Originally posted 17 June 2009
The following is excerpted from Pacifism As Pathology: Reflections on the Role of Armed Struggle in North America, by Ward Churchill. Originally published as an essay in 1986 (Pacifism as Pathology: Notes on an American Pseudopraxis), it has been noted and republished under its current title, with new introductions and commentary by various critics. The underlying message of the essay is not to incite a full out violent revolution, it simply advocates the occasional necessity of violence in obtaining any substantial social reform. This requires consideration - in my opinion - especially in North America, where political consciousness and activism - and moreover - the demands we make of our elected officials are lackadaisical. The essay doesn't denounce pacifism entirely, it suggests that all forms of resistance are required to create social change. In a nutshell, Ward Churchill criticizes pacifism as ineffective, hypocritical and unconsciously racist, among other things. He explains that by strictly adhering to only pacifist means and denouncing other forms of protest (ie: violence,) the pacifists alienate and thereby sabotage any and all potentially successful attempts to create revolutionary reform. After explaining the need for versatility when confronting state violence, Churchill concludes the essay with a method for turning strictly non-violent pacifists into radical revolutionaries...
--
A Model for Revolutionary Transformation
pg. 96-103, Pacifism as Pathology: Reflections on the Role of Armed Struggle in North America, by Ward Churchill
"What follows, then, is a sketch of a strategy by which radical therapists might begin to work through the pacifist problematic in both individual and group settings. It should be noted that the suggested method of approach is contingent upon the therapist's own freedom from contamination with pacifist predilections (it has been my experience that a number of supposed radical therapists are themselves in acute need of therapy in this area). It should also be noted that, in the process of elaboration, a number of terms from present psychological jargon (ie: "reality therapy") are simply appropriated for their use value rather than through any formal adherence to the precepts which led to their initial currency. Such instances should be self-explanatory.
Therapy may be perceived as progressing either through a series of related and overlapping stages or phases of indeterminate length.
Values Clarification. During this initial portion of the therapeutic process, participants will be led through discussion/consideration of the bases of need for revolutionary social transformation, both objective and subjective. Differentiations between objectively observed and subjectively felt/experienced needs will be examined in depth, with particular attention paid to contradictions - real or perceived - between the two. The outcome of this portion of the process is to assist each participant in arriving at a realistic determination of whether s/he truly holds values consistent with revolutionary aspirations, or whether s/he is not more psychically inclined toward some variant of reforming/modifying the status quo.
The role of the therapist in this setting is to be both extremely conversant with the objective factors, and to lead subjective responses of participants to an honest correlation in each discursive moment of process. Although this portion of therapy is quite hypothetical/theoretical in nature, it must be anticipated that a significant portion of participants who began defining themselves as pacifists will ultimately adopt a clarified set of personal values of a non-revolutionary type, that is, acknowledging that they personally wish to pursue a course of action leading to some outcome other than the total transformation of the state/liberation of the most objectively oppressed social sectors.
It would be impossible at this point to posit a procedure for attempting the alteration of non-revolutionary values. However, the purpose of radical (as opposed to bourgeois) therapy is not to induce accommodation to principles and values other than their own. In the sense that the term is used here, "values clarification" is merely an expedient to calling things by their right names and to strip away superficial/rhetorical layers of delusion.
Reality Therapy. Those - including self-defined pacifists - who in the initial phase of the process have coherently articulated their self-concept as being revolutionary will be led into a concrete integration with the physical reality of the objective bases for revolution, as well as application(s) of the revolutionary response to these conditions. The phase is quite multifaceted and contains a broad range of optional approaches.
In short, this second phase of the therapeutic process will include direct and extended exposure to the conditions of life among at least one (and preferably more) of the most objectively oppressed communities in North America, for example, inner-city black ghettos, Mexican and Puerto Rican barrios, American Indian reservations or urban enclaves, southern rural black communities, and so on. It is expected that participants will not merely "visit," but remain in these communities for extended periods, eating the food, living in comparable facilities, and getting by on the average annual income. Arguments that such an undertaking is unreasonable because it would be dangerous and participants would be unwanted in such communities are not credible; these are the most fundamental reasons for going - the reality of existing in perpetual physical jeopardy (and/or of being physically abused in extreme fashion) precisely because of being unwanted (especially on racial grounds), while living in the most squalid of conditions, is precisely what must be understood by self-proclaimed revolutionaries, pacifist or otherwise. Avoiding direct encounters with these circumstances as well as knowledge of them is to avoid revolutionary reality in favor of the comfort zone.
This experience should be followed by a similar sort of exposure to conditions among the oppressed within one or more of the many Third World nations undergoing revolutionary struggle. When at all possible, a part of this process should include linking up directly with one or more of the revolutionary groups operating in that country, a matter which is likely to take time and be dangerous (as will, say, living in an Indian village in Guatemala or Peru). But, again, this is precisely the point; the participant will obtain a clear knowledge of the realities of state repression and armed resistance that cannot be gained in any way other than through direct exposure.
Finally, either during or after the above processes, each participant should engage in some direct and consciously risk-inducing confrontation with state power. This can be done in a myriad of ways, either individually or in a group, but cannot include prior arrangements with police in order to minimize their involvement. Nor can it include obedience to police department demands for "order" once the action begins; participants must adopt a posture of absolute noncooperation with the state while remaining true to their own declared values (ie: for pacifists, refraining from violent acts themselves).
The role of the therapist - who should already have much grounding in revolutionary reality him/herself - during this phase of therapy is to facilitate the discussion of the process in both individual and group settings. The therapist must be conversant with the realities being experienced by participants to be able to assist them in establishing and apprehending a proper context in each instance.
Evaluation. For those who complete phase two (and a substantial degree of attrition must be anticipated in association with reality therapy, especially among those who began by espousing nonviolent "alternatives" to armed struggle), there must come a period of independent and guided reflection upon their observations and experiences "in the real world." This can be done on a purely individual basis, but generally speaking, a group setting is best for the guided portion of evaluation. A certain recapitulation/reformulation of the outcomes of the values clarification phase is in order, as is considerable philosophical/situational discussion and analysis coupled to readings; role-play has proven quite effective in many instances.
The point of this portion of the therapeutic process is to achieve a preliminary reconciliation of personal, subjective values with concrete realities. A tangible outcome is obtainable in each participant's formal articulation of precisely how he/she sees his/her values coinciding with the demonstrable physical requirements of revolutionary social action. Again, it should be anticipated that during evaluation a segment of participants will arrive at the autonomous decision that their aspirations/commitments are to something other than revolutionary social transformation.
The role of the therapist during this phase is to serve as a consultant to participant self-evaluation, recommend readings as appropriate to participant concerns/confusions, facilitate role-play and other group dynamics, and assist participants in keeping their reconciliations free of contractions in logic.
Demystification. It has been my experience that, by this point in the therapeutic process, there are few (if any) remaining participants seeking to extend the principles of pacifist absolutism. And among the remaining participants - especially among those who began with such absolutist notions - there often remains a profound lack of practical insight into the technologies and techniques common to both physical repression and physical resistance.
A typical psychological manifestation of such ignorance is the mystification of both the tools at issue and those individuals known to be skilled in their use. For example, a "fear of guns" is intrinsic to the pacifist left, as is sheer irrational terror at the very idea of directly confronting such mythologized characters as members of SWAT teams, Special Forces ("Green Berets"), Rangers, and members of right-wing vigilante organizations. The outcomes of such mystification tend to congeal into feelings of helplessness and inadequacy, rationalization, and avoidance. Sublimated, these feelings reemerge in the form of compensatory rhetoric, attempting to convert low self-confidence into a signification of transcendent virtue (ie: "make the world go away").
Hence, while few participants will at this juncture be prepared to honestly deny that armed struggle is and must be an integral aspect of the revolutionary interest that they profess to share, a number will still contend that they are "philosophically" unable to directly participate in it. Clarification is obtainable in this connection by bringing out the obvious: knowing how at some practical level, to engage in armed struggle and then choosing not to is a much different proposition than refraining from such engagements due to ignorance of the means and methods involved.
Here, "hands-on" training and experience is of the essence. The basic technologies at issue - rifles, handguns, shotguns, explosives, and the like, as well as the rudiments of their proper application and deployment - must be explored. This practical training sequence should be augmented and enhanced by selected readings, and continual individual and group discussion on the meaning(s) of this new range of skills acquisition.
It should be noted clearly that this phase of therapy is not designed or intended to create "commandos" or to form guerrilla units. Rather, it will serve only to acquaint each participant with the fact that s/he has the same general information/skills base as those who deter him/her through physical intimidation or repression and is at least potentially capable of the same degree of proficiency in these formerly esoteric areas as their most "elite" opponents. At this point, nonviolence can become a philosophical choice or tactical expedient rather than a necessity born of psychological default.
The role of the therapist during this phase is unlikely to be that of trainer (although it is possible, given that he/she should have already undergone such training). Rather, it is likely to be that of suggesting the appropriate trainers and literature, and serving as discussion/group facilitator for participants.
Reevaluation. In this final phase of therapy, remaining participants will be led into articulation of their overall perspective on the nature and process of revolutionary social transformation (ie: their understanding of liberatory praxis), including their individual perceptions of their own specific roles within this process. The role of the therapist is to draw each participant out into a full and non-contradictory elaboration, as well as to facilitate the emergence of potential for future, ongoing reevaluation and development of revolutionary consciousness.
--
The internal composition of each phase of this therapeutic approach in resolving the problem of hegemonic (pathological) pacifism is open to almost infinite variation on the part of the therapists and participants involved in each instance of application. Even the ordering of phases may be beneficially altered; for example, what has been termed "reality therapy" may have independently preceded and triggered the perceived need for values clarification on the part of some (or many) participants. Or, independently undertaken evaluations may lead some participants to enter values clarification and then proceed to reality therapy. The key for therapists is to retain a sense of flexibility of approach when applying the model, picking up participants at their own points of entry and adapting the model accordingly, rather than attempting a more-or-less rigid progression.
In sum, it is suggested that the appropriate application of the broad therapeutic model described in this section can have the effect of radically diminishing much of the delusion, the aroma of racism and the sense of privilege which mark the convert self-politics of contemporary America. At another level - if widely adopted - the model will be of assistance in allowing the construction of a true liberatory praxis, a real "strategy to win," for the first time within advanced industrial society. This potentiality, for those who would claim the mantle of being revolutionary, can only be seen as a positive step. [...]
Continuing conclusion on pg. 103
In concluding, I would at last like to state the essential premise of this essay clearly: the desire for a nonviolent and cooperative world is the healthiest of all psychological manifestations. This is the overarching principle of liberation and revolution. Undoubtedly, it seems the highest order of contradiction that, in order to achieve nonviolence, we must first break with it in overcoming its root causes. Therein, however, lies our only hope.
0 comments:
Post a Comment