An Exploration of Nonviolence

There are a few points I want to make here, but they all lead up to what is the main idea I had for this post. I will work to be brief with the preliminary items in order to get to the point.

First, I find it cumbersome to define or describe something by what it is not. This may be better labeled peacefulness or "peace-able-ness", but the traditional term Ahimsa may be best.

Next, this works with human nature, not despite it. Not to get into another discussion, but there are a number of incorrect assumptions built up around what constitutes "Human Nature". I will leave that for another time, as I want to get to the point.

Finally, as social beings we are inclined not just to relate, but also will respond to the suffering and needs of others.

Nonviolence requires the development of an effective means of self-defense. The peaceful practitioner must not only engage in not harming others, but also in preventing the violence of others. I'm not advocating some sort of pseudo-nonviolent militarism. If we accept that all life is precious and deserving of preservation, then we consider the 'victim' as well as the perpetrator and surrounding community. It is precisely because we feel the pain of others that we must prevent the perpetrator from committing their violent act. It is because our own injury or death at the hands of another human would continue to hurt those who care about us that we must prevent the violent act of the perpetrator. We cannot always do this with kind words and calm requests. There is not always time to relate, especially when the other is out-of-control (meaning not rational in the moment). Most perpetrators regret or repent their acts, given time, incentive, and opportunity to examine them. It is imperative that we avert the calamity and the near-perpetrator progress towards repentance. To accomplish this goal, we must have a way of incapacitating the perpetrator that is effective, but does not inflict undue violence (as this would make us a perpetrator in turn).

This also stipulates that the prevention of violence is always the 'highest good', and it would not serve a 'higher' cause to suffer or die instead.

Fairy Tale Ideals

Communication is difficult. It's tricky for me to be clear in writing and I work hard to be understood, just as I do in person. I judge I'm not alone in struggling to have others understand what I say. It struck me the other day how easy it is in fairy tales for people (and even non-human entities) to talk and understand one another. This ties in with my complaint about how simplistic and dichotomous these stories are. There isn't any doubt about what the princess wants, so the prince doesn't need to ask to marry her. Neither is there any question of what should happen to the big, bad wolf or evil stepmother. It's right there as part of their names.

Anderson, the Grimms, and Disney are not the only ones to blame. Parents who have not resolved their own unrealistic expectations and communication issues are a bigger problem. It becomes a cycle where unprepared and immature adults pass on their limited understandings the best they can to their children. I see this as no less a responsibility than talking calmly to rather than hitting a child to teach them.

These stories in no way prepare children to form realistic understandings of the world, and that would be fine if they had nothing to do with the topic of shaping expectations. However, these stories are moral tales that give a sense of fairness and the benefits of being "good". Especially since these are the stories that the most important people in the child's life choose to share they have a serious weight and importance. Being backed up by flashy media and repackaging of the same ideals outside the home contributes to the problem.


When children grow up with this, they must struggle to integrate these ideals into the reality they encounter. Since these books and movies are so simple, they are led to believe that communication should be effortless and bad people wear pointy hats or have fangs. What can it mean when they have trouble talking with others? What are they supposed to think when their "prince" can't just read their mind? How can they have realistic expectations of themselves and their partners with all these stories of "true love" flying around? What about when their princess doesn't share their ideas of fairness and how to be "good"? Or when their stepmother comforts them after dad beats them?

I'm glad for movies like Shrek and Up because they are showing a different side to these fables. I can even appreciate some of the recent contributions to female empowerment through movies like Brave (and I've heard many great things about Maleficent). I think there need to be more relate-able and honest stories like these for our children. They can handle some reality in their fantasies.

Why We Work

I often hear people refer to the so-called "helping professions". I have a sense that this is disingenuous. Every job, every field, and every profession is about helping others. This may not be the expressed or intended purpose (since most businesses operate to make a profit), but helping others is what actually happens. I also believe this is what motivates most people to do their jobs, that inherent sense of reward. Customer service and nursing, banking and policing, teaching and trash collection are about serving and helping others. It may be that nobody wants to do that particular task or people are so specialized that they don't have time or knowledge to do the job; either way, the one who steps up to that role is helping others by doing so.

Notions of Normalcy and Operating At Capacity

When I was younger, I thought that people were all like me. On the inside, I mean. I thought that even though they looked different, that within that unique but fairly standard packaging they thought in much the same way I did and had the same capabilities and aptitudes. Certainly there were some small number who had mental or physical handicaps-again, whatever their individual packaging consisted of. At heart, though, where it really mattered, I thought any differences could only be shallow ones and that we all had a core that would lead us onto the same basic track.

As I've become a more complex thinker (or at least think of myself as such), I've revisited and re-evaluated this concept. I'm starting to wonder if it is actually more that we tend to operate within a narrow range of mental and physical specifications. What if there are a greater degree of adaptations we encompass instead of a sort of "on/off", "yes/no", "normal/abnormal" status? Instead, there may be a number of significant differences that allow individuals to operate within the confines of our systems. After all, it's not like we're products on an assembly line-there's no stress-testing or design studies on each model. If we manage to do most things for ourselves, that's generally good enough.

I've been hearing this new buzzword "neurodiversity" lately, and I suppose what I'm talking about may relate to it. This is about 30 years after the notion of "multiple intelligences". The idea takes a bit of wind out of IQ and expands from a single "academic/learning" understanding of intelligence into several distinct types. The validity of either point of view is not at issue, I mention it to note that the desire and search to understand how people operate and the way that the internal influences the external is still being examined.

Follow up: Controlling the Workers

In a previous post (Capitalism as Favoritism,15Mar09), I mentioned the concept of business owners wanting "a workforce they can control." I am sure I could have been more clear, and since I want everyone to understand what I mean, that's what I intend to do here. Some may cringe at the mention of "Marxism (historical materialism)" or "Socialism", but I am interested here in analysing a problem of Capitalism and certainly relevant concepts and definitions can be found in both the former "-isms".

The idea is that those who own land and/or businesses (bourgeois: those who own the means of production) want to control those who do the work and/or buy the products (proletariat: workers/consumers). Not that bourgeois want to make the decisions for others, just keep workers less prone to demand better than they are getting. There are a number of ways to go about this, e.g. distraction, political correctness, creating division, etc. The idea being to collect as much power, prestige, and/or wealth as possible, using others to achieve this end.

This hasn't changed much in at least three thousand years. I would go all the way back in time through the Westward Expansion, Industrial Revolution, Colonization and Imperialism, Middle Ages, Renaissance and feudalism, Enlightenment, Dark Ages, the Fall and Rise of the Roman Empire, even to Egypt and Mesopotamia. I am not as familiar with "Eastern" cultures in India, China, or elsewhere, but I imagine many of the same conditions and drives exist in humans worldwide. This is not to say that a majority of citizens subscribe to the notion of ownership and control throughout history and in every culture, just that there are usually greedy, selfish individuals whose desires drive them to overpower others in their pursuits.

In the end, both the desire to gain and maintain power and control as well as the path to getting it has not changed much. This involves gathering a bunch of others together in support of your goals, generally by appealing to their self-preservation. This could mean threats, promises of reward, or just a notion of simplicity. What I mean by this last bit is that not everyone wants to be a big-shot; for many,  it's enough to be told what to do and let someone else worry about long-term issues.