Why we obey authority, when obedience is right, and when it is not. The ideas of anarchism — which asks whether we need rulers at all — and what they teach even those who disagree.
Young children are already navigating authority every day — from parents, teachers, older siblings, sports coaches, religious leaders, and so on. They are often told to obey without asking questions. This is sometimes appropriate — children cannot evaluate every instruction, and some adults are genuinely trying to keep them safe. But an early sense that rules deserve reasons, and that good authority explains itself, is one of the most protective habits a child can develop. It makes them harder to manipulate by bad authority and more able to cooperate with good authority. The goal at this age is simply to plant the idea that obedience is not automatic, that good rules have reasons, and that people can also organise themselves through fairness and agreement — not only through being told what to do. Handle with care. Do not undermine reasonable adult authority. The point is not rebellion for its own sake, but thoughtful cooperation. Some children live in contexts where questioning authority is genuinely dangerous — be sensitive. No materials are needed.
If a grown-up or older person tells you to do something, you should always do it.
Most of the time, grown-ups who look after you — parents, teachers, family members — are asking you to do sensible things, and it makes sense to cooperate. But not always. If a grown-up or older person tells you to do something clearly wrong — hurting someone, taking something that is not yours, keeping a secret about someone being hurt, touching someone in a way that feels wrong — the right thing is to say no, even though it is hard. Being good is more important than being obedient. Good grown-ups understand this and actually want children to know it. It is partly how children stay safe.
Groups of people need a boss — they cannot work together without one.
Groups often do have leaders, and leaders can help. But people can also work together through cooperation — each person contributing what they can, talking together, and deciding things as a group. Lots of real situations work this way — friends playing a game together, neighbours helping each other, teams working on a project. A good group usually uses both — some leadership when needed, lots of cooperation most of the time. Always having a boss is not the only way to get things done. Sometimes it is not even the best way.
Authority is the power to give orders that others follow, and to make decisions for others. Most human life involves authority of some kind — parents over children, teachers over students, bosses over workers, governments over citizens. Some authority is essential and good; some is harmful and should be resisted. Thinking carefully about authority — where it comes from, when it is legitimate, when it should be questioned — is one of the most important civic skills. Where does authority come from? Philosophers have offered different answers. Divine right — God or gods granted authority. Tradition — authority has always been this way. Consent — authority comes from the agreement of those governed. Expertise — authority is earned through knowledge or skill. Force — authority is imposed by power. Most real authority combines several of these. Modern democratic theory emphasises consent — governments are legitimate when citizens agree (through elections) to their authority. But the reality is always more complex. Anarchism is a political philosophy that questions authority more radically than most others. It argues that hierarchical authority — one person ordering another — should be minimised or eliminated, in favour of voluntary cooperation, mutual aid, and collective decision-making.
Anarchism is not the same as chaos. The word 'anarchy' in everyday speech often means disorder. In political philosophy, anarchism means 'without rulers' — not 'without rules'. Anarchists typically support rules that people agree to; they oppose rules imposed from above. Key anarchist thinkers include Pierre-Joseph Proudhon ('Property is theft!'), Peter Kropotkin ('Mutual Aid'), Emma Goldman (anarchist feminism), Mikhail Bakunin, and more recently Murray Bookchin, Noam Chomsky (a particular kind of anarchism), and David Graeber. Their ideas vary substantially — anarchism is not a single doctrine but a family of related views.
Authority should justify itself — every hierarchical relationship should be questioned, and only kept if it genuinely serves good purposes. Mutual aid — people naturally help each other and can organise cooperatively without being told. Direct action — solving problems directly rather than waiting for authorities to solve them. Prefigurative politics — living the kind of world you want to create, not waiting for revolution. Scepticism of the state — seeing state power as often serving powerful interests rather than ordinary people. Most people reject full anarchism — they think some state authority is necessary for things like coordinating large societies, protecting vulnerable people, handling conflicts. But anarchist thinking has influenced even those who disagree. Most modern democracies accept that authority requires justification (not just tradition), that citizens have the right to question authority, that cooperation and voluntary associations matter alongside state power, and that hierarchy should be minimised where possible. Why teach anarchism? Because thinking about extreme positions helps us understand more moderate ones. Even people who think some authority is necessary benefit from understanding why anarchists disagree. Even people who defend states benefit from taking seriously the challenge that authority must always justify itself. In a world where many children are taught to obey without questioning, learning to ask why authority has the right to command is a civic protection.
Do not treat anarchism as silly or extreme. Take it seriously as a position. Present it alongside other views. Help students see the strong points and weak points of both anarchist and pro-authority arguments. The goal is not to make anarchists; it is to help students think carefully about what authority is and when it is legitimate — a skill everyone needs regardless of their political conclusions.
Anarchism means chaos, violence, and a society with no rules at all.
This is the everyday meaning of 'anarchy' but not what anarchism actually means in political philosophy. Anarchism — 'without rulers' — does not mean 'without rules'. Anarchists generally support rules that people create and agree to together, especially through cooperation and consensus. What they oppose is hierarchical authority — one person ordering another. Most real anarchists have been committed to cooperation, mutual aid, and building functioning communities, not to chaos. The caricature of anarchism as violent chaos has often been used to dismiss its ideas rather than engage with them seriously. Whether you agree with anarchism or not, engaging with what it actually says is more useful than dismissing a caricature.
Questioning authority means being disrespectful or defiant.
Thoughtful questioning is not disrespect. Many good leaders, teachers, and parents welcome questions because they know their authority is stronger when it is understood rather than feared. A rule is easier to follow when you know why it exists. A leader is more trustworthy when they can explain their decisions. Questioning can be done respectfully, thoughtfully, and constructively. The opposite — silent obedience without understanding — can actually be worse for everyone. It means people follow bad rules along with good ones, without being able to tell the difference. Good democracies, good schools, and good families all welcome genuine questioning. Unhealthy systems punish it — which is itself a warning sign.
If you do not have a strong government, society will fall apart.
This is often assumed but the evidence is more complex. Many human societies throughout history have organised themselves with much less centralised state authority than modern nations have — through councils, elders, family networks, religious communities, and cooperative arrangements. Some of these worked well for long periods. Modern large-scale society does benefit from some state functions — coordinating infrastructure, protecting rights, handling disputes. But 'strong government' is not the only alternative to 'society falling apart'. Healthy societies have many sources of order — strong communities, good families, active civil society, cooperative businesses, trusted institutions — alongside whatever state they have. Countries that have weak governments but strong communities often hold together; countries with strong governments but weak communities often struggle.
Anarchism is a political philosophy that occupies an unusual position in political thought — often misunderstood, sometimes dismissed, but intellectually serious and practically influential in ways that go well beyond its adherents. Teaching it well requires distinguishing the serious tradition from the stereotype and engaging with its real arguments.
Political philosophy has long asked what justifies one person telling another what to do. Plato (expertise of philosopher-kings), Hobbes (contract to escape state of nature), Locke (consent of the governed for limited government), Rousseau (general will), and many others have offered answers. Modern democratic theory emphasises consent — legitimate authority comes from the agreement of those governed. But political philosophy has also included sustained scepticism about any authority. Anarchism is the most developed form of this scepticism.
The word 'anarchy' has ancient roots (from Greek 'without rulers'). Modern anarchism emerged as a named philosophy in the 19th century. William Godwin's 'Enquiry Concerning Political Justice' (1793) is sometimes called the first modern anarchist text. Pierre-Joseph Proudhon was the first to call himself an 'anarchist' in a positive sense, in 'What is Property?' (1840). The mid-19th century saw rapid development through Mikhail Bakunin (who split from Marx over the question of the state), Peter Kropotkin (who argued for 'anarchist communism' in works including 'The Conquest of Bread' and 'Mutual Aid'), and many others. Emma Goldman brought anarchist ideas to American audiences.
Authority must justify itself. Noam Chomsky has often articulated this principle — any hierarchical relationship should be questioned, and only kept if it can genuinely justify itself.
A Factor of Evolution' (1902) argued, against dominant readings of Darwin, that cooperation rather than competition is central to evolution, including human evolution. This has informed anarchist thinking about social organisation. Direct action and prefigurative politics. Rather than petitioning authorities or waiting for revolution, anarchists have tended to emphasise acting directly to build alternatives — cooperative businesses, mutual aid networks, squatting, anti-authoritarian organising. David Graeber coined 'prefigurative politics' for this approach.
Anarchists have been particularly critical of state power — seeing states as tending toward domination, serving elite interests, and producing violence through police, military, and prisons. Not all anarchists reject the state absolutely, but all are cautious.
Abolishing capitalism and state together, building cooperative communal society.
Workers organising through union-based cooperatives.
Focused on personal freedom.
Merging anarchist thought with ecological concerns.
Anarchism applied to gender hierarchies.
Developing anarchist thought through poststructuralist philosophy. Right-libertarian thought (sometimes called 'anarcho-capitalism' by its adherents) shares some vocabulary with anarchism but is generally not considered part of the anarchist tradition by left anarchists; it defends private property and hierarchy in ways traditional anarchism opposes.
Revolutionary Catalonia (1936-1939) during the Spanish Civil War — anarchists and anarcho-syndicalists organised significant parts of Catalonia along anarchist lines before the anarchist side was defeated militarily. The Ukrainian Free Territory (1918-1921), led by Nestor Makhno, attempted anarchist organisation during the Russian Civil War. The Zapatista autonomous communities in Chiapas, Mexico since 1994 incorporate significant anarchist-inspired elements. Rojava in northeast Syria has developed 'democratic confederalism', drawing partly on anarchist ideas (particularly Murray Bookchin's work), since the Syrian civil war. These experiments have mixed records — some achievements in cooperative organisation and reduced hierarchy, alongside significant challenges including military pressure, internal conflict, and sustainability. The state debate. Most people and political philosophers reject full anarchism.
Coordination at scale requires institutions; protecting vulnerable people often requires state-level resources; conflict resolution sometimes requires institutions with authority; public goods (infrastructure, defence, health care) are provided more reliably through state organisation; without state authority, local power imbalances can produce domination more severe than state domination.
Coordination can be achieved through federation of smaller units; mutual aid and voluntary associations can protect vulnerable people; conflicts can be resolved through consensus processes and voluntary arbitration; cooperative economics can provide public goods; state authority has historically produced extreme domination including genocide, so 'lesser evil' arguments are not always correct. These arguments are genuinely debated and neither side is simply right.
Even to non-anarchists, the tradition has contributed important ideas. The principle that authority must justify itself. Critical examination of institutions that have been taken for granted (marriage, wage labour, hierarchical workplaces, schools). Attention to how power works beyond the state (in corporations, families, cultural institutions). The importance of cooperation and mutual aid alongside competition. Recognition that prefigurative politics — living now the values you want for the world — matters. These ideas have influenced democratic movements, labour movements, feminism, environmentalism, and many other traditions.
Anarchist ideas have had unexpected revival in recent decades. The 1999 anti-WTO protests in Seattle, the 2011 Occupy movements, mutual aid networks that emerged during COVID-19, climate justice organising, and parts of the broader left have drawn significantly on anarchist methods and ideas. David Graeber's work, before his death in 2020, brought anarchist thought into wider discussion. Questions about state power, police, surveillance, and hierarchy in many institutions are being raised in ways that echo anarchist thinking, even where the word 'anarchism' is not used.
This is a topic that can seem abstract but is actually about everyday questions — why we obey, when we should resist, what legitimate authority looks like. Take the tradition seriously rather than dismissing it. Present the best version of anarchist arguments alongside the best version of pro-state arguments. Help students develop their own thinking about when authority deserves respect and when it does not — a civic skill everyone needs, regardless of their political conclusions.
Anarchism is a fringe position with no serious intellectual tradition.
Anarchism has a substantial intellectual tradition spanning nearly two centuries. Major thinkers include Pierre-Joseph Proudhon ('What is Property?', 1840), Mikhail Bakunin, Peter Kropotkin ('Mutual Aid'), Emma Goldman, Murray Bookchin, Noam Chomsky, and David Graeber. The tradition has produced substantial works of political philosophy, economics, anthropology, and social theory. It has influenced labour movements, civil rights activism, feminist theory, environmental thought, and contemporary political movements. Dismissing anarchism as fringe often reflects unfamiliarity with the tradition rather than engagement with it. One can disagree with anarchist conclusions while taking the tradition seriously. Most academic political theory does treat anarchism seriously, even where it rejects anarchist arguments.
Anarchism equals chaos and violence.
This conflates the everyday meaning of 'anarchy' (disorder) with the political philosophy. Anarchism literally means 'without rulers', not 'without rules'. Historical anarchist movements have been overwhelmingly committed to voluntary cooperation, mutual aid, and peaceful self-organisation, not to chaos. The stereotype of the 'bomb-throwing anarchist' exists because of a small minority of 19th-century anarchists who committed acts of violence (propaganda of the deed), and because states and media have emphasised these to discredit the broader tradition. Most anarchists have been peaceful community organisers, cooperative builders, labour organisers, and writers. To evaluate anarchism fairly, engage with what the tradition actually says — not with the caricature.
Mutual aid only works in small communities — it cannot scale.
This claim has some truth but is more complicated than it first appears. Small communities have certainly shown mutual aid clearly; larger-scale mutual aid has been harder. But various examples suggest scaling is possible with appropriate structures. Cooperatives and credit unions operate at large scales, with millions of members, organised cooperatively rather than through hierarchical ownership. Open-source software development has produced major systems (Linux, Wikipedia) through voluntary cooperation at massive scale. The mutual aid networks that emerged during COVID-19 in many countries demonstrated coordination across entire cities through web-based organising. Federations of smaller units — the traditional anarchist answer to scale — have produced functioning coordination (the Catalan experiment, Rojava, and others, even under military pressure). The claim that only state authority can coordinate at scale is not fully demonstrated; it is an empirical question that remains open.
Thoughtful people always support the state because alternatives are worse.
This is a common position but not an obviously correct one. Many thoughtful people — academics, organisers, religious leaders, activists — have seriously questioned state authority while remaining engaged with democratic life. The history of democratic reform has often involved challenging state practices: expanding voting rights, protecting minorities, limiting state violence, constraining surveillance, creating rights that prevent state action. The state is not a fixed good that thoughtful people simply accept; it is a contested institution that thoughtful people often critique. Anarchist critiques share ground with liberal, feminist, Indigenous, and other critical traditions. Full rejection of the state is a minority position, but serious engagement with its problems is widespread among thoughtful people. 'Thoughtful = pro-state' oversimplifies the actual landscape of political thought.
Key texts for students: Peter Kropotkin, 'Mutual Aid' (1902), 'The Conquest of Bread' (1892). Pierre-Joseph Proudhon, 'What is Property?' (1840). Emma Goldman, 'Anarchism and Other Essays' (1910). George Orwell, 'Homage to Catalonia' (1938). Noam Chomsky, 'Chomsky on Anarchism' (2005), 'Understanding Power' (2002). Murray Bookchin, 'The Ecology of Freedom' (1982). David Graeber, 'Debt: The First 5,000 Years' (2011), 'The Utopia of Rules' (2015), 'Bullshit Jobs' (2018). Ursula K. Le Guin, 'The Dispossessed' (1974) — novel exploring anarchist society. Rebecca Solnit, 'A Paradise Built in Hell' (2009) on disaster mutual aid. For contemporary engagement: Dean Spade, 'Mutual Aid' (2020); various works by the autonomous Marxist and anarchist traditions. For histories: Peter Marshall, 'Demanding the Impossible: A History of Anarchism' (1992). For case studies: Michael Seidman on revolutionary Spain; Alexandre Skirda on Makhno. On Rojava: Abdullah Öcalan's 'Democratic Confederalism' writings; various anthropological studies. Organisations and sources: Anarchist Archives (dwardmac.pitzer.edu/Anarchist_Archives); The Anarchist Library online; various anarchist federations globally. Academic: the Anarchist Studies Network; the journal Anarchist Studies. For political philosophy engagement: Robert Paul Wolff, 'In Defense of Anarchism' (1970); Michael Huemer, 'The Problem of Political Authority' (2013) — a philosophical, not traditional anarchist, engagement with state authority.
Your feedback helps other teachers and helps us improve TeachAnyClass.