Violent crime, conflict, nonkilling
resistance
to KAPI‘OLANI COMMUNITY COLLEGE STUDENTS
Glenn Paige is a veteran of the Korean War where he was an artillery communications officer in the U.S. Army. And he is a University of Hawai‘i Professor Emeritus of Political Science. Dr. Paige is also the author of Nonkilling Global Political Science (Philadelphia: XLibris, 2002).
During the Fall 2002 Semester, Glenn Paige visited Kapi‘olani Community College. There he engaged in extended colloquy and debate about the future of nonkilling politics with a team of five political science students who, in turn, represented the concerns of a class of thirty-five peers. Highlights of their lively dialogue are summarized in Randall Kamisato, "Professor Outlines Plan for Global Nonviolence," Kapi‘o [Kapi‘olani Community College], 19 November 2002, page 5.
Twelve months later in 2003, a second cohort of KCC political science students formulated, refined and prioritized questions about the "Preface" and Chapters 1-2 in Paige's book. Then their questions were e-mailed to Glenn Paige. The students' questions and Glenn's answers are reproduced below.
November 3, 2003
For Discussion:
Some responses by Glenn Paige to questions posed by students of
Kapi‘olani Community College Political Science 110.
Fall term 2003
(Faculty: Dr. Vincent K. Pollard).
A. The Problem.
Students' question:
A.1.1. All scientific and social innovations are begun by a "small minority" — sometimes even by just one person. Does that lead to self-questioning? Surely. And also to search for new knowledge that challenges prevailing orthodoxy. It may take time, but in the long run well-grounded truths seem to endure. Daniel J. Boorstin, The Creators (1992).
As far as nonviolence is concerned, some "minority" practical political leaders are far ahead of pessimistic political scientists such as those of the American Political Science Association which does not even have a "peace" subfield or section among 92 subfields and 31 interest sections. Compare Petra K. Kelly, Nonviolence Speaks to Power (1992) and G. Paige, "The Legacy of a Nonviolent Political Leader: Governor Guillermo Gaviria of Colombia" (2003). See also www.colombia-noviolencia.gov.co [for a related Spanish-language website — v.k.p.].
In this Kapi‘olani Community College class you are among the first students of political science in the world to begin to explore the question, "Is a Nonkilling Society Possible?" You've read two chapters of Nonkilling Global Political Science. There are four more plus an extensive bibliography of knowledge for and against the nonkilling thesis. Worth exploring further?
A.1.2. Viewed from your personal experience and understanding of the contemporary world of war, terrorism, homicide, and other forms of violence, do you think that your future and that of your children and grandchildren will be safer by accepting the violence-accepting philosophies and political ideologies of the past (which have brought present conditions of physical and economic insecurity), or do you agree with General Douglas MacArthur who told the American Legion in 1955, "We must have new thoughts, new ideas, new concepts.We must break out of the strait jacket of the past." (See speech, p. 156.)
It is really not so great a stretch. 2004 presidential candidate Representative Dennis J. Kucinich is expressing ideas and articulating policies very much in the direction of the politics of a nonkilling society. For example, see the Bill to Establish a United States Department of Peace, H.R. 2459, with 46 co-sponsors. Would Thomas Hobbes and other philosophers of killing have thought of that? Would something like the U.S. Department of Peace be useful at the state level like Hawai‘i? Might you see both in your lifetime?
Students' question:
A.2. The nonkilling thesis is not derived from or limited to Jain thought or any other specific body of belief. But it resonates with nonkilling inspirations discoverable in them all. That said, Jain thought is especially interesting for its compatibility with science and its commitment to ahimsa (noninjury, nonviolence) in relation to humans, animals, and nature. The nonviolent Jain community has survived for 2,600 years in India amidst violence by admittedly imperfect practice of three basic principles: nonviolence, tolerance of alternative approaches to truth (eight blind men describing an elephant by touching different parts of its body), and restriction of acquisitiveness. A useful Jain lay practice introduced by the late Acharya Tulsi in 1949 is the Anuvrat Movement — anu (small), vrat (vow). This anuvrat movement is based upon the assumption that peaceful, nonviolent, nonkilling societies will not be achieved by sudden great leaps forward but by small changes in behavior freely imposed upon themselves by individuals, organizations, and other components of society. For example, students impose vows not to cheat; officials vow not to accept bribes; and businessmen vow to limit profits to small but reasonable rates of return. Or corporate executives vow to limit their compensation? Applications for practical nonkilling change are infinite. Try thinking of one.
B. The Possibilities.
Students' question:
B.1. You are quite right to be "frustrated" with only one example of conditions on which two villages otherwise similar in socioeconomic material characteristics differ greatly in killing and related cultures of violence. That is why Chapter 3 calls for comparative research as one of four major subfields needed to develop nonkilling political science.
The Mexican village comparison helps to liberate from economic determinism and points to values and culture as major determinants of lethality. For example, comparison shows that among the economically more developed nations, the USA has the highest per capita rate of homicide. Why?
The logic and usefulness of comparative inquiry can be illustrated by a study of several dozen brothers close in age — one a murderer, one not — with the same parents, that found that the murderers had been subjected as children to brutal beatings. The future murderers were treated with brutality as "bad boys," while the "good boys" were favored. See Stuart H. Palmer, The Psychology of Murder (1960).
Incidentally, by 2003 eleven countries have now made corporal punishment of children illegal in both families and schools: Sweden (1979), Finland (1983), Norway (1982), Austria (1994), Cyprus (1994), Denmark (1995), Italy (1996), Croatia (1998), Israel (2000), Germany (2000), and Iceland (2003).
The importance of culture as a preeminent contributor to killing is recognized in the UN's current International Decade for a Culture of Peace and Nonviolence for the Children of the World, 2001-2010. See link on my website.
Students' question:
B.2. The question concerning (p. 37) the "environmental, cultural, and other circumstances" of these peaceful (or violent) societies calls for research to understand multivariate patterns of causation.
From a nonkilling political science perspective we need to ask, "What are the characteristics of completely killing-free societies?"
It will be a mistake to prejudge answers to this question on the basis of past conditions that have limited nonkilling human expression or upon present political beliefs such as that "free politics" and "free markets" will cause nonkilling. Note the levels of domestic and international violence of the country claiming global preeminence in both these variables in 2003. Do you see the irony in President G. W. Bush's statement on November 3, 2003, in justifying the U.S. war on Iraq, that "free societies do not attack their neighbors" and "do not create weapons of mass destruction"?
Questions that can be asked to identify explanatory factors are infinite. A rule of thumb is, "For any concrete social object there are an infinite number of analytical aspects" (Princeton sociologist Marion J. Levy).
C. Vision: Clarifying a Preferred Future.
Students' question:
C.1. What "really" influenced creation of Nonkilling Global Political Science? Perhaps no one can explain it, not even me. The best that can be said is that it resulted from professional political and social science training plus personal Korean War and subsequent Korea-related research that in 1973-74 converged in conditions that social psychologists have termed "cognitive dissonance." That is when deeply held values (e.g., killing for peace and freedom is good) and perceptions of reality (e.g., killing produces insecurity and injustice) clash, one changes values, or reality, or both, or withdraws. In the present case this is explained in my book review "On Values and Science: The Korean Decision Reconsidered," American Political Science Review, 71:4 (December 1977), pp. 1603-1609. Also Chapter 2 of To Nonviolent Political Science (1993).
One day in 1973-74, the combination of Korea-related and professional political science experience led to a sudden value shift to "No More Killing." This was not specifically related to any religious belief. But it led to a 28-year inquiry into the nonkilling roots of all religious faiths as well as to search for evidence of nonkilling human capabilities in the sciences, humanities, vocations, history, and every aspect of human experience into which a fallible, limited scholar could inquire.
A global shift to a nonkilling society can take place within and among individuals as the result of dissatisfaction with killing and its consequences (insecurity, suffering, and deprivations) observed in individual and social life — combined with advances in knowledge and practical skills for nonkilling social change. One might say that nonkilling global transformation can be realized through a combination of spirit, self-interest, and science. Is it not in everyone's self-interest not to be killed?
In this sense, nonkilling is not a religion but is like a compass combining spirit and science — a guide for our short journey of life on earth. The vast majority of human beings (more than 99.5%) already do not kill and — as Chapter 2 shows — already have created social practices and institutions that can be combined to realize completely nonkilling social conditions. The hope of global change lies more in global learning than in conversion to any specific nonkilling faith. All faiths and secular philosophies can contribute.
Students' question:
C.2. Nonkilling, like violence, does seem like a negative concept. But it is written without a hyphen (not non-killing) to imply holistic concern for total individual and social well-being. It is hoped that raising the question of nonkilling social alternatives will help to raise consciousness about how our readiness to kill, threaten to kill, and prepare to kill relates to insecurity, poverty and economic deprivation, violations of human dignity and human rights, despoliation of the environment, and divisive antagonisms — all of which threaten and retard individual and global spiritual, material, and cultural well-being.
It is hoped that reflection upon the nonkilling thesis will help us to understand that in order to liberate ourselves from killing and its noxious consequences, we will have to be no less committed to seeking new knowledge, education-training, policies, and institutions than committing resources to visionary science-supported projects such as to build an Atomic Bomb or to place a human on the Moon.
We will have to seek new interdisciplinary knowledge of the causes of killing, the causes of nonkilling, the causes of transition from killing to nonkilling, and the characteristics of completely killing-free societies.
Unless we can learn how to stop killing each other and being dominated by the politics of killing we will not be able to solve the other problems that threaten survival and well-being of human life on earth. This is not a new idea, but an old one expressed in a new era.
D. Getting There.
Students' question:
D.1. The future prospect of nonkilling global change of 6-10 billion people in 200+ countries, and 3,500 indigenous communities appears much less daunting if one recognizes already existing nonkilling potentials. For example, nonkilling potential in human nature is a shocking discovery for pessimistic political scientists. But not for the ethologist Irenaus Eibl Eibesfeldt, Love and Hate (1974): "The thesis of man's killer nature cannot seriously be upheld; on the contrary investigation shows that we are also extremely friendly beings. The potential for good has been given to us biologically just as much as the potential to destroy ourselves" (p. 246).
Thus every child born offers hope of nonviolent global change as does the evidence of many nonviolent institutions that have already been demonstrated in human experience. Chapter 2 mentions some of them and Chapter 5 suggests how they can be supplemented by new ones. Does not the fact that 76 countries have abolished the death penalty, that 47 countries have accepted conscientious objection to killing in military service, and that 27 countries have no armies at all provide a realistic basis for future global change?
To this can be added such evidence as human creations of nonkilling religious communities, labor unions, stock markets, political parties, security organizations, educational institutions, research institutions, problem-solving institutions, nonviolent struggles, and extraordinarily courageous pioneers in virtually every field of human endeavor. Does this not provide a realistic basis of hopefulness?
Not without struggle and courageous commitment, of course, by individuals, groups, institutions, and indeed whole communities. No less determined than proponents of cultures of killing. But what is the alternative? Are we to continue to seek "life, liberty, and happiness" by seeking to "kill or capture" every potential killer on the face of the earth? Is this really realistic?
All social learning and social change takes place through processes of emulation and innovation. The realistic hope of future nonkilling global transformation lies in providing models for nonkilling emulation and encouraging creativity in nonkilling social innovation. It is not a totalitarian control project.
Students' question:
D.2. Which countries should lead nonkilling global change? Chapter 3 calls for research to rank all countries on a scale of nonkilling capability, just as is done for democracy and economic development. We want to identify those countries who are least/most killers of their own people (homicide plus state lethality) and killers of the peoples of other countries. One approach can be to form a Coalition of Nonkilling Nations (least killers) to engage in political, economic, social, and cultural defense of their own societies and to provide alternative models for emulation and innovation by the peoples of the Killer Nations.
But as Gene Sharp argues in his classic The Politics of Nonviolent Action (1973), all governments are dependent upon popular support and obedience. Thus while we are witnessing the globalization of militarism and capitalism, we are also witnessing in the new technological information age the globalization of peoples' movements to resist violence-based state and corporative injuries to their livelihoods, cultures, and environments. Thus future nonkilling global transformation may come more in the form of global versions of nonviolent social change movements from below (as in the Kingian, Gandhian, Philippine People's Power, and anti-Soviet movements) — than in classic state-led great power world domination.
The people of any country can lead. The people of any country can follow. Individuals and ideas will increasingly matter under conditions of uncontrollable global communication and other capabilities for global mobilization. Witness millions of people in hundreds of cities in the world's greatest anti-war demonstration in 2003. No specific leader and no one country led it.
Nonkilling Global Political Science is presently being translated into 11 languages: Arabic, Chinese, Hindi, Urdu, Tamil, Malayalam, Sinhala, Thai, Korea, Russian, and Spanish. It is also posted free on the world wide web. Will it someday contribute to nonkilling global transformation?
Thank you for your very important questions.
Mahalo and Aloha,
Glenn
Fair use. It's legal to link from non-frames web pages and to print for classroom use. © 1999-2006, Vincent Kelly Pollard.