Pacifism vs. Non Violence

[yakherder]

I'm sure by now most people have seen the recent Daily Show interview with Malala Yousafzai, or at least the part starting at around 3:45 in the video below. But people keep referring to her as a pacifist, and perhaps I'm just being a language nerd, but I don't think that is accurate. Yes, pacifism is often used interchangeably with non-violence, but to argue my point, here is what I get when I type "define: passive" into google: "Accepting or allowing what happens or what others do, without active response or resistance."

Based on my understanding of what it means to be passive, pacifism seems like a cowards game to me. A stance to hide behind when you're too scared to actually take a stand. Active non-violence, on the other hand, can achieve real results depending on the situation, and that is what she is doing.

That's not to say all people who call themselves pacifists are cowards, I just disagree that they should be called pacifists. If you have goal, and non-violence is your method of reaching that goal, then you are not being passive.

I do realize this might sound weird coming from me. Perhaps I've been tainted by my own screwed up experiences, but I believe violence is sometimes the best choice. In many situations non-violence can work, however, and I have nothing but admiration for people like Malala who are willing to put themselves at great risk to achieve noble goals through non-violence.

And for those who haven't seen it, here's the short interview. Brings a little tear to my eye every time, not an easy thing to do :

 

[SummerRain]

But people keep referring to her as a pacifist, and perhaps I'm just being a language nerd, but I don't think that is accurate. Yes, pacifism is often used interchangeably with non-violence, but to argue my point, here is what I get when I type "define: passive" into google: "Accepting or allowing what happens or what others do, without active response or resistance."

Well, if you type "pacifist" into good it says: "a person who believes in pacifism or is opposed to war or to violence of any kind." I don't think passive = pacifism.

Thanks for sharing the video

 

[Clueless Git]

Perhaps I've been tainted by my own screwed up experiences, but I believe violence is sometimes the best choice.

I object to violence because when it appears to do good, the good is only temporary; the evil it does is permanent.
Mahatma Gandhi

Based on my understanding of what it means to be passive, pacifism seems like a cowards game to me.

It is better to be violent, if there is violence in our hearts, than to put on the cloak of nonviolence to cover impotence.
Mahatma Gandhi

 

[yakherder]

Well, if you type "pacifist" into good it says: "a person who believes in pacifism or is opposed to war or to violence of any kind." I don't think passive = pacifism.

Thanks for sharing the video

I suppose my argument was just based on my semantic misunderstanding. I assumed it was basically a different form of the word "passive," but when I find it in an actual dictionary to look at the origin it seems to be it's own word, it's assumed relationship with passiveness being coincidental.

 

[yakherder]

I object to violence because when it appears to do good, the good is only temporary; the evil it does is permanent.
Mahatma Gandhi

I believe this to be situational. It should also be noted that, while I have great respect for Gandhi, and acknowledge that he did indeed play a significant roll in Indian independence, he was not the only one making waves at the time. There was open violent rebellion leading up to and at the time of the events for which he is known.

Non-violence works best when there are outside influences who are likely to sympathize with your cause. England, at the time, had a reputation to uphold, and committing acts of violence against non-violent people threatened to destroy that reputation, giving Gandhi and his cause an extraordinary amount of leverage against them.

If outside sympathy is unlikely, however, non-violence (whether intentional or not) can backfire. The holocaust is, in my opinion, an example of this. Though there were some uprisings, they were isolated and ineffective. For the most part, it happened unimpeded. The rest of the world turned a blind eye for several reasons. Among them was the fact that feelings of antisemitism were fairly high everywhere, not just in Nazi Germany. Hitler's plan utilized what might be considered a reversal of the "back to the wall" theory described in the Art of War. Knowing that most people will not fight back in mass until there is absolutely no other choice (i.e. their back is to the wall), he left perceived hope as a strategy to keep them non-violent. If, for example, you know that a shower room is always going to actually be a gas room, you will fight to the death to avoid going to one. If you know there is only a chance it will be a gas room based off rumors you've heard and that there is still a chance you'll walk away, choosing to remain passive and non-violent seems more rational. Thus, the concentration camps were more effective than outright attempting to liquidate the entire population because they didn't perceive the danger until it was too late.

Malala is in the middle of these two examples. Unlike the British whom Gandhi was dealing with, the Taliban has no reputation to keep. They're not trying to hide behind nobility while killing in secret. They are content openly attacking a 14 year old girl and then bragging about the fact that they did it to discourage future opposition. Had Malala not had a safe place to go, it would have succeeded. But because she had the courage to be in that situation to begin with, and because, unlike with the Jews in WWII, a large portion of the rest of the world is sympathetic to her cause and has a platform they're willing to put her on once they realize she actually exists, her attempted murder immortalized her. If the Taliban is brought down, it will be the rest of the world that does it. Her non-violence will simply act as a catalyst, necessary to ensure that they feel the need to make her cause their own cause.

Of course, we're talking relatively short term here. The original point of the quote you provided is that in the long term, it does more harm than good. My stance, in this regards, is that I don't view the world in terms of good and evil to begin with, only cause and effect. I've alluded to my view in other threads, from time to time, that we likely descended, even fairly recently, from relatively small egalitarian societies in which violence would have been extremely counter productive. Thus, violence isn't in our nature, and is in fact counter to our nature. The second we planted a seed and traded nomadic egalitarianism for ownership based agricultural societies, the official beginning of civilization, ironically, we created a world in which the ability to maintain leverage through the threat of violence became adaptive. From that point on, cultural evolution changed human society most likely forever. We're not violent because of some evil seed in us, we're violent because the nature of civilization demands that at least a portion of us be.

 

[yakherder]

I suppose I'd also like to add that there is still some truth to it, seeing as how previous violent experiences can indeed insert themselves into future attempts to decide upon a proper course of action.

Warning: Don't open unless you want nightmares.

Spoiler

In the early part of my military career, before 9/11 and the fun that came after, I was in some capacity involved in anti-drug operations. One particularly memorable scenario involved a few kids in a basement, ranging in age from 1 1/2 to 6 years. They had been suffocated using plastic wrap, presumably as leverage against their father. Not fighting back is one thing when it's your own life, or even your own agenda, on the line, but is it still noble when it's someone else's? To this day, I don't think I'll ever forgive that father for letting his kids end up in that situation. I'd turn into the grim reaper himself before I'd let that happen to my son, regardless of the consequences it might have on myself or on the nature of society.

 

[Second Summer]

I used to call myself a pacifist at one point. I would only use violence in very obvious cases of self-defence, or to the defence of my family & friends, and I don't see that as contrary to pacifism. (These are also recognised exceptions under the law w.r.t. conscientious objection to conscription in my homeland.)

As I see it, pacifism is just a method, and like yakherder said, there are situations in which it doesn't work.

 

[Calliegirl]

Must.Not.Click.On.Spoiler.
Why not?
Because I don't want nightmares.
Oh, better not click on it then.
But the temptation is so hard to ignore.
NO.
Arggggghhhhh.

 

[Kitties]

This sure is a complicated issue. I think of it too on a more global scale (which becomes overwhelming) and on an individual bases. For example. If someone does something to you, do you give them payback so to speak. My thought on that is no. At least for me.

 

[Clueless Git]

I suppose I'd also like to add that there is still some truth to it, seeing as how previous violent experiences can indeed insert themselves into future attempts to decide upon a proper course of action.

It may have been previous 'successes' of violence that inspired the 'proper course of action' in your spoiler.

 

[yakherder]

Can't argue with that.

And no, I don't believe revenge or getting back is ever an acceptable reason. I may have a different concept of cause and effect, and what goals are important enough to constitute the use of violence, but emotional response is never a good one.

In any case I will always have the deepest respect for people like Malala. Whatever the method of achieving a noble goal, it usually takes people who are willing to confront fears that would be crippling to most people.

(edited, just noticed my auto correct mistakes from a few days ago )