In the current difficult times of which we’re all a part, “So what” is a very popular attitude. For those of you who teach, do activist outreach, speak in front of groups, or even just try to talk with anyone these days about the important work at hand trying to make the world a better place, I thought you might appreciate this insightful acknowledgement and explanation of those blank stares and skepticism.
It is a short excerpt from an excellent book by Cynthia Kaufman, Ideas for Action: Relevant Theory for Radical Change.
Kaufman writes, “One of the attitudes toward life that’s most popular on television as I’m writing this is cynicism. Connecting with real people involves emotional vulnerability, and knowing about the world takes work. To protect oneself from either of those challenges, it’s attractive to adopt a worldview that says all human concepts are corrupt and that the outside world isn’t worth knowing about; that the world is corrupt and unchangeable, so informing oneself about it won’t do any good; that anyone who cares about anything is a sucker; and that people involved in social movements are a bunch of hypocrites and won’t accomplish anything anyway. Therefore, the best strategy is to be aloof, to make fun of people who try to take the world and their existence in it seriously, and to find pleasure and humor in distancing oneself from everything. While in many ways this cynicism appears to be a safe strategy, it rarely compensates for the loss of personal integrity and the social isolation that come with it” (252).
After reading Ideas for Action, I’ve added it to my own very small collection of what I found to be important books. I highly recommend it to anyone who wants a firm understanding of social justice issues as well as hundreds of helpful resources for further learning, strategizing, and envisioning the future of social action.
Kaufman offers an excellent introduction and summary of social movements from a sociological perspective. While the book is over 300 pages, the subsections are quick and understandable. She begins by making us aware that we each carry a distorted view of the world based on our cultural norms, ideologies, upbringings, etc. Her use of surprising historical facts (like the rise of racism only after the conquering of the Americas as a product of capitalism in its infancy) and social facts (like one in every four homeless people have a job) are an effective reminder that we don’t know everything, that we need to keep questioning, and that there is always more to the story.
Kaufman’s theme is that the more we’ve learned from history and the better we understand the context and shared interests of all social movements, the better we will be at designing and carrying out social change.
Kaufman, Cynthia C. 2003. Ideas for Action: Relevant Theory for Radical Change. Cambridge, MA: South End Press.
Thanks for tuning in… and thank you for all that you do!
An excerpt from the documentary “King in Chicago”. Interviews with activists who worked with Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. during the 1966 Chicago Freedom Movement.
I especially like the advice that Nonviolence requires that each of us recognize our own contribution to the problem. We must in a sense first point the finger at ourselves and remove our investment in the problem so that we may instead be part of the solution.
I recently read a chapter in Ira Chernus’ American Nonviolence in which he discusses the contributions of author Henry David Thoreau to the Nonviolence movement. I was surprised to learn that ironically, while people tend to count Thoreau among the heroes of Nonviolence, he “never actually embraced the principle of Nonviolence” (54). He supported violent revolutionary acts such as John Brown’s assault on Harper’s Ferry.
Neither did Thoreau have confidence in the efforts of social justice activists. Thoreau saw social justice activists, at least those working to change policy and institutions, as wasting their time – he thought it was more important to change “individual souls” rather than social institutions: he wrote, “There are a thousand hacking at the branches of evil to one who is striking at the root” (52).
While I disagree with Thoreau’s confidence in violent activism, I agree with him that the success of the current revolution lies in the hearts of the people. He urged reformers to look within themselves and change themselves rather than trying to change others. I would expand his argument to include that we should still try to educate people in order to spread awareness (otherwise social change will wither on the vine) – but reminding people of their own values and showing them how to live their lives aligned with those values is hardly “changing” people; it’s waking them (I think Thoreau would agree – as I’ll explain below).
Thoreau did recognize that individuals were the building blocks of society and of societal institutions and that “one [person] expressing [their] own opinion amounted to the re-origination of many of the institutions of society” (53). What he finds to be of utmost interest and importance is waking each individual to follow their own conscience — even when this means breaking unjust laws.
His philosophy of commitment to conscience led to his own short stay (one night) in jail for refusing to pay taxes which supported the unjust U.S. war against Mexico and a government (the U.S.) that supported slavery. This experience led to his writing the infamous “Civil Disobedience” which in turn influenced Mohandas Gandhi, Martin Luther King, Jr., Cesar Chavez, and countless Nonviolence activists. This contribution to Nonviolence theory is why Thoreau is still exalted as a Nonviolence theorist.
Thoreau’s way of thinking moves beyond the thinking of Thomas Hobbes, who believed that any government was better than no government. Hobbes believed that because people were innately selfish and brutish, we must transfer our right to self-rule (and even violence) to the state. Hobbes believed the government is a necessary evil. To Hobbes, there is no such thing as an unjust law because right and wrong is determined by the law.
Thoreau on the other hand, sees justice as our primary loyalty, not laws. He foresaw a day when this adherence to conscience by masses of individuals would lead to the obsolescence of the state — what Thoreau called a “glorious State.” Rather than looking to the state for guidance and punishment, each would look to themselves and their own good conscience for what is morally right. Through personal awakening, personal responsibility, and a shared commitment to our interconnected world, the state would wither and become unnecessary.
We will be held responsible for the future we build. And future generations will celebrate or suffer because of us. It’s up to each of us to live our conscience no matter how difficult that may be. As Thoreau put it, “Live your beliefs and you can turn the world around.”
All one,
:) m
Chernus, Ira. 2004. “Henry David Thoreau.” 45-55 in American Nonviolence: The History of an Idea. Maryknoll, NY: Orbis Books.
Bobby Kennedy once said, “There is a Chinese curse which says, ‘May [you] live in interesting times.’ Like it or not, we live in interesting times…” It was 1966.
It was a turbulent time in the world. People were taking to the streets. Social movements were rising up and fighting for justice. Bobby Kennedy was a living example of how someone indoctrinated in a culture of “might makes right” could change their whole world view. After the murder of his brother, this man of power, privilege, and (some would say) arrogance turned his focus to serving those in need – the poor, the oppressed. His personal growth brought him to a point where he was willing to put his own life at risk to do what he thought was right. His transformation fascinates me. And I wonder how we can spark the transformation in others.
This month, June 2010, marks the 42nd anniversary of the assassination of Bobby Kennedy. Only two months earlier in April 1968, another Nonviolence teacher and leader, Martin Luther King, Jr. was shot and killed. What might have been had they lived? What might have been if the efforts they were leading were more focused on the movement and less upon the perceived leaders? What if movements didn’t die with their leaders? What if each of us realized that each of us is a leader?
A student activist recently asked me with hopelessness in his voice, “Is it really worth it? Is it too late? Can we really make a difference?” The question isn’t whether or not one person can make a difference – you ARE making a difference. The question is what kind of difference do you want to make? Just because we haven’t turned things around doesn’t mean we shouldn’t keep trying. If we don’t try, we’re just as guilty as those doing harm. Being a member of the world community obligates us to try our best with the hope that whoever comes next might do better than we have.
I might as well have quoted the rest of what Bobby Kennedy said immediately after his remark about the curse of “interesting times” under which we live, “They are times of danger and uncertainty; but they are also the most creative of any time in the history of [humankind]. And everyone here will ultimately be judged — will ultimately judge [themselves] — on the effort [they have] contributed to building a new world society and the extent to which [their] ideals and goals have shaped that effort.”
Alright, we usually don’t delve into the philosophical… but here’s something from Jean Jacques Rousseau that is worthy of exploring.
I’ll try to keep it simple – think of it as a Cliffs Notes on Rousseau’s take on “the origins of inequality” and how we can all be supportive of one another through a “social contract.” It’s loooooong, but really is worth the read if you’re into strategizing on how to change the world (like we are!).
This summary comes from my listening to an audio lecture series by Professor Dennis Dalton (Dalton, Dennis. 1998. Power Over People: Classical and Modern Political Theory: Rousseau. Chantilly, VA: The Teaching Company Limited Partnership).
Power Over People: Rousseau is a lecture series examination of Jean Jacques Rousseau’s works The Discourse on the Origins of Inequality and his subsequent Social Contract. Professor Dalton categorizes Rousseau as an Idealist (sharing company with Plato, Marx, and Thoreau) who would ask, “What kind of society is best? How do we get there?” contrasting him to the Realists (like Machiavelli and Hobbes) who instead ask, “How do people act? What will become of society because of the ways people act?” The Idealist has an optimistic view of human nature and the future of humanity. Rousseau challenged Machiavelli’s dour view of human nature and his claim that there was no relationship between morality and politics – in fact, Rousseau would argue that morality and politics are inextricably linked.
Rousseau strongly criticized modern society as corrupt, but thought we had vast potential for improvement, albeit trapped in a contemporary system. Dalton emphasizes that Rousseau was not simply a utopian thinker hoping for a brave new world; he had a plan (as do the other Idealists) to reach that better world – that plan was through EDUCATION. He believed strongly in the effectiveness of education (unlike the “realists”). He wrote of a “right” kind of education that teaches values and sees itself intimately connected to creating moral citizens who in turn see themselves as part of a community rather than a system building competition and control (reminds us of our project “A Life Connected”).
Rousseau saw three stages in our evolution toward the ideal society (what he called the “civil society” or the “civil state.” These three stages are: the past, the present, and the future:
The first stage is the “Past”: Dalton points out that many dismiss Rousseau as a “back to nature theorist.” But Rousseau didn’t want to go “back to nature;” he wanted to move forward to a civil society based upon what he imagined the ideal human to be before being corrupted by modern society. He identified two primary instincts or motivations. The first was that of self-preservation. The second was the “natural repugnance of seeing any sentient being… perish or suffer… as long natural man did not resist the inner impulse of compassion he would never harm another man or sentient being except in the legitimate instance of self defense.” This second instinct or motivation is key to Rousseau’s philosophy – it highlights his belief that humans have an instinct of compassion; that people are by nature generous, merciful, and humane.
The second stage in our evolution toward the ideal society is “Modernity”. Rousseau believes that modernity has corrupted us. This he attributes to our “vast cities, rampant commercialism, and the institution of private property” – all causing us to become alienated and isolated from one another. When we are disconnected from one another, it becomes easy to deny one another. But following Rousseau’s thought this insensitivity defies our deepest humanity. “For modern man, his fellow man can be killed with impunity underneath his very window; he needs only to place his hands over his ears and argue with himself (a little) in order to prevent nature, that innate nature to help another that cries out from within him that identifies with the man being tortured and killed.”
He sees private property as one of the first causes of the separation that now exists: “The first person who, having enclosed a plot of land, took it into his head to say this is mine and found people simple enough to believe him was the true founder of civil society. What crimes, wars, murders, what miseries and horrors would the human race have been spared, had someone pulled up the stakes or filled in the ditch and cried out to his fellow men: ‘Do not listen to this imposter. You are lost if you forget that the fruits of the earth belong to all and the earth to no one.’”
The third stage in our societal evolution is the “Civil State.” Rousseau envisioned a future of social justice, freedom, and equality by establishing a civil state through a new “social contract.” This social contract is something that would be taught (via the education system) and accepted by the larger community. This would happen through something he called “the general will” – a consensus of community spirit in which we all work for the good of others and of all.
Professor Dalton summarizes Rousseau’s philosophy of the general will when he says, “We need to define ourselves not in terms of things but in terms of relationships with others.” Rousseau saw the future with a new kind of freedom – a freedom that isn’t about acting however we want for our own selfish wants, but a freedom to help one another. Freedom isn’t about acting as we wish, he says, but instead adhering to a shared morality that includes a sense of responsibility. Dalton poetically calls this “the freedom to act as we *should* act,” liberating ourselves from the illusion of separateness. Dalton also points out that Rousseau echoed something Plato had hoped for – the creation of a society so unified that “just as a single person loses a limb the whole body suffers, so in this state we want to create a society that if one soul is lost, so too the entire society would suffer.”
Rousseau’s vision was that of undeniable interconnection.
I am not patient. People are starving right now. Animals are suffering right now. The planet is struggling to breathe right now. So, how do we move toward a more just and compassionate world… right now!?
I’ve spent time picketing in the streets, writing members of congress, challenging unjust laws, helping grassroots groups learn and grow. What I’ve learned is that the power of self-understanding and personal responsibility can sometimes provide a quicker and more successful route to social change. Not only is it quicker, it is necessary.
I recently read Gandhi on Non-violence: Selected Text from Gandhi’s ‘Non-violence in Peace and War.’ It was edited with an introduction and chapter summaries by Thomas Merton. The last chapter includes a few references to Gandhi’s self-observed failure — that he didn’t bring lasting Nonviolence to India. Gandhi attributes this to his focusing on Nonviolence as a tactic rather than Nonviolence as a way of life.
Merton puts this poetically in the introduction when he says, “[For Gandhi] the spirit of non-violence sprang from an inner realization of spiritual unity in himself. The whole Gandhian concept of non-violent action and satyagraha is incomprehensible if it is thought to be a means of achieving unity rather than as the fruit of inner unity already achieved” (6, italics original).
While Gandhi felt Nonviolence in his heart, the masses were using Nonviolence mostly as a tactic to achieve independence and to gain power. Gandhi came to see the focus on civil disobedience and political tactics as short-lived. Once political advances were made, people abandoned Nonviolence as a discipline and became the new aggressors — abusing “power over” rather than celebrating “power with” (this is a recurring theme on the nature of power).
Gandhi laments that he should have spent more time and energy on the constructive aspects of Nonviolence (rebuilding a social infrastructure, self-sustaining industries, and meaningful occupations, etc.). He wrote, “In placing civil disobedience before constructive work I was wrong, and I did not profit from the Himalayan blunder that I had committed” (72). He goes on to say, “I have admitted my mistake. I thought our struggle was based on non-violence, whereas in reality it was no more than passive resistance, which essentially is a weapon of the weak. It leads naturally to armed resistance whenever possible” (75).
This is the direction NonviolenceUnited.org has taken with our “A Life Connected” project. We focus on reaching and reminding individuals to live their lives connected to their values, building a social strategy around Nonviolence as a way of life rather than focusing on temporary gains by simply using Nonviolence as a political strategy.
As we’ve said before, Nonviolence can be a way of life and Nonviolence can be a strategy. But for powerful long-lasting change, Nonviolence as a way of life IS the strategy.
A teacher and friend offered me Eknath Easwaran’s book “Meditation” to read and add to my Nonviolence tool belt some lessons on training the mind for difficult times…
I kept getting distracted by Easwaran’s metaphors when he writes of animals as if they were ours to train and to bring to submission. He used an elephant metaphor saying it was important to train an elephant to carry a staff with her trunk to keep her from doing what would come natural to an elephant — to eat the fruit she passes through the market place.
and
“Untrained horses can break away and run where they will, here and there, perhaps leading us to destruction… But trained horses – horse lovers know the delight of this – respond to even a light touch of the reins.”
I believe he meant no harm by these metaphors, but as I’ve moved along the Nonviolence path, metaphors like these now strike me as hurtful, oppressive, and domineering.
There’s a low budget classic movie from the early 1970s called “Billy Jack.” The opening sequence is of locals rounding up wild horses to haul them off to slaughter to make a few bucks. The wild horses are beautiful and graceful… and the human greed and bravado causing their panic and stampede are in stark violent contrast. The scene seems to go on way too long… uncomfortably long. I would like to think if this movie were shot again today, they wouldn’t be allowed to cause for our “entertainment” this kind of brutality — horses slipping on the rocky surface of the desert high cliffs, stumbling, falling, confused, and in utter terror.
I think of the “horses and elephants” Easwaran invites us to “train.” A metaphor that would be more meaningful to me and less violent to me would be to let the elephant be what an elephant is meant to be — kind, loving, free, peaceful, and strong. And allow the horses to be set free to be elegant, graceful, and wise. It reminds me that our minds are not wild and obstinate by nature, but are actually innately peaceful and creative.
Our challenge then is to FREE the mind, not to train it — to allow it to be in its natural state rather than pushing it to unnatural states.
Of course, we’ve gone so far now — marinating our brains in everything unnatural, violent, and disconnected — that it’s difficult to know which way nature lies. Still, it’s interesting for me to think that “training” the mind is really an act of liberating the mind, setting it free. It’s not confining, it’s freeing. It’s not controlling; it’s reminding. It’s not taking it places it doesn’t want to go; it’s just trying to set it free… to arrive home.
I believe Easwaran and I are talking about the same process and the same goals, but the metaphor changes things for me. It reminds me of when we speak to folks about living A Life Connected. It’s not that we’re asking people to change. Rather, we are offering them the tools to be who they truly are — compassionate, caring, connected individuals.
The Compassion and Health Campaign – The World Peace Diet.
An extraordinary one-day event to spread the word about “The World Peace Diet.” Lots of free gifts available if you take part in this one-day-only opportunity. Here’s the message from our friends at The World Peace Diet…
As seekers of truth, compassion, and health, we are learning to question the assumptions of the established order, and to rely more on our inherent wisdom to bring healing and peace to our lives.
There is a book, written by our friend Dr. Will Tuttle, called The World Peace Diet. It helps you understand the power of food, and the cultural mentality reinforced by our practice of food, for many levels of healing-–physical, psychological, cultural, ecological, and spiritual.
Many people have called it a revelation, and one of the most important books of the 21st century.
Today, Friday, March 12, Dr. Tuttle is coordinating a special offer for this critically-acclaimed book called “The March 12 World Peace Diet Compassion and Health Campaign.” Please pick up a copy of The World Peace Diet today and pass one along to a friend, library, school, etc.
Many generous and caring sponsors have donated excellent bonus gifts and prizes to anyone who buys The World Peace Diet (today only). Including NonviolenceUnited.org! :)
There are downloadable audio books, recipes, music, e-books, discount coupons and the chance to enter drawings for some terrific prizes! There are over 50 gifts and prizes, all told, and anyone who buys the book on March 12 (only) is eligible to receive them. Here’s the link to this special campaign http://worldpeacediet.org/promo.htm
It’s a great way to help animals, the Earth, hungry people, and all of us, and spread the message we believe in.
P.S. – Please share this special offer with your friends and colleagues, and encourage them to do the same. This is not an exclusive offer. The more of us who participate, the better it will be for everyone. This is a one-day offer–March 12 only. Thanx!
Mother Teresa asked us to “find someone who thinks they are alone and let them know that they are not.”
It might be as simple as a smile or a conversation with a homeless person. It might be a “thank you” to the weary cashier. It might be stopping traffic to allow a frightened animal cross the street. It might be more involved volunteer work, or a phone call, or a supportive email to someone working for an organization you admire, or lending an ear to one of your fellow advocates struggling through the pain of awareness.
Being connected takes courage. Whatever the struggle, we don’t have to go it alone. You might be surprised how this continued practice of being kind and helping others will come full circle. You might find that, in fact, you weren’t holding up your friend, but that you were holding up each other.
Entries (RSS)