So I am really not sure what anarchy means.  I don't think I have a clear idea about democracy or fascism or totalitarianism, either.  The thing is--in their pure forms, all things make sense.  But when I look to define a term based on how it is practiced, then everything seems to blur together in a whirl of mess.  Theoretically, we live in a democratic state, but we have something called Homeland Security, which reeks of totalitarianism, right?  Wikipedia tells me that Homeland Security (or the practices it uses such as secret police and terror tactics) is part of a totalitarian regime.  We also capture people and do horrible water tactics on them, cruel and certainly unusual punishment.  So what are we?  Democratic or totalitarian?  You can see my confusion.

Anarchy is also confusing to me because anarchists are very organized.  I know this because my son is an anarchist and he goes to a lot of meetings.  There is a hierarchy in anarchist groups, lots of game playing and people with issues (just like anywhere).  Someone ends up sort of in control, and bam!  trouble.  The anarchist group can't run by anarchist principles.  Wikipedia tells me that anarchism stems from the root:  without rulers.  Well, tell that to the Friday night anarchists.

So I guess to be a true anarchist you have to live your life without a group or a clan.  You can reject authority but you can't go looking for "better" authority because you don't believe in it.    Except then I read that anarchists are involved in collectivism, but that's only some of the anarchists.  Others are into individualism, so you have to pick your anarchist stripe, and then be prepared to answer the questions about why you hang out in groups.

What I can agree with and understand is the need for a new leadership.  Truly what we have isn't working, and I fear that the great "hope" and potential for "change" will lead us down the road of maybe less war but much more of what we've had for a long time.  Call me pessimistic, but please look it up on wikipedia first.

So here's my thing.  I'm not sure where I read it, but I do think it was Ekhart Tolle, currently basking in the golden glow of Oprah.  I read Tolle years ago, and he is wonderful.  One of the most important concepts I took away from that book is using a term in order to prolong attachment and suffering.  So if I want to call myself a feminist, be a believer in feminism, then I am lumping myself into a group, a tribe, taking on the collective pain of that group.  I take on the struggle and the issues and become that label.  I think the same can be said for all political and social labels.  I am a white, feminist, democratic writer and teacher!  Hear me roar.

Mostly, I try not to be a label.  Mostly, I have a hard enough time just being myself. 

Jessica