My Modest Proposal for the Middle East, Followed by Some Misgivings
As I am arguably a passable multi-tasker when the situation demands it, I have decided to submit this proposal for a peaceful resolution to global disharmony even while labeling recently filled notebooks of student registration forms (both tasks that are necessary and noble in their own right).
But less on this latter engagement, more on the former. I was inspired to post this proposal after happening upon the inspiring words of the great Mohandas Gandhi, who, while outlining the basic philosophy behind his revolutionary stand in India in Training for Non-violence, wrote:
"Just as one must learn the art of killing in the training for violence, so one must learn the art of dying in the training for nonviolence. Violence does not mean emancipation from fear, but discovering the means of combating the cause of fear."
This quote immediately elicited a response in me that was linked inextricably to our current situation as a nation, and images of explosions and combat in the Middle East invaded, secured, and occupied my imagination. It is clear that American and Israeli neo-imperialism as it comes into contact with Palestinian terrrorism and Iraqi insurgencies is fast cultivating the art of killing. If, however, an equitable and peaceful resolution is what is hoped for on both sides (which, on a good day, one desperately wishes to believe is the truth), these operations are counterproductive.
Gandhi is absolutely right when he says that non-violent action is the only policy that will be simultaneously moral and effective. Of course we cannot call upon the US government to adopt a non-violent foreign policy. We could petition, naturally, but this would be ineffective. In fact, the only way to change a bureaucracy's mind would be through a mass popular movement which peacefully protested the current course of action. That is what happened in India in the 1940s, and thanks to the ease of communication in our world today, it could happen again.
Could you imagine a veritable army of pacifists from all over the world inundating the combat zones in Israel and Iraq -- each non-violent soldier wielding, not weapons, but desperately needed supplies to rebuild and renew these barren lands? Initially there would be carnage and confusion, but if these idealistic invaders stubbornly and courageously persevered, the amelioration of a broken situation would be inevitable.
Before I even begin to ask about the logistics that such a venture would entail, however, I think there is a deeper question that has to be addressed: namely the cost. Because there would be a cost, and one that few in our nation would be willing to pay. The West has always been willing to kill and fight for our rights and liberties. What was the American Revolution, but a glorious and violent assertion of our own independence. But are we truly willing to die for charity's sake?
I'm not just talking about individuals giving up their lives for the betterment of the whole. I'm talking about the death of the whole: our mores, customs, presuppositions, in short, our culture. Because, if a non-violent policy were enacted by an entire society, the end result would be peace, but it very well may be extinction as well. That is the great risk of it. Non-violence is submission to another with no guarantees of safety or success, only hope. A pacifist Western civilization very well may spell the death of Western civilization.
TS Eliot already wrote the West's eulogy in his poem The Wasteland. Western culture was sick in 1900, its symptoms lying latent until the First World War burst forth in an all-consuming fever that drove the collective Western mind into delirium. Somehow, the United States continued on, refusing to admit defeat even as the entire nation sank into a general ignorance of its heritage, and embraced a Gospel of Materialism in its stead. Nevertheless, I feel as though the United States is living on borrowed time. The question is not whether our civilization will survive. Rather, it is how she will end.
Will the United States carry her into horrific holocaust once more? Will we embrace the hopeless ethos of our pagan ancestors of the North, and fight the inevitable battle against Loki and the Giants; a battle in which we are destined to perish? I fear that is the direction in which we are headed at the present moment.
Or will we follow in Gandhi's footsteps -- a path that is as much Eastern as it is Western -- and risk annihilation while stubbornly refusing to wage destruction ourselves. Of course we can find precedents of this way of life in our Western heritage as well. We need not solely look to Gandhi and India for such inspiration. I'm thinking first and foremost of Jesus Christ, a man much admired and little emulated in our society. If we follow his lead, we have little reason to trust in worldly security. But, again looking to Christ, I have to wonder if the death of this security may lead to something far more beautiful and powerful.
Nick
4 comments:
Do moral consequences necessarily imply that a moral act took place?
I have a worry concerning what you say in the following passage: "Gandhi is absolutely right when he says that non-violent action is the only policy that will be simultaneously moral and effective."
While we can, perhaps, concede that non-violent action would be effective (certainly there are numerous historical instances), it is questionable, I think, that all non-violent actions are moral. This point is, of course, a mere nuance--but I can't help but think that Gandhi (or pacifism in general) is, to put it politely, confused (or to put it crudely: mistaken).
If there are no gurantees of safety or success, then why would "the amelioration of a broken situation" be inevitable? Could it just as likely be the opposite? --That is, could pacifism, an army of pacifists--a group of passive willed martyrs*--inevitably exasperate the situation? Are we turning to pacifism as a last result--as a default, as an accident?...
*I am not trying to make any disparaging comments about martyrs, to be sure. I'm simply saying that some martyrs are martyrs because, well, to put it crudely (I have a habit of this), they cannot be anything else.
I guess I hadn't thought about the possibility of immoral non-violent action, but yes, of course I would concede that you can uphold an immoral cause through non-violent protest. My point, however, was that the use of violence in the name of justice is always problematic, even contradictory (at least in a Judaeo-Christian framework, or, in Gandhi's case, a Christo-Hindu framework). This leaves non-violence as the only moral option (although it, too, could be abused, the method itself is not intrinsically problematic).
Secondly, I certainly did not mean that non-violent protest would immediately lead to amelioration. I said "initially there would be carnage and confusion." That's where the risk to safety and success of a cause comes into play. That's where the moment of truth lies. If the non-violent individual (or band or populace) chooses in the midst of horrific bloodshed and coercion to hold firm, provided their message is publicized to the world, then I do believe "the amelioration of a broken situation" would be inevitable.
"Are we turning to pacifism as a last result -- as a default, as an accident?..."
Perhaps we are turning to the method of non-violent protest as a last resort. But when has a state of peace ever been accidental to our goals as Westerners? Peace has always been the ultimate good for civilization. Even the warlike Romans fought to establish the Pax Romana. War and violence has always been deemed necessary to ensure the security of a civilization, but I would argue that this pragmatic use of force in the name of safety and justice has always been morally ambivalent. I would agree with you, however, in saying that taking the values of pacifism to their logical conclusions may spell the end of civilization. In that regard I would say that "turning to pacifism" may be a last resort, but also a last stand.
lets move this to the main page boys, so everyone can see it clearly.
Two worries:
The first is that I am not necessarily convinced that "the use of violence in the name of justice is always problematic, even contradictory (at least in a Judaeo-Christian framework)"; that is to say--and it may be the case that violence "in the NAME" of justice is problematic--if violence is in some moral sense necessary, and therefore justified (or just), then it seems that it wouldn't be contradictory in a Christian frame work (it may be contradictory in a Christo-Hindu framework (although I'm not quite clear about Christo-Hinduism).
Secondly, I agree that the use of force in the name of justice or safety is morally ambivalent, to be sure (or, at least, hitherto it has been morally ambivalent in most major historical cases), but it seems that the case would be the same here: namely, the premises for pacifism, the consequences and means and effects it would require (for a successful result--namely peace) are all--at least it seems to me--morally ambivalent, dubious, and equivocal.
For what it's worth, one more clarifying point about pacifism being an accident by virtue of it being a "last resort." The goal is clear enough, and has always been clear enough: that is, of course, peace. But, even if the goal has always been peace, [if] the very fact that pacifism is a last resort--if we are simply choosing pacifism because we do not have the means or will to do anything else--, then it would still be the case that pacifism is accidental. This point may not (probably not) have any significance consequentially or in a macro-moral sense.
Post a Comment