While reading Galtung’s work: Cultural Violence, I felt that Galtung’s writing was strong and that he held a biased and disgust for Western culture. Even so, Galtung’s triangle of violence is very interesting and something that I believe exists in today’s world and will need to be addressed if we ever want to strive for perpetual peace. Through the examples he used, he brought a lot of credibility to his triangle of violence; and has convinced me that all three points of the triangle must be addressed to achieve peace. If not, we risk allowing the forms of violence we neglect to foster and grow stronger – we risk the peace process as a whole.
There were, however, three elements of his cultural violence definition that confused me or where his argument eluded me. The aspect of language, art, and cosmology are three of the six cultural domains “that can be potentially used to legitimize direct or structural violence,” according to Galtung. Possible the way he worded his explanations of language and art made me confused with how they could of legitimized direct or structural violence in Galtung’s explanation. Admittedly, I know that we can use language and art as propaganda tools to convince and legitimize the citizens of a nation to war. For instance, in World War II where we used pictures (art) and slurs (language) to show “who” we were fighting and why – the Germans and Japanese at the time. If this was what Galtung was talking about then I understand, otherwise the points he were trying to make escaped me. Cosmology on the other hand just went way over my head.
Friday, May 7, 2010
Sunday, May 2, 2010
Physical Resistance to Attack: The Pacifist's Dilemma, The Feminist's Hope (Pat James)
The main point of this article was somewhat surprising and disappointing. To note, neither of those adjectives are being used to derogate feminism; but my expectations from the title of the article were different than what was actually discussed. What I was expecting was an article discussing heavily on the pacifist’s dilemma and how pacifism as a lifestyle doesn’t work perfectly. Instead, it was an argument for changing women’s perspectives of themselves and how they need to take power, control, etc.
The dilemma that Pat James addresses is: “when does self-defense stop being nonviolent?” However, it is also the question James does not answer. She does draw a line at saying that verbal resistance isn’t violence, but believes it is still unclear whether throwing someone or poking their eyes is also nonviolent if used as self-defense.
The theory Pacifism is something that eludes my ability to comprehend. Comprehend is probably the wrong word because I do understand what Pacifism; but the question of “why?” people follow it, much like religion. I was hoping that this article would have shed some light on the limitations of Pacifism, but it has not.
The dilemma that Pat James addresses is: “when does self-defense stop being nonviolent?” However, it is also the question James does not answer. She does draw a line at saying that verbal resistance isn’t violence, but believes it is still unclear whether throwing someone or poking their eyes is also nonviolent if used as self-defense.
The theory Pacifism is something that eludes my ability to comprehend. Comprehend is probably the wrong word because I do understand what Pacifism; but the question of “why?” people follow it, much like religion. I was hoping that this article would have shed some light on the limitations of Pacifism, but it has not.
The Justification of Civil Disobedience (John Rawls)
While I don’t necessarily agree with John Rawls’ theory of justice, I appreciate his theory and see the merits of it. However, I think that his idea of justice may be a little too abstract to achieve. His theory relies on the concept of the veil of ignorance, and while it provides interesting data, to expect people in the real world to think of justice through that framework seems preposterous. But for this reflection, I will accept his notion of justice.
Let’s get straight at the meat of the subject: the justification of civil disobedience. In previous blogs, I have asserted and addressed the risks of civil disobedience and how if we are not careful civil disobedience can and will lead to anarchy. However, Rawls’ theory of civil disobedience is different from the former and more acceptable in my mind. Essentially Rawls was positing a form of civil disobedience much like Gandhi’s concept of Satyagraha. This is much different from the earlier forms of civil disobedience which were much more confrontational and extreme. Rawls believed that civil disobedience should only be used as a last resort when it has become impossible to address your misgivings within the institutions political structures. Furthermore, arguing that the movement should only disobey laws that take away one’s equality of opportunity; but still accept the punishment because you want to create change within the social system instead of trying to create a parallel government. This differs from Thoreau who argued that if you believed a law was unjust you should step out of that government’s rule completely. This is the critical difference between the two forms of civil disobedience.
Let’s get straight at the meat of the subject: the justification of civil disobedience. In previous blogs, I have asserted and addressed the risks of civil disobedience and how if we are not careful civil disobedience can and will lead to anarchy. However, Rawls’ theory of civil disobedience is different from the former and more acceptable in my mind. Essentially Rawls was positing a form of civil disobedience much like Gandhi’s concept of Satyagraha. This is much different from the earlier forms of civil disobedience which were much more confrontational and extreme. Rawls believed that civil disobedience should only be used as a last resort when it has become impossible to address your misgivings within the institutions political structures. Furthermore, arguing that the movement should only disobey laws that take away one’s equality of opportunity; but still accept the punishment because you want to create change within the social system instead of trying to create a parallel government. This differs from Thoreau who argued that if you believed a law was unjust you should step out of that government’s rule completely. This is the critical difference between the two forms of civil disobedience.
Along a Tightrope (St. Augustine Movement)
Reading about the St. Augustine movement made me disgusted by MLK because he did not have the best intentions for the black people of St. Augustine in mind nor did he have a strategy. He was just exploiting them for their situation. His primary and only goal was to get the Civil Rights Act passed. And while the Act did get pass, I do not think that this movement had anything to do with it. I like many of the critics of this movement I believe that the Civil Rights Act would have been passed even without this movement. Instead I think that this movement was a political (and a publicity) stunt. Because as soon as the Civil Rights Act becomes passed, MLK wants out of St. Augustine; basically saying that he would accept anything the local government was willing to give as long as it did not make him look like a loser.
While we can give MLK credit in the short-term for bringing the race issue back to the forefront of the public’s mind and bringing to the surface the racial tensions in St. Augustine, I think we can say confidently that this movement was a failure overall. The bi-racial committee that was supposed to be established never met; left local race relations in shambles; and did not create infrastructure for the development of grass root movements to replace the popular movements that King was organizing. I feel that this is the complete opposite of what a leader of social reform should be doing. While yes, you should be thinking about the bigger picture: your vision of why you do what you do; I don’t think that it is acceptable behavior to exploit and sacrifice a small percentage of your followers all for the sake of the vision.
While we can give MLK credit in the short-term for bringing the race issue back to the forefront of the public’s mind and bringing to the surface the racial tensions in St. Augustine, I think we can say confidently that this movement was a failure overall. The bi-racial committee that was supposed to be established never met; left local race relations in shambles; and did not create infrastructure for the development of grass root movements to replace the popular movements that King was organizing. I feel that this is the complete opposite of what a leader of social reform should be doing. While yes, you should be thinking about the bigger picture: your vision of why you do what you do; I don’t think that it is acceptable behavior to exploit and sacrifice a small percentage of your followers all for the sake of the vision.
Monday, April 5, 2010
Gene Sharp: Nonviolence as a Political Tool
Gene Sharp provides an interesting viewpoint on nonviolence, a practical viewpoint. In his theory, Sharp attempts to quantify nonviolence through a differentiate of 198 different methods of nonviolence. From this he groups them into three distinct categories: nonviolent protests; noncooperation; and nonviolent intervention. These three categories each are distinct in their own ways; but all have one thing in common: they are nonviolent. A rudimentary definition of nonviolence, according to Sharp, is that nonviolent action is any action or inaction that does not incorporate physical force against another individual. This practical viewpoint brings out a characteristic of nonviolence that needs to be expanded on: nonviolence is one political tool to get social change and that nonviolent action has many different faces. I would equate nonviolent action to Congress passing a bill. I think this is one essential aspect of nonviolent action. It is not just that people believe that violence is bad or that violence is ineffective; but that by using nonviolent action they have decided that nonviolence is the best strategy to getting social change in that situation or for that issue.
There is one other thing I want to touch upon, that is Sharp’s view of power. Sharp’s view is similar to another theorist that we read about, Étienne de La Boétie. Their views are that power dynamics come from the bottom up. And if the people withdraw their support for the person in power; that person would become part of the masses. This is the concept of civil disobedience. I respect the idea of civil disobedience I believe we must be careful with it. Because if used the wrong way we could have anarchy, and I am not an advocate of anarchy which I have talked about in previous blogs. There must be a line so that we do not run that risk.
There is one other thing I want to touch upon, that is Sharp’s view of power. Sharp’s view is similar to another theorist that we read about, Étienne de La Boétie. Their views are that power dynamics come from the bottom up. And if the people withdraw their support for the person in power; that person would become part of the masses. This is the concept of civil disobedience. I respect the idea of civil disobedience I believe we must be careful with it. Because if used the wrong way we could have anarchy, and I am not an advocate of anarchy which I have talked about in previous blogs. There must be a line so that we do not run that risk.
Satyagraha (Chapter 4)
I really like Gandhi’s concept of Satyagraha. Not as a nonviolent movement, but just as a way of thinking about life. Essentially, the belief that we alone can never know the whole truth and that only be having dialogue with others – specifically people who disagree with you – can you find the most just solution. If followed, it also helps make the world a smarter place. We can see the idiocy of people today from comments people make on the web. It seems that any news article or YouTube video turns into ridiculous arguments. Gandhi believed that you needed to take part in the system before you could judge if it was just/unjust. To expand on this idea, before people polarize themselves and start shouting at others with ludicrous comments maybe we can all just take a step back; reevaluate our position; discuss in intellectual and civil ways; and then come to a conclusion. As a society, we will come out better. I would say its’ almost like the saying “put your feet in someone else’s shoes.”
While I do think the basic principles of Satyagraha are things that we should keep in mind in all aspects of life and society, I do have to question the integrity of this theory as a way for political change directly. Bhikhu Parekh, as well as Gandhi, both saw that Satyagraha could not bring about the social change desired on its own. Parekh, in his book just lists Satyagraha’s flaws in his book; which I can see and agree with. While you see Gandhi integrate economic aspects into Satyagraha’s practical strategy. Gandhi’s Satyagraha is too idealistic; and that it should be used in conjunction with more practical viewpoints of nonviolence.
While I do think the basic principles of Satyagraha are things that we should keep in mind in all aspects of life and society, I do have to question the integrity of this theory as a way for political change directly. Bhikhu Parekh, as well as Gandhi, both saw that Satyagraha could not bring about the social change desired on its own. Parekh, in his book just lists Satyagraha’s flaws in his book; which I can see and agree with. While you see Gandhi integrate economic aspects into Satyagraha’s practical strategy. Gandhi’s Satyagraha is too idealistic; and that it should be used in conjunction with more practical viewpoints of nonviolence.
Wednesday, March 3, 2010
Gandhi (Chapter 1)
I was profoundly surprised at how little I actually knew Gandhi. We go through our entire lives learning about him year after year and after a while you think you know him. The basic label we give him as the founder of the nonviolence movement. But yet after reading just the first chapter of this short introduction about Gandhi I realized that I hardly knew him or his values. Like that Gandhi had a problem with sexual temptations or that he was too shy to open his mouth in court for example. Two things I didn’t even remotely think of when I thought about Gandhi.
There are a few other things that really surprised me: his endorsement of the first world war and his promotion of communism/socialist. For someone who was preaching nonviolence I thought that it was a major contradiction to be supporting a war. While I can understand why he supported the war, I think that it probably hurt his reputation with the people. Finally, it seems that Gandhi was an avid supporter of some form of socialism because of his desire to transform India into a collective agrarian society. I understand Gandhi’s desire of equal treatment for all people in India, as we can see from his campaigns to get rid of the caste system and more specifically those considered untouchables. And I do see the merits behind socialism; but I doubt that outside of theory that something like this is sustainable and plausible in the real world. From discussion in class, it seems that many Indians criticized him because they thought that this approach helped make India a backwards country. While I agree with that criticism, I found it interesting that Indians would be willing to criticize him. I thought that he was considered a national hero and thus was immune to criticize, but I guess not.
Just reading the first chapter one can see the differences in opinions with many Indian leaders and Gandhi on multiple subjects. Like how many Indian leaders thought that the first priority was political independence and not moral regeneration. Here I thought that India got its’ freedom from just nonviolence movements, but here I learned that many different channels were pursued to gain independence. While Gandhi was the face of the Indian independence movement he was not the one player nor was he looked upon as an all-knowing leader. Just how Indian leaders differed in priorities, they also differed in tactics. For example, when Gandhi was fasting many began criticizing him saying that he was using himself as a weapon to force people to stop committing violent acts and stating things like Gandhi of political naivety. I just find these bits of information interesting because it has changed my perspective not just of Gandhi and his movement but of everything I know, and has asked me to ask myself “how much do I really know?”
There are a few other things that really surprised me: his endorsement of the first world war and his promotion of communism/socialist. For someone who was preaching nonviolence I thought that it was a major contradiction to be supporting a war. While I can understand why he supported the war, I think that it probably hurt his reputation with the people. Finally, it seems that Gandhi was an avid supporter of some form of socialism because of his desire to transform India into a collective agrarian society. I understand Gandhi’s desire of equal treatment for all people in India, as we can see from his campaigns to get rid of the caste system and more specifically those considered untouchables. And I do see the merits behind socialism; but I doubt that outside of theory that something like this is sustainable and plausible in the real world. From discussion in class, it seems that many Indians criticized him because they thought that this approach helped make India a backwards country. While I agree with that criticism, I found it interesting that Indians would be willing to criticize him. I thought that he was considered a national hero and thus was immune to criticize, but I guess not.
Just reading the first chapter one can see the differences in opinions with many Indian leaders and Gandhi on multiple subjects. Like how many Indian leaders thought that the first priority was political independence and not moral regeneration. Here I thought that India got its’ freedom from just nonviolence movements, but here I learned that many different channels were pursued to gain independence. While Gandhi was the face of the Indian independence movement he was not the one player nor was he looked upon as an all-knowing leader. Just how Indian leaders differed in priorities, they also differed in tactics. For example, when Gandhi was fasting many began criticizing him saying that he was using himself as a weapon to force people to stop committing violent acts and stating things like Gandhi of political naivety. I just find these bits of information interesting because it has changed my perspective not just of Gandhi and his movement but of everything I know, and has asked me to ask myself “how much do I really know?”
Wednesday, February 24, 2010
Civil Disobedience (Thoreau)
While I disagree with Thoreau mostly from his structural beliefs, I do think that he does possess some virtuous qualities. To be fair, however, the context and time period when Thoreau was writing was different than it is today. What I found most enjoyable about his essay, was his notion that if we thought that a law was unjust instead of using the political process and accepting the law until it was changed we must show the law no respect and intentionally break it. To an extent I can agree with this idea. Because why if we thought a law was unjust follow it; to do so sounds absurd. However, he leaves some questions unanswered like: what is just and unjust? But that’s a different topic which could be discussed for days on ends and has been discussed by different theorists throughout history. Thoreau goes too far though in saying if people think a law is unjust to withdraw their support for the government in question. I agree with him the essence that if you think a law is unjust you should not follow it, you can break that law, but to say withdrawal from a government is too outlandish for me. If that was the norm, I believe that it would lead to anarchy.
My perspective of the world comes from both Thomas Hobbes in his essay the Leviathan and John Locke and his view of human nature in his essay The Two Treaties of Government; essentially I believe that anarchy – or the state of nature – will only lead to a perpetual state of war. Because of this perspective, Thoreau and I are obligated to be on opposite sides. For Thoreau is promoting the dissolution of government, the taking back of liberties and sovereignty, and a state of anarchy. For Thoreau, governments are agents of injustice and oppression; and that even majority rule is inferior to his belief in a just world. On these issues I vehemently disagree. For simplicity, I will just say that I see governments as a first step towards a perpetual peace and that without governments (and more specifically democracies) this world would be more unjust than the world we have right now. The lack of democratic governments will only breed distrust and violence.
My perspective of the world comes from both Thomas Hobbes in his essay the Leviathan and John Locke and his view of human nature in his essay The Two Treaties of Government; essentially I believe that anarchy – or the state of nature – will only lead to a perpetual state of war. Because of this perspective, Thoreau and I are obligated to be on opposite sides. For Thoreau is promoting the dissolution of government, the taking back of liberties and sovereignty, and a state of anarchy. For Thoreau, governments are agents of injustice and oppression; and that even majority rule is inferior to his belief in a just world. On these issues I vehemently disagree. For simplicity, I will just say that I see governments as a first step towards a perpetual peace and that without governments (and more specifically democracies) this world would be more unjust than the world we have right now. The lack of democratic governments will only breed distrust and violence.
Monday, February 22, 2010
Voluntary Servitude (Boetie)
While Boetie presents an interesting argument, I believe that his argument is lacking one aspect. In regards to a nation which is under tyrannical rule and wants to rid themselves of his rule I do believe that withdrawing your obedience will in fact undercut the tyrants. However, territory that has been conquered I think will require much more than just the withdrawing of obedience. Boetie seems to have been fond of Greek classics, meaning he probably knew the story about the Athenians and the Melians. The story ends with the Athenians conquering Melian and committing grave crimes against the Melian people and finally basically colonizing Melian. To the Melians they probably considered the Athenians as tyrants. They never gave their obedience to this new government, how could they possible topple the tyrant rule by withdrawing the obedience they never gave to this oppressive government?
As such, Boetie’s argument needs to be expanded to include not just literal tyrant governments, but any type of government in which any portion of the population believes that they are being ruled by a tyrant(s). Specifically vast empires, such as the British Empire, that colonizes other land and people. The basically flaw in Boetie’s argument is that it does not include this scenario. It can easily be fixed, be expanding on the notion of civil disobedience by saying that to successfully topple a ‘tyrant’ government it requires not just the disobedience of the victims, but that it requires a majority of the population as well as a significant portion of the citizens of the oppressors for this idea to work.
As such, Boetie’s argument needs to be expanded to include not just literal tyrant governments, but any type of government in which any portion of the population believes that they are being ruled by a tyrant(s). Specifically vast empires, such as the British Empire, that colonizes other land and people. The basically flaw in Boetie’s argument is that it does not include this scenario. It can easily be fixed, be expanding on the notion of civil disobedience by saying that to successfully topple a ‘tyrant’ government it requires not just the disobedience of the victims, but that it requires a majority of the population as well as a significant portion of the citizens of the oppressors for this idea to work.
Monday, February 15, 2010
Resistance to War
Carl von Clausewitz states it best in his book On War, “War is a mere continuation of policy by other means…War is not merely a political act, but also a real political instrument,…a carrying out of the same by other means…wars are only the expressions of manifestations of policy itself.” Basically war is just a tool used by governments to implement their foreign policy. A brutal way, yes; but the only way humanity has seen fit. Resisters of war find that unacceptable for various reasons; ergo countless literature from conscientious objectors and pacifists on the horrific consequences of war. However, for the most part it seems that these kinds of people just complain about how atrocious war is, but they never have an alternative or solution. If pacifists want to rid the world of war, they must create a new tool for which governments can use to continue foreign policy. William James brings us an alternative to war – what he calls a moral equivalent to war.
William James moral equivalent to war is constructed from his belief in what human nature is. For James, human nature is in harmony with violence; he believes that instilled in every human being is this desire for violence/excitement, what he calls our warlike trait. James solution stems primarily from his notion on what humans instincts are. Thus his idea is for a nonviolent army, a social army. This social draft would include everyone and no one would be exempt. The purpose of this coalition would be to educate the youth about the world – a real and true experience of the world through practical means. This would be a way to connect people from different cultures to people of other cultures at a truly personal level; such that our desire to kill them or create violence would disappear because of our knowledge that they are like us – they are humans.
To reiterate, resisters of war are those who cannot accept war for various reasons at a personal level. While I neither endorse nor oppose the concept of war, I do believe that unless there is an alternative to war, war must go on and will continue to go on. Ergo, alternatives like William James should be thoroughly considered as practical solutions to preventing war by resisters of war.
William James moral equivalent to war is constructed from his belief in what human nature is. For James, human nature is in harmony with violence; he believes that instilled in every human being is this desire for violence/excitement, what he calls our warlike trait. James solution stems primarily from his notion on what humans instincts are. Thus his idea is for a nonviolent army, a social army. This social draft would include everyone and no one would be exempt. The purpose of this coalition would be to educate the youth about the world – a real and true experience of the world through practical means. This would be a way to connect people from different cultures to people of other cultures at a truly personal level; such that our desire to kill them or create violence would disappear because of our knowledge that they are like us – they are humans.
To reiterate, resisters of war are those who cannot accept war for various reasons at a personal level. While I neither endorse nor oppose the concept of war, I do believe that unless there is an alternative to war, war must go on and will continue to go on. Ergo, alternatives like William James should be thoroughly considered as practical solutions to preventing war by resisters of war.
Wednesday, February 10, 2010
Coe and Page
Coe poses an interesting question: "what is violence?" According to him the accepted definition (in 1932) of what is violent and non-violent is flawed because a country refusing to do business with another country and a country blockading another country is one and the same (Action vs inaction) - and is placed under the umbrella of violence. Coe then tries to justify "violent" behaviors and states that violence is acceptable as long as it follows these conditions: it provides opportunity for life, growth, and happiness. Basically Coe states that violence is justified when it is for the greater good. While I agree with that sentiment, Coe expands and states that "men of good will" should use violence against those with special privileges for the greater good - when the opportunities of man to advance is nonexistent. This is where Coe may have gone too far over to the side of Socialism. Coe does, however, acknowledge the fact that this doctrine is dangerous because of how fuzzy it can be as well as how forgetful people can be with regards to why you can use force. As an avid supporter of Capitalism I find it difficult to agree with allowing the poor to use violence to take from the rich. In those sentences lies an underlying problem: the definition of what the greater good is. One person may find the poor as having limited liberties and another person may disagree with that; identifying when it is for the greater good and when to use coercion will be subjective to each and every individual.
Page has a similar conclusion to that of Coe: that the policy we undertake must involve a minimum of suffering and offer the greatest opportunity for redemption - the greater good. For Page possess some Realist values and accepts that in our world we are imperfect: suffering is inevitable. Page comes to this conclusion by answering his own question - is coercion ever justifiable? - by saying it is. Denying coercion, Page says, is allowing yourself to reduce society to anarchy and chaos; and by allowing that to happen you allow violence to be the answer. Page states that there are three options society can undertake: these are resistance by violence, inaction or failure to exert effective restraint, or non-violent coercion. The consequences of each option should be evident already. Going back to Page's conclusion: minimum suffering/greatest opportunity for redemption; Page argues that non-violent coercion is the only option that fits this profile (which makes sense). For resistance by violence leads only to more violence; and inaction or ineffective restraint just perpetuates the injustice on the victims. This leads us with only one option: non-violent coercion.
Page has a similar conclusion to that of Coe: that the policy we undertake must involve a minimum of suffering and offer the greatest opportunity for redemption - the greater good. For Page possess some Realist values and accepts that in our world we are imperfect: suffering is inevitable. Page comes to this conclusion by answering his own question - is coercion ever justifiable? - by saying it is. Denying coercion, Page says, is allowing yourself to reduce society to anarchy and chaos; and by allowing that to happen you allow violence to be the answer. Page states that there are three options society can undertake: these are resistance by violence, inaction or failure to exert effective restraint, or non-violent coercion. The consequences of each option should be evident already. Going back to Page's conclusion: minimum suffering/greatest opportunity for redemption; Page argues that non-violent coercion is the only option that fits this profile (which makes sense). For resistance by violence leads only to more violence; and inaction or ineffective restraint just perpetuates the injustice on the victims. This leads us with only one option: non-violent coercion.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)