Moral Violence
I admire the quality in people that compels them to make the world into something different, or to bring something new into the world. If you think about the effort to deviate from the current trajectory of anything, it requires inflicting a violence of some kind, a breaking of the statue que. Undertaking that change, whatever it may be, requires grit, determination, persistence, and the willingness to disturb the way things are.
“Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful, committed citizens can change the world; indeed, it’s the only thing that ever has.”
I struggle deeply with the word violence in this context because it summons to mind images of destruction and acts of cruelty, war, murder, clearcuts and exploitation. This article is wrestling with the 3rd definition of the word violence. Its “the violence of the storm vehement feeling or expression : FERVOR.
“Violence
noun
vi·o·lence ˈvī-lən(t)s ˈvī-ə-
Synonyms of violence
1. the use of physical force so as to injure, abuse, damage, or destroy
a. an instance of violent treatment or procedure
2. injury by or as if by distortion, infringement, or profanation : OUTRAGE
3. intense, turbulent, or furious and often destructive action or force
a. the violence of the storm vehement feeling or expression : FERVOR
b. an instance of such action or feeling
c. a clashing or jarring quality : DISCORDANCE
4. undue alteration (as of wording or sense in editing a text)”
Consider that a birth can be violent. It is undoubtedly an act of creation but its not clean or peaceful. Its messy, extremely intense, active and painful, violent. Bringing something into this world acts of creation, just as acts of destruction, have within them, violence. But I think there is a difference, and I want to sus that difference out.
Another layer to this is, our culture’s elevation of the people who are possessed by this drive, mission, vision, fervor. They are idolized and revered, and set the rule by which we may measure our own worth. Whether it’s the quiver-full mother, or the successful soldier who killed x combatants to complete the mission.
The analogy extends beyond birth and war, to the artist who brought X project into the world, and the businessman who opened X new market with X new product. It scales up and down. From the individual who undertakes a path of self-improvement (a form of violence against one’s self, or tendencies), to capital shifting to fund X project over Y (violent in that the old project will now die from neglect, and the new project will “break ground” and all the associated jobs lost and gained, ecological impacts, etc…).
People admire Martin Luther King, and his vision for the world, and all of the effort he put into making the world come closer to that visioned. The courage, tenacity, persistence, grit, violence necessary to change the status que.
(let’s not get into the semantics. I know MLK’s tactics and advocacy where non-violent in that he and the movement sought not to cause harm or pain. But it’s clear that the world, American culture, would not change without effort. And maybe this article is a waste of time because I’m confusing effort with violence which is associated with destruction. Perhaps though this article is useful in acknowledging that effort, associated with positive qualities like creation, and accomplishment has an element of violent or destructive quality against the status que.)
And yet I find my self outraged by the same qualities of Leonord Leo, who is non-violently advocating for the world he believes in, advocating for social change, mentoring youngsters, and setting up organizations to sustain his vision in the world.
Maybe this means I’m a crunchy liberal or academic. Because I’m sure that there where those who where outraged at MLK’s work, and maybe that means that they where racist. And maybe we are each ok with those labels and identities.
I think there is a distinction though. There is the person who under takes effort/violence for the freedom and liberation of others, and the person who undertakes effort/violence for power over others. The perception of whether these motivations are good or bad depends on your moral frame of reference (See The Righteous Mind: Why Good People Are Divided by Politics and Religion by Jonathan Haidt.).
It took me the length of this article to come to the distinction: The moral measure of an act of violence/effort or of the character of a person idealized as containing this quality, are a combination of the reasons why and the real world outcomes of that act, or actions, that distinguish the quality of a violent/effort.
To advocate for social change so that more people can prosper, or less can. To undertake self-improvement because you want to be a better person for those around you, or because you hate a part of yourself. To kill by accident, or intent.
Any act contains violence, nature is violent, from the photon hitting your eye, to the tiger killing a child. The creation of this article, the posting of this article, the reading of this article, its impact on your mind. The intent and the amount of self-reflection that precedes an action, I believe, affect the outcome in the real world.
So pause for a moment. Take a small measure of yourself. Why, deeply examine, why are you about to do, what you are about to do? What thoughts, feelings, visions of the world or beliefs of how the universe works are motivating you to take your next action? If that is clear then you will know your reasons, and if you know your reasons, then your actions will be more effective. At least that’s what all the spiritual and business gurus or violence say.
