![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
I doubt that many people say (or write) things with the intent to cause pain. If one jumps quickly to that conclusion, some people will keep their distance. Miscommunication, lack of information, mistaken assumptions, stupidity, thoughtlessness and carelessness (in approximate order of moral "badness") are all much more common than malice1. Accusing someone of malice is hurtful in and of itself, unless the person actually did intend malice and is proud of it, and I don't think I know many people like that.
My instinctive reaction is, maybe not surprisingly, to keep my distance when the fighting starts. Certainly, there's not much to be "won" by getting involved in a battle between other parties: one can be ignored, claimed as an ally by one side or the other, or attacked by both. The tragedy is that most of the fighting I see stems from well-intentioned but misguided or misunderstood words and actions, not ill will, and I want to fix it, to deconstruct the origins of the conflict and rebuild relationships, even though they aren't mine to rebuild. I don't know what the right response is, in the general case. Ignore it? Choose a side? Jump in the middle and yell "whoa!"? Talk to the people on each side about it? I've tried all of these in different situations, and surprisingly, the one that's worked best so far is to jump in the middle and yell "whoa!"
Okay, it was literally "HEY!", but anyhow, it immediately and completely ended a full-on fight at my high school. Having more experience and knowledge of martial arts now than I did then (I had dabbled in kung fu, jiujitsu and wrestling), I understand a bit more of what I instinctively did then: it's referred to as kiaijutsu. The fight was occuring in a hall just outside a classroom I happened to be in, and the customary crowd of students and ineffectual teachers had gathered. Without really thinking about it, I stood up, hurled the door open, and let out (best espression for it, it felt like it happened) an incredibly loud "HEY!" In the silence that followed, the fighting pair left, heading down the hall in opposite directions and trying to melt into the crowd. The teachers, recovering their senses, turned to me and asked what I thought I was doing, and I just shrugged and said, "ending the fight." Nothing more was said of the affair by anyone.
Should I study to cultivate the ability to do this by choice? Christ said, "blessed are the peacemakers," but he (or his transcriber) was a little vague on technique. What is the equivalent in battles of words, or is it any different? In the immediate situation, the essential aim seems to be to wake people out of their instinctive retaliatory mode, but it's not without risk: if they really are bent on hurting each other, interposing oneself is asking for trouble. The two guys whose fight I interrupted never thanked me, nor did anyone else. In many ways, it looks like the hardest road: does that make it the best?
As it is, I take each case as it comes, and try to find in my heart the right path. It's probably not the most reliable guide, though: fear, weariness, anger, hurt, and so forth can slant my judgement towards avoidant or destructive actions, masking the small, quiet signs God gives. I'm looking for a set of guidelines, something that can at least help me think twice about questionable choices.
(This isn't about any of you; it's about me, reacting to a lot of things and looking at my own reactions and choices. That's why it's in my blog, not yours.)
(Comments screened; let me know if you want me to unscreen your comment.)
1: Not that the pain isn't real. Something misunderstood can hurt just as much as a deliberate attack. Acknowledging and dealing with having been hurt is hard for anyone. Likewise, acknowledging and dealing with having hurt someone is hard for any moral person. It's easiest for both, of course, if they can be reconciled and help each other.
My instinctive reaction is, maybe not surprisingly, to keep my distance when the fighting starts. Certainly, there's not much to be "won" by getting involved in a battle between other parties: one can be ignored, claimed as an ally by one side or the other, or attacked by both. The tragedy is that most of the fighting I see stems from well-intentioned but misguided or misunderstood words and actions, not ill will, and I want to fix it, to deconstruct the origins of the conflict and rebuild relationships, even though they aren't mine to rebuild. I don't know what the right response is, in the general case. Ignore it? Choose a side? Jump in the middle and yell "whoa!"? Talk to the people on each side about it? I've tried all of these in different situations, and surprisingly, the one that's worked best so far is to jump in the middle and yell "whoa!"
Okay, it was literally "HEY!", but anyhow, it immediately and completely ended a full-on fight at my high school. Having more experience and knowledge of martial arts now than I did then (I had dabbled in kung fu, jiujitsu and wrestling), I understand a bit more of what I instinctively did then: it's referred to as kiaijutsu. The fight was occuring in a hall just outside a classroom I happened to be in, and the customary crowd of students and ineffectual teachers had gathered. Without really thinking about it, I stood up, hurled the door open, and let out (best espression for it, it felt like it happened) an incredibly loud "HEY!" In the silence that followed, the fighting pair left, heading down the hall in opposite directions and trying to melt into the crowd. The teachers, recovering their senses, turned to me and asked what I thought I was doing, and I just shrugged and said, "ending the fight." Nothing more was said of the affair by anyone.
Should I study to cultivate the ability to do this by choice? Christ said, "blessed are the peacemakers," but he (or his transcriber) was a little vague on technique. What is the equivalent in battles of words, or is it any different? In the immediate situation, the essential aim seems to be to wake people out of their instinctive retaliatory mode, but it's not without risk: if they really are bent on hurting each other, interposing oneself is asking for trouble. The two guys whose fight I interrupted never thanked me, nor did anyone else. In many ways, it looks like the hardest road: does that make it the best?
As it is, I take each case as it comes, and try to find in my heart the right path. It's probably not the most reliable guide, though: fear, weariness, anger, hurt, and so forth can slant my judgement towards avoidant or destructive actions, masking the small, quiet signs God gives. I'm looking for a set of guidelines, something that can at least help me think twice about questionable choices.
(This isn't about any of you; it's about me, reacting to a lot of things and looking at my own reactions and choices. That's why it's in my blog, not yours.)
(Comments screened; let me know if you want me to unscreen your comment.)
1: Not that the pain isn't real. Something misunderstood can hurt just as much as a deliberate attack. Acknowledging and dealing with having been hurt is hard for anyone. Likewise, acknowledging and dealing with having hurt someone is hard for any moral person. It's easiest for both, of course, if they can be reconciled and help each other.
Tags:
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
From:
In insomnia there is wisdom?
Let's see; there's Christian Peacemaker Teams. (http://www.cpt.org/)
There's also the Non-Violent Peaceforce. (http://www.npcanada.org/)
Or you can always consult your local Quaker (http://ottawa.quaker.ca/).
Or swing by PERC (http://www.perc.ca/) and look up Mike Kulbars. Telling him I sent you, while not strictly necessary, will probably amuse him. :)
Any of these will get you going in the direction you want.
One of the hardest things about much of this is that it appears as insubstantial as a soap bubble in the face of all the hard-edged violence out there; believing in its potency isn't easy.
That's not "one of the hardest things". That is THE hard thing. Always.
Believing in its potency isn't enough. Though it is worth noting that if violence had as much power to do good in the world as we like to think it did we'd be in Paradise by now.
Waging peace doesn't necessarily work the way you think it will, and it doesn't always work for _you_.
The example you cited is well-chosen; if you do a really good job of making peace, everybody will move on without thanking you, because they will think they did it all themselves. The advanced class is realising that they did, and being okay with that. Peacemaking is sort of reverse kaijitsu, actually; it's the art of using other people's strength FOR them. What you did there is called them to attend; the rest was theirs.
Dropping your ego in public is a powerful act, moreso for you because you are male, and it's the heart of non-violent conflict resolution and intervention.
Dropping your weapons and standing up open handed is another powerful act.
Either can make people consider more clearly the environment that they are in. A lot of nonviolent intervention lies in helping people to notice that they are not in as much danger as they feel like they are in by showing your own willingness to be vulnerable and engaged. If that makes sense.
But still. This shit can get you killed. On the other hand, THAT shit (violence) can also get you killed, as you know, and furthermore if I'm hearing you right you've come to where you don't want it in your life anymore.
I didn't become a pacifist by intellectual convincement, not really. There was some of that, a lot of it really, and I can make you a pretty good intellectual case, though probably not in an lj comment's space, but it came along in odd chunks, more or less as I needed it and could absorb it.
I became a pacifist the way some people go to AA: This isn't working and it's injuring me and it's injuring the people who deal with me and it doesn't really matter if I think I CAN quit or that quitting will work, it's a matter of knowing that I CAN'T continue and continuing will NOT work.
And that's all I've got for now. Ask me another question and it'll start me off on a different chunk of it, probably. But here is some interesting reading:
Violence is not a way of getting where you want to go, only more quickly. Its existence changes your destination. If you use it, you had better be prepared to find yourself in the kind of place it takes you to. (http://obsidianwings.blogs.com/obsidian_wings/2007/02/liberating_iraq.html)
From:
Re: In insomnia there is wisdom?
This is a good way to look at it; thanks!
Violence is not a way of getting where you want to go, only more quickly. Its existence changes your destination. If you use it, you had better be prepared to find yourself in the kind of place it takes you to.
This is one way of looking at the refutation of the idea that the end justifies the means. The means chosen has consequences which effectively become part of the end, even if they weren't there at first.