Like this:

We are currently reading Ward Churchill‘s writing: “Pacifism as Pathology”. A short summary of the thesis could read: ‘by strictly using non-violent tactics, activists are only reinforcing their/our oppression’. The summarized argument goes:

• Despite the fact that many activists are committed to challenging or even overthrowing the social order, pacifist tactics may in fact be reinforcing it.
• Most activism is carefully controlled, allowed, a calculated amount of dissent to be practiced in sanctioned areas with proper permits.
• Thus many or most activists engage in what Churchill would call pseudo-praxis; that is, working from within the limitations imposed through the dominant culture itself (typically through the state)
• Churchill gives a number of examples of historical events where pacifists acquiesced, and suffered greatly. (Civil rights movement, holocaust, Indian Independence Movement [Gandhi]) His argument is that if they had fought back, they would have been further ahead.
• He also argues that the apparent success of Gandhi and MLK and the survival of the Jews (as opposed to complete genocide) was a result of violent action (The Black Panthers for example in the case of MLK)
• Finally, he argues that pacifism is inherently racist – basically, activists in the global north have the privilege to be pacifists while the oppressed in the global south face a much more violent state/system/culture and colonial influences from the North. Can we really stand in solidarity with the South if they are forced into violence and abstain from it (even though we can likely affect more change on our colonial policy/actions from within than can be done from the colonized regions)

First of all, I wouldn’t uncritically accept all of Churchill’s historic examples – this is his interpretation (which he is entitled to). Now, where do I stand. I believe that non-violent strategies and tactics should be, can be and will be at the centre of positive social change(s). I don’t believe that violence should be a part of a broad strategy for social change(s), however am not a pacifist, and recognize that, in isolated circumstances, violence may be the most appropriate way forward – but as a last option (but, who decides when you are at that “last resort” stage?). This position is rooted in a belief that violence is always oppressive and that it is unlikely (perhaps not impossible) that violent actions will lead to a more just world. In this entry, I will work through my current and evolving thinking on the subject.

I could never do harm to person and would have a hard time even committing violence against property (except for the abandoned barn windows that I used for rock throwing practice as a child). Related to Churchill’s “comfort zone” – I am not willing to sacrifice my body, my livelihood, or my role as a husband and (soon to be) father. These, especially the latter are too important to me as an individual and as a family member. Am I falling into the hypocritical position that Churchill so condescendingly sums up in the statement: “What sort of politics might I engage in which will both allow me to posture as a progressive and allow me to avoid incurring harm to myself?” Am I a “lifestyle activist”, only acting to establish an image as a progressive? I think not, and in fact, am a bit put off by the suggestion. There needs to be a balance, and each person’s equilibrium will be different, between doing what is right for you as an individual, for those that are closest to you (family, friends) and that which promotes the common good. With no doubt as a society, we are far too individualistic and, as a whole, we are off-balance, out of whack so to speak. What is the solution? How do we re-balance? Is the solution to take those who are more inclined towards acting for the collective good and push them to the extreme, to violent actions in hopes that a) these extreme individual actions will compensate for the shortcomings of others and b) violence will force others to act for the common good?

To me, the end does not justify the means. I don’t even agree with Churchill, that violence, in a strictly utilitarian sense, is the quickest route to abolish oppressions. It almost seems oxymoronic – violence can quash oppression. Even if the state were to be overthrown through violent revolution, it would: a) alienate the bulk of society who identify with the state and b) Closely related to the first point, it is very doubtful that a violent revolution would translate into an effective and less oppressive society. Ultimately, if the people of a society don’t recognize, crave and actively participate in creating a new order(s), the revolutionary change would be destined to failure. Not that you can’t change someone’s mind through force. Arguably, the current order is maintained through systemic violence – resistance is suppressed by violence through military, police and cultural mechanisms. We, generally, accept this violence as the norm, have internalized it, and justify it in all sorts of ways.  This passivity and acquiescence towards violence has taken place over generations – been beaten in over time. Churchill’s approach, as it stands today, requires violence against dissenters to the new order(s), which will not only include the most powerful in society but also those who identify as being a part of the dominant order (perhaps, most obviously, the ‘middle class’). This violence would be much more obvious than the systemic and cultural violence we (to varying degrees) are currently and constantly subjected to, or avoid by accepting the laws as The Law. In Churchill’s revolution, the people would know they are being coerced through violence and would resist. Generally, violence works from the top down, not from the bottom up. Without the support of the masses, sustained revolutionary change, in my mind, is impossible and would inevitably be oppressive.

Derrick Jensen talks about how we generally identify with the dominant culture, the state… To me, this begs the question – what is “the state”, the dominant culture?  Are these constructs, structures not also made up of people/actors that are moral? Are we “the state”? When we criticize the state, are we not, in part implicating ourselves. The state supposedly is for the people, by the people. For Jensen, this phenomenon of identifying with the state or the represser is destructive. Social contract theory says that we all, by merely being a part of society, implicitly give up rights to a government in order to achieve a social order. Uncritically giving up rights to a central state is falling into the trap of believing that there is only one order. A hideous purity ruled by one social contract that we all have no choice but to sign on to. It negates the possibility of other orders except by revolution – that is by overthrowing the one and only social contract. It forces citizens, bound (note: no choice) by the contract by the mere act of being born into a society, to identify with the ruling system as the only way of realizing order. Thus, we become a part of the system, dependent on it and will do anything in our power to defend it. Even the majority of those that oppose the “system” still consider themselves to be a part of it – complicit. Have a look at the video of Derrik Jensen describing this phenomenon and an alternative way of thinking about our relationship with or without/around “the system”.

We are taught to identify with a larger whole, a community, a society that doesn’t always reciprocate, at least not for each individual. We’re taught early on to identify with the system. Think about it – the pledge of allegiance, the national anthem each morning in primary school (when we are young and open to indoctrination). To oppose the system, is to oppose ourselves and it is destructive, perhaps pathological or even suicidal, to tear oneself down. The argument is compelling. Bringing it closer to home, consider how farmers, who have (on average in Canada) realized a negative net income for almost a decade and have watched their livelihoods crumble while consumers have the cheapest food in history and agribusiness corporations realize record profits. Yet, alternative modes of ordering a farm, outside of the conventional {grow more, buy more land, become more technologically efficient, apply more fertilizer} are, to many farmers, threatening because farmers now identify with the system that has caused such hardship to farm families and erodes rural communities. Generally, the agro-industrial complex has become the soul source of their agricultural income (however most farm families have off farm jobs as a primary income). So challenges to the system (organics, sustainable agriculture practices, circumventing the system through building alternative local food networks), are taken as a personal attack rather than an attack on the dominant system or order. The take home point is: part of the solution is going to be to educate and transform our thinking about how we relate to the “social contract”, the system, to our own sense of selves. We need to believe that another world is possible, that multiple orders can and do coexist, that when the state acts, it may not always be “by the people”.

So what is to be done? We need to engage the majority world of citizens that are hypnotized under the illusion that consumerism, individualism, market rule is the only order. That this order is ‘the least worst order’. And no, more recycling and making a $100 contribution to the Heart and Stroke Foundation alone will not right the wrongs in the world. As activists, we need to be the change we want to see (and, at least for me, this is not a violent world), but it can’t stop there because, in isolation we have little ability transform our thinking or that of others. We need to educate each other, to teach and be taught, to lead and be led – not just inside of the oppressive walls of our educational institutions – but in our families, our communities, our workplace, everywhere. Dialogue is education. Dialogue can be dyadic or multilateral. We can disagree but never stop listening and questioning assumptions (yours and others). That means we need to relearn and teach each other how to think critically. But most importantly, we need to build bridges, linkages, connect, discuss and STRATEGIZE. Tactics and small scale initiatives, affinity groups, identity based politics, focused campaigns and even recycling, supporting charities, etc. are requisite actions however insufficient if we want to realize large scale change. We need to find common ground, common struggle that reaches out beyond the “converted” to the fence-sitters and beyond. Our vision of a better world(s) and the strategies/tactics that we embrace will fail if the masses are alienated along the way.

Churchill (and Jensen) provide food for thought, yet I cannot accept their primary thesis that violence (for Churchill) and dismantling civilization (for Jensen) will create the change they strive for. Both authors offer a critical and needed look at pacifism and non-violence (which are different concepts – Click Here for more on this). I’m sure that there are situations where violent tactics are appropriate. I personally haven’t, in my middle-class privileged existence, come across such a situation but both Churchill and Jensen describe situations where isolated violence may have been the most effective and a justifiable tactic (for example, Jewish resistance during the holocaust; defending oneself against a rapist; protecting one’s home or village from a genocidal aggressor). But, integrating violence into a comprehensive strategy for POSITIVE change, takes their argument too far.

Check out George Lakey’s response to Churchill here for expansion on some of the stubs I eluded to above. His article informed some of my thinking in this entry:

George Lakey (March 2001). “Nonviolent Action as the Sword that Heals: Challenging Ward Churchill’s ‘Pacifism As Pathology’”. TrainingforChange.Org.

Advertisement