 | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |||||||
 | |||||||||||||||||||||||
 | |||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||
Opinion of the Month | |||||||||||||||||||||||
 | |||||||||||||||||||||||
Is There a Place for Non-violence in Survivorsland? By Ewen and Gladys "...No arts; no letters; no society, and which is worst of all, continual fear and danger of
wiolent death, and the life of man, solitary, poor, nasty,\ brutish and short." Although Thomas Hobbes wrote those words in our world in the l7th century, it doesn't take a very big leap of the imagination to hear any one of Our Heroes responding to them with a hearty "Too right!". Those who were "lucky" enough to survive the Death might well have fallen victim to Arthur Wormley's thugs in the
immediate aftermath. Two years on, an elderly woman has her throat cut for litle apparent reason by the Captain. Along the way, not all women who repelled unwelcome advances were as lucky as Mina. More ended up like Wendy. So where does non-violence fit into the scheme of things? Are its adherents all doomed to end up as dead as Rev. Lewis Fearn after his encounter with the criminals in the tree house? Not necessarily. First one has to understand little
about what non-violence (a term I believe distinct from absolute pacifism) is and isn't. Using the term conjures up scenes from the movie Gandhi, or perhaps the U.S. Civil Rights Movement, or parts of the anti-Vietnam protests. As usual, popular conceptions don't tell the whole story - and to be perfectly honest, neither will I here. Non-violence can be global or local, strategic or pervasive, a tactic, or a fundamental tenet of a moral system,
complicated or simple.The term encompasses the "negative" actions of passive resistence as well as the "positive" action of someone who metaphorically hops over a barricade in Belfast, Kisangale, Beirut or Sarajevo and says "I'm from the other side and this has got to stop!" Anyone attempting any sort of non-violent conflict resolution in Survivor-Land might be taking a bit of a chance. R.I.P. Rev. Lewis. On the other
hand, in the same context, there are the Mill folk in Peacemaker, who greet everyone with "Welcome in peace. Your weapons, please" in a manner vaguely reminiscent of American Westerns where even the nastiest nasties were expected to leave their guns at the saloon door. It didn't always work then, and won't always work in Survivor-Land. So what would you do? What would I do in Survivor-Land? It would be down to everyone as individuals to
decide. Once I was pretty much of a non-violent absolutist-took a lot of nonviolent parade marshalls' training, swore I would never touch a gun, much less fire it at anything living. Then a funny thing happened-I grew a little older (some might call this growing up), life became more precious and my ideas began to change. Neither in this world, nor Survivor-Land would I hesitate for one blind second to fire a weapon in a clear cut case of
self-defense.(An aside, yes, in case you're wondering, I do know how and I am a respectable shot). But neither would I ever completely give up non-violence as a means of resolving disputes. Non-violence as a mere tactic? Alot of people don't realize that's how Gandhi viewed it at the end of the day. Pretty good company, don't you think? And in view of the events in Jonesboro Arkansas last week - what that teacher did was a sort of non-violent act,
stepping in front of the student and shielding her with her own body-I find myself re-examining my beliefs. And coming up with the same answer, the fact that it doesn't always work or end well doesn't mean it shouldn't be done. Risky, yes, of course, as is all of life. The teacher's dead as the Rev. Lewis was, but the act didn't go un-noticed or un-remembered. It only takes one pebble to start a landslide. Gladys Its hard to know how to approach this subject without appearing as a hard-nosed, maybe even extreme right-wing libertarian. I can only approach this on a personal level as a thought-exercise. It's what this series of Rants that myself and Gladys have been working on are all about - Playing What If? Its easy as a scientist to approach many of the other topics that we have
played around with...Population control, Education and what have you. But when we start to look at one of the Fundamentals of the society that "exists" in Survivorland, Law and Order. Gladys's quote from Hobbes does have, as she says, a few of our heroes responding with a "Too Right". But lets look at what happens when, particularly when the commune is on its own, genuine matters of Law and Order arise. Its an easy phrase, Law and
Order. This is the point. We HAVE no Law and Order other than that which individuals and communities practice themselves. The laws of states and countries differ here today, and why should that be any different in Survivorland? They approach things, however, from a common perspective. They lived in a monoglot, essentially monocultural society, with Common Laws. Murder was never punishable by death in that society, other crimes were imprisionable offences,
or cases for rehabilitation, or.... Suddenly, the Sickness comes. Law and Order breaks down, and in the beginning there is only one Law, Survival of the Fittest and the Law of the Jungle. Law follows society. The Law is a reflection of that societies' beliefs. As our survivorland society grows from Surviving to Growing, the Law grows. It is a reflection of what the people that form part of that society believe in. There are many bases that Law
could grow from. The code of Hammurabi, the most ancient written law. The Ten Commandments, The Torah, the Holy Qu'ran. They have laws and codes within them that any society could usefully follow. And such a codification of Law could be seen as the first step towards rebuilding a civilisation. But at the start, and the years following, what of Law. People are brought together by a need to survive and as settlements start to grow, it follows that people
will gravitate to a settlement that shares their views, their ethics. People of Non-violence will group together. People of a more militaristic bent will also. They will all Survive in their way. What will separate them will be the answer to a simple question. What Price a Human Life ? If the price is "high", is that any more a society which would prosper than if that price is "cheap". We have our cosy, end of the twentieth
century western perspective on that. But if we were suddenly to face, say, the situation of Bosnia, or of Somalia, or Rwanda, how would our perspectives change ? If it's your life on the line, the life of your family, friends, race, people.......if it is a matter of Survival ? Ewen Replies Gladys, Instead of Rev. Lewis Fearn, Vs. Wormley, the argument becomes between Our Heroes Vs Brod. I'm not sure if Ewen set out to argue the opposite, but what he says seems to actually fit into your argument - at a last resort you
use violence, but whenever possible you choose non-violent action. Greig, Sure, non-violence is an ideal option. But what we are faced with in the Survivorland scenario is a total absence of Law and Order. What Law and Order there is will come from the,
if you like, Moral Code that each community or even each Survivor chooses to follow. We've seen that Greg kills, executes, twice, in following what his version of that code tells him and he obviously feels comfortable with. We know that others of the community do not feel comfortable with his actions when he does that. The point that I was trying to get across is that Survivorland is NOT Aghartha, a land peopled by kindly dwarfs of infinite wisdom.
Non-violence may be a morally comfortable stance for some communitites, but at the end of the day, when the life of you and yours, what you have worked for, is threatened, it is Not a viable option. You fight to retain what is yours and to protect the lives of those that you care about. I'm tempted to rephrase the classic "concientious objector" question here.... You see somebody trying to rape your (granny/wife/sister/ daughter). You have a
gun. What do you do about it ? But this time, it's not the Sixties. The "Movement" won't go on if you are dead. Non-violence means nothing to somebody with an empty belly and a .38 and the will to use it. And what point do you stop being non violent ? After he's killed the first one in front of you ? The Second ? The Third ? The Thirty-Third ? Non-violence is an ideal. You can attempt it in your Survivorland Community. You can attempt it in
your dealings with other communitites. Eventually, you may even evolve a "universal" non-violent code of laws. All it takes is one person willing to go against it to negate it. Society simply isn't "big" enough that "weight of opinion" is worth a damn. If somebody uses violent means to enforce their will you can be as non-violent as you like and you will end up in a pool of blood. Yeah, sure, your principles will be
intact. But you'll still be dead. Ewen Ewen, For example, I'd place the following
characters into the following groups, going from one extreme to the other: Rev. Lewis Fearn - Pacifist (refuses to use violence at any cost - dead) The two
extremes are basically characterised by being dead (and by being individuals). I think they're both pretty unstable approaches, and as you say, the movement died with them. So this leaves us with the non-violence vs pro-violence. I think all of your examples of when violence would be necessary can be accomodated within this non-violence definition. You give the example of Greg executing two people, but he did so as a last resort, and there are numerous
times where Greg goes out of his way to not use violence (his reluctance to kill Huxley in The Future Hour springs to mind). Non-violence is an ideal, and I'd argue we've seen Our community practice it. However, if one person goes against it We'll try and persuade them to leave Us alone - if all else fails...We'll shoot them (or at least threaten to)! The question is, Ewen, are you arguing that Wormley's approach is better than Our's?
Greig Greig, I grasp it fully, my friend... "wherever possible, you choose a non-violent action. You only use violence in extreme situations (such as your wife/ daughter/sister/mother being raped)." Its a question of semantics...Do you only use violence/ conflict when you are in a situation where a
non-violent approach does not work? The question still remains, at what point do you put down your "principles" and resort to "violence"? The first death? Third? Thirty-Third? And if you are prepared to do that can you honestly call your "doctrine" a non-violent one? "So this leaves us with the non-violence vs pro-violence. I think all of your examples of when violence would be necessary can be accomodated
within this non-violence definition. You give the example of Greg executing two people, but he did so as a last resort," This all comes back to one of the earlier pieces that we did about Greg vs Charles in terms of character. Was Greg "dragged" to the execution ground kicking and screaming at being "forced" to pull the trigger, or did he just get on with it, accepting the neccessity of the act ? Also, remember his final
"quest" for revenge using the smallpox ? Not the actions of a "non-violent" man .... "Non-violence is an ideal, and I'd argue we've seen Our community practice it. However, if one person goes against it We'll try and persuade them to leave Us alone - if all else fails...We'll shoot them (or at least threaten to)!" Or we'll chase them to the seven pits of hell when they nick our petrol and THEN shoot them ? "The
question is, Ewen, are you arguing that Wormley's approach is better than Our's?" Missed point again...its all a matter of semantics. Each community will evolve, for want of a better phrase, a code of laws, with which they are comfortable, and we saw basically a different approach from each community... remember the big conference before the great Sniper hunt and the different approaches to the problem, ranging from Kill to Cure. Whilst you
yourself may practice "non-violence", you cannot ignore the "problem" of violence being used against you, or the THREAT of violence. Series of events follows:- 1. I have a gun What is your "non-violent" response ?
a) Do you shoot me first in order to preserve your "liberty" ? Assuming that you can rationalise the first option with your philosophy, can you still call yourself non-violent ? If you shoot me, and then find that my gun was empty, can you rationalise that and still call yourself non-violent ? Do you "succumb" to a "Central
Government" practicing a philosophy at odds to yours or do you oppose them ? Can your opposition still rationalise with your philosophy, or do you go along with their argument that what they do is for the "Greater Good of the Greater Number" ? Ewen Ewen, The reason why I think Gladys' argument is so good is *because* she argues that the meaning of non-violence isn't the same as pacifism. It seems that
you won't accept this argument. I assume that you classify all "doctrines" that allow any form of (physical?) violence as Violent. This is fine if you want to find your Unifying Law of Post-apocalyptic Society, but it ignores the very thing we're interested in - the different responses to different situations by different groups. I suppose we could classify everything as violent and then categorise even further with "less-violent",
"pretty violent" or "not as violent as their next-door-neighbours, but still pretty violent" - as you say, it's all a matter of semantics. Why not accept Gladys' defintions - they're much more concise and accurate(!). They correspond to how the group will attempt to resolve a given situation. To take your example: Series of events follows:- I notice that in the choices I have in this sitation: a) Do you shoot me first in order to preserve your "liberty" ? You do not include the option of negotiating! If on trying to negotiate I am unsuccessful, I think
I could shoot you and stay true to my philosophy. Yes, I took a violent action, but I tried all the non-violent methods that didn't endanger me before I resorted to violence. Expected response: "but at what stage do you decide you've tried enough non-violent action". I can't give you an absolute answer - there isn't one. So - if I was paranoid then maybe the tone of his voice would be enough to make me start shooting - and still remain
true to my personal philosphy? Each community will evolve, for want of a better phrase, a code of laws, with which they are comfortable, and we saw basically a different approach from each community... Perhaps another option in your little scenario would be for me to try to shoot you, miss and have you shoot me dead. As you stand over my body you mutter yourself: Greig | |||||||||||||||||||||||
 | |||||||||||||||||||||||
 | |||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||
