Idealization

Sometimes I wonder if we idealize Gandhi and MLK Jr and other people like them. Do we hold them to an impossible standard, as perfect models of NV? I start to dislike them almost, because all we seem to hear about is how perfect they were. And as we know, they weren't perfect. They were just humans, who happened to have great ideas about peace AND were in a position to do something about it. I mean, I know it's important to learn about them, and that most of the nonviolent theory comes from people like them (and Sharp.. we mustn't forget Gene). But is it good to focus so much on them? I was reading through some of my past posts (to make sure I wasn't repeating myself) and I realized how many of them were about Gandhi. It just seems unbalanced. I don't know who I'd rather learn about; maybe there really aren't that many people who would be good models.

Just a little thought I had.

Rawls

Rawls had the idea of a veil of ignorance. I liked this idea because it seemed the most fair to me. The idea is that people make up the rules for society, not knowing what their role in society will be. So it's like, for example, you set up an education system, not knowing if you'll be male or female, wealthy or poor. The two questions that Rawls really brings up are:

1) What are the rules of a just society
2) When do we engage in civil disobedience

The veil of ignorance's intent is to bring about equal rights. It recognizes that the world is not fair; sometimes, everyone is going to be disadvantaged. The point is that the disadvantages aren't intentionally targeted at a specific group. There will always be mistakes made, but as long as they're truly mistakes/random, and not the products of a flawed system, you just live with them.

Rawls also makes the point that if you live in a society, and accept its benefits, then you agree to comply, in conduct, with the laws. You can disagree in principle, but you still have to act in accordance with the law. Like you can make symbolic gestures of disagreement, but you can't break the law. This is a form of social contract. I don't think Thoreau would like this very much.

I think one can use civil disobedience only when:
1)the legal means have first been tried, and not worked or been closed to change
2)there is a clear violation of justice
3)there are voiceless groups, which shouldn't be in a society that truly used the veil of ignorance
4)there is a visible pattern, or potential for such a pattern, of abuse of power

Civil disobedience needs to be public, nonviolent, contrary to the law, for the general good of the whole population and done with a willingness to suffer (you are, afterall, breaking the law).

Invisible Children

I went to see Invisible Children tonight. I saw it last year in high school, but there was an update at the end, which was wonderful to see. Wow, it is astounding to see, even when I've seen it before. The first time, it made me cry. I held back this time, but very easily could have. I don't understand how you can remain indifferent to that kinda thing. The thing I love the most about the organization is that they give really practical methods of helping, as well as the really over the top ones. For example, just talk to people. Awareness raising and education is HUGE. One of the biggest reasons, I think, why people don't do anything, is because they don't know that there needs to be anything done. I know I had never heard of the problems in Uganda, regarding children, before I saw the video. I mean, I knew there was a war, and lots of ethnic conflict issues (as if those aren't bad enough on their own, right?) but I had no idea that children were being abducted and forced into military service. On the other extreme besides simply communicating, you can sign up to go and work with these kids.

My parents are always asking me, what are you going to do with International studies and PACS? Like, what is that possibly good for? I've always struggled to find good, concrete examples. But I feel like IC is one. I've always wanted to work with kids in developing nations; I picked PACS not because I'm a truly nonviolent person, although I think violence is too often chosen as a first or second resort, but because I feel like kids are often taken advantaged of, or completely neglected, in conflicts. I want to understand how conflicts work, how they can be managed and used more efficiently, so I can use that knowledge to help protect and promote children's rights in areas with war, currently or recently. I just sent my mom the link for IC; now she can know what I want to do, generally, and possibly specifically.

If one is trapped in a circle of oppression and repression, whether it be by an outside force, or by dominant forces within a society, what would make you think you could rebel? I'm always surprised and impressed with groups, such as the people in Chile or other countries with terrible dictators, who manage to come together and form organizations of resistance. If you don't know any different than what you've always had though, where do these thoughts come from? Do you model off of other countries/groups of people? Or do these thoughts come of just yourself, like the Otpor group having the same models as Gene Sharp?

What reason has someone to dream of something they have never known?

I think of the boys at the orphanage where I spend my spring breaks and as much of my summer as I can. More often than not, they don't seem or express much dissatisfaction with their situation. When they first come, they cry at nights, and I've heard stories from other boys about listening to the boy above them crying in the dark of night. But after awhile, they say, they don't think about it anymore. Some of them say they have dreams of going to university, but know they will never go because they have no money. They give up on that and accept the fact that they will be merely subsistence farmers. And I waver between thinking it's a good thing that they can accept the likely reality of their futures, and distress that 10 year old boys have already given up hope for a better tomorrow. Which one is better? To dream about something they may never be and be disappointed, or never to dream at all?

Back to Gandhi

Gandhi's system of parallel structures really interests me. He said to set up your own system if the accepted one refused to acknowledge change. It was a last resort kind of thing. But how would that look in society? Would you set up a new school system? A new police force? Medical care? Public transportation? Everything! That would require huge numbers of people, so would this idea only work when most of the people in a region agree with you? I think that would have worked for Gandhi, had England refused to make concessions, but I don't think it would work with the current US anti-war party. Like I said in an earlier post, most people don't actively fight against the war. They talk a lot, but they don't do a lot. I don't think they could manage to set up a completely separate system. Also, what's to keep the original government from destroying it, in its infancy? I think it's a really interesting concept, but I have a lot of questions and doubts about its application. Is there an example I should look at where it has been applied?

Response to the Resistance Movies

The two movies we watched, the Danish Resistance and the Otpor movie were very interesting. We talk so much about nonviolence in theory that it was amazing to actually see it implemented. I was so impressed at the Otpor movement for so closely matching standardly and widely accepted nonviolent methods and models while not being aware of it. What impressed me most about the Danish resistance was the incredible success they had. They were amazing! When I was looking at other resistance movement in regards to Nazi occupation for my project, I tried to avoid that one because we had already discussed it in class, and it was hard to find lots of information about other countries because the Dutch one was so compelling. So nonviolently and so successfully... it just really impressed me. I was also amazed by their leadership- they had some really tough decisions to make about whether to cooperate or not with the Nazis. They did what they thought was best for their people, and when they couldn't remain true to their beliefs, they stepped down. I think the underground communication systems in Denmark really facilitated their successes. One of the most difficult things for some of the other movements was the lack of contact both with the outside world and with other underground networks, due to Nazi policy.

Not class related

I understand why many people have been protesting the current war in Iraq. I am not one of them, but I understand it. My personal view on it has always been supportive, but as the years have passed, I wish more and more it would just be over. But as I was reading material for a class project, I came across a statement that really made me think.

"Their [Iraqi's] memories of torture and death make it hard for Iraqis to understand the war protesters in the West. "Why weren't they protesting when 350,000 Iraqis were chemically and biologically attacked?" asks Surdashi. "Where is the outrage? Why weren't they on the streets then? We know the price of freedom is going to be high, but two million of my people died under the Gestapo tactics of Saddam.""

Her questions really resonated with me. The full article is here: Horror Stories by Timothy W. Maier

Response to a main page post

I would like to respond to a main page post, reposted below:

"Sharp's next argument about obedience made me think. He brings up the point that a ruler's power depends greatly on the obedience of the subjects, which restates the importance of the people. Revolutions and other oppositions to the government happened because the people were tired of obeying laws they did not like. Now he raises the question why are people obedient in the first place? In answer to this question, he tells us that obedience is habitual. We follow the laws because we have for a long time and obedience prevents unwanted interruptions within our daily schedules. If obedience is habitual, why do we have strikes and nonviolent action? He quoted Thomas Hill Green who pointed out an important fact: "obedience will scarcely be habitual unless it is loyal, not forced.""

I do believe that a leader's power is based in his followers.... it's been made clear in the past (examples given in Sharp) where people just refused to follow orders, but still lived their fairly normal lives, thereby defeating the disliked ruler. And I would say that obedience is habitual... but I also think part of it is that it is very difficult to maintain or begin a revolution. The oppression has to be extreme. Especially in our form of government, where there is the opportunity for change peacefully, and that the populace has that power via voting. So I think part of it is that we rationalize that we picked our rulers, so what have we to complain about. I think strikes and nonviolent actions are used (for example, the bus boycotts and other Civil Rights actions) when the system is internally flawed, but of a good structure. The problem wasn't democracy... the problem was in how people had manipulated it... giving only certain people the vote, offering only a small selection of candidates... as well as the cultural issues of racism, very obvious in the south.

I think this may also be part of the Bush issue. I don't particularly want to get into my personal beliefs, but I will agree that many people seem dissatisfied with Bush. Why don't they act? Well some are, as noticed by participation of Juniata students in marches and such. But I don't think it's widespread enough. Some author, for another class, said that things need to be "evenly and widely distributed" for it to have an effect (I think he was talking about economic/ wealth redistribution but I think it works here too). In addition to this, I think people still fall back to the "we elected him, he has just a few years left... I'll wait for the next election to make my voice heard." Is this a good attitude? I'd say no. If we rely only on the mechanisms we have built into the system to make change, change will be slow. Besides, not enough people vote anyways. It's pathetic. While I would not participate, I feel that if people want change, or have an issue they feel passionately about, they need to act. Otherwise, they're just a bunch of talk and I don't respect that. Do something.

Satyagraha

I thought the code of discipline of satyagraha was very interesting. It seemed to be a whole system and set of rules for a uniform outward face of the movement. For example, followers were told to "obey orders of satyagraha leaders, resign if there is serious disagreement". This is so contrary to our own culture in which every one is allowed to disagree and be an "individual". Usually, we try and "respectfully" disagree, but we still have that freedom. And the only times we have to leave groups are when we choose to because we, for some reason, don't want to be associated with that particular group at this time.

Another aspect I thought was unique was about how to act in face of opposition. Gandhi tells his followers to "be an exemplary prisoner". He also says to "not resist arrest or attachment of property unless you are a trustee" in which case you "refuse to surrender property held in trust at risk of life". There were more rules along this line, like protecting your enemies even if you have to die in the process. It seems to be more than just nonviolence... a step beyond. I think part of this is that for Gandhi, part of nonviolence was more than using it as a fighting tactic. For him, nonviolence was really part of life... his reasons had moral and religious underpinnings as well. What I didn't understand was that part about being a trustee. Did some people give their property to the groups... in which case they had to be protected? How did this mesh with the idea of having no earthly attachments, including familial attachments? He does say to "not expect guarantees for maintenance of dependents" which I took to mean children, slaves/servants, and maybe even wives.

I don't know if I like the idea of satyagraha... it lacks individuality beyond the fact that one has to personally fully believe in its goals for any of it to work. Well, I guess in some ways I can understand that. There are things bigger than us that we are a part of, that we would be willing to make large sacrifices for... maybe that's what satyagraha relied upon/fulfilled for people. I still don't know if I would have been a part of it... I'm not peaceful enough I guess. I wouldn't be able to "harbor no anger" and other mandates Gandhi gave his followers.

Violence Vs. Nonviolence

So I don't remember exactly which readings these are for, but they're some thoughts I had written down a while ago.

For me, violence is not accidental; it's intentionally harming someone or something in some way. It can be against a person, an animal, property or the environment and can be standard physical harm, or emotional, psychological, etc. I don't really have a clear idea on what "harm" is. Something about lowering of standards... living standards, limiting options, reducing... somehow limiting potential. Part of violence goes back to that saying about means and ends. Violence doesn't necessarily care about the methods... as long as the end goal is accomplished that's all that matters.

Galtung talked about structural, direct and cultural violence. I can understand all three, but to me it's really difficult and almost unfair to accuse and convict someone of anything except direct violence. They can control their actions. But how can you judge a member of a majority group based on the actions of the whole? They're not in control of that. They can't individually change that. They can think something's wrong and unfair and unjust... like, let's say wage inequality for women or ethnic/racial minorities... but what can one man do about that? If he's in charge of paying people, that's different, but just any random man can't change the structure and I feel it's wrong to blame him for things beyond his control.

I guess this goes into my confusion about how intentional does violence have to be? Like in the example above, I really don't think people actually sit around and think to themselves, "Oh yes, I want to pay women and minorities less, because I'm a mean nasty person that way". At the same time, they need to be accountable for their actions. How intentional does violence have to be? Similarly, how intentional does nonviolence have to be for it to be technically used as a tactic? I really think some people are just less aggressive or prone to use violence than others. But at the same time, do they have to consciously use nonviolence as a tactic/method for it to count?

Most of the Suffragists/Feminism readings

I really enjoyed reading about Lucy Stone and Elizabeth Cady Stanton. What strong minded and strong willed women!

Lucy Stone: She related the struggles of women to get into college and to widen the array of jobs open to them. She also illuminated the different ways in which women were made invisible legally, once they were married. Stone gives the example of how a woman who earned any money didn't get to keep it; her husband got the money, and could use it however he wanted, including to get drunk and he was allowed to beat her, if he so chose. This reading brought to mind the scene in Mary Poppins, when Mrs. Banks appeared to be very pro-feminism, and would sing songs, but when Mr. Banks got home, all the banners and ribbons had to be hidden, because "you know how the cause infuriates Mr. Banks". Near the end of the article, when she talked about how women had heard and understood the suffering of the slaves, because they too were silenced in public and refused basic rights, I wondered what Douglas would have said to Lucy Stone.

Elizabeth Cady Stanton: I found her speech to be really amusing! She starts out by telling men not to worry; women aren't going to abandon everything, like dresses. In fact, she says, you can keep your pants, dresses and flowing outfits are better- just look at the bishops, priests, judges, barristers, lord mayors, and the Pope and his cardinals- they all wear flowing outfits. Basically, she says not much will really change, we just want the basic rights we deserve. We want to be able to vote, we want to be able to pursue an education and career of our choice. We still want to be women and womanly... we like our clothes, we like our children, we like beauty and dignity... but we want our rights.

The Declaration of Sentiments, Conflict over US Woman Suffrage Movement, Amendments: I found these to be more helpful in understanding timelines, as opposed to actually getting a feel for the movement. I did like the strong parallels between the Declaration of Sentiments and the Declaration of Independence. I think it would have been very appropriate for the audience as well as something strongly believed in.

Civil Disobedience- Thoreau

Thoreau basically argues that he never signed up to be a part of the society he was born into. He doesn't agree with many of the things 'his' government does, and so practices civil disobedience, for example, by not paying his taxes. He says that he doesn't know where his money will end up, and since he doesn't want to be responsible, no matter how indirectly, for something such as war, he refuses to participate in any form. He lives simply and unattached from the society he is in the midst of. The most striking quote to me was when he said, "I am not the son of the engineer", by which he meant it is not his responsibility to fix society's problems. However, he freely admits that he gets use out of the society (pg. 60). If he is willing to use the society, is he not in some form participating in it? And then should he not take at least some minimal responsibility for it?

Coe and Page- Violence, Non-violence, and the uses of coercion

These two short articles tried to decide what violence is and is not, as well as when, if ever it is acceptable to use violence.

Coe says that violence is "the taking away of the means of life and action" and "preventing men from securing these means". He brings up the point then of an embargo. By refusing to do something, you can cause "violence". To him, the line between violence and non-violence is very unclear. In regards to the use of violence, he asks the question, if we do nothing aren't we harming the next generation by not protecting them? His answer is that if by resorting to coercion we give the next generation a better chance to grow into adults who can live and thrive, coercion is acceptable. But if it won't help, then some other method needs to be found and used. Coe does question whether force will ever accomplish any good. Finally, by action or inaction, good and bad can come from it, but good things must still be done- "in any case the children should be fed".

Page believes that unless we find a way to use nonviolence effectively and administer justice alongside negative peace, the victims will just take up violent means to get what they think they deserve. To him, the hazy line is between what is acceptable coercion and unacceptable- ethical and unethical. Finally, he gives three options for how we can deal with human suffering, all of which may lead to more suffering, but says that "suffering is inescapable".
1)resistance by violence
2)inaction
3)nonviolent coercion

Cultural Violence- Johan Galtung

Galtung described, in very simple language, different types of violence: direct, structural and cultural. According to this model, violence can be an event, a process or an invariant (a permanent way). He also spent some time describing how culture can give rise to violence. While I don't fully understand the logic behind some of this examples, he used six cultural tools to describe how violence can be integrated into society:
1)religion- chosen v. unchosen, men superior to women
2)ideology- nationalism, self v. others
3)language- possibly sexism, in that humankind is often referred to as mankind, leaving no room for women
4)art- social/cultural stereotypes continued by art (?)
5)empirical science- comparative advantage favors European and developed nations, and is designed to benefit them (?)
6)formal science- mathematics has right and wrong answers, and is too black/white, yes/no-- I really didn't understand how this one promotes violence

Jesus' Third Way

I really enjoyed reading the article, Jesus' Third Way by Walter Wink. I don't often completely agree with the readings for this class, or any other for that matter, but this description and explanation of a Biblical passage that I have misunderstood for years. Wink explains the true meaning behind Jesus' words in Matthew 3, verses 38- 42. I won't go into much depth, but the verses appear to advocate compliancy and submission on the part of the Jewish people to grossly unfair laws placed upon them by the Roman government.
The first example Jesus gives is that of turning the other cheek. It appears Jesus is telling His listeners to submit to physical beatings with no response. However, Wink explains that in order to strike a person the second time, with the right hand (as the left was considered dirty) and to the right cheek, it would have been backhanded. "We are dealing here with insult, not a fist fight." In offering the second cheek, the Jew, or other "inferior", was saying "you can't humiliate me". The "oppressor" has lost his power because he was unable to instill fear in his victim.
The second example involves poverty and clothes. Many of Jesus' followers were desperately poor, and Jewish law said that for the very poor, they would give their cloak (the outermost clothing that also served as a bedding) to pay the debt, but that the cloak must be returned each night so that the debtor might have somewhere to sleep. In telling His followers to not only give their cloak, but also their shirt, Jesus reversed the humiliation. Now, the one collecting the debt was humiliated, because according to Jewish law, nakedness was "taboo" but not to the naked party... to the one causing nakedness. So imagine going to court to settle a debt... you're required to give all your clothing and you leave stark naked. But in the Jewish culture, you wouldn't be humiliated... the one who has your clothes is shamed.
The final example involved the Roman military. Jesus said that the Jews should walk the extra mile, so to speak. According to Roman law, the soldiers could grab random civilians and make them carry their packs for one mile. This law was often abused, and many decrees about enforcing it had been issued. Jesus told His listeners to not only going the one mile, but to go the second mile, which would cause much confusion for the soldier. Instead of being proud and happy about the fact that he had a slave for one mile, the soldier now was wondering, "Am I going to get in trouble for this? What is this man doing? Give me back my pack!"
So while it at first appears that Jesus is saying, "Be a virtual slave for your oppressors", he was really advocating serious nonviolent resistance. He was providing a way for a much repressed group to regain their dignity, without and before a physical revolution.