In response to a comment on a protected post in someone’s journal. It was discussing pacifism. Among many things, he said pacifists, by which he meant those unwilling to defend themselves, ought to be killed (I hope he was being hyperbolic). I replied identifying myself as a pacifist, and willing to defend myself. He said aversion to violence is normal, and shouldn’t be labeled pacifism…
Yeah, I see what you’re saying, and it’s certainly a valid point, most people are averse to violence. I regard it as a question of degrees: How far does this have to go, before I react with violence? I use pacifist to mean someone who has a higher threshold for violent response than most.
Now, to bring it a little closer to reality, let’s consider this as part of a richer world. In any given problem, there are multiple avenues of possible action. Someone starts badmouthing your mother, you a) slug the jerk, b) take it c) leave d) insult his mother e) tell him to shut up f) etc…. Alternate example, someone kills your best friend in front of you, do you try to a) kill him, b) run and hide, c) call the cops, d) negotiate with him, e) surrender, f) try to disarm him, g) etc…
Obviously, there are a ton of circumstantial variables to consider. And more than one course of action can be taken in response. But if you have a high threshold against violence, maybe you’ll attempt to run and hide, or disarm your friend’s murderer rather than kill him, even if that is a riskier move on your part. Then call the cops.
One can have a threshold on violent action that they would sooner die than kill, or sooner let thousands die than kill one person. I’m a pretty close call on the first one, but I’ll unenthusiastically choose my life over someone else’s if it ever comes down to it. I’ll definitely choose one life lost to 1,000 lives lost.
But, I think I have a higher threshold than most on violent action.
And I think pacifists serve a valuable function. I doubt either the civil rights movement, or the Indian liberation movement would have achieved the success they did without the (publicized) victimization of non-violent protesters.
I likewise suspect those non-violent activists probably wouldn’t have made it anywhere without the violent resisters operating in parallel. Someone to scare people into paying attention and thinking it might be worth the cost to change, and someone to express the desired change in an understandable, sympathizable, non-threatening way.
I may be blowing smoke there, and it may just be that these are two natural responses to being in an undesireable situation, so both spring up when people desperately want change, and, due to only one of these mechanisms, or, for that matter, divine intervention, the change happens. This is theory unsupported by hard evidence. It is plausible, but is it true? Is there any way to find out?
Beautiful.
“Alternate example, someone kills your best friend in front of you…”
It’s like Job (rhymes with lobe) from the bible. Someone kills his entire family, but he doesn’t take revenge because God did not put Job on Earth to create violence.
“… I think pacifists serve a valuable function. I doubt either the civil rights movement, or the Indian liberation movement would have achieved the success they did without the (publicized) victimization of non-violent protesters.
I likewise suspect those non-violent activists probably wouldn’t have made it anywhere without the violent resisters operating in parallel. Someone to scare people into paying attention and thinking it might be worth the cost to change, and someone to express the desired change in an understandable, sympathizable, non-threatening way.”
To support this, I once read (granted in a fictional source, but one I trust to check his references) that Malcom X once said, (and I’m paraphrasing from memory here), “The White establishment was willing to talk to Martin Luther King, Jr., because they didn’t want to have to talk to me.”
Who is the author? =) What is the piece? Sounds worth reading.
The author is Eric Flint, and I don’t remember exactly which book it was in, though I know which series it was. I forget what he’s decided to call the series, but the first book in the series is 1632. The second book is 1633. The third book is 1634: The Galileo Affair. There’s also a book of short stories in the universe called “Ring of Fire”. The premise is basically sci-fantasy alternate history: a West Virginian town from the year 2000 is transported, unsuspectingly, back in time into the middle of Germany in 1632. From there, history changes, to say the least.
The quote comes up, I believe, in either 1633 or 1634. To explain the context would take way too long….
The series is interesting, because Eric Flint is a hobby historian, and takes great pains to try to remain fairly true to the situations as they might have been (and true to how they were before the arrival of the 20th Century Americans). I’ll admit there are parts where one has to just accept that he had to throw in a couple deus ex machinas just to keep the story from basically being “The Americans showed up, then they got wiped out in their first winter”, but those are mostly at the very beginning, rather than convenient ways to get out of a jam.
As far as where the original quote came from, it’s probably in Malcom X’s autobiography, which I really should get around to reading some day…
For a pacifist, your bubble boundary of kickboxing-type responses is rather large. 😀
Heh. That’s just play. =) Might as well talk about the vast quantities of mandragoras I’ve slain. =) I can’t think of a single time in the past decade that I’ve hit someone with intent to harm.
I think the most violent I’ve been in that span is grabbing by the collar and yelling in his face, and that was quite an exceptional incident. I was tired, cranky, out of sorts, under high stress in general and somewhat provoked, though he was too drunk to have any real intent.
I’m not a true pacifist in that I don’t have feelings of murderous rage.
Though I’ve vowed to never lift a finger against a man for as long as I live henceforth.
Been there, done that, lived it and breathed it.
Its not something you go back to. It’s other’s turn now to do that particular job.
Way late, but I think the key to most misunderstanding of pacifism is this. Many people believe pacifism is passive. A simple lack of response, a non-response to violence. In a sense a pretending that it does not exist, a hope that if one ignores it it will go away.
Pacifism, in a constructive sense, is a response to violence. It seeks to reduce harm, to prevent harm. Whether the action taken is to choose to depart the scene, to call for a halt, to prevent harm by action, it can all reasonably be pacificism. The last two times I’ve been assaulted in my life (many years ago), I responded by grappling, speaking a few words, and then letting go. I think this is a kind of pacifism.
What is sometimes difficult for me to find is the political pacifist course which is active, in the face of militarism. What can I do other than to say “NO!” When my voice feels unheard, this does not feel active, and I think is not functional pacficism.