Chris Michael Kirk » World Affairs

Nonviolence

Author CMK on September 24th, 2008

“The first clue, lesson number one from human history on the subject of nonviolence, is that there is no word for it.” —

Mark Kurlansky in Nonviolence: Twenty-Five Lessons from the History of a Dangerous Idea.

I would venture that it is safe to say that war and the violent force of power is an experiment which has been replicated enough times throughout the history of mankind to draw some conclusions as to its benefits and its price. I would suggest that one could easily demonstrate that war leads to a) death of innocent, non-combatants b) neglect and oppression of power-poor groups c) destruction and pollution of the environment and d) a culture of hate, violence, and fear bequeathed to children in all corners of our planet. War has been tried, and the results have left us wanting.

If not war, then what? Many would say that we choose a pacifist stance, and oppose war at all costs. While I find connection with this position, many have a problem with it because to be a pacifist is often perceived as being passive and weak. Kurlansky addresses this issue in “Nonviolence”, suggesting that we adopt nonviolent resistence as an active “fight” against the problems of the world in place of a pacifist, neutral stance. This nonviolent posture doesn’t allow us to simply abstain from violent action, although that is important. Rather, nonviolence moves us beyond theoretical opposition towards proactive action in the cause of peace.

What is nonviolence? As you can read from the quote above, nonviolence is a word which has no definition, but simply is defined as what it is not. Kurlansky muses about a world in which we will only know “unpeace”, because war would be an abberration and peace the norm. But, how can nonviolent resistance lead us closer towards this world?

First, I suggest a change in language. Have you noticed how the words of violence have crept into our normal discourse? We use the word “fight” to describe everything from a cold virus to a stressful day. Watch any report on the presidential campaigns, and you’ll hear worlds like “battle” and “attack” repeatedly. Cleansing our language of violent expression is a step towards eliminating the normalcy of violent action. As Jesus once described, it is what comes out of our mouth which reveals what is inside our heart.

Secondly, I suggest that we shift our focus away from large, macro-level solutions to solutions on a local level. All the problems of the world have their tentacles right on our door step, yet often we tend to think that we must do something big, travel to Africa, or get arrested on the mall of Washington D.C. to make any impact at all. Take poverty as an example. It seems to me that we seem to view as a national problem, and we put great interest in the upcoming presidential election hoping that one of the candidates will “fix” poverty. In reality, poverty is a local issue. Within a short drive from all our homes reside those who live under the poverty line. Further, in the global economy, our choices from where we reside have tremendous impact on people a world away.

Recently, I watched the film, “Darfur Now,” which chronicles the lives of six individuals involved in the conflict in Darfur. One man, Adam Sterling, started the Sudan Divestment Task Force with the intention of ending the genocide taking place in Sudan. Mr. Sterling illustrates how a localized strategy, even for a conflict on the other side of the world can make a difference. He did not board a plane to Sudan or Washington D.C. to make his point, but instead started with his home state, lobbying the California legislature to divest from Sudan. By starting with something manageable, Steadman was able to create change which now has spread to many other states. This reminds me that I don’t always have to solve the problem on a large scale, but have the ability to make a manageable contribution from where I stand.

Finally, we must form communities around the idea of collective nonviolence. Certainly, there are many communities which embrace this, but I would like to see it more well spread. For example, I would suggest that religious communities begin to see themselves in the context of partners in nonviolent resistance for the betterment of the world, as opposed to the propagation of a particular doctrine or spiritual affiliation.

Kurlansky writes a great deal about the history of religion and its co-option by the power of the government. Both Christianity and Islam began with pacifist core values until they got a taste of power and had to justify the use of force with theories like Augustine’s Just War. More faith communities need to embrace the opportunity and responsibility to pro actively engage in the work of Jesus and Mohammed and thousands throughout history who have changed the world without lifting a sword.

Nonviolence is a dangerous idea. Many who have practiced this lifestyle have found themselves in the crosshairs of the empire, paying the price with their life. Yet, at the same time, most of the major social changes in the world have had their foundation in nonviolence. We’ve tried war and found that it fails to produce a better world. Now it’s time to try something else.

What do you think?

What strategies can you think of to promote a culture of proactive nonviolence in our world?

More »

Individual VS. Collective

Author CMK on September 11th, 2008

Typically 8 a.m. classes fail to elicit such a provocative response, but yesterday’s was an exception. This semester, I’m a Graduate Teaching Assistant for a course in Community Psychology. The students are a relatively diverse group of undergraduates who give the impression that they stayed up way too late the previous evening and would rather be playing Halo 2 or knitting than sitting in class. However, much to my suprise, a spirited debate arose around what I believe to be one of the central questions of our time, and one which keeps coming up in the discussions on this blog as well. The question, as I put it is this: Are individual actions the result of pure individual choice or the result of collective, social factors?

Many of my conservative friends seem to place a great deal on the choice of the individual. Whatever the social ill; poverty, drug addiction, homelessness — can be boiled down to a series of poor choices made by an individual. For example, a drug addict is addicted because they chose to do drugs or a homeless person is homeless because they mismanaged their finances, failed to excel in school, or made poor relationship choices. In this view, individuals are wholly responsible for the consequences of their actions and how they react to the actions of others.

This attitude is demonstrated in the conservative response to need which is often to provide for the individual– give money to the poor, house the homeless, give treatment to the addict, but to do so within defined limits and time periods (i.e. the Christmas seasons). These individualists believe that it is nice to help, but ultimately people have to pull themselves up by their own bootstraps to be successful.

That brings us to the other end of the spectrum; the idea of collectivity. In this view, all individual ills are the responsibility of greater social causes; systems which fail, inequity of opportunity, discrimination and oppression. These larger societal evils are seen as responsible, thus, not only must the individual be treated but the larger system which impacts that individual. So collectivists work to provide resources to those at risk of being poor, remove roadblocks for the homeless, and address communal factors which contribute to drug abuse.

Thus, we are left with a dilemma. Either we focus on the individual and ignore the power of collective, social factors, or we focus on the collective and ignore the role of individual responsibility and freedom of choice. As with most dichotomies, however, the truth tends to fall somewhere in the midst of the pendulum, rather than the extremes. I suggest, then, that we move from our polarizing positions to a truth held in tension between the extremes.

At the same time, I can acknowledge that individuals have power to choose for themselves and the communities have power to impose choices upon individuals. While these extremes may seem contradictory, they are simply two parts of the same truth. They are inseparable from one another, and when divorced create an incredible mess (see the policies of George W. Bush and the Soviet Union).

Once we hold this truth in tension, we must then decide our course of action. I propose this arises from a simple question of efficacy: What can I do to make a difference? While I cannot force another individual to change, I do have the ability to influence the collective environment around them. I can challenge the political process to create better schools, spend my money locally rather than at a multi-national chain, or simply give a kind word to a passerby. Here’s where we discover the interconnection which binds us. Each action of mine influences the collective zeitgeist, leveraging the power of communities to help individuals make responsible and life-affirming choices.

Thus, I advocate for a theoretical acknowledgement of the balance between individual and collective view, but a leaning towards the collectivist position in the way we choose to live. This road is often a difficult one to follow. I was reminded in writing this of one of my favorite quotes, from Archbishop Camara: “When I feed the poor you call me a saint; when I ask why they are poor, you call me a communist.” I hope that we can be both feeders of the poor and challengers of the systems which foster poverty.

More »

Injustice is a Serial Killer

Author CMK on September 6th, 2008

We’ve talked and written a great deal about the inequities of our world. The gap between the rich and the poorest of poor continues to increase leaving billions out in the cold of the global marketplace. American guilt causes us to send millions in donations overseas, but we’ve yet to take a look at the whole picture, evaluating whether our lifestyles actually contribute to the poverty of the the poorest of poor. It is a big step to move from giving of my excess to reevaluating my acquisition of that excess. Perhaps the results of new research will motivate us to do so.

The results of a three-year study conducted by the World Health Organizations’ Committee on Social Determinants of Health has revealed that a lack of social justice not only makes the lives of people more difficult, but actually contributes to their death. The report illustrates that,

“A child born in a Glasgow, Scotland suburb can expect a life 28 years shorter than another living only 13 kilometres away. A girl in Lesotho is likely to live 42 years less than another in Japan. In Sweden, the risk of a woman dying during pregnancy and childbirth is 1 in 17 400; in Afghanistan, the odds are 1 in 8. Biology does not explain any of this. Instead, the differences between - and within - countries result from the social environment where people are born, live, grow, work and age.”

When placed in this light, social justice is not only the responsible thing to pursue, but it is literally salvation for the perishing.

The report goes on to state that the “toxic combination of bad policies, economics, and politics is, in large measure responsible for the fact that a majority of people in the world do not enjoy the good health.” It is clear from these findings that poverty is not simply the result of personal irresponsibility or bad luck, but that social injustice itself is a killer, shortening the lives of billions of our neighbors on this planet. “Health inequity really is a matter of life and death,” said Dr Margaret Chan of the Commission.

To be truly pro-life is to promote the extension of biological life in all its forms. While much attention has been given in this country to abortion, equal attention should be given to the disproportionate death tolls as illustrated in this study. Many anti-abortion activists have claimed that we must consider a human fetus as of equal value to all humans. I agree, but I would suggest that we consider the lives of Afghans, Iraqis, and Africans of equal value as well.

What are we willing to do so that others can live? Or if we do nothing, are we implicit in their murder?

More »

Donkeys and Elephants

Author CMK on September 5th, 2008

In the past week, we have now heard from the two, major political parties in the United States. These conventions are part coronation, part pep rally; all edited for prime time TV. If nothing else, it seems as if the convention season has made us forget all about Michael Phelps and the upcoming football season. Politics is the new game, a topic for discussion around the dinner table and the water cooler

But, what did we learn from the two conventions? Did we discover anything substantive? Here are a few of my thoughts. As always, I’d love to hear yours as well.

1. The Republicans never mention the poor. The Democrats never mention the war.

Beyond the face value of the speeches and rhetorical one-liners, you can notice a lot by paying attention to what is NOT said. It seems that the Elephants love to beat the war drum and talk about the power and excellence of the US military machine. Shouts of “U.S.A.” fill

ed the arena, especially in efforts to drown out some peace protestors who wandered in during McCain’s speech. But, at their convention, the Dems didn’t mention war all that much. Whatwas a big issue for them a year ago, now has taken a back seat to other things. Since it is not as expedient to be a pacisfist today, the opposition to war seems to have evaporated.

On the other hand, I did not hear one mention of the elimination of poverty in any of the Republican speeches I viewed. Those who John McCain singled out as those he was “fighting for” are all middle-class Americans. The Democrats and Barak Obama are much more comfortable talking about the issue of poverty and the 40 million uninsured people in our country. It is as if the Republican’s deny the existence of real poverty in our country, writing the poor off as mythical trolls which exist only under the bridges of an un-American fairy tale. Neither denial is helpful for the whole of American politics.

2. Sarah Palin and John McCain are for real.

The hockey mom and the war hero make a formidable team, primarily because they keep reminding everyone how she is a hockey mom and he is a war hero. In case you missed it Sarah Palin is a hockey mom and John McCain is a war hero. Ok, but seriously, while the Republican team may be way off on issues from the majority of Americans, they will present a challenge simply because….you guessed it…Sarah Palin is a hockey mom and John McCain is a war hero.

3. Barack Obama needs to stop talking about John McCain

When Obama stoops down and takes shots at his opponet, he reminds his listeners of all the other politicians we’ve heard in our lifetimes. But, when he exhorts his listeners about vision, collaboration, and historical significance, he is as inspiring as the great orators of history. If Barack can move away from the back and forth battle, and simply share his vision, resisting the temptation to promise the moon, he has the ability to do something never seen in American politics. Unfortunately, with each successive month of this marathon campaign, Obama looks more and more like John McCain.

4. The Republicans are Mean

I’ve always liked Rudy Guiliani a bit for his moderation and leadership ability. But, the Rudy who spoke Wednesday evening at the Repblican National Convention was nothing short of an ass. His glib diatribe against anything Obama was just downright mean and made my soul hurt. Unfortunately, Sarah “Hockey Mom” Palin picked up much of the same line of attack in her speech. I can’t believe that being a jerk serves the Republican Party well, and I am certain it does nothing positive for the American people.

5. What of the rest of the world?

By far, the most dominant topic of both conventions was the “ailing” U.S. economy. We must then assume that the most pressing issue at hand is fixing things so people can afford to put more gas in their SUV’s, buy more stuff they don’t need, and sack more money away in investments. While there are serious impacts to the recession we face, I would hope to hear a bit more perspective. When 1 billion people on our planet live on less than $1 a day, why are we so concerned with a $1 rise in the price of gas? When many face hunger and curable disease, why should we complain so much about rising prices at our supermarkets. Instead of pandering to the mythical idea of American economic growth, I would love to hear the parties articulate a broad vision for eradicating poverty globally. This may be not be politically expedient, but it certainly is right. I guess I’ll keep waiting.

Archive for the ‘World Affairs’ Category

Nonviolence

Individual VS. Collective

Injustice is a Serial Killer

Donkeys and Elephants