SAPPHO@SRI-NIC.ARPA (10/02/86)
Before I continue defending pacifism, I would like to define what pacifism is. Pacifism is not dovishness. I mention this because someone described liberal Democrats and libertarians as being generally pacifist. Most of the people who count themselves in those categories believe violence and war are acceptable in self-defense. Pacifism means opposition to all war, or opposition to all violence or force, or nonresistance (passive submission to constituted authority even when unjust or oppressive). I use it in the sense of opposition to all violence (any attempt to harm another person). I do not believe in nonresistance, but in radical nonviolence. Some people who believe in radical nonviolence don't call themselves pacifists because of the identification of the term with nonresistance and the connotation of passivity, but I use it because it is the most familiar term and because I don't know a one word term to describe a believer in radical nonviolence. I am a pacifist because I believe that there is that of God in everyone, and I have the responsibility to answer to that of God in everyone. That doesn't mean that people are all reasonable, or that they don't do evil things, but that they are all reachable. You can reach people by returning good for evil. You can reach people by speaking truth to power and telling them what they are really doing. You can reach people by standing up to them and not submitting to unjust demands. You can reach people by letting them bear the consequences of their actions and refusing to rescue them. All of these may, at particular times, be the most loving response to another person. Nonviolence doesn't necessarily mean appeasement. You can't reach people by deciding that they are so unreasonable that it is hopeless to talk to them. You can't reach people by killing them. You are not likely to reach people by retaliating and deliberately harming them. Answering to that of God in everyone also requires openness and truthfulness (Quakers do not believe in secret societies, and when their meetings for worship were illegal in England they insisted on meeting openly, rather than secretly as other groups did to avoid arrest). I don't believe that people are reachable in every situation. They may put themselves in situations where they are very hard to reach, by drinking for example. They may even be impossible to reach. For instance, in Keith's example of the terrorist in a truck loaded with explosives driving toward an embassy compound, there is no way physically of getting through to that person at that time. In such cases I believe in using the minimal amount of force necessary to stop the immediate danger to the victim. If a rapist attacks me, I will push him away and parry his blows. I might consider using a weapon like tear gas which would do no worse than temporarily immobilize him while I get away (I have one Quaker friend who carries tear gas). I would not shoot him, and I won't carry weapons like guns or knives which can only work by harming people. I believe I should be willing to die for sufficient cause, but not to kill for any cause. I had rather suffer harm than do harm, and I believe that such suffering can be redemptive. And if I and the attacker both survive the attack, I should still treat that person as someone who is capable of reason and reachable, even if that person is a terrorist who tried to drive a truck full of explosives at me. I believe in situations beyond the use of reason; I don't belief in people beyond the use of reason. No matter how far gone we are in sin, there is still One who can lead us back. The difference between nonresistance and radical nonviolence is that nonresistance involves passively submitting to injustice, while radical nonviolence involves actively but nonviolently organizing to oppose it. The Amish follow a nonresistant path. Gandhi's movement in India and Solidarity in Poland are examples of radical nonviolence. I respect people who believe in nonresistance, but I feel that it is better to take a more active role in opposing violence and injustice. I take the views expressed that "one nonpacifist in a world of pacifists would rule the world", "the meanest guy always rules the block", and "the only pacifists not in prison or dead are those for whom others will fight" to be expressing the same basic idea: pacifism is impotent in the face of violence. I don't believe that. There are many ways of resisting violence without resorting to violence. They are often slower and harder than violent methods, but I believe they are surer and better in the long run. Three hundred years ago when Quakers started, they were regularly thrown in prison for long periods of time, had their tongues bored through, and were branded. Mennonites were drowned and burned. No one took up arms to defend Quakers or Mennonites. The only people who believed in freedom of religion were Quakers and Mennonites, who would not fight. But that idea is now the policy of a number of countries. I also agree with Chris's response to the argument that one nonpacifist in a world of pacifists would rule the world, and I am surprised that Charles is so ready to dismiss pacifism as a response to external invasion and so ready to cite the example of Gandhi to prove that we don't need guns to resist governmental injustice. I see a contradiction there. Keith has advocated self defense. Well, self defense is certainly preferable to aggression, and I don't put my grandfather who died fighting against the invasion of Greece in World War II in the same category with the invaders. But I question his claim that a world in which everyone was violent only in self defense would only resemble a world in which everyone was pacifist. This would only be the case if everyone agreed on what self defense was. In most of the violent conflicts in the world now, there are people on both sides who believe that they are acting in self defense or are protecting some other party from attack. There are several questions about what self defense is. Is a preemptive strike self defense? If so, when? When your intelligence agency tells you that a country is actually planning to attack you? When your neighbor builds a nuclear power plant which you believe will lead to the development of nuclear weapons? What about tit for tat retaliation? How do you judge what retaliation is proportional and what is too much? What is the difference between a strong defense which shows that we have the will to protect ourselves and excessive military buildup which shows that we have aggressive intentions against our neighbors? How many deaths of innocent people are acceptable in trying to retaliate against the guilty? Another problem is defense of others from aggression. If I have the right to defend myself, certainly I have the right to defend other people who ask for my assistance. But invaders often claim they were invited in and are only there to protect the citizens of the country they are invading. More disturbing to me than the argument that violence is justified in self defense is the argument sometimes made that two sides are not morally equivalent and should not be treated as such. For instance, people have argued that there is a difference between the violence of the oppressors and the violence of the oppressed (another version is that since the US is defending freedom and the Soviet Union is attacking it, we should all support the US and not treat the two sides as morally equivalent). Therefore the PLO, being a liberation movement fighting on behalf of the oppressed, should be supported and not criticized. Therefore certain liberation theologians uncritically praise Cuba and Nicaragua. In South Africa the ANC fights on behalf of the oppressed, and the government fights on behalf of apartheid. Therefore Joan Baez was wrong to organize an ad in a paper there urging nonviolence in resisting apartheid, and Coretta Scott King is not on the right side as long as she is willing to talk to Botha. It is true that the sides in a particular conflict are not necessarily morally equivalent. One side may be fighting a more defensive war, while the other side is more of an aggressor. But I have several problems with the argument about moral equivalence. First, it identifies one side as being bad guys, rather than criticizing particular actions. It follows then, since they are unreasonable, that they should simply be met with violence. I don't accept that, for reasons I have given above. It is not wrong to talk with Botha. Second, this argument is sometimes used to say that we should refrain from criticizing the side which is morally superior, but should direct our criticism at the side which is morally inferior. I don't buy that. Good ends don't justify every means that one may use to achieve them. Third, I am not always so sure of the moral superiority of one side. Is the United States morally superior to the Soviet Union? Certainly, if you consider the ways in which the two countries treat their own citizens. Certainly, if you look at the behavior of the two countries in Europe. If you look at the behavior of the two countries in Latin America, our moral superiority is more questionable. The US and the Soviet Union both often disregard the rights of people in Third World countries. Maybe someone could demonstrate to me that the Soviet Union does it more often. But I am not willing to believe that only because we are better to our own citizens. (I assume I don't need to explain to people in this news group why I am not willing to consider a group morally superior because it calls itself a liberation movement.) Another question is what a pacifist government would look like. I don't think it is inconsistent to oppose war and support police forces, given that war involves extensive killing of innocent civilians, which police activity doesn't. But since I do oppose all violence, I am uneasy with a system which relies on placing people in a very unpleasant place and shooting them if they refuse to go or try to leave. Mennonites and Amish have traditionally held that a Christian may not take part in government. Quakers oppose the death penalty, and some Quakers have argued against prisons (but I haven't studied their arguments enough to know what alternative to prisons they propose). I am not sure what a pacifist government would look like. It is certainly possible to use nonviolent sanctions. In fact, the Amish and Hutterites control their behavior pretty strictly through organized ostracism (not that I would care to live there). But I haven't really thought through what such a system could look like. Lynn Gazis sappho@sri-nic ------- -------