or a feeling of inability to influence the society in which we live; (b) meaninglessness – a feeling of lack of guides for conduct and belief, with (c) normlessness – a feeling that illegitimate means are required to meet approved goals; (d) isolation – estrangement from given norms and goals; (e) self-estrangement – an inability to find genuinely satisfying activities. This abstract classification, characteristically reduced to psychological states and without reference to specific social and historical processes, is useful in showing the very wide range which common use of the term now involves. Durkheim’s term, anomie, which has been also adopted in English, overlaps with alienation especially in relation to (b) and (c), the absence of or the failure to find adequate or convincing norms for social relationship and self-fulfilment.
It is clear from the present extent and intensity of the use of alienation that there is widespread and important experience which, in these varying ways, the word and its varying specific concepts offer to describe and interpret. There has been some impatience with its difficulties, and a tendency to reject it as merely fashionable. But it seems better to face the difficulties of the word and through them the difficulties which its extraordinary history and variation of usage indicate and record. In its evidence of extensive feeling of a division between man and society, it is a crucial element in a very general structure of meanings.
See CIVILIZATION, INDIVIDUAL, MAN, PSYCHOLOGICAL, SUBJECTIVE
Anarchy came into English in mC16, from fw anarchie, F, rw anarchia, Gk – a state without a leader. Its earliest uses are not too far from the early hostile uses of DEMOCRACY (q.v.): ‘this unleful lyberty or lycence of the multytude is called an Anarchie’ (1539). But it came through as primarily a description of any kind of disorder or chaos (Gk – chasm or void). Anarchism, from mC17, and anarchist, from lC17, remained, however, much nearer the political sense: ‘Anarchism, the Doctrine, Positions or Art of those that teach anarchy; also the being itself of the people without a Prince or Ruler’ (1656). The anarchists thus characterized are very close to democrats and republicans, in their older senses; there was also an association of anarchists and atheists (Cudworth, 1678). It is interesting that as late as 1862 Spencer wrote: ‘the anarchist … denies the right of any government … to trench upon his individual freedom’; these are now often the terms of a certain modern liberalism or indeed of a radical conservatism.
However the terms began to shift in the specific context of the French Revolution, when the Girondins attacked their radical opponents as anarchists, in the older general sense. This had the effect of identifying anarchism with a range of radical political tendencies, and the term of abuse seems first to have been positively adopted by Proudhon, in 1840. From this period anarchism is a major tendency within the socialist and labour movements, often in conflict with centralizing versions of Marxism and other forms of SOCIALISM (q.v.). From the 1870s groups which had previously defined themselves as mutualists, federalists or anti-authoritarians consciously adopted anarchists as their identification, and this broad movement developed into revolutionary organizations which were opposed to ‘state socialism’ and to the ‘dictatorship of the proletariat’. The important anarcho-syndicalist movement founded social organization on self-governing collectives, based on trade unions; these would be substituted for all forms of state organization.
Also, however, mainly between the 1870s and 1914, one minority tendency in anarchism had adopted tactics of individual violence and assassination, against political rulers. A strong residual sense of anarchist as this kind of terrorist (in the language, with terrorism, from Cl8) has not been forgotten, though it is clearly separate from the mainstream anarchist movement.
Conscious self-styled anarchism is still a significant political movement, but it is interesting that many anarchist ideas and proposals have been taken up in later phases of Marxist and other revolutionary socialist thought, though the distance from the word, with all its older implications, is usually carefully maintained.
See DEMOCRACY, LIBERAL, LIBERATION, RADICAL, REVOLUTION, SOCIALISM, VIOLENCE
Anthropology came into English in lC16. The first recorded use, from R. Harvey in 1593, has a modern ring: ‘Genealogy or issue which they had, Artes which they studied, Actes which they did. This part of History is named Anthropology.’ Yet a different sense was to become predominant, for the next three centuries. Anthropologos, Gk – discourse and study of man, with the implied substantive form anthropologia, had been used by Aristotle, and was revived in 1594–5 by Casmann: Psychologica Anthropologica, sive Animae Humanae Doctrina and Anthropologia: II, hoc est de fabrica Humani Corporis. The modern terms for the two parts of Casmann’s work would be PSYCHOLOGY (q.v.) and physiology, but of course the point was the linkage, in a sense that was still active in a standard C18 definition: ‘Anthropology includes the consideration both of the human body and soul, with the laws of their union, and the effects thereof, as sensation, motion, etc.’ What then came through was a specialization of physical studies, either (i) in relation to the senses – ‘the analysis of our senses in the commonest books of anthropology’ (Coleridge, 1810) – or (ii) in application to problems of human physical diversity (cf. RACIAL) and of human EVOLUTION (q.v.). Thus until the later C19, the predominant meaning was in the branch of study we now distinguish as ‘physical anthropology’.
The emergence (or perhaps, remembering Harvey, the re-emergence) of a more general sense, for what we would now distinguish as ‘social’ or ‘cultural’ anthropology, is a C19 development closely associated with the development of the ideas of CIVILIZATION (q.v.) and especially CULTURE (q.v.). Indeed Tylor’s Primitive Culture (1870) is commonly taken, in the English-speaking world, as a founding text of the new science. This runs back, in one line, to Herder’s lC18 distinction of plural cultures – distinct ways of life, which need to be studied as wholes, rather than as stages of DEVELOPMENT (q.v.) towards European civilization. It runs back also, in another line, to concepts derived from this very notion (common in the thinkers of the C18 Enlightenment) of ‘stages’ of development, and notably to G. F. Klemm’s Allgemeine Kulturgeschichte der Menschheit – ‘General Cultural History of Mankind’ (1843–52) and Allgemeine Kulturwissenschaft – ‘General Science of Culture’ (1854–5). Klemm distinguished three stages of human development as savagery, domestication and freedom. In 1871 the American Lewis Morgan, a pioneer in linguistic studies of kinship, influentially defined three stages in his Ancient Society; or Researches in the Line of Human Progress from Savagery through Barbarism to Civilization. Through Engels this had a major influence on early Marxism. But the significance of this line for the idea of anthropology was its emphasis on ‘primitive’ (or ‘savage’) cultures, whether or not in a perspective of ‘development’. In the period of European imperialism and colonialism, and in the related period of American relations with the conquered Indian tribes, there was abundant material both for scientific study and for more general concerns. (Some of the latter were later systematized as ‘practical’ or ‘applied’ anthropology, bringing scientific knowledge to bear on governmental and administrative policies.) Yet the most important effect was the relative specialization of anthropology to ‘primitive’ cultures, though this work, when done, both provided models of studies of ‘whole and distinct ways of life’, with effects on the study of ‘human structures’, generalized in one tendency as STRUCTURALISM
