Excerpt from "Pacifism as Pathology" by Mike Ryan

I am currently in the process of reading a book called "Pacifism as Pathology" Which is a book more or less against pacifism and nonviolence because according to the authors, it fails to be effective. I thought it would be very interesting to read alongside other writings by people who are very much pro-nonviolence and anti-violence. I found the chapter by Mike Ryan very interesting. He has spent a good deal of time with nonviolent/pacifist resistence in Canada to no avail. Although I see where he is coming from on several points, I can't help but think that it is simply his disillusionment with pacifism as being ineffective that has made him write this. In the first part of the chapter, he states four points that are normally used to oppose violence and responds to them. I would address all of these but it would be an extremely long blog, so I will discuss his first point and rebuttal.
The first point is "There is the ever-popular assertion that the time is not right." He responds to this by explaining that as things get worse, when will the time be right to stop the madness of injustice in any given situation? When nonviolence doesn't work, when will "the time be right" to use violence to finally create justice in a situation where there is none left? He suggests that it is better to act than to not act.
To this, I must bring forth Gandhi's idea of nonviolence. Gandhi would have said that it is never the right time to be violent. It seems to me that Ryan is overlooking the fact that in resistence, one must be active, not passive. He fails to do an important thing throughout the chapter which is that he fails to distinguish between pacifism and nonviolence. Gandhi would have agreed that it is always the time to actively resist, but not with violence.
To back up his rebuttal, Ryan quotes an article regarding the dangers of nuclear war, beginning with the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. This quote was taken from an article by Dr. Rosalie Bertell, discussing the casualities from the after-effects of the bombings and explains that the future for the world and mankind looks bleak because of the already atrociously violent acts of war, starting with the bombings. Ryan responds to this quote by explaining that it is time to take action in any way possible, even violently resisting.
I am confused as to how the quote works to defend the use of violent resistance. The article is clearly against war and all forms of violence because of the destruction it has caused recently and historically. It doesn't seem right to respond to this in saying that the time is now to resist in any way possible to end the injustice in the world. It seems that this quote is asking that we reconsider our actions in the past and turn to a nonviolent new beginning. It is the only way to heal the atrocious past and move on to a more safe and secure future. I don't think that pacifism is the way to achieve this, however. I think it is important to be uncooperative and active in our resistence, should we choose to resist.
I think that the most important thing that Ryan is missing in his argument is that he fails to distinguish between pacifism and active resistance. There is a big difference between the two, and historically a big difference between the outcomes of each.

Hooks- Refusing to be a victim

In this excerpt, Hooks discusses feminism and racism and the important concept of refusing to be victimized. Hook explains that it is important to do this because it psychologically affects us in a negative way, and does not gain sympathy of hte opponent. " When individuel black people project a victim identity because it brings their concerns into greater visibility, they are acting in complicity with an assaultive structure of racist domination in which they invest in the absence of agency. To name oneself a victim is to deny agency. As long as white Americans have difficulty comping with the assertion of agency and self-determination by individual or collective groups of black folks, victimization will continue to be the location of visibility." What Hooks is basically saying -which is a concept that had not really occurred to me, to be honest - is that people will only realize the importance of equality if those oppressed discontinue to identify as victims. Although it is true that showing one's victimization was a way to gain sympathy of some people, they would still not necessarily going to be accepted that equal rights - that is to say, complete equal rights - were necessary. That being said, I think it is a fine line between portraying oneself as victim and working nonviolently for equality. I am unsure of the period of this book's publication, but historically it must have been difficult for black people to refuse to be a victim, considering the fact that racism was present everywhere in society during and after the civil rights movement. However I understand Hooks' point in that victimization causes generalization toward the other side (in this case, white people) and raises tension, because in many white people at the time, there must have been some guilt on the mistreatment of black people (certainly not everyone, but still a large number) and along with guilt often comes defensiveness, which causes opposition. This is not the way for anybody to achieve equality. I think this can greatly be applied to any minority group which is discriminated against by people, even if not by law - it is important for a group to show that they will not submit to discrimination. I understand that this is nearly impossible in many situations, but surely it can be practiced by a group as a whole. There is no reason for inequality in any society and I think inherently we as people want to live harmoniously - in many cases it is simply the illusion of threat that causes discrimination, and this can only be overcome by non-violence and by refusal to submit to unfair treatment.

Martin Luther King and his Pilgrimage to Non-violence

Upon reading this excerpt and learning about King's studies of non-violence, including studies of many philosophers, Gandhi's practices, and learning about communism, I was particularly intrigued by the 5 points of non-violence that King talks about in reference to the Montgomery Movement. This was most interesting to me because of the way King insists that non-violence does in fact work, and it is not easy ; it takes courage.
The first point that King discusses is that non-violence is not pacifism. This is in reference to Gandhi's principles; Gandhi always was against pacifism. King emphasizes in this first point, like Gandhi, the importance of non-cooperation without violence.
The second point, which I found very interesting, is that King's aim was not just to defeat the injustice, but to befriend the opponent. Gandhi's main focus was to change a wrongdoer's mind. King goes on to say that one must reconcile ties with the opponent after nonviolence.
Thirdly King emphasizes that the attack is on the injustice, not the people performing said injustice. I think this is an important distinction to be made. Without this distinction, a nonviolent resistor may lose sight of morality and take their resistance too far into violence. It is important to recognize that the victim is the injustice, not the people who may be manipulated by others to produce said injustice.
King's fourth point highlights Gandhi's principle of "turn the other cheek." He stresses the importance of being able to take a blow without retaliation. This is key to Gandhi's work because Gandhi believed that by taking blows without fighting back, it lets the opponent see his injustice.
Finally, in King's fifth point, he explains that nonviolence carries into the self, not only through one's actions. One must be peaceful inside of himself to truly carry out nonviolence, not simply through his actions. I think this is a point that is overlooked the most often in non-violence, because when injustice is being done, it can be extremely painful and difficult to be peaceful toward the enemy on the inside.
King's points form an important framework for non-violence. I think it is extremely commendable that King was able to hold these ideals during the Civil Rights Movement despite the horrifying injustices that were occurring at the time.

Gandhi: Video, and Satyagraha

Gandhi held many very interesting beliefs and stuck with them. He was a religious man and believed that religion was the true way, and he was unusual in his beliefs since he believed any religion, whether Muslim, Jain, Jewish, Hindu, or Christian, was the correct path. In addition, he was passionate about non-violence and overall believed that each person had a right to be treated equally. I found his interest in non-violence to be very effective because he did not take it halfway. He was adamant about sticking with his beliefs under any circumstances - even if his life was in danger. Because he was against passive resistance, he was able to make the people around him stop fighting because they saw that it was the right thing to do, despite their many deep-seated prejudices and negative history and pain. Though these people had been hurt by each other, they realized by Gandhi's example that the right thing to do was to lessen the fighting. These deep-seated prejudices between ethnic groups or religious groups exist all over the globe, and often ( but not always) All that it takes is for each side to realize that the other side is, at their core, the same - with the same desires and fears - despite their differences. Gandhi was a person who was able to use non-violence by example to show people what the right thing to do is. His legacy will live on hopefully for a long time.

Wise - Who's being Naive? (bit of a rant, sorry)

Upon reading Wise's article, I found myself agreeing often with what was written. In the article, "naivete" and "realism" are discussed in accordance to views on the current war on terror. The author disagrees with the war and uses examples to point out that the United States is actually the one being naive in this situation by taking the wrong approach in this war.
This is a topic that I am very passionate about, because I have friends living in Israel, Palestine, Egypt, and Jordan from attending an international camp. Having visited the West Bank and Israel myself, I recognize that there is an enormous problem in the area with human rights on the Palestinian side of the wall. It is no secret that the United States is in full support of Israel, and it is certainly no secret that the United States(generally speaking of course) seems to harbor angry feelings toward all people of Middle Eastern descent (with the exception of Israel).
I briefly mentioned this in my last blog, but historically the United States has been extremely militant as a nation and has also been extremely hypocritical in its support for certain nations. We have fought and helped genocide in the east, and have changed our relations with certain countries based on our needs and best interests. It hardly seems believable that we should be surprised at the hostility from the East, considering our history. And yet we continue to fight this "war on terror" which is supposed to be destroying a widespread terrorist organization and fixing our fears and worldwide reputation? It makes absolutely no sense to me. We are simply pouring gasoline into the already brightly burning fire that we started back in the days of Teddy Roosevelt's presidency. It is very disturbing to me that those opposed to this war are considered "naive" and "unrealistic" when history and all the evidence points toward the opposite. We should be extending a friendly hand toward the Middle East and maybe putting some pressure on Israel to improve living conditions for the Palestinians instead of simply ignoring the fact and angering the Arab world more. It's time for America to make a change

Addams

Jane Addams offers a pacifist perspective on war, and begins her writing by saying that war is not socially and economically beneficial at all, despite popular belief. She goes on to explain that violence is not innate in us, and that instead we must be offered some sort of force or reason to go into war, and that we are naturally inclined to cooperate.
I agree with Addams for the most part, especially on the subject that war does not benefit the country as much as it seems to. Although it may temporarily boost the economy, it really does more harm than good because of the national debt that arises from the expenses of war, as well as the worsened relations with the country or countries which are being opposed. Historically, the United States has been a very imperialist and militant country, and because of this we have suffered the consequences of being looked down upon by a large number of foreign countries. Not only have recent wars cost us money, they have also cost us the respect of many nations.
I do not entirely agree with Addams on the subject of our innate desire to cooperate. I do not believe that we do have this; because we are inclined to oppose those who are different from us or those who challenge our beliefs. Although we may be inclined to bond with those from the same nation, there is still a remarkable amount of internal discrimination in every country. We are not inclined to cooperate, therefore, even on a national level, not to mention on an international level.
This being said, however, I think that is important to recognize that we do not naturally have an innate desire to commit physical violence against others in the form of war. It doesn't make much sense that a person would want to put himself in danger in order to fight for his country, it goes against our natural instinct of self-defense since there is a high possibility of injury or death. Also, it is extremely traumatizing for a psychologically secure human being to injure or kill another unless it is in self defense and even so, it can still be very psychologically damaging. We do not want to hurt each other for no reason because we feel guilt and the majority of us have a conscience.
Overall I think Addams makes a good point and in her call for civil action she is correct - we must act non-violently in order to have an impact and to fight militarism.

A Pacifist Continuum

Cady's writing begins by assessing and examining views of opposition to war and looking at the diversity of anti-war views. Cady develops a scale to better understand the range of viewpoints regarding pacifism. The scale begins at what Cady calls "absolute pacifism" which is the view that no matter what, causing harm to another person is always wrong. Cady explains that this viewpoint can be argued from both a secular and religious standpoint, but either way it is very difficult to uphold and to defend.
Cady also makes a point that I think is important when he defines what violence is, and makes a distinction between violence and coercion. He defines violence as "any physical act intending to injure, damage, or destroy a person or object."(p. 61) Coercion may use violence but it does not necessarily. He separates this from Power, which is any ability put to use to accomplish another task (p. 60) and it may or may not use the previous two definitions. It is important to understand what violence is before understanding the pacifist standpoint and understanding that pacifists have different degrees of their ideals and may oppose some or all of these things.
Cady goes on to describe the next step on the scale in which violence in the case of self-defense is acceptable, and then the step after which holds the view that violence against individuals is acceptable but not violence by and towards groups (e.g. war). Further along the scale considers acceptance of war in principle, but still is in opposition to war because of the lack of knowledge of all the circumstances in order to know if the killing of these individuals is justified.
Cady goes on to explain the complexity of the scale and of each step on it.
Cady also explains technological pacifism, which holds the view that nuclear weapons should not be used, and from an ecological standpoint, the view that we should be aware of the damage that can be done to the planet's health.
Finally, pragmatic pacifism holds the view that war can relieve human suffering in some cases.
Overall I think Cady makes an acceptable scale for analyzing pacifism at its different degrees; however, it is important to consider that there are different degrees of pacifism and in order to understand it fully it is important to analyze each piece individually. He should more clearly address the fact that people may have an eclectic view of pacifism, taking bits from each of the steps on the scale. I think the difference in individuals is the most important factor because every person may have a different justification for their actions, and may be acting based on true principal, or simply because they have a greater agenda. I think that in regards to pacifism, it is important to maintain a happy medium. It is important to avoid violence while still able to maintain a self-defense for one's own well-being, because protection of self, I personally believe, falls under the category of preventing violence.

La Boetie

La Boetie, writing in the 16th century, talks about governance of individuals. His main premise in the article explains that governance of any individual depends on the reaction of the individual. He says that we enslave ourselves by obeying the authority figure, and that all one has to do to achieve liberty is to disobey and will thus become free from enslavement.
La Boetie was certainly not an impoverished individuel, which suggests to me that he was never enslaved and could probably not fully understand the implications of being enslaved. While his point is valid, it does not draw attention to the potential danger that a person under authority could face should he/she disobey. In some cases, servants or enslaved individuels may have no other options, and may be unable to disobey for fear of punishment. It is not always possible to simply liberate oneself from a situation when sometimes the alternative is even more bleak (if that is indeed possible). La Boetie is absolutely right in that a person's subjugation to another human is completely dependent on that person's cooperation; however, he does not realize that in many cases non-cooperation is impossible.