I just came from a talk at Williams by nonviolent activist Randy Kehler, who was speaking about tactics and principles for environmental advocacy, and something interesting occurred to me. As he pointed out, nonviolence worth the name is active, not passive. Particularly where the environment is concerned, by contrast, the most consequential violence may in fact be passive. Our everyday use of dirty energy sources, for example, which until recently most of us did casually and in all innocence, in their aggregate effects wreak catastrophic violence on the planet -- and perhaps indirectly generate much of the overt, active violence (warfare, oppression, etc.) that so captures our attention.
If this is right, then choices such as minimizing our use of fossil fuels, and likewise attempts to reorganize policy and practice at various levels to promote a green economy, local food, less meat-eating, etc., are properly understood as acts of principled non-cooperation with passive violence. That is to say, they are acts of civil disobedience, at the same time that they are acts of civic engagement.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
6 comments:
Interesting. I'd say that passive violence in this case directly generates active violence (when we start to run out of oil, we invade countries that have some).
So, if enough people subscribed to this view of civil disobedience, we could see some pretty fantastic results--perhaps not just with the environment, but with some forms of active violence as well.
Side note: where can I find a calendar of speakers/events at Williams?
Who knows where to download XRumer 5.0 Palladium?
Help, please. All recommend this program to effectively advertise on the Internet, this is the best program!
This is an interesting way of looking at the subject. I never previously considered passive nonviolence as a cause of severe consequences. In a way, we are all contributing to one form of violence or another. Even typing this blog is using dirty energy which could be negatively impacting the planet. This creates an internal conflict for me.. a cognitive dissonance: I want to succeed in school but I must at the same time use these dirty energy sources in order to do so (type papers, etc). Should I sacrafice my use of this energy (which I use "causally and in all innocence") in order to create a greener Earth? Obviously, not in this situation, but where should we draw the line? When will all energy be that of wind and solar so we no longer have to feel guilty about living our lives?
Feeling guilty is very far from a useful consequence of thinking these issues through -- in my experience it is distracting, debilitating, and generates defensive reactions rather than solutions that clearheadedly address problems. Nor do I think our goal should be to purify ourselves of all the brutalities of life so that we can feel good about ourselves. This, too, is a fantasy and a distraction (even solar and wind power cause environmental harm, human injustice and animal suffering, though probably far less).
Rather than feeling guilty, I think we need actively to seek ways to move, collectively and individually, toward dynamic sustainability that treads as lightly on the land and others as we can manage. Don't moan -- organize! [with apologies to Joe Hill]
Matt brings up a great point here, we need to carefully move to a sustainable future in order to leave the least impact on our planet. Although much effort is being used in this whole green revolution, humans are not getting out of the reality that we are always going to impact the natural world.There is no way of getting out of the guilt that some may feel towards our impact, but there are ways to lessen it lightly; and in doing so, we may be helping others transform along the way.
active nonviolence towards is the only way to counter the violence towards the environment, the alternative (passive) would mean we would stand on the side lines and let the economists tire themselves out of polluting. to stop polluting at this point and allow nature to take its course would sacrifice ourselves and vouch our freedom to act in a responsible way... we must reconnect with the natural earth by viewing her the way she was before we took the wrong path. i think if we view nature without the dominance of the masculine ego and reconnect with the feminine earth, symbiosis is the result which will propel us into the future with the most happiness
is it necessary to figure out the crucial point we went wrong in order to make things right?
Post a Comment