Emma Goldman: A Revolutionary American Anarchist and Feminist
SHOSHANA SCHWARTZ
Emma Goldman is arguably one of the most important American Anarchists in our country’s history. Born in 1869 in Lithuania, which was part of the Russian empire, she lived with poverty, injustice, and oppression from an early age. As a Jewish family living in Jewish ghettos, the Goldmans experienced significant anti-Semitism and were forced to move often to escape persecution and pursue opportunity. At thirteen, when Goldman moved to St. Petersburg, she became acquainted with radical-minded students who introduced her to revolutionary political and social ideas. However, this contrasted with her father’s conservative views that, “all a Jewish daughter needs to know is how to prepare gefüllte fish, cut noodles fine, and give the man plenty of children.” In turn, he forced her to stop her studies, work in a factory, and get married at fifteen (Emma Goldman, n.d.)
​
Dreaming of a new life in a new country that valued equality, justice, and freedom, Emma Goldman and her sister fled Russia in 1885 for the United States and settled in Rochester, New York. There, Goldman was met with the dismal realities for the working class. She found conditions in America similar or worse to the conditions she had earlier worked in the Russian factory. For example, the work pace was faster, the discipline was harsher, and she was only paid $.250 for a ten and a half-hour workday. Additionally, family and communal life were as strict as the life she left behind in Russia. Goldman was disappointed in the America she immigrated to and now called home (Emma Goldman, n.d.)
​
A series of unjust events sparked Goldman’s political awakening. The Chicago Haymarket Square Massacre that occurred in 1886 forever changed Goldman. As the police attempted to stop the protest, a bomb exploded, injuring many and killing a police officer, followed by further chaos and death by police gunfire. Several noteworthy Chicago anarchists, despite weak evidence, were accused of the bomb explosion by the press and police, and eight were convicted of murder, with seven sentenced to death. Outraged and convinced of the men’s innocence, Goldman began educating herself and read everything she could find on anarchism (Emma Goldman, n.d.).
​
Goldman defined anarchy as, “the philosophy of a new social order based on liberty unrestricted by man-made law; the theory that all forms of government rest on violence, and are therefore wrong and harmful, as well as unnecessary,” in her 1910 essay entitled “Anarchism: What It Really Stands For” (Goldman, 1910). Goldman and her anarchist comrades believed that a state with absolute freedom was impossible to come about through gradual reform, which is why they advocated for the State’s destruction. Further, she believed that anarchists should be atheists, without the bonds of religion, no matter which religion, as they are typically tied to institutions. Moreover, Goldman preached non-violence. However, this was a complicated issue for her. She defended anarchists who used violence to destroy the state or political figures, such as Leon Czolgosz, who assassinated President McKinley and was inspired by Goldman.
​
What made Goldman truly revolutionary and iconic was her feminist ideas about sex and gender as they intersected with anarchism, which is why many authority figures feared her, going as far as having her deported back to Russia. Nearly one hundred years later, her thoughts on these topics, “I demand the independence of women... her right to support herself; to live for herself; to love whomever she pleases, or as many as she pleases,” have not been fully realized in today’s society (Goldman, 1897). Further, Emma Goldman is an understudied figure in American history to this day out of the perceived threat her ideas pose to our current democratic system and political structure. To prove this claim, I will present information on Goldman’s thoughts on sex and gender as they intersected with anarchism through her published writing, whether Goldman’s personal actions and opinions on these subjects matched her public standpoints, whether Goldman’s viewpoints evolved over time or if they remained static, if Goldman can respect and acknowledge differing anarchist views-— as this is an important aspect to anarchism, if Goldman believed in innate or natural characteristics— psychological, emotional, not just anatomical— that were different for men and women? Or if she argued that gender was entirely a social construct and that beyond sexual anatomy, men and women were in all other regards the same? And that calling her journal Mother Earth signifies her understanding of sex and gender.
Goldman on Gender:
Unlike many anarchists of her time, who assumed that the problems women faced would diminish when anarchism ushered in a new society, Goldman worked from the conviction that women labored under distinct disabilities, which had distinct causes. Throughout her career, Goldman addressed the need for women's economic, social, and sexual emancipation. According to her, the patriarchal family, sexual and reproductive repression, and financial difficulties all contributed to women's inferior status and prevented their individuality's full flowering.
Chapter 10: The Tragedy of Woman’s Emancipation, in “Anarchism and Other Essays,” written by Goldman explicitly states that there are, “artificial boundary lines between woman’s rights and man’s rights” (Goldman, 1910). Therefore, Goldman believes that gender is entirely a social construct, and beyond sexual anatomy, men and women are the same in all other regards. Further, Goldman writes, “peace or harmony between the sexes and individuals does not necessarily depend on a superficial equalization of human beings; nor does it call for the elimination of individual traits and peculiarities. The problem that confronts us today, and which the nearest future is to solve, is how to be one’s self and yet in oneness with others, to feel deeply with all human beings and still retain one’s own characteristic qualities. This seems to me to be the basis upon which the mass and the individual, the true democrat and the true individuality, man and woman, can meet without antagonism and opposition. The motto should not be: Forgive one another; rather, Understand one another” (Goldman, 1910). Goldman believes that there is a lack of understanding between the two genders, so real emancipation will not occur until the two genders get to know each other and truly understand each other. When this basic understanding is achieved, neither gender nor any person will have to lose their unique identity traits or characteristics.
Goldman on Suffrage:
Real emancipation for women would be achieved when they are free to dictate their own destinies. This emancipation vision should make it possible for women to be human in the truest sense of the word. Therefore, the emancipation Goldman calls for is different than the type suffragists envisioned, which is women gaining emancipation through the right to vote. To Goldman, suffrage is just an artificial barrier holding women back. Goldman says that, “ there is no hope even that woman, with her right to vote, will ever purify politics” (Goldman, 1910). Goldman views suffrage as an artificial emancipation, that the leaders of woman suffrage, “ have been claiming that miraculous results would follow the enfranchisement of women. All the social and economic evils of past centuries would be abolished once women will get the vote. All the wrongs and injustices, all the crimes and horrors of the ages would be eliminated from life by the magic decree of a scrap of paper” (Goldman 1917). It is important to note that as an anarchist, Goldman has no interest in working within the political system, as she completely wants to abolish it. So to Goldman, suffrage does not hold any significance, as it does not acknowledge or amend all the past injustices committed against women.
​
Further, Goldman argues that voting does not do anything to exert any influence on women's social and economic lives. Moreover, Goldman uses English suffragist Emmeline Pankhurst as an example that even suffragists forget their principles when they get involved in politics. For instance, Pankhurst said that, “ woman is more humane than man, and that she never would be guilty of his crimes: for one thing, women do not believe in war and will never support wars” (Goldman, 1917). However, England eventually joined the war, for “humanitarian reasons” and suffrage ladies forgot all their guiding principles and engaged in militant activity for the government. Pankhurst and her peers became more passionate about the war and even used their sexual attraction to lure unwilling men into fighting the war. Goldman states their participation in the war effort as the real reason they were given suffrage.
​
Goldman is very critical of the American suffrage movement, stating that it has not had any original ideas since the era of Elizabeth Cady Stanton, Lucy Stone, and Susan Anthony. She says that the American suffragists are just getting their ideas from the English suffragists. Goldman had other issues with the suffrage movement. First, she saw the movement as conservative and benefiting the middle class primarily. Second, she believed that suffrage would disillusion women into believing there have been improvements to a fundamentally corrupt system. To her, these causes were mere distractions from more critical internal struggles. However, this condemnation of suffragists isolated her from a group of potential anarchists. Moreover, anarchy is about community and direct democracy. Goldman’s inability to be flexible in who can be an anarchist and fight for equality, and respecting different views, has led many to criticize her for being too rigid.
Goldman on Marriage:
Goldman considers marriage and love as two different conditions; they are not synonymous, do not spring from the same motives, and do not cover the same human needs, which most people are mistaken about. This is not to say that some marriages cannot grow out of love; instead, those types of people can outgrow a convention. Goldman states that many individuals still submit to marriage for the sake of public opinion. However, Goldman says that it is an utterly false statement that love results from marriage. One must only look at the divorce rate statistics to see that marriage is a failure (Goldman, 1914).
​
Goldman believes that marriage hinders both men and women alike. Moreover, “Marriage is primarily an economic arrangement, an insurance pact. It differs from the ordinary life insurance agreement only in that it is more binding, more exacting. Its returns are insignificantly small compared with the investments. In taking out an insurance policy one pays for it in dollars and cents, always at liberty to discontinue payments. If, however, woman’s premium is a husband, she pays for it with her name, her privacy, her self-respect, her very life, “until death doth part.” Moreover, the marriage insurance condemns her to lifelong dependency, to parasitism, to complete uselessness, individually as well as socially. Man, too, pays his toll, but as his sphere is wider, marriage does not limit him as much as woman. He feels his chains more in an economic sense” (Goldman, 1914). To Goldman, men and women alike put into marriage more than they get out of it, making marriage a bad investment. Further, both sexes lose a lot by getting married, such as respect, privacy, individuality, and life itself as freedom is lost. However, to man, as his position in society is much higher, he is only really hurt economically by marriage. Goldman uses strong words with strong associations to describe marriage, such as “slavery”.
​
Goldman continues that we wrongly prepare girls for marriage since infancy. Marriage is their ultimate goal, and all her training and education is directed towards finding a husband rather than growing as an individual in terms of wit and knowledge gained. Further, the basis of who you should marry is off in Goldman’s opinion. Who you should marry is not based on who makes you happiest or who shows you true love and affection, but rather who can provide for you, if the man can make a respectable living to support a wife (Goldman, 1914).
Goldman on Free Love:
Unlike some of her anarchist colleagues, whose radical politics were matched by often conventional private lives, Goldman believed individuals should enter into and leave personal relationships with no constraints, a view determined by her commitment to the principle of absolute freedom due to her own disappointing experience of marriage. Goldman applied her ideas about free love consistently to women and men, gays and heterosexuals. Her advocacy of gay rights earned her opposition even from some within the anarchist community, who believed such an unpopular position would only heighten hostility toward the anarchist movement. This is another reason why many disliked Goldman as an anarchist, as they believed that she was too rigid and limiting due to some of her more radical views.
​
In one of her later writing pieces that reflected on the life she lived in her autobiography “Living My Life,” Goldman stated in 1889, “If I ever love a man again... I will give myself to him without being bound by the rabbi or the law, and when that love dies, I will leave without permission” (Goldman, 1936). Goldman engaged in numerous passionate love affairs throughout her life, as she believed that love and sexuality were crucial to personal and professional development. In Goldman’s essay entitled “Jealousy: Causes and Possible Cure,” she states that jealousy lives within all of us, as it is within our human nature. Therefore, when we recognize this, we can stop blaming our loved ones for something inevitable as part of themselves and outgrow petty hatred and blaming and hounding one another (Goldman, n.d.)
​
Goldman recognizes that, “ Sex emotions and love are among the most intimate, the most intense and sensitive, expressions of our being. They are so deeply related to individual physical and psychic traits as to stamp each love affair an independent affair, unlike any other love affair. In other words, each love is the result of the impressions and characteristics the two people involved give to it. Every love relation should by its very nature remain an absolutely private affair. Neither the State, the Church, morality, or people should meddle with it” (Goldman, n.d.). By keeping our relationships private, fewer people meddle in our personal affairs, which leads to fewer complications. Love and sexual emotions are complicated enough without adding the feelings and inputs of others into the personal relationship of the two in the affair. Hence, Goldman’s argument for free love and living a sexual life void of marriage.
​
Goldman says that we are the reason to blame for our own jealousy as, “in the past, when men and women intermingled freely without interference of law and morality, there could be no jealousy, because the latter rests upon the assumption that a certain man has an exclusive sex monopoly over a certain woman and vice versa. The moment anyone dares to trespass this sacred precept, jealousy is up in arms. Under such circumstances it is ridiculous to say that jealousy is perfectly natural. As a matter of fact, it is the artificial result of an artificial cause, nothing else” (Goldman, n.d.) Humans are not meant to mate with one person for life; this unnatural notion comes from introducing institutions such as the state and religion that impose moral codes and physical laws to dictate who we love and how we love them. Therefore, the unnatural human emotion of jealousy arose. Suppose we lead a life of free love, having multiple partners, and having the ability to leave freely when a relationship no longer serves its purpose. In that case, the amount of jealousy, hatred, and blame we place on each other will naturally decrease.
Controversy Between Goldman’s Views on Love in Her Personal and Public Life:
Goldman is often most criticized for the controversy between the hypocrisy of her display of love in her personal life from what she preaches in her public speeches and writings. Goldman often cycled between the energy, excitement, and elation that accompanied a new affair and the despair and hopelessness she experienced when the relationship failed to live up to her expectations. Despite her commitment to free love, Goldman was unable to overcome desperate feelings of jealousy, and she had trouble reconciling her public image as a strong, independent woman with the insecurity and pain men caused her. However, this should not diminish Goldman or the principles or ideals that she advocated for. Love is a tricky concept that we do not have much control over; it is an area embedded with deep emotions. Most people say they want one thing in the realm of love and then end up pursuing the opposite out of affections for a particular person or changed views on what a relationship with a certain person can look like.
​
The scholarly article, “Gender and Genre in Emma Goldman” supports my views as Ferguson writes that it is vital to, “nuge feminist thinking about Goldman away from a concern with consistency between ideology and behavior and toward a heigbtened appreciation of her radical vision for political change” (Ferguson, 2011). Some feminists view Goldman’s decision to not change her viewpoints out of her personal affairs as a strategic way of avoiding discrediting herself with her own “personal failures”. Instead, feminists should view Goldman’s personal struggles with free love as, “an example of how even the most radical and forward thinking women get trapped by the contemporary patriarchal norms under which they often live, often even unconsciously internalizing these norms” (Ferguson, 2011). This type of reflection of Goldman recognizes her shortcomings without discrediting a valuable philosophy that one can try to live by, acknowledging how it is challenging to live out in the partriacrical society that we are a part of. Further, Goldman’s personal struggles deepen our understanding of the psychological tensions and conflicts that women faced at that particular moment of rapid historical change in women's role in society.
Goldman on Reproduction:
Due to the Comstock Act's passage in 1873, it was illegal in most states for anyone to dispense information about contraception. However, this did not stop Emma Goldman from being an early crusader for family planning, which is why she is a true feminist icon. This advocacy led to Goldman’s arrest on obscenity charges. Goldman wrote “Letter to The Press” in 1916 to explain her motivation for sharing information about birth control, even though it was illegal to do so. In her letter, Goldman explains that the birth control movement is worldwide and has supporters and sponsors in Europe and North America with scientific and humanitarian minds.
​
Goldman argues that birth control is backed by science, sociology, and economic necessity. Goldman mentions that she has delivered many speeches on birth control attended by thousands, indicating many Americans wanted to learn about the topic, leading her to hold more events on the issue. Goldman further indicated that each lecture was delivered peacefully. However, en route to deliver a speech on atheism, which has no connection to birth control, Goldman was arrested. Goldman explains why dispensing this knowledge was worth the arrest. She said that workers and professionals alike could not meet numerous children's demands, which has led to a desperate condition. Goldman believes the law related to speech around birth control is outdated, and therefore must go; the only way to do this is through awakening the public about her arrest, hence her letter to the press (Goldman, 1916).
Mother Earth’s Name Origin:
The deliberate naming of Emma Goldman and partner Alexander Berkman’s anarchist news journal, Mother Earth, further reveals their thoughts on gender. Goldman wrote about the meaning behind the journal's name in her article, “Mother Earth”, published in 1906. She starts off by mentioning that before the age of science, men imagined the Earth as the center of the universe, with the stars being created merely for their delectation. In this vain thinking, man showed that a supreme being, a planet, had manufactured a toy for them to possess. Man came from Mother Earth's womb and owes her his life. Goldman writes, “In his egotism he sought an explanation of himself in the infinite, and out of his efforts there arose the dreary doctrine that he was not related to the Earth, that she was but a temporary resting place for his scornful feet and that she held nothing for him but temptation to degrade himself” (Goldman, 1906). Further, Goldman scorns man for creating non-scientific concepts off of Mother Earth, such as heaven and hell.
​
There is a second meaning behind the journal’s name Mother Earth. To American spearheads, such as George Washington, “America appeared vast, boundless, full of promise. Mother Earth, with the sources of vast wealth hidden within the folds of her ample bosom, extended her inviting and hospitable arms to all those who came to her from arbitrary and despotic lands — Mother Earth ready to give herself alike to all her children” (Goldman, 1906). However, Goldman says that Mother Earth was seized by the few and stripped of her freedom. After these forefathers fought for independence from England, they became dependent among themselves; dependent on possessions, on wealth, on power. Liberty was lost, and the class war between the patrician and plebian broke out, leading to the creation of, “ arbitrary state which subdued a vast number of its people into material and intellectual slavery, while enabling the privileged few to monopolize every material and mental resource” (Goldman, 1906).
Evolution of Goldman’s Ideas:
After evaluating Goldman’s ideas on sex and gender as they intersected with anarchism from 1897 to 1936, they remained static. I think this is because her ideas were so far-fetched and radical, and she did not care or let her colleagues differing opinions on the subject matter sway her own as they were too important and personal to her. There was more change in Goldman’s views on the other topics Goldman voiced her opinion on, such as her advocacy of socialism, especially Russia’s model, and outbreaks of violence’s role in anarchy. Goldman demonstrated she was willing to amend her standpoints when presented with evidence differing from her opinions.
​
In summation, decades after her death, Goldman's ideas remain vibrant and controversial. Her pioneering advocacy of workers' rights, women's rights, and sexual freedom helped to shape modern American society. Her work contributed directly to the advance of free speech and the legalization of birth control in the U.S. Her own experiences, moreover, closely anticipated debates on some of today's most important political and social issues that have not been realized nearly one hundred years after her passing; showing how revolutionary in thought she was. So revolutionary in thought, she essentially envisioned the Anarcha-feminism movement, which generally posits that patriarchy and traditional gender roles as manifestations of involuntary coercive hierarchy that should be replaced by decentralized free association. This movement did not exist in her time.
References
“Emma Goldman.” Accessed December 14, 2020. https://jwa.org/womenofvalor/goldman.
Ferguson, Kathy E. "Gender and Genre in Emma Goldman." Signs 36, no. 3 (2011): 733-57. Accessed December 15, 2020. doi:10.1086/657497.
​
Goldman, Emma. “Anarchism and Other Essays.” The Anarchist Library, 1910.https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/emma-goldman-anarchism-and-other-essays.
​
Goldman, Emma. “Anarchism: What It Really Stands For ,” 1910.http://dwardmac.pitzer.edu/anarchist_archives/goldman/aando/anarchism.html.
​
Goldman, Emma. “Anarchism and Other Essays.” The Anarchist Library, 1910.https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/emma-goldman-anarchism-and-other-essays.
Goldman, Emma. Letter to The Press. New York City , New York : Mother Earth Publishing Association, February 11, 19196. https://www.lib.berkeley.edu/goldman/pdfs/letter14.pdf
Goldman, Emma. “Living My Life.” The Anarchist Library, 1936. https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/emma-goldman-living-my-life.
Goldman, Emma. “Marriage,” July 18, 1897. https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/emma-goldman-marriage.
Goldman, Emma. “Marriage and Love.” The Anarchist Library, 1914.
https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/emma-goldman-marriage-and-love.
Goldman, Emma. “Mother Earth.” The Anarchist Library, 1906.
https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/emma-goldman-max-baginski-mother-earth.
Goldman, Emma. “The Woman Suffrage Chameleon.” The Anarchist Library, May 1917.
https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/emma-goldman-the-woman-suffrage-chameleon.
Shoshana Schwartz '21
My name is Shoshana Schwartz, and I live in Ardsley, New York. I am currently a junior in the Castle Scholars Honors Program at Manhattanville College. I am completing a double major in Political Science and History. Further, I am enrolled in Manhattanville's School of Education Dual Degree Honors Program. Therefore, I will be receiving my master's degree in Early Childhood and Childhood Education after one year of graduate school. Upon finishing my master's degree, I aspire to be an elementary school teacher in a local public school district in Westchester County, New York. Since High School, I have held various roles where I have worked closely with children, from being an ice skating instructor, babysitter, camp counselor, and tutor. Through these positions, I have come to realize how rewarding it is to be a part of a child's life and help them develop and learn. As an elementary school teacher, I hope to create a welcoming and nurturing classroom community to inspire and support my students along their academic and social-emotional developmental journey. Further, I look forward to building a positive relationship with every one of my students. Attending Manhattanville College has been an enriching experience as it has provided me with a well-rounded liberal arts education. I have been exposed to many different academic areas of study, which has furthered my intellectual curiosity and helped me to develop new passions such as environmental science and art history. The college's small class sizes has allowed me to build strong relationships with my professors, as I have been fortunate to take multiple courses with many of them; this has been a great advantage to my education. One such professor is Professor Morris, as I had the pleasure of taking a class with him in the Fall of 2020. The research paper that I am presenting was done for his Anarchy in the USA Castle Scholars Honors Course.