I've heard these defenses before, many times ("It's OK as long as people aren't hurt," "The people in power use more violence than we do," "We're only using violence in self-defense", etc.) but what I haven't heard (and that I'd really like to hear) is the *positive* -- rather than merely defensive -- case *for* violence. That is, what do the people who are throwing rocks at the police or smashing the windows at Whole Foods actually think they're accomplishing? Are they acting according to some plan, where engaging in violent acts actually wins us something, or are they using violence purely as a means of self-expression or even self-therapy? The author below, for example, asserts that people have "legitimate feelings of rage," and that's certainly true, but saying that your rage justifies the use of violence doesn't do anything to explain what you expect to get from your violence. Or is it "bourgeois" to expect actions to be connected to definable goals?
Steve Burns
Wisconsin Network for Peace and Justice
No comments:
Post a Comment