Reflection

As I have learned from our semester-long personal projects, Nonviolence is not only a strategy for large movements, but it is also a way of life for many. During times such as the civil rights movement, many chose nonviolence because it is a strategy, but also because they lived by this mentality. For my personal project, I chose the topic of "reflection". Over the semester, I would set aside time in my day to relax and think in-depth about certain concerns or issues that I currently had. I found that it not only affected my overall state of mind, but it led to better interaction with others, which has been considered a large part of nonviolence in the past.

Civil Disobedience

Civil disobedience is a subject that I find somewhat interesting. After many discussions of nonviolence and attempts for resolution, "disobedience" is a word that is not often seen. By no means am I saying that the use of civil disobedience is not a nonviolent strategy. After reading John Rawls, I have more of an understanding of what justifies civil disobedience according to him. I would definitely agree that an important justification of this disobedience deals with being public and well known. The initial plan is to bring about change to an unjust government, therefore accepting and making it known that you are currently breaking the law. According to Rawls, "Being completely open about one's acts and being willing to accept the legal consequences of one's conduct is a bond given to make good one's sincerity, for that one's deeds are conscientious is not easy to demonstrate to another or even before oneself." (Rawls Chapter 9)

Palestine Israel Nonviolence

Upon discussing the Palestine Israel conflict, it is often viewed as very violent. The media tends to cover much of the violence; terrorists, bombing, sometimes hatred. It is safe to say, however, that nonviolence and nonviolent action is not inexistent. Like many nonviolent movements in the past, there have been and currently are nonviolent marches, protests, strikes, and boycotts. On top of these actions, groups such as the Middle East Nonviolent Democracy exist, whose main goal is to educate and offer nonviolent training to youth. These strategies or tactics have proved to be successful in the past, and the fact that they are present during this conflict gives them a chance to resolve this conflict.

Common Strategy

After taking nearly an entire semester of Nonviolence: Theory and Practice, it is safe to say that I began falling into a habit of association when discussing nonviolence. Most of the nonviolent movements that are discussed or heard about seem to deal with issues that are widespread or well known, for example various international wars or civil rights movements. It is easy to forget or not realize, however, that nonviolent movements are occurring in everyday life, with many different issues. An example of this would be the various animal rights movements that are present in today's society. They are acting with complete nonviolence and are often very strategic. This is similar to strategy discussed in war, however it is much easier to not realize that nonviolent effort is present.

"Promises"

I had recently watched the documentary "Promises", about the Israeli-Palistinian conflict and it really got me thinking about the idea of social interaction. This film showed us that these people, especially the youth population, really only knew the negative or violent aspects of the other. These children are being raised in the middle of a war, living seperate, violent, hate-filled ways of life. When interviewed, the children initially wanted nothing to do with a more unified way of life. However, once an outside source was part of the equation, these children agreed to meet. They seemed somewhat shocked that they were able to intertwine and have fun so easily. By the end of the day the children had a much more open mind about their separate lives. They seemed to realize that they were all human beings and it was merely a war that was keeping them from living peaceful lives together. This type of interaction was able to essentially change a "segregated state of mind" into a more unifed, peaceful one. Also this dealt with only a small group, social interaction is a very powerful strategy.

Digital Resistance

When looking back at major efforts made or movements, there are certain characteristics that seem to apply to most. There are often leaders, groups that follow and support, media coverage, and specific locations that are key to the movement. This, of course, does not apply to every nonviolent movement, but many that we have looked at in class. We recently, however, discussed the idea of "digital resistance". This idea is one that I am not particularly "sold on" when dealing with nonviolent strategy. For example, we looked at a program called Second Life, where people can essentially "live a life" through a computer character. Along with personal activities, you can also do things such as protest and support certain causes. Outside of Second Life, there are other digital movements such as joining certain groups online or even just clicking to add a number on a website. I have a hard time grasping the actual accomplishments of this kind of movement. Are actions like these actually affecting the opposition? I had never even heard of Second Life until our class discussion, leading me to wonder how effective their character's protest actually is in the real world. Other examples of digital resistance could be hacking or redirecting online. This is also somewhat odd to me when viewed as a nonviolent act. Although no physical violence is being done, our society today views computer hacking as a very negative thing, regardless of the cause. Redirecting your opposition's website to porn for example, would negatively effect not only the company, but also the people that are trying to reach their website. After discussing the various definitions of violence and nonviolence, it is very difficult for me to view this as nonviolent.

Sharp and Burrows: Power

When thinking about the authors Sharp and Burrows, it is difficult for me to decide which side I really take between the two. More specifically, I find their thoughts on the center of gravity in society, or the "societal triangle" quite interesting. Both place the elites at the top of the triangle, with the people or numbers at the bottom. Sharp believes that "eliminating" part of the bottom, or people, will cause the entire triangle, or power, to topple over. Burrows, on the other hand, seems to think that the base of the triangle is not as important as the elite group and its surrounding elites. He claims that elites are reliant on other elites and not on the people power. When trying to apply these strategies or ideas to a personal situation, I would have to say that I agree with Sharp. A good example is a college or university. The elites would be the faculty and staff, and of course the numbers would lie in the students. When looking at a movement or the power on a campus, the students truly would have the power. Although college students are students for a reason, when it comes down to it, their tuition bills pay for the college and it's staff. Most often, students outnumber their professors. There are many situations where merely having the numbers and support show the power over the elites.

Burma, Ghanda, and Civil Rights

When reading the case study of Burma 1988, I learned that it shared many qualitites of other nonviolent movements. In the efforts to change the democracy/dictatorship situation that they were in, I found it interesting just how much impact Ghandi had on this movement. After visiting Burma three seperate times, Ghandi recommended nonviolent noncooperation as a strategy, much like the approach he himself displayed. There is also the similarity of self dependence, wearing the pinni, or handmade cloth, as was done in India.
This movement not only showed aspects of Ghandi, but it also put me in mind of the civil rights movement. The spark of this movement was the assault of three students, which the police refused to prosecute. This resulted in actions such as student protests and the growth of public demonstrations, widely used in the civil rights movement.
On paper, these actions resulted in success, but when it came down to it, there was still a sense of corruption in their government. This seems to be a trend in not only nonviolent movements, but movements in general; complete planned success is difficult to accomplish and in turn, is not always the outcome.

History v. Now

As we read and discuss more about the civil rights movement, it is difficult for me to not relate this time period to our current society. Before the civil rights movement, many people did not question the ethics of a segregated, racist, society. People would go about their daily lives, not even letting the thought an "unequal society" cross their minds. Children were born and raised with the thought that this type of mentality and behavior was perfectly normal. We now know that this is obviously far from equality, and our fellow people were essentially feeling alienated in their own country. When looking at history, it makes me question the current world that we live in. It has definitely come a very long way, but it makes me wonder if we are truly equal in not only our words, but also our everyday actions. During this time period, racist acts were done without really realizing that they were racist, leading me to wonder as a caucasian, American male, if our society is in any way acting unequally without realizing it. Although race is nowhere near the issue that is used to be, other prejudices still exist.

Anomaly

As many students here at Juniata do, I am currently taking a Communications course. Our current project deals with learning and teaching to the class the topic of "paradigms and anomalies". In short, a paradigm is what makes us think a certain way or have a certain belief, based on what you know or experience. An anomaly, then, is the aspect that challenges or doesn't uphold that belief. As I worked on this project, I was thinking of different examples of this topic and the mid-1900's came to mind; more specifically the Montgomery Bus Boycott. It is often believed that all white people from this time period were racist, or supported segregation. This generalized thought is what makes a paradigm, based on the acts that were occurring during this time. However, during this boycott, there was an anomaly. During this span of the eleven month boycott, many white women were providing blacks transportation in their own vehicles, showing that this generalization isn't necessarily true. I find it very interesting that it is almost always assumed that every white person of this time period had the same mentality when dealing with this situation.

"The General"

Upon going about any daily routine, I very often have music playing. I recently stumbled upon an older song that I really like called The General, by Dispatch. It's a catchy, upbeat song that always seems to put me in a better mood, but for the first time I thoroughly looked into the lyrics of the song and it immediately reminded me of a Nonviolence discussion. The song is about a military general who had a dream and suddenly a realization, about people and life itself. He immediately tells his troops that, in a dream, he "has seen the others", and goes on to say that "this fight is not worth fighting". The general then tells his troops that they have no time to lose, and that they "are young and must be living". The lyrics of this song truly got me thinking about the military system in today's world, and whether or not there are any military leaders that truly feel that no war or violence is worth the lives of the people willing to lay them down. This song also put me in mind of William James and his strive for "masculinity" and thoughts of war. This figure that James portrays seems to provide a type of role model or hero. I wonder if "the general" in this song is more or what James had in mind. It is a disciplined, trained human being, that is standing up for a nonviolent way of life, as well as instructing others to do the same.

Self-sustainability vs. Humanity

When looking further into the topic of Gandhi, it is somewhat difficult to not get overwhelmed with his many ideas, movements, and beliefs. The passion and discipline that he had was something that very few people would ever consider pursuing. Two of his ideas that fall under satyagraha stood out to me. Firstly, Gandhi stood for self-sustainability. He believed that all people should not have to rely on others, even when it came to making his own clothing. I wonder, however, if this has any impact on his belief in humanity. He believed that you should recognize the humanity in all people, including their beliefs, in their actions, and possibly their particular skills. If people began to be entirely self-sustainable in today's society, there would be a major decline in the need for farmers and their goods, for example, causing a drastic change in other people's lives. I feel that if these two beliefs ever did cross in this way, it would require every person's conformity to truly not be harmful.

Pacifisn

Most recently, the topic that I seem to find interesting deals with pacifism. More specifically, I wonder what the actions and obligations of a true pacifist would be. It is somewhat of a given that a pacifist would opt to the nonviolent way of handling a situation, especially when only looking out for themselves. But how would, or should, a pacifist handle a situation that doesn't effect them, but others. Does a pacifist have the right to refuse to defend the innocent, and still claim to be a pacifist? It seems that there is no easy solution to this predicament. While attempting to preserve the overall well-being of innocent people, you would have to harm or endanger another. Another issue, then, if you choose "complete pacifism" and never react to that kind of situation, would be whether or not it is expected that others collectively do the same. I feel that this would be close to impossible without a sort or chaos. For example, law enforcement would not be nearly as effective if they were to act as pacifists in all situations. Pacifism seems to be very debatable, both collectively and individually.

"Conscientious.."

My latest thought in Nonviolence is about the people that called themselves conscientious objectors. After recently viewing the film, The Good War and Those Who Refused to Fight It, I am very intrigued by the conscientious objectors and their ways of life. In a time of war and draft, these people had enough passion and will power to not only refuse to join the military, but to also face the consequence of jail-time. After past discussions attempting to define "nonviolence", however, I have to wonder if these conscientious objectors viewed themselves as entirely nonviolent. There is no question that their refusal to fight or kill avoids a violent way of life, but in avoiding the war, they put themselves in situations such as medical experimentation and working in mental hospitals, both of which are quite harmful to their own well-being. Gultung claimed that something is violent if it is an avoidable insult to basic human needs, or something that gets in the way of reaching a full potential, but does this apply if you bring it upon yourself? By no means do I disagree with the way these conscientious objectors acted. They were proving that it was not pain or fear that was keeping them from the war, and all the while helping others, but it is hard to not wonder if they had a "completely nonviolent" state of mind.

"Kill or Be Killed"

I have recently been discussing Ancient Egypt in another class of mine. This period of time can be noted for it's polytheistic societies, artwork, mind-bending constructions, as well as many other significant aspects. One way of Ancient Egyptian life, however, included slavery, something that existed in many other societies for a large period of time. Upon discussing this way of life, I couldn't help but think more about the idea of slavery, and more specifically a "slave's" mentality. More than likely, a slave would be put into a position that would be harmful, whether it is to themselves or others. Would they ever consider rebelling for the sake of avoiding harm? Or, would avoiding the harm just result in a different harm from their commander? This leads me to talk about our class discussion, specifically Tolstoy and his thought about "killing or being killed". Slaves have always been in the position to take orders or obey. Some have probably been in positions where they would face the threat of death. We know that Tolstoy believes that complete nonviolence would be to "be killed" in that situation because you can't know the consequences of your actions, which in this case would be killing to save your own life. So what did the slaves think? Did they ever consider nonviolence before they were harmed, or did they simply live in a society where it was not questioned?

My First PACS Class Discussion

As a student with an art POE, I can be honest when I say I was terrified of my first PACS class. I couldn't picture any other situation than going to class and being completely lost in the readings and lecture. Luckily enough I can say that after my first class discussion, I was surprised that I was able to not only grasp the information, but contribute to the conversation.
As I read the first assigned readings, I was surprised to agree with one of the authors much more than the other. I found myself questioning Kirby Page, solely because he was constructing his argument on a religion rather than fact or something that can be tested/proven. George Coe, however, seemed to make much more sense to me. He makes the point, essentially, that the idea of nonviolence isn't really ever present. As "nonviolent" as one may seem, there is always a cause and effect in any situation. A nonviolent act can indirectly effect someone or something else "violently" or negatively, leaving "nonviolence" to never fully exist.