Rousseau argued against this partly by suggesting that, even without
the state, Men were social animals who would co-operate (although
Locke concedes such co-operation might generate disputes for which
an impartial arbitrator would be useful).Is the state necessary?
As we saw in an earlier chapter, there is evidence for Locke and
Rousseau’s view if we understand the debate to be a literal one.
Societies like the Tiv, Zuni or Dobu do not have a centralised decision-
making apparatus claiming authority over a given territorial area.
Thus the state may be desirable, but it is not, strictly speaking,
necessary. However, it is difficult to envisage a modern industrial
large-scale society functioning without some such mechanism; diffi-
cult but not impossible since a small minority – anarchists – advocates
precisely this.
First it may be necessary to clarify the term ‘Anarchism’ (Box 3.1).
Our first definition represents the colloquial definition of anarchism –
supported by few, or no, political theorists, but dreaded by con-
servative politicians as the consequence of illegal popular political
action. Arguably it might be more correctly given as a definition of
‘anarchy’ rather than ‘anarchism’.BOX 3.1 DEFINITIONS OF ANARCHISM
52 CONCEPTS
1 Absence of government; a state of lawlessness due to the absence
or inefficiency of supreme power; political disorder.
(Shorter Oxford English Dictionary)
2 The Philosophy of a new social order based on liberty unrestricted by
man-made law; the theory that all forms of government rest on vio-
lence and are therefore wrong and harmful, as well as unnecessary.
(Goldman, 1915)
3 A doctrine which poses a criticism of existing society, a view of a
desirable future society; and a means of passing from one to the
other.
(Woodcock, 1975)