Part One: Violence and Nonviolence

Readings:

The American Soul Is a Murderous Soul

Ryan, C. (1994). The One Who Burns Herself for Peace. Hypatia, 9(2), 21-39.

Key Dilemma of Part One:

How do we know when interpersonal violence is justified? If one says that interpersonal violence is justified in some cases, what are the cases, and how are they justified? If one says that interpersonal violence is never justified, how can one justify not defending oneself or others?

Review of List of Navigation Strategies for Seemingly Intractable Conflicts, Differences, and Dilemmas:

Personal Stories: A few years ago, I was called to perform “jury duty.” Oddly, the video that was played soon after my initial arrival talked about this nation’s justice system as a “system of conflict resolution.” As soon as I was called onto just one jury pool, I was quickly eliminated when the attorney asked what I did: I said, “Conflict resolution.” He said, “Excused.” This serves to remind us that the boundaries around the term, “conflict resolution,” are vague and blurry—a real muddle! Attorneys tend to call what they do “conflict resolution;” I call what they do “adversarial, trauma enhancement.” I call what we do “conflict resolution;” they call what we do “a touchy-feely waste of time.”

With the above paragraph, I have set the tone by my ongoing frustration with the mainstream U.S. culture’s seemingly unquestioned acceptance of brutality in domestic and international “justice.” When we think about the role of conflict resolution in regards to violence and nonviolence, should we think of conflict resolution as one means to resolve conflicts, amongst other more violent, though supposedly legitimate means? In other words, when faced with conflict, should we use conflict resolution sometimes, and more violent and traumatic ways of addressing conflict at other times? Depending on the situation?

A lawyer friend of mine calls our court system, “kicking ass between four walls.” Having witnessed both jury and civil trials, it is pretty obvious that they are not about finding a resolution based on understanding, connection, or truth. Trials are essentially popularity contests. Which attorney is most appealing? Which attorney presents the best narrative that links the evidence? Popularity contests do not embody the values of either justice or resolution.

And then there is war… “When war is declared, truth is the first casualty.” (Ponsonby, 1928) What else need we say? War cannot be a kind of conflict resolution because it does not even try to understand the other side. War is the practice of eliminating “enemies,” along with the innocents nearby (collateral damage), in hopes that it will intimidate and scare the “bad” people into submission. Then there are genocidal wars that eliminate the conflict by eliminating the people. The warfare and criminal justice systems justify brutality in the name of state power because we assume that Hobbes was right in his assertion that, without a dominant state power, chaos and anarchy would take hold, and life would return to a state of nature, “solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short.” (Hobbes, Chapter 12, Leviathan, 1651)

Questions:

1. How is the American soul a murderous soul?

Blanchfield, (writing in foreignpolicy.com) argues that “a majority of Americans apparently find no cognitive dissonance” between, first, loving what America projects to the world in terms of democracy, freedom, and compassion for the poor and oppressed; and, second, realizing that “our way of life is certainly structured around violence and around selectively empowering, quarantining, directing, and monetizing it at home and abroad.” (Blanchfield, p. 10) The characteristic default to the first proposition, and denial of the second, constitutes a cognitive dissonance that consistently rejects the latter.

“[I]n a nation that is as segregated as the United States remains to this day, the concentration of violence in crowded ghettos and benighted postindustrial areas should be unsurprising. Americans have a history of citing violence as the cause of their racial prejudices. But the reality is that anti-black racism is itself the defining feature of the institutions and social pressures that generate everyday violence in the United States.” (Blanchfield, p. 7) This means that the majority of Americans blame African Americans and other marginalized peoples for the violence in our country, rather than understanding that persistent racism and scapegoating has created the conditions for violence amongst these people. This is similar to blaming Native Americans for their violent defense against European colonists and settlers, rather than the genocidal policies of an expanding America, which granted little recognition that this country was already populated by dignified natives, who lived much more sustainably and in harmony with nature than both colonial culture and current mainstream culture.

2. How is conflict resolution related to violence and nonviolence?

Given the brutal ways of addressing domestic and international conflict, we might think of conflict resolution as pretty much the only appropriate way to address conflict. Sure, we might want to accept that violent self-defense, locking up the criminally insane in hospital, or last-resort police actions are sometimes justifiable, but what other kinds of violence are ethically defensible? I suggest that the violence of the court system, the prison system, and the war system, are unethical, immoral, and perhaps downright evil.

Unfortunately, the muddle begins when we delve back into the “world of perceptions”—where we conflict workers must spend a lot of our time. Some, perhaps most, people think that my insights about the court, prison, and war systems are just my opinion, my perception. Their perception is that the court system is society’s “self-defense system” and “police action,” and therefore justifiable. Furthermore, their view is that war is also society’s “self-defense system” and “police action,” and therefore justifiable. So, the question that arises from this muddle is how do these two views engage each other? Additionally, some violent revolutions deliver more just and democratic governments by overthrowing genocidal dictatorships.

For me, the answer to these complications about the role of violence within societies and between societies is that we must engage other viewpoints on terms that promote understanding between the two sides. No matter how “true” our position might be, it will be perceived as untrue and alienating to those with dramatically different experiences.

Playing the “truth card,” is not going to win the game of understanding—and, of course, understanding is not a game, nor something that we win. Finding terms that promote understanding depends on a lot of variables: the other person’s temperament, culture, mood, education, political leanings, religion, etc. There can be no general rule for each person’s particularity. Finding the grounds for understanding between two parties is always a unique undertaking. Oddly, using persuasive tactics is usually the least persuasive way of approaching someone who disagrees. Rather, listening to the other person’s concerns and experiences is ultimately the best way to persuade—and be persuaded. Furthermore, bicultural and multicultural people have a distinct advantage over mon-cultural people because they have experiences that are not bounded by a single culture. They can see through many cultural lenses when they have been exposed to them throughout their lives.

3. What is violated in violence?

Using violence against others is taking something away from them that they cherish: themselves, those they love, or causes permanent bodily damage or suffering. Contact sports are ruled out, as the suffering that may happen, within the rules of the sport, is part of the risk of participation. Violence violates human decency, and cannot be justified to prevent property loss, or damage, or the undermining of some principle, unless that damage, or violation of the principle, leads to someone’s loss of life or causes grievous suffering.

4. Is self-defense, and the defense of others, justified?

Preventing the violation to oneself or another is arguably justified with the minimal amount of force needed. One should be trained in arming oneself with nonviolence, but also be capable of using the appropriate level of force required when nonviolent techniques fail.

Further Questions:

1. What is nonviolent communication? How can communication be violent

2. Should we think about nonviolence as a kind of healing, rather than simply avoiding violence? Furthermore, shouldn’t healing go beyond the alleviation of suffering and include making others whole, while also making ourselves whole?