Jun 15th, 2009
Nonviolence is not the same as pacifism
Today’s tidbit from the Peace Institute: Speaker Dr. Kathleen Maas Weigert, Director of the Center for Social Justice at Georgetown: http://socialjustice.georgetown.edu/
She made the interesting statement, “Peace Studies values non-violence, but that does not mean we have to all be pacifists.” I asked her to clarify this during Q&A; how could non-violence NOT lead to pacifism, I wondered? She explained that it’s a continuum: advocating a non-violent approach to conflict doesn’t mean that one has to “sign on the dotted line” as a committed, no-violence-under-any-circumstances pacifist.
This reminded me of the difference between German “Zivis” in the 80s vs. today. “Zivis” are youg men who choose to perform civil service rather than the obligatory military service. In the cold-war atmosphere of the 80s, they had to attain conscientious objector status to do this–and that meant giving the “right” answer to questions like, “if someone attacked your girlfriend while you were walking down the street, would you defend her by hitting the assailant?” Any hint that you would even consider violence got you enlisted in the military. Today, it’s routine for young men to choose civil service without having to go through “vetting” as conscientious objectors. They can choose a non-violent aternative without necessarily being whole-hearted pacifists.
A preference for non-violence–it’s a start!
16:02 - 6-23-2009
Taking a look at just war theory might give you another example of a belief where one would advocate non-violence in conflict resolution and prevention, however still not being pacifism. In just war theory the overwhelming majority of its principles propose non-violent means toward conflict, however it retains the acceptance of a sovereign state to defend itself from attack as well as proportional retaliation. This sole acceptance of defending one’s self negates this belief from being pacifist, however the bulk of just war theory certainly still advocates non-violence.