The Wholeness of Self-hood – J.W. Cooper, 7/27/1888 (A Dispute on Anarchism)

Comrade Harman: It seems to me that all acts, be they those we call good or those we call bad, have a
common spring, i.e., in self. In all that we do, the greatest good, or the largest gratification of self, is what
prompts us. We either act from impulse—internal incitation—or under restraint. Wherever there is restraint,
there is government, and this is always external to the actor. Under the influence of this external restraint,
which may be the average conception of the right, the individual actor governs his conduct. But he is not
free. He is as much under law as if governed by written statutes, each of which prescribes a penalty for its
infraction. But the individual—the one who has reached the wholeness of selfhood—acts from impulse,
from internal incitation; never asking nor ever thinking what others may say or even think of his act. This
is LIBERTY. This is above government, even the government of self. The trend or growth of individuality
is toward this wholeness. Under intelligent or highest development of selfhood—ANARCHISM—no one
can desire to invade his fellow. Can the average governmentalist understand this? I think not. But they
have all the coming ages to grow to it.

J.W. Cooper Reviewed – Samuel Blodgett 8/31/1888

Editor Lucifer: Everyone who has any ideas wants to have them aired, and one of the main missions of
newspapers is to give them a chance. I believe I have studied Anarchism pretty thoroughly. I would be
an Anarchist myself if I could. It seems so delightful to have your own way all the time and let all others
have theirs. I do not wonder people take to it, but when I come to examine it, I find it a practical impossibility.
I agree with his first proposition that all acts have their spring in self, i.e., all deliberate acts, and they
are the only ones that it is necessary to discuss here. If self is all there is to prompt actions, what is the
difference between good and bad? Evidently it is the difference between the kind of emotions which are
the impelling force. The self which finds gratification in being kind, just, and generous to others is good
and is usually called unselfish. We know what is meant when we are told not to be selfish, and because
we know, it does not mislead, though the term is not critically exact. The best and most noble humans
have their self centered in humanity as the prime base of action, while the lowest never think of others
or care for their welfare, but only see them as factors to be used for self-pleasure and self-exaltation.
Trying to do good to others is a very different effort from trying to have others do good to you. The one
who finds pleasure in being a benefactor is a very different character from the one who finds pleasure
in defrauding his fellows. Most persons, embracing the great mass of mankind, are between these two
extremes. Their motives are various and variable. Sometimes they act the noble part, and sometimes
they descend to consummate meanness, according as their environments excite the high or the low, and
the prevailing moral atmosphere gives the tone of their feelings and determines their lives. Now the logical
inference is that in order to have a better world, we must have better people. We must educate and carry
the masses up—up—UP—to where all their actions will have reference to the good of others, or until they
find no pleasure but unmixed pain in being the occasion of wrong or harm to any brother or sister human.

When the people, as a rule, have good always uppermost in their hearts, the laws will be made to conform to
their aspirations as surely as the needle of the compass points to the north. The fundamental mistake of the
Anarchists is in supposing that it is the laws which incite people to act wrongly, instead of the low character of
the people themselves. The laws reflect the public heart and conscience as a mirror reflects an object standing
before it, and it cannot be learned too soon that it is the object reflected which needs improving. Mr. Cooper
says: “We either act from impulse—internal incitation—or under restraint.” If he comprehended the situation
fully, he would see that it is all internal incitation, except physical force. The pressure of “the average conception
of the right” may produce this internal incitation, but there is something which produces any or all internal incitations,
and a close analysis will show we cannot make the division he imagines. It is facts external to ourselves which
produce internal incitations to acts of benevolence. We may say “he is not free who is governed,” or whose
conduct is modified by the “average conception of what is right,” but it would be equally true to say one is not
free who is swayed by his sympathies in the presence of suffering. In either case he is not free to ignore his
external environments. In this sense there is, and can be, no freedom. If one is callous to the opinions of others,
he may ignore them; but if his organization makes him very sensitive that way, he is governed by the thought
of what others may think or say. If he is heartless, he turns neither to the right nor left at the troubles or agonies
others may feel; but if he is sympathetic, he acts accordingly. He is not free to act contrary to his nature in any case.
Indeed, many of our ablest thinkers believe that we are all only automatons at best, having no power of choice,
but moving as we were made to move. I do not accept that doctrine, but my reason tells me that there is no
possible condition I could be placed in where my liberty would not be extremely limited. Mr. Cooper goes on to
say that: “The individual—the one who has reached the wholeness of selfhood—acts from impulse, from internal
incitation; never asking nor ever thinking what others may say or even think of his act. This is LIBERTY.”

I have shown that we do not have to reach the wholeness of selfhood in order to act from impulse—from
internal incitation. We all do this in all stages of development, and ever shall. Anthony Comstock does so
as much as E. C. Walker, the only difference being that one set of emotions are at the front in one individual
and another set in the other. The one who is “never asking nor ever thinking what others may say or even
think” has simply obliterated one natural emotion of humanity-he has made himself one point less a man.
His other emotions come in and are frequently conflicting with each other the same as before, and he will
have to be continually choosing which one or which set of them to gratify. He may have a desire to drink, and
he may not care for his reputation. If he does not care what others may think, he will not consider the shame
or grief of his friends, and he will not care if he loses all of them by his beastliness. But he will still, if he
has any sense, think of the loss of health and the physical degradation, suffering, and poverty connected
with the life of a sot. He will find he has two desires at variance: the one to preserve his manhood, and the
other to gratify his appetite. The only way one can have the liberty Mr. Cooper craves is to utterly destroy
all intelligence and emotions but one, and then that one can have full play and run riot. I do not think it would
increase his happiness to be reduced to that condition of liberty. I prefer to have all the attributes and
emotions of manhood, including a wish to be thought well of by my fellows. But I do not want to be a slave
to that passion, nor to any other, but to bring them all under the supervision of intelligent control, allowing
each its proper weight in determining any mode of action. I think this is the highest and fullest liberty attainable.
Your correspondent says: “Under intelligent or highest development of selfhood—ANARCHISM—no one
can desire to invade his fellow.” All right, but if following impulses as they come, as he indicates, is highest,
it does not follow that there will be no invasion. To be a man, or a woman, is to have impulses which, if not
regulated and checked, would lead to invasion. His liberty—the kind he advocates—although it does not
desire invasion, it does not desire not to invade, but follows its impulses without regard to the effect on others.
“Can the average Anarchists understand this? I think not. But they have all the coming ages to grow to it.”