Is non-violence dynamic enough?

1044: 

I’m everyday made conscious of violence, through stories in the media, making me think most of us are violent.  But of course we aren’t!  These media stories bring (what passes for) interest into our dreary lives, giving us something to talk about.  We discuss violence.  We say how we dislike it.  But as we become more interested in it.  It sucks us in.  Then we become disgusted by our own attraction to it, and then swing right over to the opposite side, to the idea of non-violence.

           

Certainly, I’m attracted by the political correctness of non-violence.  I would like to see myself as non-violent; it helps me dream and fantasise.  But I should also be considering the grey areas in me, and the significance of violence.

If we dislike violence, we might try to deny the very existence of it, because we fear it and aren’t good at dealing with it.  We might want to make a stand against it without being able to see a dynamic enough side to non-violence; it might seem ineffective.  Non-violence can seem too indecisive and passive.  And yet, we also know there is a dynamic in it.  For example, we can avoid conscription when there’s a war and white feathers for those who won’t join up, or avoid eating meat when there is little or no alternative.  

Boycotting in many ways is difficult, but it isn’t passive or indecisive.  Mainly, it isn’t violent.  As consumers we can avoid using violent goods.  We can encourage cruelty-free and environmentally friendly commodities.  That’s a really good start.  But where else can we ‘practise’ it?  Ideally, non-violence should be in everything we do, from thinking and talking to actively supporting commercial enterprises which espouse non-violence.

As the new fashion takes off, so violence and coercion will fade away.  But then, this is only part of the violence we need to lose.  Only when it has been established in our behaviour will it sink more deeply into our unselfconsciousness, so that it becomes part of our very nature.