It is not avoiding the fight. It is not giving up. It is searching for truth,acknowledging that we might be wrong,that the other might know something that we do not. We never have all the truth.
In the introduction to the philosophy of non-violence,David McReynolds writes:
the late A.J. Muste was his ability to listen with respect to those with whom he deeply disagreed,not as a tactic but because he hoped to catch in their remarks some truth he himself had missed.
Further on,and this is a foreteller of gentler techniques of conflict resolution,we see that there are reasons for choosing non-violence:
…pacifists seek an approach to conflict that offers more substance and less suffering. Riding roughshod over our adversaries might provide short-term results and immediate gratification,but pacifists are more concerned with sustainable results and genuine reconciliation. To this end,we suggest an alternative with a completely different set of ground rules.
I might appear naive,trying to talk with an enemy that is bent on killing me. I might appear incurious regarding my own life,trying to reason with a tiger,to contain it only with ropes and words. however,only through listening we can expect to achieve long lasting results,to understand,comprehend,accept and live.
Zimbardo understands that it is the system that allows evil in people,turning the individual into a cruel agent of inhumane rules. Removed that,will a person listen and talk to their opponent? They can listen to their counterpart,and attempt to build a long term,sustainable,relationship –but they have to acknowledge the other,and generate the possibility of a dialogue. It is a matter of choice.
What happens,though,in the presence of evil? What happens when there is desire to inflict pain in others because they are weaker,different,and talk with an accent?
I can’t give you your answer;The guy driven by hate has to make a choice:go in peace,or wake up every night with the sight of his enemy,vanquished,watching him from beyond death.
Recent Comments