I’m over non-violence, as a political philosophy. Advocating non-violent resistance to injustice is either a luxury or something that’s undertaken by those who have superhuman tolerance for violent oppression.
It is a crime in Saudi Arabia for unmarried men and women to mix. A Saudi religious policeman (representing the Commission for the Promotion of Virtue and Prevention of Vice) busted a 20-something couple for being together in a park in Al-Mubarraz recently, and got a righteous beat down in return–from the woman.
“For unknown reasons, the young man collapsed upon being questioned by the cop,” according to The Jerusalem Post. That strikes me as a little odd, and I suspect it could be code for “knocked out with a baton.” But anyway, the woman let it rip on the religious policeman, hitting him repeatedly and leaving him to be taken to the hospital for the resulting bruises. Should the woman be charged, she could face a lengthy prison term as well as lashings for assaulting a government representative.
Because crushing daily oppression is an abstraction rather than a reality for most of them, some feminists felt torn about this story. See: this comment thread on Jezebel. I’m annoyed Katy even used the words “While we don’t usually condone violence …” in her post. Over and over people whisper “Violence is always wrong, but …” before they dare express support for–or pride in–this brave woman.
IT’S OKAY! Depending on what really happened to her companion, this burst of oh-so-terrible violence could have been self-defense. I don’t particularly care, because I am not conflicted about the oppressed using violent force to overthrow their oppressors. More often than not, it is the only thing they understand. In the case of this woman, I am not conflicted about the oppressed exploding with violent rage at her oppressor after one too many boots have stepped on her neck. I don’t know if this woman’s actions will spark a rebellion or if it’s just an isolated incident I read about online. I do know not everyone is privileged enough to sit around quoting Gandhi at people in situations like the one women in Saudi are facing.
I am totally in your corner on this one. Sometimes violence is absolutely necessary, and appropriate.
Amen, sister, and co-signed. I felt exactly the same way about that Jez thread.
And also: I completely agree that “collapsed” was code for “was knocked out with a baton” (unless he got the vapors and fainted, which seems unlikely). So it’s entirely possible that the woman thought—or even knew—the religious policeman would attack her as well, either with the baton or even sexually. She had ever right to defend herself.
A-fucking-men.
I’ve often countered accusations of being a “whinging lefty” with the assertion that I am more of a “jumping up and down on your throat in combat boots” sort of lefty, and people should bear that in mind.
Sometimes violence is justified.
I read an incredible article on non-violent v. violent protest, which I will not be able to find which related the difference between the Ghandi’s success and the failure of other non-violent protests in South America specifically. The author made the point that Ghandi was successful because the British thought of themselves as protective parents of their colonies, and so they were open to non-violent persuasion. The same can be said for the civil rights movement in America, the violent reaction to the non-violent protesters made Americans all over the country react because while they might have been racist they did not see themselves as the kind of people who beat the crap out of other people in the street and did not want to be associated with it.
But if the dominant power does not cast themselves in the role as the benevolent parent, all non-violent protest does is gather the non-violent protesters in one place and make it easier for them to be rounded up, killed, detained, or whatever.
I am not at all committed to non-violence as an ideology. As a strategy, in specific contexts, it can be deployed successfully to protect or advance one’s rights but it is not the answer all the time. Self defense and provocation are valid uses of violence. Punishment is iffier in my opinion, even when wielded by the state. Maybe especially then.
Sorry, I don’t mean that to provoke violently is ok, but to use violence when provoked.
@bellacooker:
I know it’s just a movie, but I was thinking about that scene in Ghandi when Candace Bergen asks Kingsley about whether he really believes in nonviolent resistance to the Nazis, and he sounds like a naive jerkoff.
Sorry, JD, didn’t mean to imply I was ever “under” non-violence as a political philosophy, so to speak. Now I’m just actively perturbed by it. Just in case anyone has the wrong impression.
There’s a difference between self-defense or defense of another and coordinated violence, even if it’s for a righteous cause. One man’s freedom fighter is another man’s terrorist, and all that.
Yeah spark, but when your enemy is really well organized, how can individuals alone defend themselves? Why can’t we organize our self defense so it actually works instead of making us martyrs?
Sarah I was just obnoxiously pontificating, not speaking directly in response to you. Sorry!
Self defense is justifiable. But when you’re simply advocating violence as a tool, all you get is a downward spiraling tit-for-tat that can’t be escaped, regardless of the morality of one side or the other. Just look at the Israelis and Palestinians. Strategically, it’s a very poor choice.
JD, I’m not an expert on resistance movements, so I don’t want to make any claims. My guess is that it’s situational. But I want to make a distinction between this woman–who did the right thing, in my opinion–and people who set off car bombs in Belfast or Tel Aviv or Times Square. I’ve heard the same kinds of arguments used in defense of the latter. I understand wanting to throw off all the “violence is wrong, but…” qualifiers, but the slope can get slippery.
Yes!! Agreed. this is my first comment here, but just wanted to voice my agreement,
I think that SarahMC makes a great point that participating in non-violent forms of protest is a privilege. And so is being able to sit safely in our homes and offices and second guess the tactics of movements which resort to violent protest. We’re pretty lucky.
I’m a fan of the “try not to start it, but if it’s started, you damn well finish it” school when it comes to violence. Sometimes that is actually the only language that people will understand. I mean, avoid violence as much as possible, but I feel like a lot of liberals have this idea that violence is something “base” that we’re past as a culture and I agree with Sarah and bella that that’s a very privileged view. We are not just minds — we have bodies and acting like we don’t and like our bodily nature is never relevant in terms of how we do activism is silly. I also think this is similar to lying in terms of liberals shooting ourselves in the foot. Very often, the people we’re going up against have no compunctions about lying, violence, manipulation, etc, and those are very effective tools. Obviously there are reasons why we don’t use them most of the time (e.g. morals) but if we declare ourselves to be categorically above such things then we’re cutting ourselves off from some very useful tactics.
I’m not sure what you mean here by a “political philosophy” of “non-violence” here, Sarah. You seem to mean that people ought to be able to defend themselves from physical attack, and yet the story you identify seems to be the woman attacking first, although it’s unclear?
I also don’t know that the philosophies of MLK Jr. and/or Gandhi (and they are entirely different approaches) were based in privilege either, but again, I feel like I don’t know what’s being talked about here.
Are we really arguing that nonviolence is only an option for privileged people? Martin Luther King, Jr. might disagree.
@baraqiel: There’s more than just a moral reason for avoiding violence. It’s not automatically, or permanently, effective.
Listened to an audio recording of a man doing an interview/Q&A in the character of Thomas Jefferson – sort of a “what would TJ say about current issues” thing. Now, let me start by saying I’m not the world’s biggest TJ fan, the man had some serious flaws. But I thought it was very interesting how he responded to someone who said that people were very unhappy with the president (W. Bush at the time) and that all they could do is vote. He disagreed and said (paraphrased), “You can exercise the power of your citizenship only to a certain point, but if your gov’t. isn’t doing what you want, maybe it’s time to burn down a post office. Sometimes that’s the only way to get things accomplished.” Very interesting philosophy.
I agree that non-violence comes from a place of privilege, and that sometimes violence is an appropriate response. Just wanted to add in that anecdote.
@Spark: Perhaps not in all cases, but in a case where you are woman in Saudi Arabia and a religious policeman has just clubbed your male friend, leaving you at his mercy…violence seems like an excellent option to me.
From everything I’ve read about the morality police in Saudi Arabia, most of them are officious bullies who love abusing their power. I only wish someone had used violence on them years ago, when a girls’ school caught fire, and 16 students died because the morality squad wouldn’t let them out of the burning building. Why? The girls weren’t properly covered, and there were men who could see them.
I mean, and let me just talk out loud for a second, if what you’re thinking of as “non-violence” is a policy of acquiescence to power, then, okay, I guess I understand where you are coming from.
But that is not how either Gandhi or MLK Jr. defined it. They were both closer to something like “civil disobedience,” which would, btw, enable you to resist what is happening without resorting to violence. A lot of these ideas are rooted in Christian/Hindu ideas about the redemptive power of suffering.
Also, bellacoker is repeating a fairly heatedly debated point of historical contention about why satyagraha worked in India. There are quite a number of historians who will tell you that whatever Britain’s idea of its role in India was, colonialism was brutal. Unbelievably brutal. And it smacks a little bit of white people saying, “oh, hey, we’re really reasonable guys” to interpret the success of Gandhi’s movement as proof positive of the “reasonableness” of colonialists.
I think I’ve posted this before, but the older I get the more I feel like some people just need an ass whuppin. And in this particular case it seems particularly just to me.
@BeckySharper: Yeah, she acted in self-defense, and more power to her. Recognizing that is very different from “you can’t blame a less powerful group for using violence against a more powerful group.” Maybe I’m misunderstanding the intent here. But endorsing violence in general–instead of saying, it’s necessary/appropriate in certain specific contexts–isn’t the right answer.
@Spark: I don’t think this post endorses violence in general.
I don’t see how “not resorting to violence” is all that different from “non-violence.” I am saying I am not opposed to violence, from a moral standpoint.
MLK Jr. was not privileged but he sure had a superhuman tolerance for violent oppression, which is not something I’m willing to demand of all people.
Because there’s violence, and there’s resistance, and those two concepts are not identical. But your idea above seems to rest on the notion that they are.
I didn’t endorse violence in general. I simply do not believe in pacifism in general, because violence is necessary and warranted in certain contexts.
@BeckySharper: I’m responding to the comments.
If people get sick of “resisting” without resorting to violence I can’t fault them for that.
Okay, if you’re going to be dismissive of the philosophy to begin with I can see why you denounce it. The scare quotes strike me as unnecessary.
I’m not sure non-violent philosophies “fault” people either for being frustrated. But again, if what you want is to set up a straw philosophy and knock it down, by all means.
I think this disagreement is more about terms than concepts. But before I bow out, @SarahMC, many many people in the Civil Rights Movement endured what MLK did, and calling him superhuman takes credit away from them, and from him.
Pilgrim Soul: I definitely don’t know everything and there are things that I could learn that would most likely change my opinion.
I think that living under a government that will be swayed by non-violent protest as opposed to having to resort to violent resistance is a privilege, not as much privilege as being a part of that government or not being oppressed in the first place, but not nothing either.
I do not think violence is always wrong. Is that better?
Come on, Spark. We were talking about MLK to begin with, so SarahMC refered specifically to him. If you want to add to that John Lewis and Ralph Abernathy and Fannie Lou Hamer and the entire roster of non-violent superstars of the Civil Rights movement, go ahead. I don’t think SarahMC was in any way saying that Dr. King was THE ONLY great practitioner of non-violence in that movement.
Bellacoker, I kind of think you’re splitting some privilege hairs there, and also some of them are not ones we can properly discuss in this forum for lack of information and expertise. I mean, keep in mind that even an account that takes the Gandhian movement as the sole cause of the British withdrawal from India is an overgeneralization as well.
SarahMC, yes, it would have made more sense to me, though I’m still not sure I understand the parameters of it for you. Is violence is always okay in the face of injustice, as your post seemed to imply?
I don’t think Spark said that either, Becks, just that Sarah’s logic that MLK Jr. was just that exceptional didn’t quite hold. Also, he was kind of an ass to his wife, so maybe not so superhuman in his struggle against injustice.
@PSoul: Unless you think that his struggle against injustice was somehow tied to his sex life, I don’t think MLK’s committing adultery made him any less committed to non-violent resistance or less successful in gaining civil rights for Americans.
@BeckySharper: I didn’t mean to imply that Sarah was intentionally ignoring other people. I mean that calling him superhuman is problematic. It dismisses his human suffering, and erases the people who fought alongside him. And gives us an excuse for not living up to their example.
Yes, I can sympathize with someone who’s “sick” of nonviolently resisting (in another context, I could easily be that person). But that’s not an excuse. This may sound inflammatory, but this is the the same kind of logic that Scott Roeder uses. Obviously none of us excuse his actions, but my point is: language matters, and arguing for violence requires very precise language.
What I was saying, Becks, is that he wasn’t perfect, or superhuman. That’s all.
Dave, I didn’t say violence is the best strategic reaction to oppression. I just don’t oppose it on principle.
I think it’s OK for kids to beat the shit out of their bullies and I think it’s OK for Saudi women to use fists against the morality police.
Spark, I’m with you. Violence (as distinct from defending one’s self in the face of an imminent threat) is just a race to the bottom for everyone.
I’m picking up what you’re putting down, Sarah, and I’m glad you wrote this post and started the discussion. While I agree that violence should be used only as a last resort, it would be damn tough to look this woman in the eye and tell her she was wrong for standing up for herself. Criticizing the oppressed for not fighting fair in a completely unfair and violent society misses the point completely.
I hesitate to try and articulate myself any further than that, though, since I’m afraid I might not achieve the academic perfection that is being demanded in these comments, and I really don’t want to be jumped on.
As a privileged white woman who is very nice to authority and thus gets treated kindly (seriously, sometimes it makes me whince internally how NICE everyone is whenever I get pulled over for a routine check or anything) it is easy for me and people like me to advocate non-violence. Because were I in that situation in my privileged country, with all the rights I have, I could be (fairly) sure that I have access to justice after the fact.
I could report the policeman, there could be charges pressed. Even if not, I could make him regret his actions.
But in a system where justice is not accessable, sometimes you just have to take it. And when violence committed to you is not necessarily immediate, but long term – like oppression, or systematic harm – it’s harder to say ‘well, this individual person started it’.
But when vioence and harm is coming to you from authority, and you are presented with a threatening person who is explicitly representing that authority, I feel that that is a lot different than car bombs (as mentioned earlier) which are less focussed in their harm.
Also, people DID use non-violent techniques like slow downs against the nazis. Here is the best I could come up with witha quick google http://libcom.org/library/workers-opposition-nazi-germany-tim-mason
Perhaps it’s not an either or proposition? Violence when appropriate and ‘unavoidable’ (if justice and other goals are to be persued), other forms of protest and resistance otherwise.
Personally, I hate “slippery slope” arguments…and yet, I’m about to make one.
The rhetoric of the tea party militias sounds an awful lot like much of what’s being said here. It’s not rational, of course, but remember that in their minds, they are an oppressed minority, and it is both the right and the responsibility of the people to revolt, violently if necessary, to an oppressive regime.
In addition, the “violence is acceptable when provoked” argument is a favorite philosophy of the perpetrators of intimate partner violence.
Now, of course I know that those things are not what you mean. But the rhetoric itself is extremely similar, and in a world where tea party militias and domestic abusers ALREADY can’t tell the difference, do you really want to add to the narrative that their beliefs are correct?
Melissa, when you have to qualify your statement with: Now, of course I know that those things are not what you mean , why even bother?
You’ve just invalidated your own argument AND compared feminists discussing oppressed women in Saudi Arabia to the Tea Party discussing violent overthrow of the government. Seriously? That’s offensive AND poorly reasoned. That’s like Glenn Beck’s slippery slope arguments that compare everything to the Nazis.
Context matters. Every argument for/about violence sounds the same if you strip it of context.
Right, Becky. And it’s important to show a little good faith in this discussion, I think. Isn’t that what we’re striving for in this feminist community? Instead of overblown hyperbole and nastiness?
@Becky
Sorry, I should have been more clear.
Again, I know without a doubt that that isn’t what you meant, and I did not intend to compare this discussion to the tea party or to domestic abusers in any real, rational, logical way.
However, the tea party folks are not logical, rational people. Many abusive husbands/boyfriends aren’t either. I just think we should use some caution when we echo the exact same arguments they use, knowing how badly out of context it can be taken.
I’m really, truly sorry if my comment came across as “nastiness.” Really, that’s not what I meant at all. And I believe that this discussion has a place and that everyone is making interesting and valid points. That said, the rhetoric itself (that is, the actual, literal words…NOT the intention behind them) sounds absolutely identical to the militia people. Although I’m certainly not so arrogant as to judge the woman we’re discussing in this case, I still think it’s reasonable to throw a caution out there…these discussions may be safe in feminist circles, but in broader society, they tend to be applied to other contexts by irrational people.
Again, I’m so so sorry that I offended everyone. I love the Harpies! This is one of the best sites for feminist discussion on the internet!
No, don’t worry, Melissa!
But like I said, context matters. All arguments for violence involve someone claiming they’re being endangered/oppressed/threatened and that therefore violence is necessary. Abusive boyfriends might use the same rhetoric as oppressed people, but since the context is so radically different, they’re obviously not comparable. No reasonable person would NOT consider the source.
I get that you’re concerned that people might take rhetoric out of context, but if we let that stop us from having these discussions, we’d just quit before we even started would never be activists.
What?
What language, in particular, is like Tea Party rhetoric (or identical to it)?
Someone brought up anti-abortion terrorism on the Jezebel thread. The only way the two are comparable is if you believe using force to protect rights is the same as force used to remove people’s rights. I’d say the same applies to your argument. Just because Tea Partiers believe they are freedom fighters doesn’t make it so.