nonviolence, the most dangerous idea
i recently finished nonviolence: the history of a dangerous idea by mark kurlansky.
a main point advanced by the book, and one that i find immensely important and compelling is that human societies have never had a word for "nonviolence" that's positive as opposed to adding a negation to the word for violence. it's a very simple observation with huge implications. we obviously think of violence as the default condition - and stop short at imagining anything else... what's more, when faced with this "something else" we consider it uncomfortable and dangerous.
the 11 chapters are as follows:
i. imperfect beings
ii. the problem with states
iii. the killer peace movement
iv. troublemakers
v. the dilemma of unnatural people
vi. natural revolution
vii. peace and slavery
viii. the curse of nations
ix. a favorite just war
x. the rule of thugs and the law of gravity
xi. random outbreaks of hope
and at the end, kurlansky provides a summary with these 25 "lessons":
1. there is no proactive word for nonviolence.it's probably one of the most currently relevant, interesting and well-constructed historical analyses you will find. reading this work, i revisited some concepts and ways in which nonviolence has been applied in the past... and at the same time, i learned new things about the history of nonviolent resistance - for instance, about bacha khan, a muslim pashtun indian and pacifist, collaborator of gandhi's though much lesser-known (in many ways his background and approach diverged from gandhi's - but he was as dedicated to nonviolence) or about te whiti o rongomai and the nonviolent struggle he led against the confiscation of maori land by the new zealand government in the 19th century.
2. nations that build military forces as deterrents will eventually use them.
3. practitioners of nonviolence are seen as enemies of the state.
4. once a state takes over a religion, the religion loses its non-violent teachings.
5. a rebel can be defanged and co-opted by making him a saint after he is dead.
6. somewhere behind every war there are always a few founding lies.
7. a propaganda machine promoting hatred always has a war waiting in the wings.
8. people who go to war start to resemble their enemy.
9. a conflict between a violent force and a nonviolent force is a moral argument. If the violent side can provoke the nonviolent side into violence, the violent side has won.
10. the problem lies not in the nature of man but in the nature of power.
11. the longer a war lasts, the less popular it becomes.
12. the state imagines it is impotent without a military because it cannot conceive of power without force.
13 it is often not the largest but the best organized and most articulate group that wins.
14. all debate momentarily ends with an "enforced silence" once the first shots are fired.
15. a shooting war is not necessary to overthrow an established power but is used to consolidate the revolution itself.
16. violence does not resolve. It always leads to more violence.
17. warfare produces peace activists. A group of veterans is a likely place to find peace activists.
18. people motivated by fear do not act well.
19. while it is perfectly feasible to convince a people faced with brutal repression to rise up in a suicidal attack on their oppressor, it is almost impossible to convince them to meet deadly violence with nonviolent resistance.
20. wars do not have to be sold to the general public if they can be carried out by an all-volunteer professional military.
21. once you start the business of killing, you just get "deeper and deeper," without limits.
22. violence always comes with a supposedly rational explanation – which is only dismissed as irrational if the violence fails.
23. violence is a virus that infects and takes over.
24. the miracle is that despite all of society’s promotion of warfare, most soldiers find warfare to be a wrenching departure from their own moral values.
25. the hard work of beginning a movement to end war has already been done.
which brings me to a significant criticism i have towards this book: it's structured around the work and personalities of a few "heroes." it makes sense that it would be, as this is simply the typical way of looking at history... but given how this book's very project is to offer an atypical look at history, at what "counts" and who "wins" and why, i found it pretty jarring. howard zinn was able to do things somewhat differently in his a people's history of the united states... or jamaica kincaid with her history of antigua in a small place...
and this is where my second major criticism of the book comes in: from the premise of the project as a criticism of social interactions being defined by those who conquer and subdue to the analysis of the ways in which nonviolent resisters have been viewed by the majority and ultimately trivialized, gender issues are always just beyond the surface of much of what's being said in this book... however, kurlansky never touches upon that explicitly. very little space is given to any nonviolent resistance by women - and there's no analysis of the intersections between violence, militarism, war etc. and gender. and that's a pretty mindboggling omission.
i think wilpf is mentioned once. and it's not nearly enough, especially as there's nothing on ecofeminist history, no exploration of women's roles in peace and pacifism and the gender-dimension of war (or other accepted aggression) at all.
just one resource (a recent link that was brought to my attention, actually):
"war and gender: how gender shapes the war system and viceversa"
i'm not going to discuss the other obvious connection that his book failed to address: the intersection between the history of nonviolence and the histories of vegetarianism and environmental justice activism... instead, i'll just suggest that it be read in parallel with the heretic's feast by colin spencer and earth democracy: justice, sustainability and peace by vandana shiva.
some more nonviolence resources
other bibliographies @:
- peace education | nonviolence
- "women and peace" course syllabus
- eve online ecofeminist-friendly books 1 and 2
- "ecofeminism: historic and international developments"
-----
and to link this subject to the last few posts - on the dangers of appropriating other people's movements, of trivializing issues and causing real harm through blindness to privilege - but also to stress the importance of true solidarity, dedicated alliance building and nonviolence-as-action, i recommend the essay "privilege, non-violence and security" by noel sturgeon; a few extracts:
I want to concentrate here on the idea of privilege and its relation to knowledge, to consciousness. Originally, that is essentially what this article was going to be about, to explore why white middle-class ecofeminism, often in well-meaning ways, repeatedly appropriates the environmental activism of women of color and poor women. Problematically, I think, ecofeminism often assimilates that activism to an idea-list understanding of women united to save the environment which obliterates the class and race divisions which may matter most to women of color environ-mentalist activists. ... I wanted to make that analysis more contemporary by applying it to the coalition work we see in the present anti-corporate globalization movement, to warn against assuming that ecofeminism is a welcome label to Third World activists, because of this history of white ecofeminist appropriation. I intended to explore how white privilege can operate to prevent those of us who are white feminist environmentalists from thoroughly understanding the ways in which environmentalism for non-dominant others is so deeply entwined with questions of economic justice. And I wanted to critique the tendency of some U.S. feminists to continuously and ruinously present "classism" as though it is a matter of personal prejudice rather than a structural foundation for other forms of inequality. I hoped that this analysis would help us to move away from understanding the problems we face in ways that reduce inequality and injustice to mistakes of feeling, politics of identity, abstractions, or ideologies rather than effective, concrete systems of exploitation and profit from which many of us benefit.
Nonviolence is the key to social change, to feminist environmentalism, but it must be a militant nonviolence, an uncompromising nonviolence, a persistent nonviolence, a massive nonviolence. It must be a nonviolence on the side of liberation movements against colonialism, against economic exploitation, against environmental catastrophe. We must recommit ourselves to nonviolence, to remember and revitalize the feminist analysis of the connections between violence, masculinism, brutality, economic exploitation, and oppression. We must reject the puerile imitation by protestors of police and security forces, under the illusion that meeting force with force is efficacious. Yet we must insist on the importance of the difference between human beings and property, and not give in to the idea that all protest is violence, that non-violence is never angry, never furious, never militant, never causes discomfort.
"Your security depends upon peace for every being on the planet. Your life is connected to all life on earth. What you do has ripples around the world. You need to know everything about how different people are living today, the rich, the poor, and the in-between, and to make sure that you are not benefiting, even indirectly, from someone else’s pain. If you find that you are, you need to work with like-minded people to reject those benefits, stop that pain, right the wrongs done in your name. But never accept the idea that you must cause pain and suffering, death and destruction, in the name of justice. A great woman, Audre Lorde, once said: ‘The Master’s tools will never dismantle the Master’s house.’ And another, Alice Walker, said: ‘Only Justice will stop a curse.’ ... I am joined in this resolve by millions of other committed people in this world. It is the greatest work we have ever done together. And we must succeed."
indeed, one of the essential points when it comes to nonviolence (a point that kurlansky stresses also) is the distinction between nonviolence and passivity. the very idea that advocating non-violence is neccesarrily equivalent to being passive, and especially the automatic disdain towards nonviolence based on the assumption that only violence can constitute true action, enables the violence-begetting-more-violence vicious circle of the patriarchal status quo. of course, in a context where our social systems rely on maintaining society's tacit acceptance of the superiority of anything considered instrinsically masculine, that which challenges violence (as the most "masculine" trait of all) must be put down or made invisible - and what better way of doing that than reducing it to a uniquely "feminine" trait?! by calling all nonviolence "passivity," violence is glorified all over again. counter-violence as a tactic is obvious and, yes, sometimes imperative in a society that oppresses and terrorizes the most vulnerable of its people through violence, but it's simply not true - as history has shown - that the only option we have at our disposal is fighting fire with fire, nor that the violent way works better than other options towards producing lasting change (in his book, kurlansky explores this point a bit - for instance in relation to the effectiveness of violent vs. nonviolent resistance to nazi persecution of jewish people). at their core, both the anti-sexist and anti-violence movement arise from a critique of the patriarchal way of doing things - establishing hierarchies of worth among people and systematically relying on violence towards those at the bottom in order to keep these hierarchies in place. which can only work if everyone agrees that violence is legitimate as long as it's used by the "right side." and that means we have a paradigm in which hierarchies are natural, and one side must dominate. as rosemary ruether details in "feminism and peace":
The exaltation of war in male culture has typically been accompanied by a strident sexism. The slogan of the Italian fascist writer Filippo Marinetti in the 1930s, "We are out to glorify war, the only health-giver of the world, militarism, patriotism, ideas that kill, contempt for women," vividly illustrates the emotional and ideological connections between supermasculinity, violence and negation of women or the "feminine." In macho mythology, women stand for a feared weakness, passivity and vulnerability which must be purged and exorcised from the male psyche through the rituals of war. Feminists have pointed Out the close connection between military indoctrination and sexism typical of the U.S. Army’s basic training. A key element in the rhetoric of basic training is the put-down of women, and, by implication, all that might be "womanish" in the recruit who is being trained. The recruit is shamed by being called a "girl" or a "faggot," thereby inculcating a terror of his own feelings and sensitivities. Through his assault on his fears of weakness, a psychic numbing takes place which is then intended to be turned into aggressiveness toward a dehumanized "enemy."
The emotional identification of the male sexual organ and the gun is a recurring theme in basic training rhetoric. The U.S. Army training jingle "This is my rifle [slapping rifle]; this is my gun [slapping crotch]. The one is for killing; the other’s for fun" makes the psychological connection between violence and sexual dehumanization of women clear. The role of rape or the capture of women as part of the spoils of war can be illustrated by virtually every war in recorded history, not the least of which was the Winter Soldier Investigation of combined rape and violence toward captured Vietnamese women in the war in Southeast Asia. Patriarchy turns the sexual relationship into a power relationship, a relationship of conquest and domination. Women are the currency of male prowess, to be protected and displayed on the one hand; to be ravished and "blown away" on the other. The linking of male sexuality to aggression is the root of both patriarchy and war.For many contemporary feminists, the response of women to male violence cannot simply be a contrary assertion of feminine values of love and nurture. These qualities themselves have become distorted in female socialization into timidity and vulnerability. Women are not so much peacemakers within the present order as they are repressed into passive "kept women." They acquiesce to male violence in the home and accept it in society. The first step for women, therefore, is to throw off these shackles of fear and lack of self-confidence. Feminists have pointed out that, although most women are of slighter build than most men, physique does not mean that women need be passive victims to every random male assault. Training in martial arts could equip women to defend themselves in many situations. Women who have gone through such training find that the greatest gain is a new sense of self-esteem. They no longer feel helpless before the possibility of attack. In the very way they now carry themselves, they signal to the male world that they are no longer an easy prey.
True nonviolence must be based, first of all, on a secure sense of one’s own value as a human being. Violence toward others, far from being an expression of self-worth, is based on a repression of one’s sense of vulnerability which then translates into hostility toward others. The most violent men are those with the deepest fears of their own impotence. Training in nonviolence must be based on spiritual or personal development and empowerment of the self. An empowered self will not accept its own degradation, or that of others.
At this point, it becomes possible to forge new links between feminism and peace. Feminism fundamentally rejects the power principle of domination and subjugation. It rejects the concept of power which says that one side’s victory must be the other side’s defeat. Feminism must question social structures based on this principle at every level, from the competition of men and women in personal relationships to the competition of the nations of the globe ... We seek an alternative power principle of empowerment in community rather than power over and disabling of others. Such enabling in community is based on a recognition of the fundamental interconnectedness of life, of men and women, blacks and whites, Americans and Nicaraguans, Americans and Russians, humans and the nonhuman community of animals, plants, air and water. Nobody wins unless all win. Warmaking has reached such a level of destructiveness that the defeat of one side means the defeat of all, the destruction of the earth itself. Feminism today sees its links with the cause of human survival and the survival of the planet itself.
Biophilic values, therefore, cannot remain the preserve of women or women’s supposed special "nature" or ethics. As historic victims of violence and repression, as well as those socialized to cultivate supportive roles -- but in a disempowered sphere -- women may have a particular vantage point on the issue. But they are not immune to expressions of hostility, chauvinism, racism or warmongering, even if their role has more often been to be the backup force for the main fighters. Conversion to a new sense of self that wills the good of others in a community of life must transform traditional women as well as traditional men.
Both feminism and peacemaking need to be grounded in an alternative vision of the authentic self and human community ... we must oppose all social systems that create wealth and privilege for some by impoverishing, degrading or eliminating other people, whether they be the systems of domination that repress or assault women, or the systems that plan nuclear annihilation in a futile search for security based on competitive world power. Only on the basis of such an alternative vision can men and women join together to rebuild the earth.
-----
edited to add: 3 relevant articles from the latest issue of Feminist Review:
Niciun comentariu:
Trimiteți un comentariu