"The best defense is a good offense?"
You are walking down a dark, deserted street at night and all of the sudden a big and tall and just generally scary-looking man confronts you. How do you feel as he gets nearer, in your face, and corners you in a doorway? Threatened, I imagine. I would probably be desperately trying to remember the few self-defense moves I learned in high-school. I might raise my umbrella, contemplating whether or not I should be pro-active and hit him before he does me any harm.
After all, it's obvious he will hurt me, isn't it? I mean, we have all learned that from experience! Well, maybe not actual experience - but at least vicariously through the experiences of our favorite TV stars. "The best defense is a good offense."
So what happens next? Best scenario: You hit the generally scary-looking man, he hits back, you get into a fight and both get injured. Violence leads to violence. But can nonviolence lead to nonviolence?
There is, actually, overwhelming evidence that it can. Not only is there overwhelming evidence that humans are not inherently violent, but there is also quite a lot of evidence that nonviolent responses to violence work to stop violence and work to get things done.
Inherently violent?Thomas Hobbes stated famously in the 17th century that the "state of nature" for humans is war of all against all. One of the fathers of modern political thought was, however, wrong.
After World War II, sociologists started investigating how people act after large disasters. These disaster sociologists were commissioned by the US government to study major disasters all over the world in order to predict how humans would behave in the aftermath of a nuclear war. Their findings were quite surprising. Instead of the war of all against all that Hobbes believed humans would be sucked into if strong government's monopoly on force disappeared, these sociologists found that people behaved resourcefully, altruistically, bravely, innovatively, and even joyfully. Modern life's alienation and isolation were removed as the disaster broke down walls of difference; people were united in a war not of all against all, but of all against death. People quickly realize that in order to survive, common action is necessary.
Going back even further to look at many indigenous tribes, one realizes that most often, shows of power were not done by collective warfare, but by competitions of one tribal leader against another. Often, these battles were purely symbolic and not aimed at killing the opponent.
Evidence also shows that aggression is something that people learn. The greatest risk-factor for violence erupting in a state is a history of violence in that state and a belief that violence is an effective and legitimate way of solving problems.
I hear you thinking: "So, ok, we're not inherently violent .... but does that mean violence is never right? We can't just sit back and do nothing while other people are being hurt!"
Non-violence stops violence
Agreed: We can't just sit back and do nothing .... but is doing a non-violent something doing nothing?
There are many organizations that combat violence with non-violent means and that have great success in doing so. The Christian Peacemaker Teams are a great example. Peace Brigades International is another. And what about the Red Cross and Doctors Without Borders?
The second aspect here that must not be forgotten is that trying to stop violence with violence has rarely ever worked. It is definitely not certain it will do so, and in fact, is highly improbable. Such bad odds make it hard to justify harming others.
We all pay lip service to Martin Luther King, Jr. and Gandhi, yet still believe that sometimes violence is the only thing that gets the job done. Take the American Revolution for example. It was a bloody, devastating war. It is estimated that at least 25,000 people were killed - out of a population of only 3 million. The equivalent today would be 2,5 million people dying.
Non-violence gets things done
But it was necessary right? It was the only way, right? We had to do it, our freedom was worth it!
Hmm ... well, Canada managed to win their freedom from England without it. So did Australia. Even England's prize colony of India was able to do it! Ok, maybe times were different then? Well, actually, before the war for American independence started, non-violent resistance had been quite successful. Farmers in Western Massachusetts drove out the British government simply by coming together around courthouses and colonial offices and sending the British away.So, what now?So, if people are not inherently violent, if non-violent means are capable of stopping violent action, and if non-violent means are actually able to achieve the ends we say only violence can achieve .... what does that mean for us? What does that mean for you when you see that generally scary looking dude coming closer? Well, it means that at the very least you abandon the mindset that violence is inevitable here. You look for alternatives. Realize that you cannot know what is going to happen and therefor that pre-emptive violence cannot not justified. Pre-emptive violence can actually instigate a violent struggle that a non-violent approach would have prevented.
Ethical considerations come into play here. Even if we agree on all the points above, the question still remains: why even bother looking for alternatives to violence? What's wrong with violence? Why should I care if you get hurt or killed so long as I am ok?
Well, because, every human has inherent value. This is what the idea of human rights is founded on! And, if you believe this, if you believe that each individual is something to be valued and respected, if you believe that each person has a right to dignity and autonomy, then violence can never be justified. Violence is the ultimate impingement on another's dignity. Violence places the will of one above the will of another, something which cannot be justified by the belief that every human is equal. Why should you believe this? Well, don't you want to be treated with respect? Don't you want your dignity to be protected?
Thus, the rather easily acceptable idea that each human has a right to dignity, leads to the rather radical conclusion that violence is never justified. It is hard to imagine a world in which this would seem practical and I think I will always be struggling to live according to such a conclusion. But, I do believe that it forms the basis of Christianity, human rights, and morality.
Of course, this doesn't mean that inaction is what is called for. To the contrary, believing in a non-violent world is something that we must work for. Imagine what could be achieved if the 799 billion dollars budgeted for national security in 2009 was instead spent on peace work? I am confident that we can create a peaceful world, if only we all fought in peace as hard as we fight in war.
Posts
I disagree.
ReplyDeleteAlthough it is true that there is something to be said against pre-emptive violence, to say that non-violence can stop violence is hardly ever true.
I was especially struck by the section where you speak of the American Revolution, MLK, Mandela and Gandhi. First let’s get one thing clear: Mandela was no pacifist. Mandela was the founder of Umkhonto we Sizwe the miliatary wing of the ANC, and through it the ANC conducted a long guerilla campaign against the racist (and very violent) Apartheid government – a justifiable and honorable military campaign in my opinion I might add.
I really believe that violence is justified in the face of human rights violations and affronts to human dignity. The same arguments you use in your penultimate paragraph I would use to justify violence in some necessary cases. It is precisely because every human has a right to dignity that it is morally justifiable demand human rights by violent means if they are violently denied to us. Now, if this can be achieved using non-violent tactics, that’s all the better. But sometimes violence is our only choice! Violence was our only choice during WWII in our struggle against fascism, it was Mandela’s only choice in his struggle against Apartheid, and it was Jefferson’s, Washington’s, et. al.’s only choice in their struggle against feudal tyranny.
One note about Gandhi: I don’t understand why his case is taught to us from an early age as an ideal example of non-violent struggle against imperialism. After the weakening of the British Empire in WWI and most particularly after the massacre of Indian protestors at Amritar in April 1919 it became apparent that British rule over India would end sooner rather than later. In a sense Mohandas Gandhi was pushing at an open door. Also note during WWII, around the time that Gandhi began his “timeless struggle” Imperial Japan was just next door having conquered British Malaya and Burma. Is it conceivable that maybe Gandhi would have been pleased with a Japanese occupation of British India so as to let the Japanese imperialists do his fighting for him?
"In a sense Mohandas Gandhi was pushing at an open door."
ReplyDelete-Same thing for Washington & Jefferson. Even moreso considering how much more respect the British Empire gave to its colonists of European ancestry (Canada, Australia, U.S. colonies, etc.) Again, the fact that Canada and other colonies did so non-violently shows that violence by the U.S. was not absolutely necessary.
-If someone is truly acting with the arc of the moral universe bending to their side, then won't they always be "pushing at an open door"?
-By this point in my life, I can agree in theory that violence is justified when it is absolutely necessary to protect a higher interest. Two such interests exist (life, human dignity). However, in order to justify such violence, you have to be more certain that your victim will commit a violation against life or dignity absent your use of deadly force than you are of the fact that your bullet will slay him. I think that such certainty is factually impossible, given our knowledge about the unpredictability of human action and the power of unexpected, creative, non-violent means in transforming the will of another, and of course. The degree of actual knowledge of the intent of another person cannot rise to the level of scientific certainty as one find with, say the effects of a your bullet on their body.
David, I understand your points. I know it seems that sometimes violence is the only way, that non-violence would not have worked. But, we must realize that it is impossible to know such a thing. It is impossible to say what *would* have happened, if we had kept doing something.
ReplyDeleteAdditionally, we must also recognize that most instances of non-violent action undertaken by major world powers against violence have often been done so in a particularly half-hearted way. As I say in the post - America does not spend 799 BILLION dollars on peace.
As for using violence to protect dignity - I agree that protecting dignity is the ultimate aim of human rights and that we should be willing to go to the extreme to achieve that goal. However - are we justified in violating the dignity of one so as to protect the dignity of another? Isn't the very foundation of human rights that we are all equal, not because of what we do, but because we are all human? This is, of course, not to say I do not think we should fight for the protection of human rights - I do! I just think there are other, more appropriate means of doing so.