Pacifism as Pathology Reflections on the Role of Armed Struggle in
North America
by Ward Churchill (Arbeiter Ring Publishing, Canada, 1999.)
ISBN 1-894037-07-3
Pacifism as Pathology-Notes on an American Pseudopraxis is the title
of Ward Churchill's well-argued and persuasive essay criticising the
form and ideology of non-violent political action in North America.
The essay was first published in 1986, and is reprinted in this book
alongside an essay by Mike Ryan who further develops the arguments in
the context of the Canadian peace movement. Though Churchill's essay
was written in response to the political scene of well over a decade
ago, his arguments are (perhaps worringly) equally thought-provoking
and relevant to the contemporary manifestations of non-violent
political action that purport to have revolutionary methods and goals.
Churchill's main argument is that philosophical
on-violence/pacifism-which promotes the idea that the violence of the
State can be transcended through purity of purpose, moral superiority
and non-violence-is a delusional and counter-revolutionary political
movement. Despite recognising the fact that many adherents to
non-violence have sincere revolutionary aspirations (i.e: that they
reject the present social order and wish to see its total abolition
and replacement) Churchill claims that their non-violent methods serve
to constrain them to the realm of 'pseudo-praxis' which, at best, is
utterly ineffectual and, at worst, maintains and reinforces the
hierarchical and exploitative status quo.
Churchill argues that this pseudo-praxis of pacifism is rooted in an
ideology rife with internal contradictions and limitations and for its
internal logic depends upon "fostering a view of social conflict as a
morality play." (p.38) In this 'play' the State and its violence are
"bad" or "negative", their pacifist opponents "good" or "positive" and
it is through the triumph of morality alone that revolution will come
about. Hence, "Pacifists, with seemingly endless repetition, pronounce
that the negativity of the modern corporate-fascist state will atrophy
through defection and neglect once there is a sufficiently positive
social vision to take its place." (p.30) Such a view is clearly the
stuff of pure idealism rather than realism, for the state is not a
moral adversary, it cannot be persuaded to 'wither away'. As Churchill
rightly points out; "Absurdity clearly abounds when suggesting that
the state will refrain from using all necessary physical force to
protect against undesired forms of change and threats to its safety."
(p.44)
Taking the experience of the Jews in the Holocaust as an in-depth (and
highly controversial) example, the author illustrates the ultimate
futility of non-violent resistance. He suggests that the pacifist
response of the Jews which was intended to promote "social
responsibility" and not further exacerbate their persecution, in fact
did the opposite and led to the Jews effectively colluding with the
genocidal aims of their Nazi oppressors. Whilst not suggesting that
the Holocaust could have been prevented by armed struggle on the part
of the Jews, Churchill, quoting Bruno Bettleheim (a former
concentration camp inmate), says: "Rebellion could only have saved
either the life they were going to lose anyway, or the lives of
others.Inertia it was that led millions of Jews into the ghettos that
the SS had created for them." (p.36)
Churchill recognises that this example is extreme yet he suggests
that: "it is precisely this extremity which makes the example useful;
the Jewish experience reveals with stark clarity the basic illogic at
the very core of pacifist conceptions of morality and political
action." (p.38) The illogic to which he is referring is the idea that
moral superiority can overcome state oppression; the moral superiority
being based upon an unwillingness to take up arms and use violence as
a tactic. This notion is so central to the 'pathology' of pacifism
that the dichotomies between good (non-violent) and evil (violent) are
found throughout. Of course, in order to sustain a belief in the
ideology examples of good (non-violence) triumphing over evil
(violence) are vital. Here, Churchill argues that pacifists are guilty
of considerable revisionism in order to make history compatible with
their beliefs.
Churchill looks in particular at the popularly quoted 'successes' of
the movements headed by MK Gandhi in India, and Dr. Martin Luther King
in North America. In both these instances he argues that the 'success'
of the movements in gaining their demands depended massively upon the
threat of violence from other sources against the British and American
governments respectively. In the case of North America, the pressure
came from "the context of armed self-defense tactics being employed
for the first time by rural black leaders.and the eruption of black
urban enclaves.It also coincided with the increasing need of the
American state for internal stability due to the unexpectedly intense
and effective armed resistance mounted by the Vietnamese against US
aggression in Southeast Asia." (p.43)
The importance of the misappropriation of history by pacifists becomes
clear when we delve a little deeper into the psychology of it all.
Clearly, as Churchill points out, these people do believe in the need
for revolution, indeed they pronounce solidarity with those engaged in
armed struggles in the Third World.
However, if they concede the historical fact that "there simply has
never been a revolution, or even a substantial social reorganisation,
brought into being on the basis of the principles of pacifism. In
every instance, violence has been an integral requirement of the
process of transforming the state" (p.45) then pacifists must begin to
realize that there is not just an option to accept violence as a
method of social change, but an imperative.
In the author's view the fact that pacifists are so reluctant to get
to this point in their reasoning has much to do with the fact that for
most, struggle against the state is not a daily reality. Indeed, their
whole concern stems from a moral objection to the 'wickedness' of the
state, rather any personal threat to their lives and communities. From
such a privileged position, pacifists can espouse non-violent
revolution and engage in political action without the risks most
political dissidents take. Churchill does recognise that some pacifist
practitioners have run real risks for their beliefs-such as the
followers of Gandhi beaten to death in pursuit of non-violent
revolution and those who have immolated themselves or incurred long
prison sentences taking action for their cause. However, in the main,
Churchill argues that North American pacifists are caught up in a
politics of 'the comfort zone' based on the guiding question of "What
sort of politics might I engage in which will both allow me to posture
as a progressive and allow me to avoid incurring harm to myself?"
(p.49) Not surprisingly, the political practice which ensues from this
underlying concern is not-and never can be-revolutionary, since if it
were the state would respond with force. Pacifist praxis is therefore
necessarily ineffectual and unthreatening.
Churchill's description of the kind of praxis pacifists do engage in
will seem all too familiar to most of us who have been involved in
non-violent activism. The protest march, sit-down blockade, rally etc.
is revealed as the charade it really is. I found myself cringing at
this point, recognising situations in which I had participated in the
spectacle of symbolic action. Crucial aspects of this spectacle
include the representatives of the state-the cops-invited to be there
by the protest organisers, the elite band of stewards who ensure
non-violence and 'responsible' conduct, and the protesters there to
take part in a mass arrest for transgressing some minor law. The whole
thing is conducted in such a way as to cause minimum disruption to the
workings of the state (the police are warned in advance to expect an
estimated number of arrests) and to make sure that no-one (cops or
protesters) gets hurt. As Churchill comments: "in especially
'militant' actions, arrestees go limp, undoubtedly severely taxing the
state's repressive resources by forcing the police to carry them
bodily to the vans.(monitored all the while.to ensure that such
'police brutality' as pushing, shoving, or dropping an arrestee does
not occur)." (p.54) The farcical ineffectuality of this symbolic
protest is further emphasized when we remember that many of these
demonstrations-especially in this country-are in protest at the use of
state violence in the form of invasions of other countries (resulting
in the loss of thousands of lives), production of nuclear weapons and
other arms (potentially genocidal), or destruction of the environment
(potentially ecocidal).
Churchill is also highly critical of the condemnation that non-violent
activists make of the 'violent minority' who refuse to play the game
of merely symbolic protest. He points out the blatant hypocrisy
surrounding the willingness of non-violent activists to 'stand in
solidarity' with armed groups in the Third World who are resisting
Western imperialist aggression, whilst simultaneously distancing
themselves from anyone who dares to suggest a violent response in
their own country! Churchill argues that this is more evidence of
'comfort zone' politics which not only leads to ineffective action but
is actually racist: "Massive and unremitting violence in the colonies
is appalling to right-thinking people but ultimately acceptable when
compared with the unthinkable alternative that any degree of real
violence might be redirected against 'mother country radicals'."
(p.62) By intentionally avoiding any degree of state violence
themselves, non-violent activists ensure that the brunt of it is borne
by both Third World communities and minority communities in the West.
Churchill's argument that the 'comfort zone' practise of symbolic
non-violent action is easily accommodated by the State, is further
developed in the follow on essay by Mike Ryan. He suggests that far
from challenging State power, non-violent action is a valuable means
by which the State can reinforce its legitimacy: "The message of civil
disobedience as it is now practiced is this: There is opposition in
society. The state deals with this opposition firmly but gently,
according to the law. Unlike some countries, Canada is a democratic
society which tolerates opposition. Therefore, it is unnecessary for
anyone to step outside the forms of protest accepted by this society;
it is unnecessary to resist." (p.140) Such recuperation clearly has
implications for those whose actions go beyond the accepted boundary
by allowing the State to simply divide and rule. As 'the violent
minority' are isolated and crushed, the State can claim the tacit (or
sometimes explicit) support for its actions from those who remain
(unbruised and morally superior) within the permitted boundaries of
dissent.
Having thoroughly and convincingly dispensed with any notion that
pacifism represents a serious and revolutionary challenge to the
state, Churchill takes his analysis a step further. He argues that
pacifism is actually pathological with delusional, racist and suicidal
tendencies, and bears more hallmarks of a religious, rather than
political, ideology. This makes it very difficult to argue people out
of this mindset, as Churchill suggests; "hegemonic pacifism in
advanced capitalist contexts proves itself supremely resistant-indeed
virtually impervious-to mere logic and moral suasion." (p.93) He
claims that the only way to overcome this 'illness' is through a
therapeutic process designed to take the non-violent advocate "beyond
the smug exercise of knee-jerk pacifist "superiority," and into the
arena of effective liberatory praxis." (p.93) He proposes a strategy
in which individuals are forced to challenge their ideas through a
therapeutic discussion of values (to determine whether the subject
really understands the bases of need for revolutionary social
transformation), followed by 'Reality Therapy' (time spent living with
oppressed communities to get the subject out of the comfort zone) and
'Demystification' (where the subject is taught to handle weapons and
lose their psychological fear of guns.) All this should "have the
effect of radically diminishing much of the delusion, the aroma of
racism and the sense of privilege". (p.101)
It is probably right to accuse Churchill of consciously formulating a
training programme to create revolutionaries, in fact he concedes that
he is trying to aid in the development of "a strategy to win". Indeed
I think if the proponents of non-violence were to enter the
therapeutic process en masse the state would have more cause for
concern than at any time in the preceding decades of pacifist
"action". However, it would not be right to accuse the author of
attempting to glorify violence and armed struggle, rather he is at
pains to emphasise that "the desire for a non-violent and cooperative
world is the healthiest of all psychological manifestations." (p.103)
Rather the essay is written to provoke discussion and to get to the
point where pacifists stop believing that their 'purity of purpose'
will achieve the world we want.
Churchill's alternative to the pacifist strategy is made clear in a
chapter entitled Towards a Liberatory Praxis. Defining praxis as
"action consciously and intentionally guided by theory while
simultaneously guiding the evolution of theoretical elaboration"
(p.84) he argues that in advanced capitalist contexts far more
emphasis has been placed on the theory and analysis of revolutionary
struggle at the expense of the physical tactics which could be
employed. It is partly for this reason that the doctrine of
'revolutionary non-violence' as a theory and practice has taken such a
hold. In contrast, in the Third World ".it is considered axiomatic
that revolution in non-industrialized areas all but inherently entails
resort to armed struggle and violence." (p.85) With the immediacy of
State violence to contend with, those engaged in liberatory struggles
in the Third World have had to innovate a whole range of tactics-hence
the highly developed art of guerrilla warfare. Churchill suggests that
we learn from this example, though he is not advocating some 'cult of
terror'. Rather we must recognise that ".in order to be effective and
ultimately successful, any revolutionary movement within advanced
capitalist nations must develop the broadest range of thinking/action
by which to confront the state." (p.91) In this 'continuum of
activity' non-violent action-crucially divorced from its delusional
ideological trappings-has a role to play, but then so too does "armed
self-defense, and.the realm of 'offensive' military operations."
(p.91) In this situation, rather than non-violence being seen as the
antithesis of violence and morally evaluated, both become useful
tactics to be used as necessary in the revolutionary strategy.
Whether you agree with all of Churchill's arguments or not (and
personally I have a few problems with the therapy stuff) his analysis
of the pacifist doctrine is both eloquent and truly eye-opening. I
spent some time involved in explicitly non-violent activism in the UK
without really thinking through the ideological implications-it was
simply the first direct action scene I came across. I only wish that I
had read this book 7 years ago and hastened the learning process that
has led me to many of the same conclusions as the author. Don't be put
off, however, if you are happily involved
|
