantic relationship with fellow anarchist and took on work for various political causes, including organizing a meeting in England against the Second Boer War and giving several

11 Goldman, Living My Life, 76. Goldman elaborates that this accusation occuired in the context of Beikman's avowed split from Most due to Most's steadfast belief that Joseph Peukcrt (accused ot betraying anarchist John Neve into the grip of police) was a proven spy; the disagreement came to a peak when Berkman called for an investigation into the charges at the December 1890 conference of Yiddish anarchist groups and Most responded by calling Berkman an "arrogant young Jew " 12 Ibid, 245-6 37

speeches.13 Upon learning of her activites, Stone sent a letter (on behalf of himself and

Miller) which read:

I thought it was understood when you left for Europe ... that you were to go to Switzerland to study medicine. It was solely for that purpose that Herman and I offered to give you an allowance. I now learn that you are at your old propaganda and with a new lover. Surely you do not expect us to support you with either. I am interested only in E.G. the woman - her ideas have no meaning whatever to me. Please choose.14

Goldman immediately issued a letter in response, instructing them to keep their money

and stating that "E.G. the woman and her ideas are inseparable. She does not exist for the

amusement of upstarts, nor will she permit anybody to dictate to her."15

Despite this clear disapproval of the separation of the individual into distinct, clear components and a focus on the interconnection of different facets of one's life, Goldman's

Living My Life also suggests criticisms of the notion of a stable unchanging subject and seems to consider herself and her life to be somewhat fractured rather than unified and linear. Though she recounts some of her experiences as a child prior to immigrating to the United States, she states that she was born in 1889 when she first arrived in New York

City at the age of twenty.16 She argued that her "first twenty years should not be held against [her], for [she] had merely existed then" rather than lived.17 Despite describing herself in a way that equates her time spent active in the anarchist movement with her very life itself, Goldman does not make this commitment easily or unequivocally. Rather, she explains that she knew that she "was woven of many skeins, conflicting in shade and

13 Ibid, 255. 14 Ibid, 268. 15 Ibid, 268. 16 Ibid, 686. 17 Ibid, 686. 38 texture [and that] to the end of [her] days [she would] be torn between the yearning for a personal life and the need of giving all to [her] ideal."18 This identification with the movement is also made more tenuous as, later in her autobiography, she also identifies the eve of her as quite possibly "only ... the beginning" of Emma Goldman 19

While Living My Life is, in an important sense, certainly Goldman's most comprehensive attempt to put her very self into writing, her complication of herself as a stable, fixed, or unified individual parallels Michel Foucault's writing regarding a particular form of struggle which resists the technique of power that "categorizes the individual, marks him

(sic) by his own individuality, attaches him to his own identity, [and] imposes a law of truth on him which he must recognize and which others have to recognize m him "20

In his afterword to Hubert L. Dreyfus and Paul Rabinow's Michel Foucault

Beyond Structuralism and Hermeneutics, Foucault describes a series of political struggles which share m common an aim to answer the question of who we are 21 These struggles also share a lack of geographical confinement, a focus on combatting the "power effects as such"22 which are most immediate and nearest, a questioning of the status of the individual (by asserting his or her right to individuality while simultaneously attacking all that which separates his or her ties with others), and an opposition to "the privileges of knowledge" in the forms of qualification, competence, secrecy, and "mystifying representations imposed on people "23 In his words, these struggles are "anarchistic "24

18 Ibid, 153 19 Ibid, 710 20 Michel Foucault, "Afterword The Subject and Power," Michel Foucault BeyondStiuctuialum and Hermeneutics, Hubert L Dreyfus and Paul Rabinow (Chicago The University of Chicago Piess, 1982) 212 21 Ibid, 212 22 Ibid, 211 23 Ibid, 212 24 Ibid, 211 39

Goldman's account of herself in Living My Life resonates with the anarchistic struggles

Foucault describes, for her writing may be considered an attempt to elaborate her

opposition to the attempts of others to both divide her into parts and to impose linear and

stable conceptions of self upon her.

In elaborating Foucault's statement that what we must do in the context of these

struggles is encourage the emergence of new subjectivities, Reiner Schurmann searches

for "the I constituting [itself] as an actor in the midst of other actors," which he terms the

"practical subject;" he argues that many readers of Foucault consider either absent

impossible within the framework of his thought but that in actuality this I becomes

increasingly important in his later work.25 He describes the practical I as self-given, as

"not a substance, nor a union of substances, but entirely an act, a practice. As such, its

self-alterations ... free the terrain for the intuition 'I think -1 am' to occur."26 As

Schurmann writes, for Foucault self-constitution of the practical I is neither inward nor

isolated, but rather inextricably linked to the struggles of other I's. Emma Goldman, though a sort of individualist anarchist by most accounts, shared the view that she as an T was inseparable from others; she wrote in Living My Life: "my life was linked with that of the race. Its spiritual heritage was mine, and its values were transmuted into my being.

The eternal struggle of man was rooted within me."27

The self-constitution of the practical I identified by Schurmann follows, at least in part, from the particular nature of the modern state and thus the particular sorts of struggles needed to oppose it. Foucault writes that the modern state serves to

25 Reiner Schurmann, "On Constituting Oneself an Anarchistic Subject," Praxis International 6, no. 3 (1986): 294. 26 Ibid, 300. 27 Goldman, Living My Life, 695. 40 simultaneously divide and unite individuals; both processes are problematic from an anarchist perspective. Individualization means a life of both isolation and direct exposure of each to the state; conversely, the state unifying individuals serves to amalgamate them into a whole and thereby homogenize them.28 This modern state, which Foucault describes as combining the older pastoral power with a new political format,29 must be fought with new forms of struggle for which Schurmann suggests new subjectivities must be self-constituted. He terms these anarchistic subjects. He argues that simply distinguishing oneself by "enhancing individualism" is not enough for "in claiming one's unique personality, feelings, tastes, lifestyle, and beliefs, one does exactly what everyone else does and so promotes uniformity in the very act of denying it."30 Goldman appears to miss this dimension of the state in demanding the emergence of individuals in her essay

"Minorities versus Majorities" insofar as she argues that those who speak of an era of individualism are mistaken.31 This, however, is only true to a certain extent, for as

Foucault writes, in atomizing the population the state does not foster the unbridled creativity and autonomy of each in the way that Goldman desires, but rather integrates individualism provided that "individuality [can] be shaped in a new form, and submitted to a set of very specific patterns."32 It is for this reason that he argues that the relevant struggle, the struggle for which new subjectivities are needed, is not simply to free individuals from the state itself but to liberate them from "the type of individualization which is linked to the state."33

28 Schurmann, "On Constituting Oneself an Anarchistic Subject," 305. 29 Foucault, "Afterword: The Subject and Power," 213. 30 Schurmann, "On Constituting Oneself an Anarchistic Subject," 305-6. 31 Goldman, "Minorities versus Majorities," 70-1. 32 Foucault, "Afterword: The Subject and Power," 214. 33 Ibid, 216. 41

Schurmann builds on Foucault's call for new subjectivities by proposing that one

new subject possible today is, fittingly, the anarchistic subject. The anarchistic subject

differs from prior subjectivities in that it targets "the law of social totalization."34 Like the

new forms of struggle described by Foucault, the anarchistic subject contests "power

effects 'as such' [through] ... the strategy of exposing them where and as they occur."35

The emergence of this new form of subjectivity is accompanied by a particular form of

anxiety stemming from the inability to advance universally applicable morals or truths. It

is for this reason that Schurmann argues that, when compared to the anarchism of the

nineteenth century, this sort is "poorer, more fragile. It has no linear narrative to justify

itself, only the history of truth within its attendant history of the subject. But these are

fractured by breaks."36

Goldman's writing, though seemingly a manifestation of the nineteenth century

anarchism to which Schurmann refers, suggests that her political ideas share many

affinities with those of the anarchistic subject. As the Nietzschean influence evident in

her "Minorities versus Majorities" suggest, despite her openness regarding her own

identification as an anarchist she too struggled with anxiety about propagating universal political principles. She wrote that her "own long struggle to find [her] bearings, the

disillusionments and disappointments [she] had experienced, had made [her] less dogmatic in [her] demands on people" than she had been initially.37 Schurmann's generalization about nineteenth century anarchism does not do Goldman's writing justice: her writing on anarchism is less dogmatic than he suggests, and her autobiography

34 Schurmann, "On Constituting Oneself an Anarchistic Subject," 307. 35 Ibid, 308 36 Ibid, 307. 37 Goldman, Living My Life, 379. 42

expresses uncertainty about adopting universal truths. She describes anarchism, for

instance, as neither a set of principles nor an ideology; rather, she writes: "to me anarchism was not a mere theory for a distant future; it was a living influence to free us from inhibitions, internal no less than external, and from the destructive barriers that separate man from man (sic)."38 In conceiving of anarchism as an influence, Goldman leaves open the possibility for individual subjects to conceive of and interpret it differently while employing a diversity of tactics toward a diversity of ends.

In addition to an anxiety about advancing universal truth, Goldman's work also shares with Schurmann's anarchistic subject the opposition to power effects "as such" by problematizing them when and where they reveal themselves. Goldman's political activity was not, as a simplistic understanding of anarchism might assume, solely anti- state; rather, she supported and participated in a multiplicity of struggles against a myriad of oppressions. Living My Life reveals resistances inspired by her anarchist "influence" employing this strategy of the anarchistic subject. She confronted oppressive attitudes within the anarchist movement itself as she herself experienced them; for instance, when

Johann Most used his influence as editor of the newspaper by calling her "vile names" and "slandered and maligned" Berkman, she "resolved to challenge him publicly."39 Similarly, when Kropotkin, whom she greatly admired, suggested that women's equality would result from women eventually becoming intellectual equals to men and that present inequalities actually had nothing to do with sex, Goldman immediately "became involved in a heated argument."40 The particular struggles she

38 Ibid, 556. 39 Ibid, 105. 40 Ibid, 253. 43

engaged in also speak to the strategy of the anarchistic subject: she was especially active

in Jewish, Russian, immigrant, working-class, and women's organizing, certainly all

struggles immediate to her own life. In resisting specific manifestations of these specific

oppressions (for instance the banning of contraceptives, the effects of which she knew

particularly well due to her work as a midwife41) she can be seen as resisting power

effects "as such" as they occurred.

Linnie Blake suggests that Goldman "deployed the deterritorialized language of

the Jew, the Red, the Whore and the Bomber in order to subvert the social representation

of reality by the 'majority' language of urban-industrial ."42 This formulation of

Goldman's work as resistance to a 'majority' language certainly echoes Schurmann's

argument that the anarchistic subject not only opposes particular laws but the law of

social totalization. Importantly, Goldman also emphasized that while her anarchist

activism addressed broad issues relevant to everyone, the degree to which she could resist

power effects targeted at others rather than herself was limited; in maintaining the need to

oppose oppressive power effects as they appeared in her own life, her ability to act as an

anarchistic subject, she also sought to open and preserve that possibility for others by

refusing to speak for them. For instance, when she was asked whether the No-

Conscription League she was centrally involved in organizing would actively encourage

men to refuse to register, she wrote:

I took the position that, as a woman and therefore myself not subject to military service, I could not advise people on the matter. Whether or not one is to lend oneself as a tool for the business of killing should properly be left to the individual conscience. As an anarchist 1 could not presume to

41 Ibid, 273. 42 Linnie Blake, "A Jew, A Red, A Whore, A Bomber: Becoming Emma Goldman, Rhizomatic Intellectual," Angelaki 2, no. 3 (1997): 181. 44

decide the fate of others, I wrote. But I could say to those who refused to be coerced into military service that I would plead their cause stand by their act against all odds.43

Reiner Schurmann, like Lynne M. Adrian, suggests thinking of life as an artful

process; he cites Foucault's work as aiming to trace the practices by which subjects aim to

change themselves and make their lives works.44 Unlike Adrian's account, which draws

on aesthetics and stresses unity and consistency in art and in life, however, Schurmann

sees the loss of the possibility of the stable, centred rational subject as limiting what kind

of work these practices of the self can create. While philosophizing remains "the very

activity of the thinking subject constituting itself the subject emerging is different.45 For

the anarchistic subject, Schurmann argues that "self-constitution means the dispersal of

inward-directed reflection into as many outward-directed reflexes as there are [oppressive

systems of power to resist]."46 When Goldman's autobiography Living My Life is reread

as an act of self-constitution by an anarchistic subject, further insight into Goldman's

notion of the individual (and, further, the not-mass as a tactic of organization of such

individuals) can be gained.

The Autobiographical Individual

Several scholars have commented on Goldman's motivations for penning her

autobiography. In her essay "Speaking Her Own Piece: Emma Goldman and the

Discursive Skeins of Autobiography" in Paul John Eakin's collection American

Autobiography: Retrospect and Prospect, Blanche H. Gelfant points out that Goldman

43 Goldman, Living My Life, 598. 44 Schurmann, "On Constituting Oneself an Anarchistic Subject," 296. 45 Ibid , 306. 46 Ibid , 308. 45 wanted her autobiography to convince her audience that she should be permitted to relocate to the United States, a country she considered her home but from which she had been deported.47 Martha Watson adds that Goldman hoped that writing her story would allow her an opportunity to explain why she had, for most of her life, identified with anarchism and to offer "the record of an anarchist life, a model of commitment to an ideal."48 Both of these commentators cite Goldman's personal correspondence in order to emphasize, in different ways, Goldman's desire to construct a persona for herself and an image of her ideal, anarchism, that her audience would find more acceptable than their portrayals in mainstream media.

While such explanations are faithful to some of the reasons Goldman offered for writing Living My Life, they are incomplete for several reasons. Firstly, the idea that

Goldman's self-presentation therein would be any way "acceptable" to the American public is questionable at best; though she certainly admitted that she wanted to clarify her own positions and combat elements of her portrayal in the media, her autobiography includes previously undisclosed details of her life that would very obviously not be easily accepted by most readers. For instance, Goldman "frankly portrayed herself as

Berkman's accomplice" in his attempted assassination of Henry Clay Frick for the first time; she had never been charged with involvement due to lack of evidence, and all prior accounts of it (including Berkman's own memoirs as well as Hippolyte Havel's biography) had been "careful not to implicate [her]."49 While the autobiography does

47 Blanche H. Gelfant, "Speaking Her Own Piece Emma Goldman and the Discursive Skeins of Autobiography,"' American Autobiography Retrospect and Prospect, Ed Paul John Eakm (Madison The University of Wisconsin Press, 1991) 237 48 Martha Watson, Lives of Their Own Rhetorical Dimensions in Autobiographies of Women Activists (Columbia- University of South Carolina Press, 1999) 32 49 Wexler, Emma Goldman An Intimate Life, 67 46

allow her to share her internal struggles with whether she felt the act was justified and this

revelation could be seen as having the potential to soften the public's reaction somewhat,

it seems that opting for such openness does not easily align with the suggestion that

Goldman's main motivation in writing was garnering the acceptance of Americans

(particularly given that previous accounts had consistently not included her involvement

and thus, despite her feelings of guilt and her desire to proclaim her part in the deed,50 she

could have easily chosen simply to follow the pattern prior accounts established). As

Gelfant points out, "if [Goldman] had hoped the autobiography would help her return to

the United States, then a confession of complicity in an infamous assassination plot would

be self-defeating."51

Secondly, Martha Watson's argument that Goldman aimed to offer her own life as

a model for commitment to anarchism, and her parallel criticism of Living My Life as rhetorically failing by not providing a clear outline of her "ideology," are misguided

insofar as they appear to contradict Goldman's own political theory. While she may have

sought to inspire others as she had been inspired by the qualities she saw in her "heroes of the past,"52 the notion of taking another's life as a strict model is hardly compatible with

Goldman's individualism as expressed in Minorities versus Majorities and elsewhere.

This is not unrelated to Watson's persistent use of the word "ideology" to refer to

Goldman's anarchism, which is similarly problematic; even beyond the pejorative connotations of abstraction and falsehood associated historically with the word, Raymond

Williams notes a more "neutral" definition (which, like the pejorative one, he traces to

50 Ibid, 69. 51 Gelfant, "Speaking Her Own Piece: Emma Goldman and the Discursive Skeins of Autobiography," 246. 52 Goldman, Living My Life, 329. 47

Marx) as "the set of ideas which arise from a given set of material interests or, more broadly, from a definite class or group."53 Ideology in this sense, due to its rising from given variables, implies not only a coherent set of ideas but that this body of doctrines is relatively unchanging and rigid. Watson's view that Living My Life rhetorically fails as

Goldman does not give a clear account of her "ideology" is a misguided criticism as her anarchism was not an "ideology" at all: she conceived of anarchism as an influence, an ideal, to which her commitment did not falter but of which her interpretation (and thus her views on a variety of topics) fluctuated dramatically over the course of her life (perhaps most notably her shift away from the view of ends justifying means with regard to violent acts).54 Further, as previously noted, Goldman's unwillingness to advance universal principles or dogmas does not mesh well with Watson's argument, as ideology's various meanings outlined by Williams seem to imply some sense of the universality of the relevance or applicability of one's interpretation of the world.

Blanche H. Gelfant suggests the more nuanced view that Goldman's primary motive in writing Living My Life was to educate others; for her, this can explain

Goldman's seemingly contradictory decision to illuminate her hitherto hidden role in

Berkman's assassination plot because "if she wished to defend the principles of anarchism, then a confrontation with the issue of violence, equated with anarchism in the public mind, was essential."55 Further, this interpretation may better square with

Goldman's lack of a consistent doctrine as education need not entail propagating a consistent ideology or presenting oneself as an ideal model as Watson suggests, but may

53 Raymond Williams, Keywords A Vocabulary of'Culture and Society (New York Oxfoid Univeisity Press, 1983): 156. 54 Gelfant, "Speaking Her Own Piece Emma Goldman and the Discursive Skcms of Autobiography," 244. 55 Ibid , 246. 48 also involve revealing even self-incriminating and otherwise negative details about oneself as well as one's own uncertainties and persistent struggles with particular principles (even though, at first glance, such revelations may be read as undermining the image of independence that Watson perceived Goldman as aiming to establish).

Gelfant also points out, importantly, that analyses fixating on what Goldman chose to omit from her autobiography are problematic for several reasons. To begin with, such criticisms can be discriminatory; an expectation of total disclosure is seldom made of male autobiographers, particularly concerning their personal or romantic lives, yet is quite frequently demanded of women.56 Several authors have faulted Living My Life for failing to meet this demand of total disclosure despite the fact that, given the historical context of her writing, it is "her frankness, rather than her omissions, [which] seems anomalous."57

Finally, a strong emphasis on what Goldman "was hiding is to assume a total congruence between the living woman and the autobiographical T (a naive assumption for contemporary theorists) and to overlook all that [she] did reveal."58 As previously argued in response to Watson's criticisms, Goldman's autobiography is actually surprisingly revealing in many respects; these revelations can be particularly telling when considered in the wider context of Goldman's writing on the individual.

Keeping Gelfant's important distinction between the living woman and the autobiographical T in mind, Reiner Schiirmann's 'practical F must be further nuanced and clarified in order to retain parallels to Goldman's thought. As Gelfant argues, though

Goldman struggled to translate the woman into an autobiographical T her problems were

56 Ibid, 250. 57 Ibid, 250. 58 Ibid, 250. 49

"rhetorical and emotional, rather than ontological;" while she very clearly conceived of herself as a conflicted individual "woven of many skeins" and constantly in flux, she certainly "implicitly [affirmed] the existence of a continuous and authentic identity."59

This identity, which Goldman tied to her name, was not only something she conceived of as continuous but also as of the utmost importance; even though she had difficulty finding

a place to live after the attempted assassination of Frick, presumably because of her name

inspired fear in potential renters, she firmly rejected her friends' suggestions that she

adopt a pseudonym, stating: "I would not deny my identity."60 Schiirmann's anarchistic

subject, on the other hand, seems to ontologically deny the possibility of an identity which is 'continuous and authentic' as the anarchistic subject (re)constitutes itself each time it acts to resist power effects.

These issues surrounding subjectivity and identity are central to many 'post-

anarchist' critiques of classical anarchism. Such critics point to the reliance of much of

classical anarchist thought's reliance on an essentialist conception of human nature and

subjectivity as essence as untenable foundations on which to advocate liberatory politics.

While this critique is far too wide-reaching and broad to summarize or fully relate here, a

turn to Saul Newman's book : Anti-Authoritarianism and the

Dislocation of Power is fruitful. In his concluding chapter, "Towards a Politics of

Postanarchism," he addresses identity, arguing that identity need not imply essentialist or

binaristic thinking or rely on foundational notions of human nature. Rather, he argues for

singularity, which would involve emphasizing respect for individuality and difference and

59 Ibid, 242. 60 Goldman, Living My Life, 103. Goldman eventually changed her mind on this issue when she decided to impersonate Berkman's sister in order to visit him in prison. 50 thus freedom for the singular and which "works against essentialist discourses by constructing a notion of identity that is constirutively open" and in flux.61

Returning again to Reiner Schiirmann's 'practical I' which is neither essence nor substance but rather constituted through the resistance to 'power effects as such,' it seems that this 'practical I' need not deny Goldman's clear sense of a continuous and authentic identity (as indicated by Gelfant). Her sense of such an identity does limit the openness that both Newman and Schurmann want, and need not even imply a conception of

subjectivity as essence. Post-anarchist readings of of Foucault's work, which parallel

Schiirmann's work in several respects, can further illuminate this point. For instance,

Lewis Call's examination of anarchistic themes in the work of Friedrich Nietzsche leads him advance an "anarchy of becoming, one which understands humans not as beings with

fixed essences but rather as selves-in-process" and to emphasize the importance of constituting oneself as a subject.62 Newman actually cites Schurmann, and suggests that the anarchistic subject may be subjectivity "emptied of essence and based on antagonism

and difference."63 Schiirmann's argument about the possibility of the self-constitution of new forms of subjectivity (particularly anarchist subjectivities) is also not unlike Todd

May's assertion, articulated in his book The Political Philosophy of Poststructuralist

Anarchism, that Foucault's genealogical work on the subject:

Does not... mean that people are determined. The subject, as such, is a historical construction that emerged from practices that were both political and epistemological. We think of ourselves as subjects, we act as subjects, and in that sense we are subjects ... But subjectivity ... since it is a historical phenomenon dependent upon the practices from which it

61 Saul Newman, From Bakunin to Lacan: Anti-Authoritarianism and the Dislocation of Power (Lanham: Lexington Books, 2001): 170 62 Lewis Call, Postmodern Anarchism (Lanham: Lexington Books, 2002): 52. 63 Newman, From Bakunin to Lacan: Anti-Authoritarianism and the Dislocation of Power, 91. 51

emerged and which sustain it, can be altered or abolished by new practices.64

Here May emphasizes the difference between how we think of ourselves and what possibilities are open to us, suggesting that Goldman's sense of her own continuous identity need not conflict with her idea of the individual subject as open to flux and change. Further, much like Schiirmann's call for anarchistic subjectivities to constitute themselves in "microinterventions aimed at resurgent patterns of subjectification and objectification,"65 May suggests that the new practices which might alter or abolish subjectivity as we know it clearly "cannot emanate from a subject—as an act of subjective will—but they can come from people inserting their actions into the contingent web of historical events and institutions."66

Rethinking identity as open rather than essential implies a "defense of difference" as the "idea of a stable universal identity ... is seen as merely a way of dominating other identities."67 Such a rethinking also avoids the pitfall of reinforcing the hierarchical structures already existing by reaffirming them in claiming a stable, fixed identity position as necessarily an identity of resistance. Newman discusses the proliferation of identity politics through this lens and suggests that such politics closes off the possibility of flux and becoming and that, while a "politics of difference and plurality" need not be abandoned, "the temptation of essentialism" must be resisted as it risks not only the exclusion of those who do not fit tidily into identity categories68 but also "reaffirms the

64 , The Political Philosophy of Poststructuralist Anarchism (University Paik: The Pennsylvania State University Press, 1994): 79. 65 Schurmann, "On Constituting Oneself an Anarchistic Subject," 308. 66 May, The Political Philosophy of Poststructuralist Anarchism, 79. 67 Newman, From Bakunin to Lacan- Anti-Authoritarianism and the Dislocation of Power, 170. 68 Here Newman provides the example of cases in which transgcnder women are excluded from feminist or "women's" groups. 52

structures of oppression that it is supposed to resist."69 Where Goldman's thought

parallels this postanarchist intervention is in her refusal to claim any particular identity

label exclusively, consistently, or in terms of the oppression she struggles against.

Quoting Reda Bensmai'a, Linnie Blake suggests that Goldman lacked "an abstract

universal in the form of a single national language, a single ethnic affiliation, a single

prefabricated cultural identity" and thus "[called] into being a new economy of writing

and of reading."70 Blake further argues that Goldman 's body of work is "within (and yet

without)" majority language of identities even within the anarchist movement itself71 In

keeping with Newman's ideas on identity politics, Goldman's identity claims are

inconsistent, varied, and tactical, dependent on the particular 'power effect' she is working

to combat. In her autobiography Living My Life, Goldman's identity claims oscillate and

are never totalizing: she both exclaims that she will "not be treated as a mere female"72 at

a moment in which she feels her femininity is being objectified, and insists that she

"[prefers] to do [her] own thinking as a woman" rather than aspiring to or measuring herself in terms of the ideal of the objective rational male when she is explicitly held up to this standard.73 Her feminism does not rely on any particular essential definition of the

feminine (in direct comparison to the masculine or otherwise); the sole natural gendered difference her work gestures toward is the idea that women possess a mothering instinct

69 Ibid, 172. Newman offers the example of essentialist categorizations of woman as "good" and "truth- bearing" but oppressed by men, and cites Wendy Brown, who discusses the tendency to define female identity as "good" on the very basis of its being "oppiessed" by male identity 70 Blake, "A Jew, A Red, A Whore, A Bomber. Becoming Emma Goldman, Rhizomatic Intellectual," 179 Italics quoted from original text. 71 Ibid, 182. 72 Goldman, Living My Life, 53 In this situation, she was responding to Johann Most, who did not want to hear about how she felt about her first speaking engagement but only wanted to "feel [her] near." 73 Ibid , 340. Here, she is responding to Ed Brady, who states that he always valued her ability to think objectively, like a man, but accused hei of arguing "subjectively" like a woman. 53

(however, she is silent on men in this respect and does not deny that men might have a similar fathering instinct).74 For this reason, among others, she rejected "the absurd concept of women's inherent moral superiority" which lay at the foundation of much of feminism at the time (notably the version of feminism often advanced by suffragettes)75

By avoiding essentiahzmg identity, Goldman can (even when claiming identity, for instance to make feminist arguments) avoid the potential pitfall of identity politics that

Wendy Brown's work points out in which "politicized identity enunciates itself, makes claims for itself, only by entrenching, dramatizing, and inscribing its pam in politics and can hold out no future—for itself or others—that triumphs over this pain "76 Her work also thereby holds open the possibilities of flux and change that Newman call for

In her study of the place of the individual in Goldman's work, Janet E Day also emphasizes the importance of self-constitution, in doing so, however, she encounters what she considers an unresolved conflict in Goldman's political philosophy She argues that

there is a hidden dialectical tension between [Goldman's] romantic notion of an unfolding individuality and the fact that it involves hard work to cultivate a consciousness of self Potentially, some individuals will more readily engage in this difficult task than others The consequence of this difference of engagement could negatively affect how individuals relate to one another and the potential for an anarchist society free from coercion 77

This tension is an important one that speaks to critics' readings of Goldman's rather as inherently elitist, and warrants further exploration as it pertains not only to the possibility of self-constitution of anarchistic subjects but also the manner

74 Day, "The 'Individual' in Goldman's Anarchist Theory,' 113 75 Blake, "A Jew, A Red, A Whore, A Bombei Becoming Emma Goldman, Rhizomatic Intellectual," 184 76 Wendy Blown, "Wounded Attachments, "Political Theory 2\,no 3(1993) 406 77 Day, "The 'Individual' in Goldman s Anarchist Theory," 133 54 in which such individuals might encourage others to undertake this task and even collaborate together (in the form of the 'not-mass'). An examination of Goldman's Living

My Life, which might be considered not only an account of self-constitution but also an act of self-constitution itself, can assist in clarifying this difficult question.

Constituting a Self Writing a Self

In her article "E.G.: Emma Goldman, For Example," Kathy Ferguson draws on

Foucault's work on technologies of the self and of self-constitution to argue that Goldman

"created herself, flamboyantly, persistently, often painfully, through long-lasting techniques of self-production. Her self-in-relation was constituted through the intimate relations and political spaces she helped to create."78 In considering Goldman's practices of the self, Ferguson's focus is not isolated to a particular written or spoken work. Rather, she asserts that "her 'text'—in the sense of that which one must create and recreate, interpret and reinterpret—was her life in the anarchist movement, which she constituted daily through ongoing practices of words/deeds" as Goldman's anarchism can be thought of as an example for herself (rather than an example for others to emulate), as an influence, within which she "wrote meaning onto life".79 While her anarchist influence most certainly exceeds any particular work, and even her entire body of written (and spoken) work, as Ferguson suggests, her autobiography Living My Life in particular may be considered through the lens of Foucault's work as both an account of her practices of the self as well as the outcome one such practice, the practice of autobiographical writing

78 Kathy Ferguson, "E.G.: Emma Goldman, For Example," Feminism and the Final Foucault, Eds. Dianna Taylor and Karen Vintges (Chicago: University of Illinois Press, 2004): 39. 79 Ibid, 28. 55 as constitutive of a self. Further, Goldman's autobiography can be read not only as a strategy of her own self-creation, but also a work of theory which advances a particular conception of the individual anarchistic subject, and which further develops the conception of the individual briefly elaborated in her essay "Minorities versus

Majorities."

Writing has a central place in Foucault's work on practices of the self. In his discussion of technologies of the self in the Hellenistic and imperial eras, he noted that writing was an important facet of the increasingly common culture of care of the self. He notes that "one of the main features of taking care involved taking notes on oneself to be reread, writing treatises and letters to friends to help them, and keeping notebooks in order to reactivate for oneself the truths one needed" and cites Socrates' letters as an example.80 He further mentions that "constant writing activity" was connected to care of the self, and that "the self is something to write about, a theme or object (subject) of writing activity."81 While many genres and forms of writing might be considered as technologies of the self, particular emphasis is attributed to writing which clearly takes the self as its subject (a genre of writing of which autobiography is but one type). As

Susanne Gannon argues, Foucault's work illuminates the shift in writing about the self from the earlier emphasis of care of the self to a prioritization of knowledge of the self as ethically necessary.82 She further points out that it is via this shift that "the humanist rational self-knowing (self-healing) subject is normalized as it is constituted through the

80 Michel Foucault, "Technologies of the Self," Technologies of the Self A Seminar with Michel Foucault, Eds. Luther H Martin, Huck Gutman, and Patrick H. Hutton (Amherst. The University of Massachusetts Pi ess, 1988): 27. 81 Ibid, 27. 82 Susanne Gannon, "The (Im)Possibihties of Writing the Self-Writing: French Poststructural Theory and Autoethnography," Cultural Studies <- Critical Methodologies 6, no 4 (2006): 478. 56 latter mode."83 In discussing this shift and its relation to subjectivity, Gannon illuminates the importance of Foucault's work on technologies of the self, and writing as one such technology, for thinkers whose work unsettles and decenters the stable humanist subject.

She argues that for post-structuralist writers, writing on the self "leans toward the ancient imperative to care for the self in a constant practice of reflexive attention to the past, present, and future moments of subj edification within complex and contradictory discursive arenas."84 Such texts thus place demands of reflexivity on the reader and render the author vulnerable.85 Finally, Gannon argues that post-structuralist writings of the self would "emphasize discontinuities, search for disjunctures and jarring moments."86

Given the affinities between the work of the post-structuralists (and, in particular, post-anarchism) and Emma Goldman's conception of the individual, reading Goldman's autobiography Living My Life through the lens of Foucault's care of the self, specifically as elaborated by Gannon, is fruitful. Interestingly, elements of Living My Life reveal that

Goldman herself held a view of writing which placed greater emphasis on care of the self than knowledge of the self. She admits that the act of writing her autobiography was not easily distinguished from living the life elaborated therein; in the preface to the book she writes:

Writing had never come easy to me, and the work at hand did not mean merely writing. It meant reliving my long-forgotten past, the resurrection of memories I did not wish to dig out from the deeps of my consciousness. It meant doubts in my creative ability, depression, and disheartenings.87

83 Ibid, 479 84 Ibid, 480 85 Ibid, 480. Here Gannon refers to the work of N. K. Denzm in Performance Ethnography Critical Pedagogy and the Politics of Culture 86 Ibid , 480 87 Goldman, Living My Life, vi-vn 57

This passage suggests that writing, for Goldman, was an act of living and reliving, of

renegotiation of past certainties and of transforming herself in the process - an intensive

technique of the self. Her autobiography, in particular, was not a task easily undertaken,

and her preface attests to her uncertainty as to whether there was even any reason strong

enough to justify doing so.88

The difficulty of writing is not only a struggle that Goldman's preface attributes to

her autobiography, but a consistent theme in Living My Life as Goldman elaborates it in

reference to many of her written works. Goldman recalls that her first experience writing

a substantial piece for a publication was a struggle; she writes that she was tormented by

the fear that she would fail to do her subject89 justice, and that the process of writing

involved the "waste of several pads of paper" before finally feeling as though she had

"succeeded" upon finishing the final version of the work that would be published.90 Her

experience of writing as a struggle did not lessen with age or experience; as Heather

Ostman notes, her account of Mother Earth provided in her autobiography characterizes

the journal as her "child;" she explains that maintaining the project drained her of her

energy both physically and emotionally.91 Goldman's first published book, Anarchism

and Other Essays (a selection of her writing on a variety of topics released in 1911),

"represented a mental and spiritual struggle of twenty years, the conclusions arrived at

after much reflection and growth."92 Her second book-length work, The Social

88 Ibid, v 89 In this case, Goldman had been asked to write a piece on Berkman's attempted assassination of Hemy Ciay Frick for a special issue of The Anarchist, the paper published by the group Autonomic 90 Ibid , 98 91 Heather Ostman, "The Most Dangerous Woman in America'. Emma Goldman and the Rhetoric of Motherhood in Living My Life, "Prose Studies 31, no 1 (2009) 60 92 Goldman, Living My Life, 475 58

Significance of the Modern Drama (originally a lecture series, published as a collection of

essays in 1914) is the only work that Goldman's autobiography describes as being easier

to write (specifically, less of a struggle than Anarchism and Other Essays); this she

attributes to the work of Paul Munter, "the first in his profession to beat [her] flow of

words with his stenographic speed," who provided typed word-for-word copies of the

lectures thereby greatly accelerating the writing process.93 Regarding My Disillusionment

in Russia, which like Living My Life is autobiographical in nature, she states that she had

"worked ... out" all aspects of her plans for the book before beginning the process of

writing it but still experienced similar difficulties with beginning the project; she felt

overwhelmed by the sheer scope of the topic as well as the limits both time and single-

volume format placed on her.94 She felt her own writing skills inefficient and questioned

her own perspective, and "these doubts assailed [her] at [her] desk, gaining momentum

the more [she] tried to concentrate on [her] task."95 Similar to her discussion of Living

My Life itself, she describes again a lack of distinction between the text itself as she planned it and the experiences elaborated therein, writing that she "had lived with it since

Kronstadt."96 Goldman's consistent mentioning of her difficult experiences with writing reveal the seriousness she attributed to her written work; further, this seriousness seems amplified with reference to works with strong autobiographical elements (Living My Life as well as My Disillusionment in Russia) as they are so difficult to separate from her life itself.

93 Ibid, 527. 94 Ibid, 944. 95 Ibid, 944. 96 Ibid, 944. 59

Disjunctures & Discontinuities

As Goldman's development of the concept of the individual shares affinities with

post-structuralist accounts of subjectivity (particularly as elaborated by post-anarchist

scholarship), her autobiography Living My Life resonates with Gannon's description of

post-structuralist writings of the self in several respects, particularly in its reflections on

moments of subjectification (which are repeatedly returned to and reconsidered in new

lights, particularly as they inform Goldman's shifting sense of self and interpretation of

her anarchist influence). Notably, it is a text that is marked, and shaped, by a few specific points of discontinuity, jarring moments that shook Goldman deeply. These disjunctures render the text non-linear as they are points around which the narrative oscillates, returned to and worked through repeatedly. Three such points of rupture are particularly

emphasized and thus worthy of further consideration: the Haymarket affair, the

Homestead and Alexander Berkman's subsequent act of attempted assassination,

and Goldman's 'disillusionment' in Russia.

Haymarket

In early February 1886, during a period of in which labour movements were gaining strength across the country, a lockout at the McCormick Harvester Company in

Chicago led to a declaration of a strike. Strikebreakers were hired, and Pinkertons were called in to protect them. May 1st, which had been scheduled as a day of walk-outs in favour of the eight hour workday, passed without the violence that many expected; on

May 3rd, however, a conflict occurred in which "one striker was killed and an 60

undetermined number injured."97 At a meeting the following day scheduled to protest

against the police, organizers addressed a crowd. Though the mayor had determined that

no police action would be necessary at the thusfar peaceful gathering:

All at once, in Haymarket Square, a battalion of some one hundred eighty police appeared. To the police command that the meeting disperse immediately, the speakers replied that they would finish, then leave. Suddenly a bomb exploded in the midst of the police, killing seven officers and wounding about seventy others. In panic, the police opened fire, killing and wounding ... spectators. At once, all radicals in Chicago, particularly the foreign-born, became the target of a virtual reign of terror.98

The identity of the bomber (to this day) has never been discovered, and little effort was

made at the time to determine it.99 As Goldman points out, the trial was such a

miscarriage of justice that it bordered on farcical; the eight convicted men, all prominent

political organizers, were found guilty as "anarchy was on trial."100 Adolph Fischer,

George Engel, Louis Lingg, , and August Spies were sentenced to hang,

while Michael Schwab and Samuel Fielden were given life sentences and Oscar Neebe

fifteen years.101 In November 1887 four of those sentenced to death were executed; the

fifth, Louis Lingg, committed suicide in prison before his scheduled execution.

Haymarket had a profound effect on radicals in the United States at the time.

Goldman, though only eighteen years of age at the time of the executions, was profoundly shaken by them. The entire Haymarket affair constitutes a point of rupture in her autobiography Living My Life, an event with a distinct before and after, constantly

97 Wexler, Emma Goldman An Intimate Life, 34 98 Ibid , 34 99 Goldman, Living My Life, 8 lOOIbid , 8 Of the men arrested in connection with the bomb, all prominent labour activists, only two weie even piesent in the square at the time 101 Ibid , 8-9 Louis Lmgg ultimately committed suicide in prison before his execution 61 returned to throughout the work. Though the book begins with her arrival in New York

City in 1889, Goldman provides a flashback to her previous time in Rochester, during which she and her sister followed the details of the trials, on only the seventh page, already disrupting the possibility of a stable and linear narrative. Her flashback emphasizes her first experience hearing a socialist speaker, Johanna Greie, who gave an account of the context of Haymarket and outlined the events up to and including the trials.

Goldman writes that after the speech she "knew what [she] had surmised all along: the

Chicago men were innocent. They were to be put to death for their ideal."102 She credits the events with prompting her desire to learn all she could about anarchism, the men as the first heroes she felt embodied the influence that she would constitute herself by reflecting upon.

Her flashback also includes a description of her feelings upon hearing the news of the hangings; she describes physical symptoms, "a feeling of numbness ... something too horrible even for tears," and an outrage so strong that she attacked a woman who spoke ill of the men and then "dropped to the ground in a fit of crying ... and soon ... fell into a deep sleep."103 It was after this incident specifically that the rupture took place:

I woke as from a long illness, but free from the numbness and the depression of those harrowing weeks of waiting, ending with the final shock. I had a distinct sensation that something new and wonderful had been born in my soul. A great ideal, a burning faith, a determination to dedicate myself to the memory of my martyred comrades, to make their cause my own, to make known to the world their beautiful lives and heroic deaths.104

It was this radicalization that prompted her to end her time with family in Rochester and

102Ibid, 9. 103 Ibid., 10. 104Ibid, 10. 62

to move to New York in search of Johann Most, whom she hoped would help her prepare

to take up the cause of the Haymarket martyrs.

The Haymarket affair functions a jarring event, disrupting the linear narrative of

Living My Life; as she revisits the memory of the event in writing her autobiography, she

elaborates it as the site of a radical rupturing of her very sense of self. Goldman

emphatically insists that the event altered her forever. Not surprisingly, the relationship

between Haymarket and her own sense of identity is revisited multiple times in her

autobiography beyond her initial recounting of the affair itself and her immediate

reactions. Even before she left Rochester, the event plays a central role in the disjointed

chronology she constructs. She describes it as her means of survival in a crumbling

marriage, her interest in the case saving her from "utter despair," and also uses it as a

point of reference to situate her ultimate decision to leave her husband: she writes that

"after the death of the Chicago anarchists [she] insisted on a separation."105 As the events

of Haymarket irreversibly changed her, she discusses the event as a point around which

she also worked to change herself.

A year after the Haymarket affair culminated in the execution of the convicted men, Goldman, who had by then moved to New York City and integrated herself into the

anarchist milieu as planned, remained affected by the event. She discusses a public meeting held in memory of the dead men on the anniversary of the executions; for her, merely attending the gathering was tremendously significant as she had wished to attend one since reading of the march to Waldheim where the men were laid to rest.106 She and

105Ibid, 23. 106Ibid, 42. 63 her friends brought a wreath.107 They decided together to hang the wreath on Louis

Lingg's portrait; of all the men, he most stood out to Goldman. She explains their reason

for choosing him:

In our eye stood out as the sublime hero among the eight. His unbending spirit, his utter contempt for his accusers and judges, his will-power, which made him rob his enemies of their prey and die by his own hand - everything about that boy of twenty-two lent romance and beauty to his personality. He became the beacon of our lives.108

Much like the executions themselves a year prior, the anniversary event left Goldman

both emotionally and physically disrupted. She describes an inability to speak following the meeting, her body shaking uncontrollably, and her desire to escape her "fearful

tension" in the arms of Alexander Berkman.109 Goldman's stylistic choices in descriptions

of her own emotions have been heavily criticized; Patricia Meyer Spacks, for instance,

argues that she sounds "out of touch with [her] own personal reality" and accuses her of

"exaggerating or overdramatizing" her emotions throughout Living My Life."° However,

when the work is considered through the lens of Foucault's techniques of the self, her

intense emotional responses are not simply descriptions of her memories of her reactions

to particular stimuli, but tools of establishing points of disconnect in her life against

which she sought to constitute herself. Further, as Ferguson notes, Goldman conceived of

"emotion as a dimension of knowing" and thus her detailed accounts of emotional

reactions strong enough to provoke physical symptoms are entirely relevant to

107Ibid, 42. They brought a single wreath, rather than eight (one for each martyr), because it was all they could collectively afford. 108Ibid., 42. 109Ibid, 43. 1 lOPatricia Meyer Spacks, "Selves in Hiding," Women's Autobiography: Essays in Criticism, Ed. Estelle C. Jelinck (Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1980): 131. 64

the political ideals her writing conveys.111 These descriptions might also be considered

techniques of activating and reactivating truths for Goldman, of infusing events with

meaning for both author and reader, and of advancing a notion of the individual which, so jarred by the event, cannot be centred, stable, or linear.

During a later visit to Chicago, Goldman had the opportunity to both meet

Michael Schwab, one of the surviving Haymarket men who had served part of his life

sentence but had since been pardoned, and to visit Waldheim Cemetery where the

executed martyrs were buried. Schwab, though ill, impressed Goldman; she especially

noted the "endurance and fortitude" his ideal created in him and her feeling of awe at the

"staunch and proud spirit the cruel powers had failed to break" for his ideal was first and

foremost.112 Goldman's visit to Waldheim, accompanied by , allowed her

"the opportunity to fulfil a wish of long standing: to do honour to [their] precious dead by placing a wreath upon their grave."113 Describing the monument itself, Goldman reflects

on her initial opposition to its construction; though she had once felt the men did not need

a monument to be immortalized, her visit to the cemetery changed her mind. She states

that at the time of her opposition she did not appreciate "the power of art," and that "the monument served as the embodiment of the ideals for which the men had died, a visible

symbol of their words and their deeds.""4 Goldman's emphasis on art (which would culminate in her book The Social Significance of the Modern Drama) is notable in its appearance in her own work of art, the embodiment of her words, deeds, and ideals in

autobiographical form.

111 Ferguson, "E.G.: Emma Goldman, For Example," 32. 112Goldman, Living My Life, 221. 113Ibid, 221. 1141bid, 222. Goldman's strong connection to Waldheim would later lead her to request to be buried there. 65

The passage of time never eroded the importance of Haymarket as a point of rupture in Goldman's Living My Life. A few pages into the second volume of her autobiography appears an account of the twenty-fifth anniversary of the executions:

November 11, 1887 -November 11, 1912! Twenty five years, an infinitesimal fraction of time in the upward march of the race, but an eternity for him who dies many deaths in the course of his life. The twenty-fifth anniversary of the Chicago martyrdom intensified my feeling for the men I had never personally known, but who by their death had become the most decisive influence in my existence. The spirit of Parsons, Spies, Lingg, and their co-workers seemed to hover over me and give deeper meaning to the events that had inspired my spiritual birth and growth.115

Here she re-visits the event and emphasizes its centrality while simultaneously treating it as a point after which no centre was possible: while Haymarket was her strongest influence, it also disrupted the linear self extending from her birth to her death by triggering a rebirth. She explains that their cause was with her, one she returned to over and over and drew strength from "in times of ascent to heights, in days of faint­ heartedness and doubt, in hours of prison isolation, of antagonism and censure from [her] own kind, in failure of love, in friendships broken and betrayed.""6 The event was one that jolted Goldman, like many other radicals, into fashioning herself as an anarchist

individual; Goldman noted the significance of Haymarket in initiating many radicals' self- transformation in her speech at the anniversary memorial by describing new lives emerging from the very swinging bodies of the martyred men, proclaiming "they are not dead.""7

As Kathy Ferguson writes, Goldman constituted herself not only in reference to

115Ibid, 508. 116Ibid, 509. 117Ibid, 509. 66

her anarchist influence but also to "the concrete others who shared her journey."118

Though she did not know the Haymarket martyrs (aside from meeting Michael Schwab

long after the events), she certainly conceived of herself as taking up, and thus sharing in,

their journey; she credited these men with opening the possibility of constituting herself

an anarchist. Though she does not name them, it is clear that they are included in those

she describes when Catherine Breshkovskaya asks her how she managed to maintain her

work and she attributes her strength to "those who had gone before ... and the ideal we

had chosen that gave us courage to persevere."119 Goldman treats deaths of the

Haymarket men as an event of rupture, severing her life into a before and an after,

irreversibly changing her and setting off what would be a lifelong process of self-

constitution shaped by her anarchist ideal. Also undoubtedly included as a man in

reference to whom she constituted herself (including in use of autobiography as one

technique for self-constitution) is her near-lifelong companion Alexander Berkman.

Present throughout Living My Life, Berkman played a central role in Goldman's personal

and political trajectory. In particular, his attempt on the life of Henry Clay Frick serves as

another point of rupture in the autobiography revisited and worked through multiple times

as the site of several shifts in her political thought, particularly her conception of the

individual.

Homestead

Alexander Berkman's role in Goldman's life is unparallelled: they were lovers for

118Ferguson, "E.G.: Emma Goldman, For Example," 30. 119Goldman, Living My Life, 363. 67 some time and remained friends and companions from the time of their meeting until his death in 1936. Berkman is mentioned frequently in Living My Life, and in the preface

Goldman credits him with suggesting the book's title.120 Her work has been criticized for focusing too much on her relationships with men, and with Berkman in particular; Martha

Watson argues that her account of her anarchist "conversion," focused around Haymarket as well as meeting Johann Most and Alexander Berkman in New York City, is troubling in that it suggests allowing "sexual attraction and emotional reaction to engender ideological commitment" and focuses on reactions toward specific men rather than the detailed content of their ideals.121 However, such criticisms rely on a separation of emotion and knowledge which is problematic given that Goldman's thought does not make such a separation. Her forging of a self and identity in reflection on her anarchist ideal was not merely a rational process of a stable subject weighing various ideological tenets and choosing to adhere to the most sensible option; rather, in an argument lashing out at

Berkman she emphasizes "the years of struggle and travail [she] suffered for [her] growth" as something he, due to being "bound in the confines of [his] creed," could not appreciate.122 Further, as Kathy Ferguson argues, her self-constitution included

"articulating [herself] in passionate connection with others" and the self she created was a

"self-in-relation."123 She considered her relationship with Berkman and, in particular, his attempted assassination of Henry Clay Frick, central to her life and her autobiography and thus not surprisingly the development of both her anarchist ideas and her very identity are

120Ibid, vn 121 Watson, Lives of Their Own Rhetorical Dimensions in Autobiographies of Women Activists, 42. 122Goldman, Living My Life, 435-6. 123Ferguson, "E G. Emma Goldman, For Example," 39. 68

inseparable from him.124 A reading of Living My Life which considers the writing of the

text as a Foucauldian practice of the self via which she both fashioned herself and

elaborated her conception of the anarchistic individual, particularly by repeatedly

returning to rupturing moments, cannot leave Berkman's act unmentioned.

Goldman's autobiography establishes the and Frick's response to

it as a significant, jarring moment even before the assassination attempt itself. Observing

general public sentiment as generally favouring the workers, Goldman, Berkman, and their friends agreed that the struggle was admirable and might even constitute "the

awakening of the American worker, the long-awaited day of his resurrection."125 Upon reading in a newspaper that Frick had stated that "he would rather see [the workers] dead than concede to their demands" to organize, and was willing to send in Pinkertons,

Goldman ran home to announce that "it was Homestead, not Russia" where they belonged.126 She and Berkman immediately decided to leave. Already, the events at

Homestead irreversibly changed Goldman's perception of Berkman (and thus their relationship). As he declared that they must abandon their living operating an ice cream parlour in Worcester to take a direct part in bringing anarchism into the workers' struggle, she described the change he underwent: "I had never heard Sasha so eloquent. He seemed to have grown in stature. He looked strong and defiant, an inner light on his face making him beautiful, as he had never appeared to me before."127

They departed for Homestead and immediately wrote a pamphlet, a manifesto encouraging the striking workers to turn their current fight into a full-scale struggle for

124Ibid, 37. 125Goldman, Living My Life, 84. 126lbid, 85. 127Ibid, 85. 69 anarchism; however, news of Henry Clay Frick's Pinkertons opening fire, killing and wounding a number of workers, meant they "saw at once that the time for [their] manifesto had passed."128 They agreed that, particularly given the widespread outrage at the shootings, "it was the psychological moment for an Attentat."I29 Though the decision to take on the act is presented in Living My Life as an easy one that all "intuitively"130 agreed upon and thus did not warrant any debate, Goldman does not simply relate the decision and the event's subsequent occurrence. Rather, in her narrative of the planning period, during which they accumulated the required supplies and plotted the act's finer points in detail, she digresses several times into more theoretical discussion. The event is

foreshadowed as a point of rupture for Goldman as the planning phase is configured as a

site of the negotiation of several points in her interpretation of anarchism. For instance,

Goldman's feeling that Berkman "had no need of [her] in his last great hour" overcame her and, in the text, prompts a brief tangential discussion on the nature of (radical) love,

and her descriptions of experimenting with bomb construction are punctuated with

internal debate about whether ends justify means (as she ultimately decides, in this case,

that the risk of accidental detonation in the apartment was outweighed by their ultimate purpose).131

It was in relation to this moment of disruption that Goldman constituted herself as

a manifestation of her anarchist ideal in the negotiation and re-negotiation of these central

concerns. Perhaps the most salient of these discussions relates to her decision to prostitute herself in order to obtain money for supplies needed for the attentat. Not even

128Ibid, 87. 129Ibid, 87. Italics and capitalization are original. 130Ibid, 87. 131Ibid, 88. 70 certain how the idea entered her mind, she drew inspiration from the character Sonya of

Fyodor Dostoyevsky's Crime and Punishment, and actively strove to (re)constitute herself an individual capable of and willing to take such steps:

Sensitive Sonya could sell her body; why not I? My cause was greater than hers. It was Sasha - his great deed - the people. But should I be able to do it, to go with strange men - for money? The thought revolted me. I buried my face in the pillow to shut out the light. "Weakling, coward," an inner voice said. "Sasha is giving his life, and you shrink from giving your body, miserable coward!" It took me several hours to gain control of myself. When I got out of bed my mind was made up.132

Goldman's account of the mental exertion required to take on the identity of prostitute is mirrored with, and completed by, an account of her deliberate physical transformation for the purpose. This exertion, which Goldman cannot explain how she began and which certainly resonates with Foucault's discussion of techniques of the self, emerges out of the jolt of she and Berkman's decision (and the tangible need for funds to enact it) and ultimately yields a reconstitution of identity.

A narrative description of the act itself is of course absent from Living My Life, given that Goldman herself was absent when it took place; she does recount the act, but does so by explaining the contents of the morning newspapers and stating that she "felt that, on the whole, the newspaper accounts were correct" given that particular details seemed to correspond to Berkman's plans.133 She relates some of her activities while awaiting Berkman's trial, including her on stage confrontation of Johann Most with a horsewhip after he renounced the attentat and betrayed she and Berkman. She vividly recounts standing on stage preparing to speak in Baltimore and being handed the telegram

132Ibid, 91. 133Ibid, 98. 71

which informed her that Berkman's trial had taken place and that he'd been sentenced to twenty-two years in prison:

The hall and the audience began to swim before my eyes. Someone took the telegram out of my hands and pushed me into a chair. A glass of water was held to my lips. The meeting must be called off, the comrades said. I looked wildly about me, gulped down some water, snatched up the telegram, and leapt to the platform. The yellow piece of paper in my hand was a glowing coal, its fire searing my heart and flaming it into passionate expression.134

Similar to her description of Haymarket, her learning of Berkman's sentencing was a disruptive moment presented as jarring her not only emotionally but physically; again, this jarring is configured not only as knocking her back but also as propelling her, in this case to speak and rouse the audience's passions.

Though Goldman maintained her support and her relationship with Berkman until the end of his days, and defended him even when other anarchists turned from him after his act, her interpretation of the act itself fluxuated over time. The act and its aftermath was a point of rupture around which her narrative admittedly revolves, and thus she returns to it repeatedly to negotiate it and, in relation to it, her interpretation of her anarchist influence. After being sentenced to one year in prison after delivering her famous speech in New York City in which she urged the audience to take bread were they denied both food and work, she ended up in Blackwell's Island. This is the first instance in which Goldman returns to the attentat as she reflects on how brief her sentence is when compared with Berkman's. She asks herself, for the first time, whether Berkman's act was in vain and whether her "revolutionary faith [was] a mere echo of what others had said or

134Ibid, 106. 72

taught [her]."135 Ultimately, though, she holds fast to her belief as "something within" her

maintains that "no sacrifice is lost for a great ideal."136 This account of questioning and

(re)committing bears characteristics of a possible answer to Socrates' invitation to others

to "occupy themselves with themselves" as described by Foucault; while Goldman's ideal

is not conferred by the gods like Socrates' she similarly maintains that she "won't abandon

it except with [her] last breath."137 While Socrates does not want any reward for his

teaching others to care for themselves, Goldman expects no reward (and, conversely, even

expects and accepts immense sacrifice) for propagating her anarchist ideal; as Ferguson points out, "the Socratic art of life required no reward beyond its own intrinsic value, because the concern with self was at the same time a concern for the city" much as

Goldman's anarchism was directed toward radical social change and simultaneously

constantly reworked as Goldman sought to forge herself an anarchist individual.138

Though Goldman maintained her support for Berkman and his act, her reasoning

for doing so changed dramatically over the course of her life. She returned again to reconsider the act when an anarchist, Angiolillo, assassinated Canovas del Castillo, the

Prime Minister of Spain, in retaliation following torture in Montjuich prison.139

Reflection on the act meant Goldman transported herself back to the moment of

Berkman's attempted attentat, as she grappled with the fact that she would have shared

Berkman's fate could they have been able to afford to both travel to Homestead at the time. She writes:

135Ibid, 135. 136Ibid, 135. 137Foucault, "Technologies of the Self," 20. 138Ferguson, "E.G.: Emma Goldman, For Example," 32. 139Goldman, Living My Life, 188-90. 73

Yet the price was worth the lesson I had gained from Sasha's deed. Since then I had ceased to regard political acts, as some other revolutionists did, from a merely utilitarian standpoint or from the view of their propagandistic value. The inner forces that compel an idealist to acts of violence, often involving the destruction of his own life, had come to mean much more to me. I felt certain now that behind every political deed of that nature was an impressionable, highly sensitized personality and gentle spirit. Such beings cannot go on living complacently in the sight of great human misery and wrong. Their reactions to the cruelty and injustice of the world must inevitably express themselves in some violent act, in supreme rending of their tortured soul.140

Berkman's act, as a moment of rupture, dislodged a fundamental belief Goldman held

early in her anarchist life in the ability of ends to justify all means; the moment separates her life and identity into a distinct before and after. On the occasion of a similar act to

this one, she returns and reconsiders what she previously held as truth. In doing so, she renders the autobiographical Living My Life a philosophical work: her life, her

constitution of herself as an anarchist, is rendered a non-linear and unstable series of reinterpretations of her ideal.

Goldman again returns to Berkman's act as she recounts another incident reminiscent of the past: she hears the news of an explosion in a tenement house killing four people, with rumours that a bomb was being assembled to assassinate Rockefeller, who had been charged with the Ludlow massacres. She decries the irresponsibility of the bombers jeopardizing the other residents, and returns, with horror, to the moments spent watching Berkman attempting to construct a bomb for Frick when she had "silenced [her] fear for the tenants, in case of an accident, by repeating to [herself] that the end justified the means."141 She re-evaluates her own actions and beliefs, unknown to the public prior

140Ibid, 190. 141 Ibid, 536. 74

to the publication of her autobiography, as only possible "in the zeal of fanaticism," and

in doing so reconstructs herself as having shifted away from this zeal.142 Though

Goldman disavows her prior activities, she maintains her support for violent resistance:

Acts of violence committed as a protest against unbearable social wrongs - I still believed them inevitable. I understood the spiritual forces culminating in such Attentats as Sasha's, Bresci's,143 Angiolillo's, Czolgosz's, and those of others whose lives I had studied. They had been urged on by their great love for humanity and their acute sensitiveness to injustice. I had always taken my place with them as against every form of organized oppression. But though my sympathies were with the man who protested against social crimes by a resort to extreme measures, I nevertheless felt now that I could never again participate in or approve of methods that jeopardized innocent lives.144

In repeating her support for the individuals who commit attentat, Goldman renders salient

several positions fundamental to her conception of the individual. She claims emotion as

a valid facet of knowledge by characterizing her own opposition to oppression as motivated, at least in part, by sensitivity and love. This reading is in keeping with Hilton

Bertalan's suggestion to view Goldman as "driven by a broader ethic of love that makes

[her] more radical, open, and vulnerable."145 Goldman's revisiting and re-evaluating of points of rupture, including Homestead, affirms her conception of the individual as open, in flux, and actively constituting itself around particularly disrupting moments.. A final point of discontinuity, Goldman's time in Russia, merits consideration to demonstrate the parallels between her autobiography Living My Life and Gannon's argument that post-

142Ibid, 536 1431n 1898, Italians protested King Umberto 1 due to high food prices, and in Milan members of the army under General Bava-Beccans fired on unarmed demonstrators outside the royal palace, killing ovei one hundred people in what became known as the Bava Beccaiis massacre Two yeais later, Gaetano Bresci, an anarchist, assassinated King Umberto I of Italy in 1900 144Ibid , 536 145Hilton Bertalan, "When Theories Meet Emma Goldman and 'Post-Anarchism,'" Post-Anarchism A Reader, Eds Duane Rousselle and Sureyyya Evren (London , 2011) 211 75 structuralist self-writing emphasizes such "reflexive attention to ... moments of subj ectification."'46

Russia

Though Goldman dedicated an entire volume, My Disillusionment in Russia, to her years spent in Russia after she arrived there in 1920 having been deported from the

United States, she also allotted a substantial portion of her autobiography Living My Life to this period. This segment of the work is notable for several reasons when compared to the rest of the book. It spans 201 pages of the book's total 993 pages; thus, though

Goldman's time in Russia made up just under two years of her entire life up until the point of writing, it comprises just over 20% of her autobiography. By comparison, the substantially longer period between her departure from Russia and the completion of the volume is allotted a mere 66 pages - the importance to Goldman of her time in Russia is clear given how many pages of her autobiography she chose to dedicate to it despite having already published an entire volume on the subject years before. Also notable is the fact that Goldman presents her period in Russia in one lengthy chapter rather than several shorter ones. The 993-page autobiography contains 56 chapters, which mathematically entails an average chapter length of almost eighteen pages; most chapters in the book are slightly short of this length. The fifty-second chapter, however, which elaborates her two years in Russia, spans 201 pages and is by far the longest chapter.

While Goldman's time in Russia is not an 'event' in the same sense as the execution of the Haymarket martyrs and Berkman's attempted assassination of Henry

146Gannon, "The (Im)Possibilities of Writing the Self-Writing: French Poststructural Theory and Autoethnography," 480. 76

Clay Frick following Homestead, its isolation into a single chapter of Living My Life lends it to a post-structuralist reading as the sort of "jarring moment" of subj ectification that Gannon suggests the subject might care for itself in reference to through constant reflection. Goldman's language similarly serves to distinguish the 'event' from prior and following ones, constructs her period in Russia as a moment. Beginning her chapter on

Russia, Goldman sets the 'moment' apart from the rest of her narrative, passionately writing:

Soviet Russia! Sacred ground, magic people! You have come to symbolize humanity's hope, you alone are destined to redeem mankind. I have come to serve you, beloved matushka. Take me to your bosom, let me pour myself into you, mingle my blood with yours, find my place in your heroic struggle, and give to the uttermost to your needs!147

Her description of her entry into Russia, reminiscent of her attributing of physical symptoms to prior life-changing events in its allusion to mixing of blood, marks her arrival a moment with a distinct before and after which would irreversibly alter her as a subject. The short paragraph concluding the chapter on Russia further lends the chapter to an understanding of Goldman's nearly two year long stay as one event that left not only

Goldman's body but the very region itself severely injured:

Belo-Ostrov, January 19, 1920. O radiant dream, O burning faith! O Matushka Rossiya, reborn in the travail of the Revolution, purged by it from hate and strife, liberated for true humanity and embracing all. I will dedicate myself to you, O Russia! In the train, December 1, 1921! My dreams crushed, my faith broken, my heart like a stone. Matushka Rossiya bleeding from a thousand wounds, her soil strewn with the dead. I clutch the bar at the frozen window-pane and grit my teeth to suppress my sobs.148

147Goldman, Living My Life, 726. Italics original. 148Ibid, 927 Italics and paragraphing original. 77

Drawing parallels between Russia's suffering and her own, Goldman identifies the

changing of Russia with her own experience of radical change.

Before her arrival in Russia, Goldman in Living My Life anticipates that it will be

a moment of disruption in her existence which would finally allow her to contribute to a

large-scale worthwhile political project; even before her deportation was finalized, she

had definitively decided to return to Russia (though she wanted to do so of her own free

will rather than at the hands of the American government).149 Her stand on Russia was

not shared as a consensus amongst anarchists; many others insisted that the Bolshevik

state "should be treated by anarchists like other governments," but Goldman vehemently

disagreed.150 Despite the hardship of the voyage, her heart "trembled with anticipation

and fervent hope" at the thought of working to aid the revolution.151 Arriving in Russia,

Goldman and Berkman were accommodated by Zorin, the Secretary of the Communist

Party in Petrograd, and his wife Liza. Zorin immediately admits that Russia is hardly

Utopia but, like many communists Goldman discusses throughout the chapter, he blames the region's difficulties squarely on "the blockade, the intervention, the counter­ revolutionary plotters."152 Russia lay before Goldman as the event that she anticipated would ultimately define her life:

The herculean tasks facing Russia now made our past struggles in America appear pitifully insignificant; our real test by fire was yet before us! I trembled at the thought of my possible failure, my inability to scale the heights already attained by the obscure and dumb millions.153

Like her other accounts of jarring moments, uncertainty is foregrounded in her discussion

149Ibid, 703. 150Ibid, 701. 151 Ibid, 725. 152Ibid, 728. 1531bid, 728. Note the similarity in language to "Minorities versus Majorities." 78

of entering Russia; while she does not identify herself as belonging to the dumb millions,

she doubts if she can achieve what they have. Despite the harsh words she often had for

the masses, she expresses respect for the Russians, as upon her arrival she "felt great

humility before [the] simple folk risen to greatness in the fire of revolutionary

struggle."154 However, despite her uncertainty she expresses no hesitation, and the event

is described as so important that even monumental past events such as Berkman's

attempted assassination of Frick seem insignificant by comparison.

Throughout the chapter (and throughout her time in Russia), Goldman's faith in

the wavers. Some of her earliest experiences in Russia shake her

rosy view of the revolution almost immediately: she writes that "the gagging of free

speech at the session of the Petro-Soviet that we had attended, the discovery that better

and more plentiful food was served Party members at the Smolny dining-room and many

similar injustices and evils" appeared to her contradictory to the spirit of the revolution.155

Similarly, her invitation to attend an anarchist conference made her question the

revolution when she learned that the event would be held in secret.156 The anarchists:

spoke of the Bolshevik betrayal of the Revolution, of the slavery forced upon the toilers, the emasculation of the Soviets, the suppression of speech and thought, the filling of prisons with recalcitrant peasants, workers, soldiers, sailors, and rebels of every kind. They told of the raid with machine-guns upon the Moscow headquarters of the anarchists by the order of Trotsky; of the Cheka and the wholesale executions without hearing or trial.157

Goldman had, as previously mentioned, countered criticisms of the Bolshevik government made by fellow anarchists while she was still in the United States. The first-

154Ibid, 726. 155Ibid, 731-2. 156Ibid, 733. 157Ibid, 733. 79 hand accounts of these anarchists, however, shook her commitment to the revolutionary state in ways prior criticisms had not. Ultimately, though, despite the other anarchists mocking her naivete, she remained unwilling to abandon her faith altogether.158 Though she could see glaring contradictions between the revolution's spirit and the Bolshevik state's reality, she "reasoned with [herself]" and refused to acknowledge the negative aspects.159 Observing resources alongside starving people and the ill treatment of children, she writes: "like a rabbit in a trap I dashed about in my cage, beating against the bars of these fearful contradictions."160

Despite the testimonies of trusted allies at the anarchist conference, Goldman resisted turning away from the revolution. After much frustration trying to find a way to assist the revolution, she and Berkman settled on travelling to collect documents for the

Petrograd Museum of the Revolution. Though they felt the role of "collecting dead material" less necessary than other roles they might have taken, they agreed to take on the work for two interrelated reasons.161 Firstly, they were in agreement that there existed the possibility that "the material [they would] collect would aid future historians in establishing the right relationship between the Revolution and the Bolsheviki," which made the venture worthwhile.162 This relationship was unclear to Goldman even though she was in the midst of it in Russia during the revolutionary period; thus, the second reason she offers for accepting the Museum position is that "the various parts of the country [she and Berkman would] visit... would prove a useful school" and the trip could

i58ibid, 735. 159Ibid, 737. 160Ibid, 738. 161 Ibid, 782. 162Ibid, 782. 80

"help [them] get the right perspective."163 Not surprisingly, the venture yielded many more experiences and stories of repression and hardship that further disrupted Goldman's faith in the revolutionary validity of the Bolshevik state.

The final straw that broke Goldman's faith in the communist state was .

In the context of widespread dissatisfaction due to poor living conditions, and workers' strikes spreading rapidly despite the declaration of martial law and the utilization of other tactics to suppress the uprisings, the sailors of Kronstadt joined the strike after investigating other strikers' stories of state repression. The sailors released a statement:

They declared themselves devoted to the Revolution and the Soviets, as well as the . They protested, however, against the arbitrary attitude of certain commissars and stressed the need of greater self-determination for the organized bodies of workers. They further demanded for labour unions and peasant organizations and the release of all labour and political prisoners from Soviet prisons and concentration camps.164

The Kronstadt sailors detained Kuzmin, the Commissar of the Baltic Fleet, and Vassilev, president of the Kronstadt Soviet, after the former had declared them counter- revolutionists and ordered all food and ammunition removed from the city, but continued negotiations with the Petro-Soviet hoping for a resolution to the strike.165 Goldman admired the sailors' with other striking workers and hoped that "a speedy termination of the trouble would soon result, thanks to [their] mediation."166 However, ultimately Lenin and Trotsky publicly announced that the Kronstadt men had mutinied against the Soviet Government and they were working with former tsarists to attempt a

163Ibid, 782. 164Ibid, 876. 165Ibid, 877. 166Ibid, 878. 81

counter-revolution.I67

Presuming that Lenin and Trotsky had been misinformed or deceived about the nature of the , Goldman and Berkman resolved to meet them to clarify the situation. They attended a special session of the Petro-Soviet, hoping to hear Trotsky

speak; the meeting was chaotic, and an order to demand "the complete and immediate

surrender of Kronstadt on pain of extermination" was forced though.168 Following the

session, they drafted a letter to Chairman Zinoviev of the Petrograd Soviet of Labour and

Defence, one of the most outspoken critics of Kronstadt who had been present and the

special meeting, warning him against using violence against the sailors and proposing the

creation of a commission to settle the dispute through negotiation.169 The same day,

Trotsky and his armed units arrived in Kronstadt declaring the intent to open fire on all

except those who surrendered unconditionally.170

Though the popular assumption was that Kronstadt could not put up a fight to

defend itself against the Bolsheviki, this assumption was proven wrong. Though

Kronstadt continued to ask for a peaceful settlement:

forced to defend itself against unprovoked military attack, it fought like a lion. During ten harrowing days and nights the sailors and workers of the besieged city held out against a continuous artillery fire from three sides and bombs hurled from aeroplanes upon the non-combatant community.171

Goldman and Berkman, listening to the battle from their hotel, attempted to convince

others to speak up in protest; however, even the Communists they knew who "realized the

monstrous crime their party was committing" would not do so because they felt there was

167Ibid, 878. 168Ibid, 880. 169Ibid, 883. See p. 882-3 for the entire contents of the letter. 170Ibid, 883. 171Ibid, 884. 82

no chance of being successful.172 In the battle to suppress the Kronstadt uprising, at least

15,000 strikers were killed.173 The morning following the ceasefire, Goldman recalls

hearing Communists march through the city with bands playing and singing the

International; she writes that "its strains, once jubilant to [her] ear, now sounded like a

funeral dirge for humanity's flaming home."174 Her faith in the was no more.

It was during the Kronstadt battle that fear of becoming "spinelessly acquiescent"

like the others who refused to speak up that the idea of leaving Russia and "[escaping]

from the horrible revolutionary sham and pretence" first entered Goldman's mind.175

This is also, notably, the first point in her chapter on Russia that she clearly and

emphatically deems the revolution a failure in every sense and makes no allowances or

apologies for the tactics of the Bolshevik state (regardless of the existence of the

blockade, the inevitably uncertain nature of revolutionary periods, and other such justifications so frequently offered to her by Bolshevik supporters and which, up until this

point, she had to some degree accepted though it often made her uncomfortable). The

point at which Goldman's faith in the communist revolution dies is the same point at

which she decides she and Berkman (who wholly agrees) must depart. Always careful to

distinguish the revolution, which she wholly believed in, from the practices of the

Bolshevik state, which she considered as having turned against the revolution, she could

not remain in Russia given the feeling that the "Revolution [was] crushed by the iron

hand of dictatorship."176 Goldman explains that one of the most important reasons for

172Ibid, 885. I 73David Christian, Imperial and Soviet Russia: Power, Privilege, and the Challenge of Modernity (H

wanting to leave Russia was a feeling that any actions they might undertake would be

futile and ultimately rendered ineffective by the dictatorship:

After we had discussed every possibility for making our lives count for more than mere existences in Russsia, we had come to the conclusion that no word or act of ours would be of value to the Revolution or to our movement or of the least help to our persecuted comrades.177

Goldman's language here is reminiscent of that used to describe her apolitical life prior to

being radicalized by Haymarket early in Living My Life, and again reaffirms her equation

of her political activity to her life itself. Given this equation, remaining in Russia is

rendered a completely untenable option, for as Kathy Ferguson points out, "she compared

her anarchist life to one withdrawn from public life ... and found the latter unthinkable."178

As Goldman viewed her anarchist life as her identity and very life itself, her time

in Russia disrupted its continuity as her most basic principles were shaken and she fought to constitute herself an anarchist subject in an environment which challenged her identity in ways it had never before been tested. When she entered Russia intent on aiding the revolution, she actively identified as a communist; she explicitly told the Petrograd Board of Health Commissioner that "[she] was indeed a Communist... of the anarchist school."179 She identified herself with the revolution. When revolutionist Bolshevik

Alexandra Kollontay dismissed her early concerns about realities which seemed to directly contradict communist principles, Goldman "tried to tell [Kollontay] that [her] problems [with Soviet Russia] did not concern themselves with little things; they were

177Ibid , 893 "We" here refers to Goldman and Berkman 178Feiguson, "E G Emma Goldman, For Example," 38 179Goldman, Living My Life, 778-9 This identification is curious for at least two reasons firstly, many readers of Goldman's work consider her a proponent of an individualist anarchism, and secondly, Goldman describes 'the anarchist school 'as a subgroup or subtype of wheieas many authors conversely view 'communist anarchism' as one of anarchism's many particular subtypes 84 vital and all-important to [her]. In fact, [her] very being depended on their right interpretation."180 For Goldman, the fate of the revolution was her own fate as well; for this reason, the experience of'disillusionment' she experienced in Russia was so jarring.

Even relatively early into her stay, Goldman admitted that "every day of [her]

Russian existence was misleading" and that she no longer felt she "[stood] firmly in [her] own boots."181 Her struggle with the Bolshevik revolution went beyond a basic disagreement regarding how best to put communist ideals into practice or the leeway the party might require during the transitional period. When comrades Joseph Goodman and

Aaron Baron, whom she knew from the United States, secretly (and illegally) came to

Petrograd and encouraged she and Berkman to join the anarchists working with Nestor

Makhno in Ukraine, she turned them down, admitting that while she knew she'd been wrong to support Lenin she still refused to actively oppose him:

I was no longer deceived by their mask, but my real problem lay much deeper. It was the Revolution itself. Its manifestations were so completely at variance with what I had conceived and propagated as revolution that I did not know any more which was right. My old values had been shipwrecked and I myself thrown overboard to sink or swim. All I could do was to try to keep my head above water and trust to time to bring me to safe shores.182

Goldman's time in Russia, observing the everyday lived realities of workers and their families, did not simply mean that Goldman changed her mind about whether the

Bolshevik state was truly revolutionary or truly maintained communist principles; rather, the experience drew her own principles themselves into question even though she voices clear opposition to the "manifestations" that force her to question them. With the shaking

180Ibid, 757. 181 Ibid, 792. 182Ibid, 813. 85 of her radical principles, her very identity (as "indeed a Communist" and as "of the anarchist school") is disrupted. Goldman writes that "in the Russian cataclysm [her] former life in America had receded into pale memory, becoming a dream bereft of living fibre and [she herself] a mere shadow without firm hold, all [her] values turned to vapour."183 Contrary to her expectations that Russia would be the true opportunity to live an anarchist life, tremendous compared to all that had come before it, Russia ultimately threw not only her interpretations of her anarchist influence into question but also her connection with her prior self.

New Possibilities

Goldman's autobiography, emphasizing points of discontinuity as Gannon suggests post-structuralist self-writing might, provides more than a simple personalized historical account; it also elaborates a notion of the individual subject that is non-linear, discontinuous, and unstable. The idea of the individual developed in Living My Life resonates with Schiirmann's anarchistic subject, influenced by Foucault, as the jarring moments in her life, as well as their revisiting in her autobiographical writing, may be read as sites of self-constitution. Though some critics dismiss Goldman for failing to provide a consistent list of tenets for her own political ideology and read Living My Life as relatively devoid of theoretical or philosophical insights, Hilton Bertalan is correct to point out that:

Goldman's political activity demonstrates just how radical the concept of constant transformation is. It is not an apathetic, detached, apolitical theoretical exercise lacking a consideration for consequences. Positions are taken, identities are asserted, injustices are addressed, and conceptual and logistical spaces are occupied. However ... contingency and the

183Ibid, 829. 86

accompanying refusal to prescribe or locate a static Utopian social or personal state are affirming and highly political positions that serve to open up and cultivate possibilities for social change.184

Goldman's own account of her political activities in Living My Life is similarly demonstrative in this regard, as the understanding of the individual subject elaborated therein is similarly radical. It is this individual, also sketched out in "Minorities versus

Majorities," which holds out the possibility of organizing in the form of the not-mass.

1 84Bertalan, "When Theories Meet: Emma Goldman and 'Post-Anarchism,'" 218. 87

Lessons from a Non-Revolution

Critique of Bolshevik Politics

Goldman's book My Disillusionment in Russia focuses on the time she spent there

after her deportation from the United States in 1920. She clarifies in her preface to the

book that she does "not pretend to write a history" in the manner of the historian who, at a

distance from his or her subject matter, may seem objective; rather, in her view the most

"illuminative" histories focus on "the human element," the contributions and feelings of

contemporaries of the event in question.1 In criticizing historians' work, as well as other

authors' work on the Russian Revolution specifically, she comments that the few books

she read on the topic were inadequate (despite some being written by "the sincere friends

of the Russian Revolution") because "some of the writers had spent from two weeks to

two months in Russia, did not know the language of the country, and in most instances

were chaperoned by official guides and interpreters."2 In doing so, Goldman establishes

herself, and her own book on Russia, as adequate. Goldman, unlike the authors she

criticizes, spent a much longer time, two years, in Russia. Though she admits regarding

her first visit with Lenin soon after her arrival that her "Russian at [that] time was halting," she was quite familiar with the language and, at Lenin's insistence, was able to

carry on the conversation in Russian.3 She also had a firm grasp of Yiddish, which she notes proved useful in many cases.4 Further, unlike the authors she criticized, she had several opportunities to travel Russia and conduct unsupervised conversations, perhaps

1 Emma Goldman, My Disillusionment in Russia (Mineola: Dover Publications, 2003): vm. 2 Ibid , ix. 3 Ibid, 32. 4 Ibid, 17. 88 most notably as a collector of artifacts for the Museum of the Revolution, which was

"among the least interfered with institutions" and for which she travelled extensively.5

Goldman's My Disillusionment in Russia is not simply an account of her time there. Just as reading Living My Life simply by aiming to identify historical inaccuracies, deliberate omissions, or over-exaggeration in language is troublesome as such readings tend to miss the work's theoretical insights, evaluating My Disillusionment in Russia solely on the basis of its faithfulness to the historical facts of the Russian Revolution (the complex relationships between Bolshevik Party members, the policies and impacts of various organizations, the statistics modelling the material well-being of Russians, the diverse array of factions of Communists, and so forth) is also problematic. Firstly, while

Goldman aims to position herself as a valid commentator on the Revolution due to her unescorted or unfiltered observation, her language skills, and her immersion in Russia for several years, it is important to remember that her actual access to up-to-date information was necessarily limited. She admits that "while in Russia [she] had no clear idea how much had already been written on the subject of the Russian Revolution" and had access to only a few written works.6 Further, while she certainly had more extensive access than most (and, for instance, had the opportunity to converse with Lenin and several other party officials as well as peasants and workers from many cities), her access was far from complete: she certainly did not, as a non-member, have the ability to observe the

Bolshevik Party's internal dynamics firsthand, and for a variety of reasons many major figures, such as Ukrainian anarchist , were unavailable to her.7 Secondly,

5 Ibid, 76. 6 Ibid, ix. 7 Goldman did meet with Ukrainian anarchists whom she'd known of in the United States (see My Disillusionment in Russia, 60) as well as to Makhno's wife (see 147), but it was unsafe to sec Makhno. 89

a reading of My Disillusionment in Russia focusing on the work's historical accuracy (or

inaccuracy) runs the risk of missing out on the ways in which Goldman's chosen

rhetorical strategies not only criticize Bolshevik politics but also illuminate her own

insights and contributions on the themes of political organizing and revolution.

While the Russian Revolution hardly resulted in the sorts of politics that Goldman

advocated, her book contains insight into her political theory. Her preface states that the

Revolution ultimately yielded the opposite of what she had hoped:

The Russian Revolution—more correctly, Bolshevik methods— conclusively demonstrated how a revolution should not be made. The Russian experiment has proven the fatality of a political party usurping the functions of the revolutionary people, of an omnipotent State seeking to impose its will upon the country, of a dictatorship attempting to "organize" the new life.8

Goldman clarifies that it is not simply because she is anarchist that she opposes Bolshevik politics as she opposes other governments; she points out that before arriving in Russia,

she had defended the Bolsheviks and aimed to work with them toward revolutionary

goals.9 She also concedes that her criticism is not rooted in an absolute insistence on the primacy of individual liberty even when its subordination might be required for the collective good; rather, she states that she "should have been content if the Russian workers and peasants as a whole had derived essential social betterment as a result of the

Bolshevik regime."10

A major facet of Goldman's criticism of the Russian Revolution is that this social betterment for Russians as a whole failed to materialize despite it being promised, and even boasted about, by many proponents of Bolshevism. Her book relates many 8 Ibid, xx. Italics original. 9 Ibid , xx 10 Ibid , xm. 90 conversations with various Russians which give evidence to the opposite; for instance,

Doctor N , owner of a sanatorium in Odessa, relates to Goldman that:

when the Bolsheviki took [his hospital] over they declared that the proletariat was to own and enjoy the place, but not a single worker had since been received as a patient, not even a proletarian Communist. The people the Soviet sent to the sanatorium were members of the new bureaucracy, usually high officials."

Other historians of the Russian Revolution agree with Goldman's assertion that it failed to benefit Russians: for instance, William G. Rosenberg argues that in the eight months after

October there appeared to be little or no improvement in conditions (and, in fact, that

"even more precarious, uncertain conditions ... soon emerged") and that this angered workers tremendously.12 He goes on to state that "the very seizure of state power [by the

Bolsheviks] contributed enormously - if indirectly - to undermining workers' material well-being by precipitating one of the most rapid and least controlled military demobilizations in history" which consisted of both the breaking up of much of the army as well as the shift away from producing materials needed for the war effort.13

Certainly, however, Goldman's criticism goes beyond citing incidents of party corruption (such as party monopolization of the sanatorium) and the general failure to achieve material success: corruption is something she would have likely expected from any government's officials, communist or otherwise, though initially she was certainly more optimistic about the Bolshevik government than she had been about any other. The crux of her disillusionment with the Russian revolution stemmed from her observation

11 Ibid, 157. 12 William G Rosenberg, "Russian Labor and Bolshevik Power: Social Dimensions of Protest in Petrograd After October," The Workers' Revolution in Russia, 1917 The View from Below, Ed. Daniel H. Kaiser (Cambridge. Cambridge University Press, 1987)- 107 13 Ibid, 110 91

that ultimately "the Bolsheviki... proved themselves the most pernicious enemies of the

Revolution"14 and "Russia ... gradually [resurrected] the social conditions that the great

Revolution had come to destroy."15 She even states that, under the Bolsheviks, "true

Communism was never attempted in Russia, unless one considers thirty-three categories

of pay, different food rations, privileges to some and indifference to the great mass as

Communism."16

Though Goldman was ultimately extremely critical of the Bolshevik state, she did

observe many promising initiatives in Russia, some of which were undertaken by members of the party. However, these endeavours were typically tremendously limited, if not completely shut down, by the Bolshevik government. For instance, she visited a

school operated by the Save-the-Children Society,17 which was mandated to "provide not only for the physical well-being of the children but also to educate them, teach them to love work and develop their appreciation of beauty."18 Though the Society was initially harassed by the Bolsheviki, they successfully procured the Bolshevik party's official permission to continue their work through Lunacharsky and offered to work with the

Poltava Department of Education.19 However, ultimately the organization's troubles with the Bolshevik authorities continued; the women leading the Society told Goldman that

"the Soviet Government pretended to stand for self-determination and yet every independent effort was being discredited and all initiative discouraged, if not entirely

14 Goldman, My Disillusionment in Russia, 200 15 Ibid, 202. 16 Ibid, 247-8. 17 Goldman explains that the school operated by the Society that she visited was iocated in Poltava, Ukraine, the organization had existed for several years before the February 1917 revolution, but operated at a limited scope until revolutionary elements joined and sought to expand its role 18 Ibid, 125 19 Ibid, 126 92 suppressed."20 Similarly, Goldman speaks quite highly of Lunacharsky himself,

Commissar in the Department of Education, but finds that "he was being handicapped in his work by forces within his own party: most of his good intentions and decisions never saw the light. Evidently [he] was caught in the same machine that apparently held everything in its iron grip."21

Some of Goldman's criticism of the Bolshevik state can be gleaned from her account of 's analysis, with whom she often agreed; he, according to

Goldman, similarly believed that in the case of Russia "you see a small political party which by its false theories, blunders, and inefficiency [which] has demonstrated how revolutions must not be made."22 Much like Goldman, Kropotkin argued that the

Bolshevik state "[discredited] every revolutionary ideal, [stifled] all initiative, and [set] a premium on incompetence and waste."23 According to Kropotkin's analysis of the

Russian Revolution, which he still maintained some faith in at the time of his discussion with Goldman, the economic organization of the region needed to be given primacy; he

suggested that it would be anarcho-, via workers' co-operatives, that "was

likely to furnish what Russia most lacked: the channel through which the industrial and

economic reconstruction of the country [might] flow" and which would hopefully "save

other countries some of the blunders and suffering Russia was going through."24 By

1920, however, Kropotkin had wholly lost his faith in the Soviets as a vehicle for workers

20 Ibid, 126. In her account of the society, Goldman does not name its organizers but rather refers to them as "the women" or "the ladies." She relates that she learned of the organization after meeting its former chairperson in the Bureau for the Care of Mothers and Infants. 21 Ibid, 28. 22 Ibid, 98. 23 Ibid, 99. 24 Ibid, 100. 93

to self-manage; in a letter to Lenin he wrote that "the influx and bossism of party men, predominantly fledgeling Communists, ... [had] already destroyed the influence and

creative strength of [the] much-vaunted institutions, the Soviets."25 Goldman agrees with

Kropotkin in terms of the co-operatives' importance, observing both their popularity and their success as "the most essential link between the city and the country," but similarly points out that the Bolshevik state "[transforming] them into cogs of the Government machine" ruined them.26 She does, however, reaffirm her agreement with Kropotkin despite syndicalism's ultimate failure in Russia, stating that "the industrial power of the masses, expressed through their libertarian associations—Anarcho-syndicalism—is alone able to organize successfully the economic life and carry on production" while adding the caveat that the libertarian spirit must have strong hold in order for "the manifold creative energies of the people [to] manifest themselves" in this way.27

Goldman argues that, through the Russian experience, not only Bolshevism failed, but " itself... the STATE IDEA, the authoritative principle" failed decisively.28

She offers, in her afterword, to sum up her entire argument against the Bolshevik revolution, stating that:

the inherent tendency of the State is to concentrate, to narrow, and monopolize all social activities; the nature of revolution is, on the contrary, to grow, to broaden, and disseminate itself in ever-wider circles. In other words, the State is institutional and static; revolution is fluent, dynamic. These two tendencies are incompatible and mutually destructive.29

Here Goldman reveals her ultimate critique of Bolshevism: it was not only corruption of

25 Peter Kropotkin, "Two Letters to Lenin," 1920, in The Anarchists in the Russian Revolution, Ed Paul Avnch (London: Thames and Hudson Limited, 1973) 147 26 Goldman, My Disillusionment in Russia, 249. 27 Ibid, 253. 28 Ibid , 257. Capitalization and italicization are Goldman's 29 Ibid, 257. 94

Russian officials or the limiting of individual during the revolutionary period that disillusioned her, but the inclination of the Bolshevik state toward rigidity, control, and monopolization of all political and social activity. This passage is also important as it is here that Goldman begins to sketch her conception of revolution. She explains that one reviewer of the book, who asserted that "[her] disillusionment... [was] not only with the

Bolsheviki but with the Revolution itself was incorrect.30 She further clarifies using an interesting metaphor: if Revolution is an omelette, she certainly acknowledges that breaking eggs is necessary, but accuses the Bolsheviks of throwing away the yolk.31 In other words, Goldman's observations of terror and violence in Russia are not meant to deny the necessity of violence in creating widespread social change nor to disavow violence and revolution altogether; rather, she argues that the means of the revolution must be consistent with its ends, and that "it is one thing to employ violence in combat...

[but] it is quite another thing to make a principle of terrorism, to institutionalize it, to assign it the most vital place in the social struggle."32

Goldman considers the afterword of My Disillusionment in Russia the most important part of the work; it is here that she finally offers a definition of revolution.33

She writes, in the Nietzschean language she often employs throughout her work, that "in

[her] opinion—a thousandfold strengthened by the Russian experience—the great mission of revolution, of the , is a fundamental transvaluation of

30 Ibid, xvm. 31 Ibid , xvm With this metaphor Goldman aims to clarify that she does not deny that violence may be necessary in revolution 32 Ibid , xv 33 Ibid , xvu Goldman explains this in her revised preface, as the final twelve chapters and aftei word weie omitted from the first printed copies of the work 95 values."34 She continues:

Revolution is the negation of the existing, a violent protest against man's inhumanity to man with all the thousand and one slaveries it involves. It is the destroyer of dominant values upon which a complex system of injustice, oppression, and wrong has been built up by ignorance and brutality. It is the herald of NEW VALUES, ushering in a transformation of the basic relations of man to man, and of man to society. It is not a mere reformer, patching up some social evils; not a mere changer of forms and institutions; not only a re-distributor of social well-being. It is all that, yet more, much more. It is, first and foremost, the TRANSVALUATOR, the bearer of new values. It is the great TEACHER of the NEW ETHICS, inspiring man with a new concept of life and its manifestations in social relationships. It is the mental and spiritual regenerator.35

It is in relation to this conception of revolution that, for Goldman, the Russian experience with Bolshevism illuminates precisely how a revolution ought not, and indeed cannot, be made.

In problematizing the tendency of the Bolsheviks to aim to control all social and political life, Goldman's writing on Russia also, somewhat indirectly, reveals her thoughts on how a revolution ought to be made in concrete terms. Returning to "Minorities versus

Majorities," it is clear that revolution is made by individuals Goldman passionately calls for, who are capable of creating new values. Bolshevik party political organizing was troublesome precisely because, by its very nature, it is not a tactic of individuals: it is decidedly not a not-mass. As previously noted, Goldman's observations highlight the meddling and suppression faced by any initiative not fully endorsed and overseen by the

Bolsheviks and the strict constraints faced even by party members: Bolshevik political organizing was rigid and unchanging, and actively sought to inhibit individuality, creativity, and the emergence of new values. Thus, Goldman felt Russia to be "in the

34 Ibid, 258-9. 35 Ibid, 261. Capitalization and italicization are Goldman's. 96 bondage of one dogmatic idea," far from her conception of revolution.36

The Bolshevik Mass, The Revolutionary Not-Mass

Though Goldman's My Disillusionment in Russia does not appear to elaborate discrete dichotomies as her essay "Minorities versus Majorities" does, it is clear that

Bolshevism and Revolution are diametrically opposed. Given that Bolshevism is also certainly contrary to Goldman's individual, as elaborated in both "Minorities versus

Majorities" and Living My Life, and Revolution is conceptualized in Nietzschean terms more closely to those used to describe the individual (and the not-mass), the Greimasian semiotic analysis of "Minorities versus Majorities" might, with some alteration, be re­ employed to read My Disillusionment in Russia as containing gestures toward a theory of the not-mass. The following dichotomy reads Goldman's conceptions of individual and mass into her contrast between Bolshevism and the revolution, with individual becoming revolution (considering revolution the tactic and desire of individuals) and mass becoming Bolshevism (considering Bolshevism a practice and product of the mass):

Si < > St Revolution Bolshevism

Figure V: Semiotic dichotomy modelling Goldman's contrast between Revolution and Bolshevism

The mass of Goldman's "Minorities versus Majorities" is unoriginal, cowardly,

36 Ibid, 225. 97

and loathes innovation; it aims for uniformity and stagnation and it produces nothing

valuable. The mass works against justice, and follows leaders as it wants to be

dominated. Goldman writes in the essay that in Russia specifically "the majority, that

compact immobile, drowsy mass, the Russian peasant, after a century of struggle, of

sacrifice, of untold misery, still believes that the rope which strangles 'the man with the

white hands' brings luck."37 It is very important to note here that Anarchism and Other

Essays, the volume in which "Minorities versus Majorities" appears, was first published

in 1910, and thus predates both the February Revolution (which removed the Tsar from power) and the of the Bolsheviks, both of which occurred in 1917.

Upon hearing the news of the 1917 revolution, Goldman's attitude toward the Russian people changed dramatically; she writes in Living My Life that:

only yesterday inarticulate, crushed, as they had been for centuries, under the heel of a ruthless absolutism, insulted and degraded, the Russian masses had risen to demand their heritage and to proclaim to the whole world that autocracy and tyranny were for ever at an end in their country.38

She further comments that her "faith in the people themselves," who were now awakened to their own opportunities, was strong.39 My Disillusionment in Russia complicates

Goldman's view of Russians, rendering it somewhat ambiguous. On one hand, she does give Russians credit for ousting the Tsar, and argues that "the Russian mass psychology, inspired and intensified by the February Revolution, was ripening at so fast a pace that... the people were ready for ... ultra-revolutionary slogans."40 On the other hand, in terms more reminiscent of "Minorities versus Majorities," she argues that "faith in the power of

37 Goldman, "Minorities versus Majorities," 76. Here Goldman piovides a footnote clanfying that 'the man with the white hands' refers to the intellectuals 38 Goldman, Living My Life, 593. 39 Ibid , 593 40 Goldman, My Disillusionment in Russia, 243. 98

government served to enslave the Russian people to the Communist Party even before the

great masses realized that the yoke had been put around their necks."41 Interestingly, her

analysis regarding the people's role in both the revolution and the rise of Bolshevism

resonates with the work of other anarchists in Russia at the time; for instance, M.

Sergven42 laments:

The people made the revolution without orders from any centre. They tore power to shreds and scattered the shreds over the immense revolutionary coutryside, thereby confronting power with local self-rule. But that splintered and dispersed power poisoned all the Soviets and committees. Dictatorship appeared again in the new garb of Ispolkoms [Executive Committees] and Sovnarkoms [Councils of People's Commissars], and the Revolution, not recognizing her, embraced her. Not seeing the enemy, the Revolution was too sure of victory and bit by bit put power in her hands. There was an urgent need for systematic organization and for the co­ ordination of activities. The Revolution looked for this but too few elements were aware of the necessity and the possibility of federalist organization. And the Revolution, not finding it, threw itself into the arms of the old tyrant, centralized power, which is squeezing out its life's breath. We were too disorganized, too weak, and so we have allowed this to happen.43

Despite this ambiguity in Goldman's writing on the Russian people, the mass is

decidedly present in My Disillusionment in Russia. In her autobiography, Goldman

distinguishes between those tricked or deceived into supporting Bolshevism and those

who did so willingly; she states that she "was filled with pity for [the] deluded ones, but... felt only contempt for those ... who had come, had seen with open eyes and understood, and had yet been conquered" into doing "Moscow's bidding."44 This distinction is maintained in My Disillusionment in Russia, and those supporting

41 Ibid, 251. 42 Avnch cites this quote as originating in his article "Puti Revohutsn" in the anarchist newspapei Vol'nyi , Sept 16, 1918. 43 M. Sergven, "Paths of Revolution," 1918, in The Anarchists in the Russian Revolution, ed (London: Thames and Hudson Limited, 1973)' 125. 44 Goldman, Living My Life, 916 99

Bolshevism are portrayed in the language of the mass. Bolshevism's aim was not revolution; rather, the party simply "sought to maintain itself by all means at hand."45 The

Bolsheviks, as a mass, did not encourage innovation or becoming; rather, "critical inquiry in Russia [was] a dangerous thing."46 In Rosenberg's words, the Bolsheviks constituted "a party dictatorship determined to enforce its own view of proletarian interests on recalcitrants everywhere."47 The Bolshevik mass also aimed for homogeneity and discouraged thought: Goldman notes that rather than revolutionary action guided by

(individuals') integrity and courage, "the golden rain of Moscow [was] depended on to produce ... Communist organizations and publications" and the people were deliberately mislead.48 While the Bolsheviks initially allowed a diversity of resistances to flourish

after the October Revolution, "it began to limit the scope of popular activity" the moment

its dominance was secured.49 The Bolshevik mass, of course, does not recognize artistic genius; rather, according to Goldman it has "stultified the cultural and artistic expression

of the Russian people."50 She argues that the Proletcult,5* "the pet child of the

Bolsheviki,"52 is "below the average, incapable of innovation, lacking originality, and without staying power."53 Goldman asserts that "already in 1920 [she] was told by two of

45 Goldman, My Disillusionment in Russia, 249 46 Ibid , 222 47 Rosenberg, "Russian Labor and Bolshevik Power' Social Dimensions of Protest in Petrograd After October," 128 48 Goldman, My Disillusionment in Russia, 220. 49 Ibid , 245 50 Ibid , 224 51 Goldman describes the Proletcult as an organization formed to support proletarian arts and culture While others, including author Lynn Mally, spell the organization "Proletkult," for consistency this work uses Goldman's spelling Goldman consistently italicizes the term. 52 This characterization is disputed by Lynn Mally, who argues that "the Proletkult's clashes with the Communist Party have dominated historical scholarship . earning it a reputation as an opposition movement" (xx). 53 Ibid , 224 Mally would also dispute these claims; while Goldman considers the Proletcult devoid of creativity, Mally points out that the organization did attract some avant-garde artists, particularly in the field of visual arts (123) the foremost foster fathers of the Proletcult, Gorki and Lunacharsky, that it was a

failure."54

The individual of "Minorities versus Majorities" is creative, innovative,

courageous, and open to change and becoming. Individuals, according to Goldman, are

responsible for all progressive change, and are typically not very well received by the

mass; on the contrary, they are very often repressed. Goldman also elaborates her own

struggles with the openness, fluidity, and instability of constituting herself an individual

in Living My Life. Alongside the Bolshevik mass, My Disillusionment in Russia also

discusses individuals. For instance, she describes "the politicals" as the only people who

refused to be terrorized, those "whose courage and devotion to their ideals defied the

Bolsheviki as it had the Romanovs."55 She similarly credits the sailors of Kronstadt,

denounced and destroyed by the Bolshevik mass, with the moral courage and strength of

the individual; she writes of their devotion to revolution and their selfless solidarity for

other workers. Her elaboration of her own shifting view on the political developments in

Russia, from enthusiasm to wariness to hostility, is a narrative of becoming-individual;

eventually, Goldman resolves to "accept nothing, not even bread rations, from the hands stained with the blood of the brave Kronstadt sailors."56 In the realm of art, Goldman movingly describes the author of the revolutionary poem "Twelve," the single work created during the Bolshevik period that she considers outstanding. Constantin V.

Ponomareff writes that the poem's author, Alexander Blok, "heard a din and rumbling around him which, at one point, grew into a terrifying noise, making him exclaim on [a

54 Ibid , 224. Interestingly, Lynn Mally writes that 1920 was the Proletkult's peak, at this time it included three hundred branches across the (xix). 55 Ibid , 237. 56 Ibid , 201 101

day that he worked on the poem] that he felt himself to be a genius."57 Goldman writes of

Alexander Blok, who wrote the poem in 1918, in similar terms as she uses to describe the eventual frustration of artistic genius when surrounded by the mass:

even that gifted genius, deeply inspired by the Revolution, and imbued with the fire that had come to purify all life, soon ceased to create. His experience with the Tcheka (he was arrested in 1919), the terrorism all about him, the senseless waste of life and energy, the suffering and hopelessness of it all depressed his spirit and broke his health. Soon Alexander Blok was no more. Even a Blok could not create with an iron band compressing his brain—the iron band of Bolshevik distrust, persecution, and censorship.58

The individual in My Disillusionment in Russia appears as a revolutionary, one who embraces and enacts revolution as a transvaluation of values as defined by Goldman, and who is thus hostile to (and whom is met with hostility from) the Bolshevik mass. The following semiotic square expands the dichotomy of individual/Revolution and mass/Bolshevism:

Si <— -> St Revolution \V ^ / Bolshevism

Lenin

Figure VI: Semiotic square modelling the dichotomy of Revolution and Bolshevism

57 Constantin V. Ponomareff, One Less Hope- Essays on Twentieth Century Russian Poets (Amsterdam: Editions Rodopi B.V, 2006): 141. 58 Ibid, 225. The non-individual corner of the semiotic square is, m the context of Goldman's writing on Russia, best occupied by Lenin. In the semiotic square modelling the dichotomy of individual and mass in Goldman's "Minorities versus Majorities," the not- individual stands out prominently from the mass because of the mass' own negative traits.

Because the mass establishes leaders which mirror its own shortcomings, not-individuals rise to prominence; the not-individual possesses the political cunning to exploit the mass and maintain his or her own position, but lacks all the positive qualities of the individual.

Lenin, as leader of the Bolsheviks, is the clearest example of the not-individual in My

Disillusionment in Russia. Goldman describes Lenin as "a nimble acrobat,... skilled in performing within the narrowest margin"59 and as "the most pliable politician in history" who attached himself to communism's rising popularity with the mass and used it to propel himself to power.60 She argues that the Revolution and even Communism itself was of little importance to Lenin, and accuses him of sacrificing "both the Revolution and the country; or at least part of the latter, in order to realize his political scheme in what was left of Russia."61

This view of Lenin is not uncontested; for instance, Slavoj Zizek argues in his introduction to an edited collection of Lenin's writings that Lenin is notable because he acted pre-emptively for the 1917 revolution, which many of his comrades were unwilling to do.62 In reference to the collection, he argues that "what we are allowed to perceive in these writings is Lenin-in-becoming: not yet 'Lenin the Soviet institution' but Lenin

59 Ibid, 245. 60 Ibid, 247. 61 Ibid, 246-7. 62 Slavoj Zizek, "Introduction: Between the Two Revolutions," Revolution at the Gates: Selected Writings of Lenin from 1917, ed. Slavoj Zizek (London: Verso, 2002): 6. 103 thrown into an open situation."63 Further, Zizek explains that:

Lenin succeeded because his appeal, while bypassing the party Nomenklatura, found an echo in what I am tempted to call revolutionary micropolitics: the incredible explosion of grass-roots democracy, of local committees sprouting up all around Russia's big cities and, ignoring the authority of the 'legitimate' government, taking matters into their own hands.64

Zizek's description of Lenin suggests that he is better conceived of as one of Goldman's

individuals than as a not-individual. These conflicting analyses suggest that Lenin was a

complex political figure. Writing on Lenin's theory of the state, Edward Hallett Carr

argues that:

Lenin never recognized any difficulty of principle in reconciling the quasi- voluntary association of the workers implied in the dying away of the state with the concentration of power necessary for the exercise of a ruthless dictatorship over the bourgeoisie. Of the ruthlessness of the dictatorship he spoke in uncompromising terms.65

Carr also points out that perhaps Lenin's most anarchistic work, The State and Revolution,

aims the majority of its criticism at those Marxists who failed to acknowledge that the

state was a bourgeoisie construction and that the first goal ought to be a transitional

dictatorship of the proletariat rather than a simple takeover of the bourgeoisie state. In

this text Lenin provides comparatively few words criticizing anarchists who dismiss the

need for such a transitional dictatorship, and thus appears more amenable to anarchist

ideas.66

It is not surprising, however, that Goldman's analysis of Lenin differs

tremendously from Zizek's; she did not arrive in Russia until 1920, years after the initial

63 Ibid, 6. 64 Ibid, 6-7. Italics are Zizek's. 65 Edward Hallctt Carr, The Bolshevik Revolution 1917-1923, Volume 1, A History of Soviet Russia (New York: W. W. Norton & Company, 1950): 242. 66 Ibid, 240. 104

uprising of 1917. While Zizek's analysis focuses on Lenin's 1917 writings, historians

note that his approach changed drastically in the months and years following the

revolution. While anarchists worked alongside the Bolsheviks during the revolution, their

relationship did not last; the signing of the Treaty of Brest-Litovsk67 by the Bolshevik

government heavily contributed to the growing division between them. Paul Avrich notes that:

the dispute over the treaty of Brest-Litovsk brought into relief the growing estrangement between the anarchists and the Bolshevik party. With the overthrow of the Provisional Government in October 1917, their marriage of convenience had accomplished its purpose. By the spring of 1918, the majority of anarchists had become sufficiently disillusioned with Lenin to seek a complete break, while the Bolsheviks, for their part, had begun to contemplate the suppression of their former allies, who had outlived their usefulness and whose incessant criticisms were a nuisance the new regime no longer had to tolerate.68

While Lenin may have initially held appeal with, and encouraged, uprising as

Zizek suggests, Lenin's position shifted swiftly and dramatically prior to Goldman's arrival in Russia. Lead by Madame Kollontai, a strongly supported workers' opposition emerged against Lenin's Bolsheviks by the end of 1920; by this point, Lenin "firmly denied his earlier contention, in The State and Revolution, that ordinary workmgmen were capable of running political and economic affairs" and he was sufficiently threatened to

"take further measures to curb [his opposition]."69 It is this Lenin which appears for

Goldman as the quintessential not-individual of her time in Russia.

As is typical with semiotic squares, the fourth position, the not-mass in My

67 The Treaty of Brest-Litovsk was Signed between Germany and Russia, and marked Russia's exit fiom the Woild War Many anarchists and other critics saw this treaty as a betrayal as the treaty meant the surrender of Russian land, population, and industry to Germany 68 Paul Avrich, The Russian Anarchists (Edinburgh AK Press, 2005) 183 69 Ibid , 225 105

Disillusionment in Russia, is the least clear and the most difficult to elaborate. In this case, the not-mass is the tactic and form of organization of the individual, the revolutionary. In this case, however, Goldman does provide clues to the not-mass in her afterword. She clarifies that "it is not so much the Bolsheviki who killed the Russian

Revolution as the Bolshevik idea;" any party devoted to "fanatical govemmentalism" and

"principles of the State" would have yielded similar results.70 The political party, with rigid party line and totalizing aspirations, is a mass tactic - leaders rise to prominence by mirroring the mass, and deviation from party positions is discouraged. The not-mass, on the other hand, has no party line; Goldman argues that "not adherence to the dominant political party but devotion to the revolution, knowledge, ability, and—above all—the creative impulse should be the criterion of fitness for cultural work" in future revolution.71

She also emphasizes that not-mass revolutionary tactics are not the purview of a single vanguard class but rather the product of diverse groups collaborating, and that autonomy in political organizing (even autonomy in relation to those with whom one cooperates) is fundamentally important: she states that "all must learn the value of mutual aid and libertarian cooperation. Yet each must be able to remain independent in his own sphere and in harmony with the best he can yield to society."72 Finally, she reaffirms the individual as the one who organizes as not-mass, and foregrounds personal becoming and openness to change. In doing so, she emphasizes that in the Russian case the Bolsheviks attempted to change society but neglected or disallowed personal change; she writes that

"revolution ... signifies not mere external change, but internal, basic, fundamental

70 Goldman, My Disillusionment in Russia, 250. 71 Ibid, 254. 72 Ibid, 257. change. That internal change of concepts and ideas, permeating ever-larger social strata,

finally culminates in the violent upheaval known as revolution."73

Goldman, The Not-Mass, and Radical Politics Today

Hilton Bertalan points out that , who certainly did not take

Emma Goldman seriously as a theorist, includes her in his essay contrasting "social" and

"lifestyle" anarchism; she is the only author whom Bookchin categorizes as both social

anarchist and lifestyle anarchist, but he "never responds to this disjunctive tension or the

implications it has for his prescribed schism."74 Many authors describe her as a staunch

individualist anarchist, while many others emphasize her connections to more coUectivist

theories. While evidence can be found in Goldman's written work to support either of

these claims, her conception of the individual and her ideas on political activism are more

complex than this. In Goldman's public career, she "had been affiliated with groups only temporarily;" this is not solely because she valued her own autonomy, but also because

she considered it a factor which increased the effectiveness of her political activity.75 For

Goldman, "individuality, by co-operative effort with other individualities, [attains] its highest form of development;" the not-mass is not only the tactic of individuals, but it fosters and creates openings for individuality to emerge.76 The concept of the not-mass, gleaned from a Greimasian reading of "Minorities versus Majorities" yet detectable elsewhere in her work (including My Disillusionment in Russia), complicates readings of

Goldman that reduce her to either communist anarchist, individualist anarchist, or

73 Ibid , 261 Italicization is Goldman's. 74 Bertalan, "When Theories Meet: Emma Goldman and 'Post-Anarchism,'" 210 75 Goldman, Living My Life, 967 76 Ibid, 402. hopelessly and problematically self-contradictory, while simultaneously gesturing toward

the continued relevance of Goldman's political thought.

Alongside its affinities with post-anarchist thought and its anticipation of more

recent developments in feminism, Goldman's political thought resonates with

contemporary discussions about political organizing. The not-mass, in particular, marks

the contribution Goldman's thought can make to these debates when she is read as a

political thinker as many contemporary developments in radical politics might be

considered forms of not-mass organizing. Anarchist anthropologist ,

commenting on the Seattle protests of 1999, writes that:

all the condescending remarks about the movement being dominated by a bunch of dumb kids with no coherent ideology completely missed the mark. The diversity was a function of the decentralized form of organization, and this organization was the movement's ideology.77

Graeber's analysis of the protests resembles the concept of the not-mass: the not-mass

does not rely on a coherent ideology but rather embraces openness, change, and a

diversity of participants. Like the protests, the not-mass is radically decentralized:

individuals and small, localized groups ideally retain autonomy when working with

others. Further, Graeber's emphasis on the process of the protest organizing itself responds to Goldman's call for a radical politics in which the means are alligned with the

ends sought: the tactics described by Graeber might be considered prefigurative of the world the alter-globalization movement seeks to build. What Richard J.F. Day refers to as the hegemony of hegemony, the "commonsensical assumption that meaningful social change - and social order itself- can only be achieved through the deployment of

77 David Graeber, Fragments of an Anarchist Anthropology (Chicago: Prickly Paradigm Press, 2004): 84, http://prickly-paradigm.com/titles/fragments-anarchist-anthropology. universalizing hierarchical forms," is disrupted by Emma Goldman's political thought and the concept of the not-mass 78 As Day's work points out, the disruption of this logic is occurring not only at the level of theory, but in the streets through the use of "non- branded tactics that prefigure and/or create autonomous alternatives" to hierarchical, statist, and totalizing forms.79

The not-mass, which acknowledges the importance of individual autonomy when organizing politically m groups and which seeks to foster and allow for individual self- expression, also resonates with contemporary debates about "diversity of tactics," which

Peter Gelderloos defines as "effective combinations drawn from a full range of tactics that might lead to liberation from all the components of [the] oppressive system white supremacy, patriarchy, capitalism, and the state," and which he contrasts with dogmatic pacifism 80 Gelderloos and Goldman at times make similar moves in reconciling their acceptance of violence as a valid activist tactic with their insistence on consistency between ends and means, while Goldman argues against institutionalizing terror as the

Bolsheviks did but acknowledges that radical political changes can necessitate violent struggle, Gelderloos argues that the violent nature of oppressive social structures (such as the state) ultimately mean struggles against them will eventually turn violent but that

"fetishizmg violence neither improves a movement's effectiveness nor preserves its anti- authontanan qualities "81 In much the same way that Goldman insists that anarchism can never be a rigid program to be applied similarly everywhere, Gelderloos points out that

78 Richard J F Day "Hegemony, Affinity, and the Newest Socal Mo\e>nents at the End of the 00s,' Post Anarchism A Reader, Eds Duane Rousselle and Sureyyya Evren (London Pluto Press, 2011) 96 79 Ibid, 106 80 Peter Gelderloos, How Nonviolence Protects the State (Cambridge South End Press, 2007) 3 81 Ibid, 141 109

"in terms of struggle, we must abandon the idea that there is only one right way, that we

must get everyone to sign on to the same platform or join the same organization."82 These

contemporary discussions also share with Goldman's work (as well as Reiner

Schiirmann's) an emphasis on not speaking for others, but rather confronting oppressive

power dynamics as they manifest themselves in one's own lived experience using tactics

of one's own choosing. The not-mass is a useful concept for thinking through diversity of

tactics and perspectives and, especially, the possibility for solidarity shared between

activists who choose to struggle in different ways (and who disagree on matters other than

tactics as well).

Janet E. Day faults Goldman's work for lacking "an extended and in-depth

analysis of the psychological aspects of group behavior" and thus considers it of limited

use in grappling with the reality that "voluntary associations, while not compulsory in a

formal sense, can nevertheless exhibit coercive types of behavior."83 She correctly points

out that, in the context of political organizing, "it may be a natural step from the unequal

development of a consciousness of self within a community to the development of

societal mores and institutions which sustain the authority of the few over the many."84

Day argues that Goldman's emphasis on individual becoming and self-constitution means

that "the success of group relations seems dependent on hurdling a very high bar, that of

equally possessed strong spiritual dispositions."85 This problem, a problem of mass organizing very clearly identified in Goldman's account of the Bolshevik revolution in

Russia, is described clearly by Jesse Cohn in the context of a discussion of critiques of

82 Ibid, 138. 83 Day, "The 'Individual' in Goldman's Anarchist Theory," 133 84 Ibid, 134 85 Ibid, 134 110

representation:

The same patronizing relationship present in the practice of an arrogant psychoanalyst toward a patient, expressed on the political level as the pretense through which the king speaks for God or parliament for the citizens, is translated into revolutionary vanguardism, the pretense of a revolutionary party to possess a theory (a representation of the world) that justifies it in speaking for (representing) a group (the people or the proletariat, conceived as a homogenous unit) conceived as universal (representing humanity as a whole). Inevitably, this arrangement, if successful, operates in the manner of every other patronizing practice: it transfers power from the represented to the representatives, creating a new ruling class, new normalizing institutions, and so on.86

The notion of the not-mass is a contribution to the contemporary discussions that seek to

avoid precisely this problem, and to find ways of addressing oppressive dynamics within

activist groups. While Goldman does, as Day points out, call for the emergence of strong,

independent, and courageous individualities, her individual is not the one who speaks the

loudest or who takes up the most space in activist settings. Rather, the not-mass calls for

individuals who are, in important ways, humble: somewhat like Foucault's specific

intellectual, whose role is "to facilitate, for a subordinate social group, its ability to speak

for itself rather than to speak/or it, Goldman's individual is one who drills individuals out of the mass, encouraging others to work on themselves and cultivate themselves strong anarchistic subjects rather than simply taking leadership positions in mass-style

'anarchist' organizing as Janet Day seems concerned about.87 Equally importantly, much like the specific intellectual, who does not "[float] above society, alert to its inequities" but rather discusses institutions with which they are intimately familiar from the inside,

Goldman's individual is not a sort of 'expert' anarchist or activist who aims to hold

86 Jesse S. Cohn, Anarchism and the Crisis of Representation Hermeneutics, Aesthetics, Politics (Sehnsgrove: Susquehanna University Press, 2006): 50. 87 Mark Poster, and Poststructurahsm In Search of a Context (Ithaca Cornell University Press, 1989) 37. Ill

authority over the less experienced as Day is concerned they might; rather, Goldman's

thought is, as Kathy Ferguson suggests, "event-based, ectopic, and untimely," and her

individuals are decidedly located, speaking only for themselves and their own experiences

and encouraging and empowering others to do the same.88

The concept of the not-mass, stemming from Goldman's writing on the individual

(in both her essays as well as full-length works Living My Life and My Disillusionment in

Russia), offers a way of thinking about political organizing which is not only inherently

anarchistic in its openness, but also resonates with contemporary debates on similar

themes. It also illuminates the nuance of her political thought, which is certainly far more

intricate than many of her critics acknowledge. As the not-mass reveals, the dismissal of

Goldman's work as either poor theorizing (or as untheoretical altogether) is problematic,

and her political thought, when read seriously, has much to offer contemporary anarchist praxis.

88 Kathy Ferguson, Emma Goldman Folitical Thinking In The Streets (Lanham. Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, 2011): 277. 112

Conclusion

This work has attempted to offer a new reading of Emma Goldman's anarchism

and to gesture towards some of the ways in which her political thought remains relevant

today. As previously noted, Goldman is often praised as an activist but denigrated as a thinker; this project aims to point out a few of Goldman's valuable contributions to anarchist thought, contributions which might easily be missed by readings which do not consider her a theorist. Further, as Jenny Alexander points out:

Goldman's entire political oeuvre is frequently shoehorned into a gender/sexuality boot (and very much linked to her personal life). It is not difficult to see why this is problematic. Questions of gender and sexuality in these re-circulated readings remain and return as the concerns of women/ and LGBTQ agendas linked to/coming out of feminisms, whilst questions of'general anarchism' remain and return as the concerns of a 'mainstream' (read straight and masculine) anarchist movement.1

While, as Alexander as well as Kathy Ferguson point out, Goldman's readers have sometimes considered her work primarily in other contexts and streams of thought,2 this work aims to emphasize her engagement with, and unique approach to, anarchism.

To do so, this work begins with a close reading of Goldman's essay "Minorities versus Majorities," published in her collection Anarchism & Other Essays; while the title suggests a simple dichotomy (one in which Goldman decidedly prefers the former over the latter), Greimasian semiotics reveals that her Nietzschean conception of the

1 Jenny Alexander, "Alexander Berkman Sexual Dissidence in the First Wave Anarchist Movement and its Subsequent Narratives," Anarchism & Sexuality Ethics, Relationships and Power, Eds Jamie Heckert and Richard Clemmson (New York Routledge, 2011) 28 2 Ferguson, Emma Goldman Political Thinking in the Streets, 9 Ferguson indicates feminism, free speech, and educational reform as particular struggles with which Goldman has been primarily associated 113

individual, as well as what is herein referred to as the 'not-mass' (the minority, which is

actually not explicitly discussed in the essay at all), troubles the distinction between

individualist and communist or coUectivist anarchism and gestures towards new ways of

politically organizing. This work then reads Goldman's two volume autobiography,

Living My Life, and suggests that it may not only be considered a work of self-

constitution, a practice of the self, but also a work of political theory further revealing

Goldman's thoughts on the individual subject. Finally, this work concludes with a

discussion of My Disillusionment in Russia, suggesting that her criticisms of majorities as

elaborated in the first chapter parallel her criticisms of the Bolsheviks and that the

rhetorical strategies she employs reveal further her thoughts on 'not-mass' political

organizing, thoughts which in many ways resonate with contemporary writings on the

topic.

This reading of Goldman particularly draws upon the insights of recent work

aiming to bring anarchism and post-structuralism into conversation (described alternately

as post-anarchist, post-structuralist anarchism, and postmodern anarchism). As Nathan

Jun argues, "the so-called 'classical anarchists' had already discovered several of the

insights attributed to post-structuralists more than a century before the latter appeared on

the scene."3 Though, as this reading suggests, Goldman in particular seems to have

anticipated some much more contemporary ideas (including a conception of the subject

and processes of subj ectification that resonates with later post-structuralist writing, as well as a more complex understanding of power than 'classical anarchists' are often

3 Nathan Jun, "Reconsidering Post-Structuralism and Anarchism," Post-Anarchism: A Reader, Eds. Duane Rousselle and Siireyyya Evren (London: Pluto Press, 2011): 231. 114

credited with)4 and thus her anarchism seems quite amenable to a post-structuralist

interpretation, her work has not received a tremendous amount of attention in

contemporary anarchist literature.5 While a post-anarchist reading of Goldman is by no

means the only way to indicate her work's continuing relevance, this reading aims to

unsettle the distinction some authors have made between 'classical' anarchism and more

recent post-anarchism by drawing parallels between Goldman's work and the latter. In

doing so, this work aims not only to demonstrate that consideration of Emma Goldman's

thought remains fruitful in contemporary debates, but also to illuminate the ways in which

many issues that Goldman herself identified as important and sought to address in her

work are issues which remain sites of contestation and struggle.

4 For instance, Todd May points out that many anarchists maintained understandings of power which icly on 'top' and 'bottom' imagery (48-9) and Saul Newman, discussing Bakunin, states that (classical) anarchism "is based on a specific notion of human essence" and an adherence to "natural laws" (38) 5 There aie a few exceptions to this, notably Kathy Ferguson's Emma Goldman Political Thinking in the Streets, which considers Goldman with reference to such more contempoiary thinkers as Foucault, Deleuze, and Bourdieu, as well as the work of Hilton Bertalan, including "When Theones Meet Emma Goldman and 'Post-Anarchism'" in Post-Anarchism A Reader 115

Bibliography

Adrian, Lynne M. "Emma Goldman and the Spirit of Artful Living: Philosophy and Politics in the Classical American Period." Feminist Interpretations of Emma Goldman. Edited by Penny A. Weiss and Loretta Kensinger. University Park: Pennsylvania State University Press, 2007. 217-226.

Alexander, Jenny. "Alexander Berkman: Sexual Dissidence in the First Wave Anarchist Movement and its Subsequent Narratives." Anarchism & Sexuality: Ethics, Relationships and Power. Edited by Jamie Heckert and Richard Cleminson. New York: Routledge, 2011. 25-44.

Avrich, Paul. Anarchist Voices: An Oral History of Anarchism in America. Edinburgh: AK Press, 2005.

—., ed. The Anarchists in the Russian Revolution. London: Thames and Hudson Limited, 1973.

—. The Russian Anarchists. Edinburgh: AK Press, 2005.

Bertalan, Hilton. "When Theories Meet: Emma Goldman and 'Post-Anarchism.'" Post- Anarchism: A Reader. Edited by Duane Rousselle and Siireyyya Evren. London: Pluto Press, 2011.208-230.

Blake, Linnie. "A Jew, A Red, A Whore, A Bomber: Becoming Emma Goldman, Rhizomatic Intellectual." Angelaki 2, no. 3 (1997): 179-190.

Bookchin, Murray. Social Anarchism or Lifestyle Anarchism: An Unbridgeable Chasm. Edinburgh: AK Press, 1995.

Brown, Wendy. "Wounded Attachments." Political Theory 21, no. 3 (1993): 390-410.

Call, Lewis. Postmodern Anarchism. Lanham: Lexington Books, 2002.

Carr, Edward Hallett. The Bolshevik Revolution 1917-1923. Volume I, A History of Soviet Russia. New York: W. W. Norton & Company, 1950.

Christian, David. Imperial and Soviet Russia: Power, Privilege, and the Challenge of Modernity. New York: St. Martin's Press, 1997.

Cohn, Jesse. "What is Anarchist Literary Theory?" Anarchist Studies 15, no. 2 (2007): 115-131.

—. Anarchism and the Crisis of Representation: Hermeneutics, Aesthetics, Politics. Selinsgrove: Susquehanna University Press, 2006. 116

Day, Janet E. "The 'Individual' in Goldman's Anarchist Theory." Feminist Interpretations of Emma Goldman. Edited by Penny A. Weiss and Loretta Kensinger. University Park: Pennsylvania State University Press, 2007. 109-136.

Day, Richard J.F. "Hegemony, Affinity, and the Newest Social Movements: at the End of the 00s." Post-Anarchism: A Reader. Edited by Duane Rousselle and Siireyyya Evren. London: Pluto Press, 2011. 95-116.

Dreyfus, Hubert L. And Paul Rabinow. Michel Foucault: Beyond Structuralism and Hermeneutics. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 1982.

Drinnon, Richard. Rebel in Paradise: A Biography of Emma Goldman. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1961.

Eakin, Paul John, Ed. American Autobiography: Retrospect and Prospect. Madison: The University of Wisconsin Press, 1991.

Falk, Candace. Love, Anarchy, and Emma Goldman. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 1984.

Fellner, Gene, Ed. Life of an Anarchist: The Alexander Berkman Reader. New York: Seven Stories Press, 2005.

Ferguson, Kathy. "E.G.: Emma Goldman, For Example." Feminism and the Final Foucault. Edited by Dianna Taylor and Karen Vintges. Chicago: University of Illinois Press, 2004. 28-40.

—. Emma Goldman: Political Thinking in the Streets. Lanham: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, 2011.

Foucault, Michel. "Afterword: The Subject and Power." Michel Foucault: Beyond Structuralism and Hermeneutics. Hubert L. Dreyfus and Paul Rabinow. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 1982. 208-226.

—. "Technologies of the Self." Technologies of the Self A Seminar with Michel Foucault. Edited by Luther H. Martin, Huck Gutman, and Patrick H. Hutton. Amherst: The University of Massachusetts Press, 1988. 16-49.

Gannon, Susanne. "The (Im)Possibilities of Writing the Self-Writing: French Poststructural Theory and Autoethnography." Cultural Studies *-> Critical Methodologies 6, no. 4 (2006): 474-495.

Gelderloos, Peter. How Nonviolence Protects the State. Cambridge: South End Press, 2007. 117

Gelfant, Blanche H. "Speaking Her Own Piece: Emma Goldman and the Discursive Skeins of Autobiography." American Autobiography: Retrospect and Prospect. Edited by Paul John Eakin. Madison: The University of Wisconsin Press, 1991. 235-266.

Glassgold, Peter. "Introduction: The Life and Death of Mother Earth." Anarchy! An Anthology of Emma Goldman's Mother Earth. Edited by Peter Glassgold. New York: Counterpoint, 2000. xv-xxxvi.

Goldman, Emma. "Alexander Berkman." Anarchy! An Anthology of Emma Goldman's Mother Earth. Edited by Peter Glassgold. New York: Counterpoint, 2000. 14-16.

—. "Leon Czolgosz." Anarchy! An Anthology of Emma Goldman's Mother Earth. Edited by Peter Glassgold. New York: Counterpoint, 2000. 16-21.

—. Living My Life. New York: Dover Publications, 1970.

—. "Minorities versus Majorities." Anarchism and Other Essays. Mineola: Dover Publications, 1969.69-78.

—. My Disillusionment in Russia. Mineola: Dover Publications, 2003.

—. "Preface." Anarchism and Other Essays. Mineola: Dover Publications, 1969. 41-5.

—. "The Tragedy of Woman's Emancipation." Anarchism and Other Essays. Mineola: Dover Publications, 1969. 213-225.

Graeber, David. Fragments of an Anarchist Anthropology. Chicago: Prickly Paradigm Press, 2004. http://prickly-paradigm.com/titles/fragments-anarchist-anthropology.

Greimas, Algirdas Julien. On Meaning: Selected Writings in Semiotic Theory. Translated by Paul J. Perron and Frank H. Collins. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 1987.

Greimas, A. J. And F. Rastier. "The Interaction of Semiotic Constraints." Yale French Studies no. 41 (1968): 86-105.

Haaland, Bonnie. Emma Goldman: Sexuality and the Impurity of the State. Montreal: Black Rose Books, 1993.

Heckert, Jamie and Richard Cleminson, Eds. Anarchism & Sexuality: Ethics, Relationships and Power. New York: Routledge, 2011. 118

Jameson, Frederic. Foreword to On Meaning: Selected Writings in Semiotic Theory, by Algirdas Julien Greimas, vi-xxii. Translated by Paul J. Perron and Frank H. Collins. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 1987.

—. The Political Unconscious: Narrative as a Socially Symbolic Act. Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1981.

Jelinek, Estelle C, Ed. Women's Autobiography: Essays in Criticism. Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1980.

Jun, Nathan. "Reconsidering Post-Structuralism and Anarchism." Post-Anarchism: A Reader. Edited by Duane Rousselle and Siireyyya Evren. London: Pluto Press, 2011.231-249.

Kaiser, Daniel H., Ed. The Workers' Revolution in Russia, 1917: The View from Below. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1987.

Kropotkin, Peter. "Two Letters to Lenin." 1920. In The Anarchists in the Russian Revolution." Edited by Paul Avrich. London: Thames and Hudson Limited, 1973. 146-9.

Mally, Lynn. Culture of the Future: The Proletkult Movement in Revolutionary Russia. Berkeley: University of Press, 1990.

Marshall, Peter. Demanding the Impossible: A History of Anarchism. London: Harper Perennial, 2008.

Martin, Luther H., Huch Gutman and Patrick H. Hutton, Eds. Technologies of the Self A Seminar with Michel Foucault. Amherst: The University of Massachusetts Press, 1988.

May, Todd. The Political Philosophy of Poststructuralist Anarchism. University Park: The Pennsylvania State University Press, 1994.

McKenzie, Jonathan and Craig Stalbaum. "Manufacturing Consensus: Goldman, Kropotkin, and the Order of an Anarchist Canon." Feminist Interpretations of Emma Goldman. Edited by Penny A. Weiss and Loretta Kensinger. University Park: Pennsylvania State University Press, 2007. 197-216.

Morgan, Kevin. "Herald of the Future? Emma Goldman, Friedrich Nietzsche and the Anarchist as Superman." Anarchist Studies 17, no. 2 (2009): 55-80.

Moritz, Theresa and Albert Moritz. The World's Most Dangerous Woman: A New Biography of Emma Goldman. Vancouver: Subway Books, 2001. 119

Newman, Saul. From Bakunin to Lacan: Anti-Authoritarianism and the Dislocation of Power. Lanham: Lexington Books, 2001.

Nicholson, C. Brid. Emma Goldman: Still Dangerous. Montreal: Black Rose Books, 2010.

Ostman, Heather. "The Most Dangerous Woman in America': Emma Goldman and the Rhetoric of Motherhood in Living My Life." Prose Studies 31, no. 1 (2009): 55-73.

Ponomareff, Constantin V. One Less Hope: Essays on Twentieth Century Russian Poets. Amsterdam: Editions Rodopi B.V., 2006.

Porter, David, Ed. Vision on Fire: Emma Goldman on the Spanish Revolution. Edinburgh: AK Press, 2006.

Poster, Mark. Critical Theory and Poststructuralism: In Search of a Context. Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1989.

Rosenberg, William G. "Russian Labor and Bolshevik Power: Social Dimensions of Protest in Petrograd After October." The Workers' Revolution in Russia, 1917: The View from Below. Edited by Daniel H. Kaiser. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1987.98-131.

Rousselle, Duane and Siireyyya Evren, Eds. Post-Anarchism: A Reader. London: Pluto Press, 2011.

Schurmann, Reiner. "On Constituting Oneself an Anarchistic Subject." Praxis International 6, no. 3 (1986): 294-310.

Sergven, M. "Paths of Revolution." 1918. In The Anarchists in the Russian Revolution. Edited by Paul Avrich. London: Thames and Hudson Limited, 1973. 122-5.

Shulman, Alix Kates. "Emma Goldman's Feminism: A Reappraisal." Red Emma Speaks. Edited by Alix Kates Shulman. New York: Schocken Books, 1983.

Spacks, Patricia Meyer. "Selves in Hiding." Women's Autobiography: Essays in Criticism. Edited by Estelle C. Jelinek. Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1980. 112- 132.

Taylor, Dianna and Karen Vintges, Eds. Feminism and the Final Foucault. Chicago: University of Illinois Press, 2004.

Watson, Martha. Lives of Their Own: Rhetorical Dimensions in Autobiographies of Women Activists. Columbia: University of South Carolina Press, 1999. 120

Wehling, Jason. "Anarchy in Interpretation: The Life of Emma Goldman." Feminist Interpretations of Emma Goldman. Edited by Penny A. Weiss and Loretta Kensinger. University Park: Pennsylvania State University Press, 2007. 19-37.

Weiss, Penny A. and Loretta Kensinger, Eds. Feminist Interpretations of Emma Goldman. University Park: Pennsylvania State University Press, 2007.

Wexler, Alice. Emma Goldman: An Intimate Life. New York: Pantheon Books, 1984.

—. Emma Goldman in Exile: From the Russian Revolution to the Spanish Civil War. Boston: Beacon Press, 1989.

Williams, Raymond. Keywords: A Vocabulary of Culture and Society. New York: Oxford University Press, 1983.

Zizek, Slavoj. "Introduction: Between the Two Revolutions." Revolution at the Gates: Selected Writings of Lenin from 1917. Edited by Slavoj Zizek. London: Verso, 2002. 3-12.