I would say, really, that that genuine faith in the ultimate humanity of one's opponents is not incompatible with certain, refined forms of hostility and aggression.
Hostile emotions directed against one's opposition, directly, will probably doom a nonviolent campaign to failure. Research shows that if you have hostile feelings for someone, you often cast them in an unfriendly, less-than-human light-- which is the seed for violence, and hierarchical (ie. power-based) forms of interaction. However, to keep in mind the humanity of those one fights against-- that arms and protects the psyche from those tendencies.
As you've said to me in other conversations previous, aggressiveness is -not- an inherently negative quality. Someone who is purely passive cannot/will not raise a hand to anyone who wants to take from them, even to the point of exploitation. Some aggressiveness seems to be a necessary part of setting one's own boundaries-- and -must- be a part of transgressing those boundaries of others, when they are engaged in hurtful activities (to others or to themselves).
This is by no means an endorsement of all attacks, all hostility, or all aggression-- merely an assertion that some of it may occasionally be necessary to do good in the world with the resources one has.
ALTERNATELY: were the conclusion to be altered in form if not in spirit, then what word would you use in place of "attack"?
Hostile emotions directed against one's opposition, directly, will probably doom a nonviolent campaign to failure. Research shows that if you have hostile feelings for someone, you often cast them in an unfriendly, less-than-human light-- which is the seed for violence, and hierarchical (ie. power-based) forms of interaction. However, to keep in mind the humanity of those one fights against-- that arms and protects the psyche from those tendencies.
As you've said to me in other conversations previous, aggressiveness is -not- an inherently negative quality. Someone who is purely passive cannot/will not raise a hand to anyone who wants to take from them, even to the point of exploitation. Some aggressiveness seems to be a necessary part of setting one's own boundaries-- and -must- be a part of transgressing those boundaries of others, when they are engaged in hurtful activities (to others or to themselves).
This is by no means an endorsement of all attacks, all hostility, or all aggression-- merely an assertion that some of it may occasionally be necessary to do good in the world with the resources one has.
ALTERNATELY: were the conclusion to be altered in form if not in spirit, then what word would you use in place of "attack"?
Reply
I would write it as either
"The proposition, then: nonviolent means are tactics just as surely as raising a hand or weapon."
or
"The proposition, then: nonviolent means are conflict strategies just as surely as raising a hand or weapon."
Reply
Reply
Glad to be of service, O' Wise One.
*admiring smile*
Reply
Leave a comment