Wednesday, January 25, 2006

Defining Words

Since the beginning of time, one of they key problems within human communications has centered on how different people define words. Most of us assume that how we define a word is how everybody else does too or, at least, if there are different ways to define a specific word or term, everybody naturally understands that we are using such words or terms in a way that is consistent with our own particular definitions.

Here's but one example of this phenomena. In the Midwest where I grew up, dinner and supper are used interchangeably to describe the evening meal. However, in some areas of the south, dinner means a formal mid-day meal, while only supper is the evening meal. So, if I invite my southern friend to dinner, he/she may show up at noon and wonder why no one is sitting down to eat dinner. In this case, dinner is defined differently for the two of us.

As many people in the general Olympia Justice and Peace Movement have been discussing the Nazi presence and our community's response, it has occurred to me that there are different conceptualizations in regards to the term, nonviolence. I believe this represents one of the reasons that nerves have become a bit frayed and has caused many people to feel frustrated by the dialogue.

Below I will present what I feel are the general levels of definition for nonviolence.
  • Definition A: Do no physical harm to other people (or yourself).
  • Definition B: Definition A + Do no harm to the Earth or planet.
  • Definition C: Definitions A & B + do no physical harm to other creatures.
  • Definition D: Definitions A, B & C + do not cause damage to property.
  • Definition E: Definitions A, - D + cause no non-physical harm to other beings.
  • Definition F: Definitions A - E + do not even wish or think of harm to come to other beings.
Of course, there are certainly more combinations than listed above and/or each of you may group them differently. My point, though, is that through our various communications, we may often think we are in agreement or disagreement about definitions and such misconceptions can serve as the impetus for arguments, hurt feelings and frustration.

Personally, I define nonviolence via Definition F. How do you define it and why?

6 comments:

  1. Good question. I take issue with the inclusion of 'D'. Property can in no way be equivalent to living creatures. The whole concept of property has been taken to ridiculous extremes by capitalist society anyway.

    But to suggest that, say, spray-painting a slogan on a wall is equivalent to assaulting a person doesn't seem appropriate to me. Sure, the content of the message can be extremely hurtful to a person or group, but that's a different issue.

    Setting fire to an empty or unfinished building is in no way equivalent to strip-mining a hillside or clearcutting a forest. Breaking a door in of an animal-testing lab isn't remotely on par with what goes on "legitimately" within that lab during the day.

    Damaging property may be a crime. It may be arson. It may be vandalism. It may be theft or breaking-and-entering. But it's not automatically "violence." Violence, to me, involves harming living things. Activists who spike trees are not violent; logging companies are. People who destroy research facilities where animals are being tortured are not violent; the people who work there are.

    Were the perpetrators of the Boston Tea Party engaged in a violent demonstration? Not really, although these days they would be considered terrorists and trundled off to Gitmo for torture, I'm sure.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Brad,
    Thanks for the in-depth reply. In my opinion, you're setting up a false dichotomy. For example, while animal testing is certainly violent, destroying the facility is violent too. Yes, some acts may be more violent than others, but, under the Gandhian ideal, violence is violence.

    From my perspective, spiking a tree is definitely violent...to the tree! If somebody drove a nail into your leg, I think most people would see that as a violent act.

    ReplyDelete
  3. I agree about the spiking of the tree. Even if the intent and the result is to prevent the tree from being killed altogether, it is still a violent act, albeit less violent than the alternative.

    I still disagree that the destruction of a building is in itself "violence." It may be a criminal act, but not violent per se.

    There are varying degrees of violence as you say. I just don't automatically include destruction of physical property on that continuum.

    The problem in terms of your larger theme here has to do with narrowing of "acceptable" avenues of dissent. Most activists - and people in general - self-identify as being nonviolent. But if we immediately describe as "violent" any action that damages property, we have effectively ruled out any kind of protest action that goes beyond marching in the streets or writing our congressperson or knocking on our neighbors' doors.

    I'm not suggesting those aren't worthwhile activities. But consider the group of nuns that for years would cut through the fences surrounding nuclear-missile silos and pound on the cement caps with hammers. Were they violent protesters because they cut fences and attempted to damage the structures?

    Non-violence has to include more than sitting in the street and waiting for the cops to drag us off to jail.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Consider this. In the great documentary film a few years ago on the Weather Underground, one of the former members said something to the effect that, not doing something to stop the Vietnam War, was a form of violence.

    Reading Brad's comments, I thought of them because they exploded bombs in unoccupied buildings. But, I do still have a problem with it. I've always been uncomfortable with the "lesser of evils" concept.

    ReplyDelete
  5. I consider true violence to be the result of conditions being totally out of control whether they be human, animal or nature as in wild fires, tsunamis, earthquakes or hurricanes. Each type of violence has it's own fuel and in humans that fuel is rage. All of the other types of violence are a matter of perception and a case where our language is inadequate. We could probably use a dozen more words to cover the variety of horrible things we do to ourselves, each other, the animal kingdom and nature but they are not true violence.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Brad,
    I will try to address some or all of the issues you've raised in a separate post.

    ReplyDelete

Comments are unmoderated, so you can write whatever you want.