Some more rambling thoughts on democracy and violence. WARNING, THIS POST CONTAINS RAMBLING, INTENSE BRAINSTORMING AND STREAM OF CONSCIOUSNESS WRITING.
I think I need to do a more in depth analysis of violence.
Let me start by explaining something about human cultures. We have commonly held beliefs about the way things are accomplished. A simple example of this is the way we make circular holes in things. We make circular motions, like a drill. Indeed, the drill motion has become so accepted as the way to make a small circular hole that we are prone to interpret holes in ancient artifacts as produced through a drilling motion. But they often weren't. It is easy enough to make a circular hole with other carving motions. When a culture vests a certain amount of belief and confidence in a means, then they start to believe that everyone does it that way and that other ways do not really work.
This is what has happened to our culture with violence. Violence is seen as THE method to force people to do things, to force their consent. So people on both sides of the conflict tend to obey this misconception... the forcer will believe the forcee will accept it, and the forcee believes that they have no choice. As a result, the belief is reinforced because everyone consents to go along with it. There is nothing inherent about violence that makes it have this power, it is a social construction and nothing more. It is one of many social constructions that need to be dissolved before democracy can be installed.
Having large numbers of people solving conflicts through violence (either personal or state violence), as happens now, will not work for a democracy. Using violence to solve a problem does not actually solve it. In fact, it complicates the matter. It denies the right of the victims of the violence to have their concerns addressed and it assumes that those imposing the violence have the right to value the issue of contention over the person. In a democracy, people are the most important thing, they should be prioritized over everything else.
Violence is done out of desperation. Resorting to this type of action assumes that the victim is unreasonable and will not be persuaded any other way. It shows how little control someone has over a situation if they resort to violence. This is the difficult position police are put into. They are invested with the responsibility of keeping the peace, and controlling a situation. When they lose control, they get desperate and they get violent.
Right now our society lacks the social institutions necessary to conflict resolve on the spot. The police are the only institution vested with immediate conflict resolution, and they tend to do it by arresting one party. If there was a common belief in a system that involved real, on the spot conflict resolution, then the police would not be forced to resort to physical force and violence.
The act of forcing someone in this way is anti-democratic. Democracy is about discussion, compromise, consensus and understanding. It is not a results-oriented method of governance, it is a people-oriented method. Violence places results over people.
So far, I have said:
1. Violence and democracy have different priorities
2. Violence and democracy have contradicting products
3. Violence does not produce circumstances conducive to democracy.
4. Violence is used (ineffectively) in the stead of democratic institutions of conflict resolution.
5. Violence is a social construction that is thought to be practical, but ends up not being in practice.
6. Violence undermines the democratic prerequisite that citizens need to be able to make decisions free of oppression
7. Violence as a means to force consent would be replaced with other institutions under a democracy
Things I wish to explore further: How violence effects the victim. The ends produced when one uses violent means. And the chaos factors in democracy and violence.
Friday, March 28, 2008
Thursday, March 27, 2008
Democracy and Violence Part 1
Well, I am concretely defeating Bucky when it comes to keeping up with my blog. He can consider that a challenge to try and catch up.
So, this is my first stab at trying to articulate why violence is anti-democratic.
Democracy, by its very nature, is supposed to uplift and equalize, to empower and enhance communication. To facilitate understanding and to bring about consensus. Violence is the opposite of this. It is forced disempowerment, a diminishing and isolating means that tends to breed hatred and more violence. In fact, it often destroys power through death. It attempts to undermine the power of a nation not through turning that power to a different mindset, as with democracy, but through the physical act of destroying people and the inherent power they have. Indeed, it undermines power by both destroying it and by forcing consent through fear.
Violence, in our culture, is believed to be an effective way to force someone to do something. I interpret this as forced consent. The person believes they have no choice, even though they do. They can refuse to be coerced and allow themselves to be harmed... indeed, to force the attacker to use violence out of their own desperation to control other people.
So, violence is used in two ways to try to consolidate control: 1. destroy power through removing number of supporters. The worst examples of this are genocides. 2. Forced consent through the threat of violence; most notable emotions involved are fear, a feeling of helplessness and hopelessness.
Democracy can not be created through a process of destroying power and/or forcing the consent of others. The whole point of democracy is for everyone to be able to affect and/or make the decisions that impact their lives. A system such as that depends on people's trust of each other and willing consent to be a part of the system. You can't get people to participate, I mean REALLY participate in the way we want them to, by threatening them. Nor will killing them get them to participate... for obvious reasons.
Now, that that basic argument is kind of out there... many people will rebut with the argument: There are people out there who are oppressing others and exerting coercion and forced consent over them. How do we deal with them? Would it not be prudant to force these people to consent to stop oppressing? And sometimes people will even take it as far as "Isn't a violent revolution necessary to overthrow such an oppressive system as this, it is so violent that it will respond to nothing but violence."
My answer to this is: That is a false situation. When one group oppresses another, they are forcing the other group to consent. All the oppressed group need to do is stop consenting, and they will, with sacrifice (sacrifice that is required for any kind of fighting, whether it is violent of non-violent), be able to end the oppression. The power is truly in the hands of the oppressed, since they are always more numerous. They could (and have in many historical instances) easily and non-violently thrown off the shackles binding them. This is how you build a democratic society, you create democratic institutions in the effort to overthrow oppressors. Using democratic means will create a democratic system, while using violent means will create a violent system. But I digress... violence will only serve to undermine democracy, because it will make the group who were the oppressors not want to participate in a new government, which would probably not be democratic if it were built out of the flames of a violent revolution. So already there is a problem of a (probably) large minority of people who do not want to participate, and are willing to actively oppose whatever democratic institutions had come about. This creates a situation where the people trying to build a democracy start to believe they need to actively take control, or force consent to the democracy from the actively opposing minority. And that is just plain anti-democratic. We come back to the problem of the impossibility of building a participatory democracy by forcing people to agree to democracy. That is just not how democracy works.
So far in this brainstorming session, I have explored what the means of violence produces (i.e. destroying power, forced consent) and how these products are incompatible with the project of democracy. Violence, as a means, simply seems to be ineffective at producing democratic outcomes.
I want to explore this more, but it is late. So I will put off further discussion for another post. I still need to explore the impact of forced consent on people more, and the products that non-violent means produce. I should also explore the chaos factor from both violence and democracy.
In other news, I got my California License!
So, this is my first stab at trying to articulate why violence is anti-democratic.
Democracy, by its very nature, is supposed to uplift and equalize, to empower and enhance communication. To facilitate understanding and to bring about consensus. Violence is the opposite of this. It is forced disempowerment, a diminishing and isolating means that tends to breed hatred and more violence. In fact, it often destroys power through death. It attempts to undermine the power of a nation not through turning that power to a different mindset, as with democracy, but through the physical act of destroying people and the inherent power they have. Indeed, it undermines power by both destroying it and by forcing consent through fear.
Violence, in our culture, is believed to be an effective way to force someone to do something. I interpret this as forced consent. The person believes they have no choice, even though they do. They can refuse to be coerced and allow themselves to be harmed... indeed, to force the attacker to use violence out of their own desperation to control other people.
So, violence is used in two ways to try to consolidate control: 1. destroy power through removing number of supporters. The worst examples of this are genocides. 2. Forced consent through the threat of violence; most notable emotions involved are fear, a feeling of helplessness and hopelessness.
Democracy can not be created through a process of destroying power and/or forcing the consent of others. The whole point of democracy is for everyone to be able to affect and/or make the decisions that impact their lives. A system such as that depends on people's trust of each other and willing consent to be a part of the system. You can't get people to participate, I mean REALLY participate in the way we want them to, by threatening them. Nor will killing them get them to participate... for obvious reasons.
Now, that that basic argument is kind of out there... many people will rebut with the argument: There are people out there who are oppressing others and exerting coercion and forced consent over them. How do we deal with them? Would it not be prudant to force these people to consent to stop oppressing? And sometimes people will even take it as far as "Isn't a violent revolution necessary to overthrow such an oppressive system as this, it is so violent that it will respond to nothing but violence."
My answer to this is: That is a false situation. When one group oppresses another, they are forcing the other group to consent. All the oppressed group need to do is stop consenting, and they will, with sacrifice (sacrifice that is required for any kind of fighting, whether it is violent of non-violent), be able to end the oppression. The power is truly in the hands of the oppressed, since they are always more numerous. They could (and have in many historical instances) easily and non-violently thrown off the shackles binding them. This is how you build a democratic society, you create democratic institutions in the effort to overthrow oppressors. Using democratic means will create a democratic system, while using violent means will create a violent system. But I digress... violence will only serve to undermine democracy, because it will make the group who were the oppressors not want to participate in a new government, which would probably not be democratic if it were built out of the flames of a violent revolution. So already there is a problem of a (probably) large minority of people who do not want to participate, and are willing to actively oppose whatever democratic institutions had come about. This creates a situation where the people trying to build a democracy start to believe they need to actively take control, or force consent to the democracy from the actively opposing minority. And that is just plain anti-democratic. We come back to the problem of the impossibility of building a participatory democracy by forcing people to agree to democracy. That is just not how democracy works.
So far in this brainstorming session, I have explored what the means of violence produces (i.e. destroying power, forced consent) and how these products are incompatible with the project of democracy. Violence, as a means, simply seems to be ineffective at producing democratic outcomes.
I want to explore this more, but it is late. So I will put off further discussion for another post. I still need to explore the impact of forced consent on people more, and the products that non-violent means produce. I should also explore the chaos factor from both violence and democracy.
In other news, I got my California License!
Sunday, March 23, 2008
In the News
Awesome news. There is an article about my friend Brian Kelly in the New York Times. Check it out: http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/23/nyregion/thecity/23sds.html?pagewanted=1&_r=1&ref=thecity
Also look at the list of media coverage of the sds 5th year anniversary events: http://studentsforademocraticsociety.org/march20/?q=node/26
It is so inspiring to see my fellow young adults being active and politically engaged. I am so proud of all my friends who got arrested in the past week. Ya'll are awesome.
This post is dedicated to all those who participated in those events! I love you all.
Also look at the list of media coverage of the sds 5th year anniversary events: http://studentsforademocraticsociety.org/march20/?q=node/26
It is so inspiring to see my fellow young adults being active and politically engaged. I am so proud of all my friends who got arrested in the past week. Ya'll are awesome.
This post is dedicated to all those who participated in those events! I love you all.
The Importance of Organization
I have talked some on organization alittle before on this blog. But I want to reiterate how important being organized is.
Maybe I should define what I mean by being organized. To be organized is to do the following:
1. Keeping your word. When you say you will do something, do it. This will give you a good reputation and inherently further your goals.
2. Hard work. Cliche as it is, hard work will get things done. And in the world of activism where it feels like not much gets done, this is a crucial attribute.
3. Coordination. Stay in contact with people and coordinate your efforts. Avoid duplicate tasks and work out a system by which everyone can be working toward a goal, and know what they need to do to make sure the whole group gets it done.
4. Community. Help, protect, care for, and love each other. No other facet of being organized will motivate people more than being a part of a strong caring community. It will also provide an unparalleled sense of security that is very hard to find in life.
5. Courage. Acknowledge and accept your fears, but do not let them interfere with your activities. Change takes the courage to fight (ever non-violently) despite the seemingly insurmountable odds. Of course, courage must be partnered with understanding and vision to prevent brave but pointless acts.
6. Understanding. To be organized, we need to understand the cause and effect relationships or our actions, and how our actions will impact different audiences. Understanding other people, and how they think is also crucial. Also, a general understanding of the world is important. Overall, the more knowledge and problem solving skills you can fit into your brain, the better. It is much better to build a sturdy net to catch fish than to try to catch them with your hands.
7. Mass numbers. To truly be organized, you need lots of people working toward a common goal. They do not necessarily have to all be coordinated, but it helps.
8. Planning. Use all of your understanding to plan a campaign to actually reach the goal. Make contingency plans and make sure everyone knows what the plan is.
9. Love. By far the most important. This one encompasses everything we seek to change in the world. It can remake our entire world if we have the courage to embrace it. Love everyone, and only denounce actions. Forgive and give whenever there is the chance.
If we look at corporations, who have a massive amount of power in our society, we see that they are very very well organized. However, they concentrate on only: understanding, hard work, coordination, planning and keeping your word. Because they have mastered these 5 skills, the relatively few people under any given corporations employ have managed to affect the other 6.5 billion people and often not in a good way. However, their lack of concern about mass numbers, community, courage, and love leaves them vulnerable. An organization that embraced the vision of organization I have laid out here would easily out-power them and be able to wield the fiery-sword of influence to truly slay the injustice that wreaks havoc in the hearts of so many.
There is a strength to this outline that may not be obvious at first. It will bring people in by the droves. Having an effective and loving group actively seeking change, one that fulfills its members deep need to care for each other will be an earth-shaking movement that will fundamentally remake civilization. I have tried to outline my view on organizing, that couples the "professionalism" of corporate America with the love, courage and community that I have found to be amazingly effective at motivating and improving people.
I hope to see a movement that embraces all 9 factors, because, I believe, if I do see it, then we will be able to heal the world.
Maybe I should define what I mean by being organized. To be organized is to do the following:
1. Keeping your word. When you say you will do something, do it. This will give you a good reputation and inherently further your goals.
2. Hard work. Cliche as it is, hard work will get things done. And in the world of activism where it feels like not much gets done, this is a crucial attribute.
3. Coordination. Stay in contact with people and coordinate your efforts. Avoid duplicate tasks and work out a system by which everyone can be working toward a goal, and know what they need to do to make sure the whole group gets it done.
4. Community. Help, protect, care for, and love each other. No other facet of being organized will motivate people more than being a part of a strong caring community. It will also provide an unparalleled sense of security that is very hard to find in life.
5. Courage. Acknowledge and accept your fears, but do not let them interfere with your activities. Change takes the courage to fight (ever non-violently) despite the seemingly insurmountable odds. Of course, courage must be partnered with understanding and vision to prevent brave but pointless acts.
6. Understanding. To be organized, we need to understand the cause and effect relationships or our actions, and how our actions will impact different audiences. Understanding other people, and how they think is also crucial. Also, a general understanding of the world is important. Overall, the more knowledge and problem solving skills you can fit into your brain, the better. It is much better to build a sturdy net to catch fish than to try to catch them with your hands.
7. Mass numbers. To truly be organized, you need lots of people working toward a common goal. They do not necessarily have to all be coordinated, but it helps.
8. Planning. Use all of your understanding to plan a campaign to actually reach the goal. Make contingency plans and make sure everyone knows what the plan is.
9. Love. By far the most important. This one encompasses everything we seek to change in the world. It can remake our entire world if we have the courage to embrace it. Love everyone, and only denounce actions. Forgive and give whenever there is the chance.
If we look at corporations, who have a massive amount of power in our society, we see that they are very very well organized. However, they concentrate on only: understanding, hard work, coordination, planning and keeping your word. Because they have mastered these 5 skills, the relatively few people under any given corporations employ have managed to affect the other 6.5 billion people and often not in a good way. However, their lack of concern about mass numbers, community, courage, and love leaves them vulnerable. An organization that embraced the vision of organization I have laid out here would easily out-power them and be able to wield the fiery-sword of influence to truly slay the injustice that wreaks havoc in the hearts of so many.
There is a strength to this outline that may not be obvious at first. It will bring people in by the droves. Having an effective and loving group actively seeking change, one that fulfills its members deep need to care for each other will be an earth-shaking movement that will fundamentally remake civilization. I have tried to outline my view on organizing, that couples the "professionalism" of corporate America with the love, courage and community that I have found to be amazingly effective at motivating and improving people.
I hope to see a movement that embraces all 9 factors, because, I believe, if I do see it, then we will be able to heal the world.
Tuesday, March 18, 2008
"Students Against Hippies in Trees"
On Monday, I opened "The Daily Californian," the student paper of UC Berkeley, and I was greeted by a picture of a fellow I had just met on Friday at a welcoming party held by the Metta Center (a center for spreading education about non-violence). In the picture, he is just standing next to a tree, and cops are swarming him. He had been sitting in a tree on campus for the past couple weeks, trying to raise awareness about the undemocratic nature of the UC Board of Reagents. He was arrested on Friday around 2:15 and I met him around 4 at the party. He introduced himself as "Fresh," and I talked to him for awhile about the Democratizing the Reagents campaign. Pretty interesting stuff, he had alot of the same complaints that Brown students have, and is organizing around issues that sds is organizing around.
It is nice to see that even in places where sds does not exist yet, there are people organizing around some of the central issues which sds is doing across the nation. I am planning on contacting some of the other organizers of the campaign and tell them about sds, with the hope that they will hook into the sds network to help their cause (as well as maybe become an sds chapter :-) ).
But what I found hilarious about the article in the Daily Californian was that there is actually a group called "Students Against Hippies in Trees." And they showed up to protest the protest. Gotta love counter-protests, they are always kind of funny, especially when they have ridiculous names like that.
The thing that still boggles my mind is why the University cares that Fresh was in a tree for two weeks. It is not like the Oak Grove tree sit where they wanted to build something on the site. They had no designs on cutting down the tree that Fresh was in, so why did they make such a big deal about it? If they had just ignored him, his protest probably would have slowly trailed off and ended unceremoniously. But instead, they invested a tremendous amount of time, energy and symbolic investment into Fresh's protest. When he came down, it was in front of 150 people and he was arrested on the spot. Now that is an awesome climax for a protest, and bound to get plenty of attention, which is what he was after. If the administration had ignored him, I doubt he would have made it into the press very much. It is only because they responded that he even made a splash. It reminds me of that part in Harry Potter where Dumbledore is explaining to Harry that the only reason the Prophecy would come true is because Voldemort put worth into it and let it affect his actions. He sewed the seeds of his own undoing by putting faith in the truthfulness of that prophecy. Indeed, the prophecy is self-fulfilling, as long as he believed in it. The same is true of this protest. The administration believed that this protest would have an affect, and consequently, they reacted strongly to it. Strong enough to try, in the words of Fresh, a "sneak ninja attack" at night, and ban him from campus for a week when he came down. If they had just ignored him, I doubt anyone would have showed up to see the drama of a confrontation (there would not have been one if the administration had ignored him). Nor would the press have cause to write an article where there was no tension (they are annoying like that). The administration could have defused the tension of the situation by ignoring him.
All in all, this just shows the strength of non-violence. When your opponent strikes out, it only makes you stronger and your message more prominent. And while I am not sure how effective sitting in a tree for two weeks is toward democratizing the reagents (aside from getting press to the issue)... it sure makes for a good story.
It is nice to see that even in places where sds does not exist yet, there are people organizing around some of the central issues which sds is doing across the nation. I am planning on contacting some of the other organizers of the campaign and tell them about sds, with the hope that they will hook into the sds network to help their cause (as well as maybe become an sds chapter :-) ).
But what I found hilarious about the article in the Daily Californian was that there is actually a group called "Students Against Hippies in Trees." And they showed up to protest the protest. Gotta love counter-protests, they are always kind of funny, especially when they have ridiculous names like that.
The thing that still boggles my mind is why the University cares that Fresh was in a tree for two weeks. It is not like the Oak Grove tree sit where they wanted to build something on the site. They had no designs on cutting down the tree that Fresh was in, so why did they make such a big deal about it? If they had just ignored him, his protest probably would have slowly trailed off and ended unceremoniously. But instead, they invested a tremendous amount of time, energy and symbolic investment into Fresh's protest. When he came down, it was in front of 150 people and he was arrested on the spot. Now that is an awesome climax for a protest, and bound to get plenty of attention, which is what he was after. If the administration had ignored him, I doubt he would have made it into the press very much. It is only because they responded that he even made a splash. It reminds me of that part in Harry Potter where Dumbledore is explaining to Harry that the only reason the Prophecy would come true is because Voldemort put worth into it and let it affect his actions. He sewed the seeds of his own undoing by putting faith in the truthfulness of that prophecy. Indeed, the prophecy is self-fulfilling, as long as he believed in it. The same is true of this protest. The administration believed that this protest would have an affect, and consequently, they reacted strongly to it. Strong enough to try, in the words of Fresh, a "sneak ninja attack" at night, and ban him from campus for a week when he came down. If they had just ignored him, I doubt anyone would have showed up to see the drama of a confrontation (there would not have been one if the administration had ignored him). Nor would the press have cause to write an article where there was no tension (they are annoying like that). The administration could have defused the tension of the situation by ignoring him.
All in all, this just shows the strength of non-violence. When your opponent strikes out, it only makes you stronger and your message more prominent. And while I am not sure how effective sitting in a tree for two weeks is toward democratizing the reagents (aside from getting press to the issue)... it sure makes for a good story.
Sunday, March 16, 2008
Catching up
So, I haven't written here in a month. Procrastination can be quite harsh when one is busy. So here is an update.
I have a job! I am Rabbi Lerner's assistant. For those of you who don't know who he is, he is the Editor of Tikkun, the Chair of the Network of Spiritual Progressive and Rabbi of Beyt Tikkun Synagogue. Back in the late 60s, he was the chair of the Berkeley Chapter of sds, and he helped found the New American Movement. He was one of the Seattle Seven, and he has pretty much been committed to activism for his entire life.
I also have an apartment. It is a small sublet to hold me over until May when I am going to get an apartment with Bucky and Dan. It is a decent place, alittle pricey, but it is only a block from work, so you can't beat the location. I think the room is a converted porch, given the fact that two walls are solid windows, and the door frame has the marks of having had two doors (one probably being a screen door).
I have had alot to do at work, and it is good to feel productive. I do alot of organizing and data management, which is right up my alley since it was what I did for sds and the other activist groups I was in. All in all, I am very happy with it. Although it was a bit difficult to get used to waking up at 7:30 or 8 every day.
I have a job! I am Rabbi Lerner's assistant. For those of you who don't know who he is, he is the Editor of Tikkun, the Chair of the Network of Spiritual Progressive and Rabbi of Beyt Tikkun Synagogue. Back in the late 60s, he was the chair of the Berkeley Chapter of sds, and he helped found the New American Movement. He was one of the Seattle Seven, and he has pretty much been committed to activism for his entire life.
I also have an apartment. It is a small sublet to hold me over until May when I am going to get an apartment with Bucky and Dan. It is a decent place, alittle pricey, but it is only a block from work, so you can't beat the location. I think the room is a converted porch, given the fact that two walls are solid windows, and the door frame has the marks of having had two doors (one probably being a screen door).
I have had alot to do at work, and it is good to feel productive. I do alot of organizing and data management, which is right up my alley since it was what I did for sds and the other activist groups I was in. All in all, I am very happy with it. Although it was a bit difficult to get used to waking up at 7:30 or 8 every day.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)