Although Blake’s contempt for systems is rampant in his work, his rebellious texts seem to need to lean more towards order and rule than the chaos and ambiguity of contraries. The problem with many revolutionary causes throughout history has seemed to be that they thrive on pre-established principles and systems of hierarchy that parallel the very constructs with which they disagree. For example, in the second wave of feminism in the United States, many radical feminist groups abstained from establishing leadership roles. This amebic form of power lead to many irresolvable conflicts and eventual disbandment of smaller groups that were unable to unite their differences under their main cause due to the lack of acknowledged leadership.

In order to go public with his ideas, Blake needed to demonstrate a relation to one side of a polarized argument despite his different opinions. Blake’s support for revolution, however, is shadowed by the aftereffects of such an event – a new set of established principles and doctrines based on the revolutionary ideas. Blake’s way of thinking is very progressive for his time, but in creating a new mold or pushing the boundaries of radicalism, he inevitably is working to create a new way of thinking and a new system for society.  Is Blake’s cause invariably linked to that which he opposes? Or can he fight a unique cause without creating a new system?

Advertisements