Delirium wrote:
To quote the OED's first definition:
- a. Absence of government; a state of lawlessness due to the absence
or inefficiency of the supreme power; political disorder. b. A theoretical social state in which there is no governing person or body of persons, but each individual has absolute liberty (without implication of disorder).
Well apart from it not simply being a theoretical social state (it has existed to some degree throughout human history), the use of the word to describe anything other than a lack of authority is usually not a good use of the word as there are usually more precise words to use.
The problem with these multiple meanings that have been attached to the word anarchy is that they usually contradict each other. 1b, for instance, clearly contradicts 1a above. One purports disorder while the other implies the opposite.
It's not surprising that the etymology of anarchy is controversial. A lot of powerful people have much to lose were anarchy to be adopted on mass. It works in their favour for the word anarchy to be a pejorative term.
You seem to be talking of 1.b., but "anarchy" can also refer to simple lawlessness, as in Somalia, or chaotic celebrations following a sports victory.
Somalia might be better described as anomy and chaotic celebrations following a sports victory might be better described as, well, chaotic.
Christiaan