Barry Lyndon
24th March 2010, 20:25
Ward Churchill has written an interesting denunciation of bourgeois pacifism in his book 'Pacifism as Pathology'. Here is an excerpt:
" As with any pathology, pacifism may be said to exhibit a characteristic
symptomology by which it can be diagnosed. Salient examples of the
complex of factors making up the pathology may be described as fol-
lows:
Pacifism is delusional. This symptom is marked by a range of indica-
tors, for example, insistence that reform or adjustment of given state
policies constitutes a “revolutionary agenda,” insistence that holding
candlelight vigils and walking down the street constitute “acts of soli-
darity” with those engaged in armed struggle, or - despite facts to the
contrary — that such things as “the nonviolent decolonization of India”
or “the antiwar movement’s forcing the Vietnam war to end” actually
occurred.
At another level — and again despite clear facts to the contrary - insist-
ing that certain tactics avoid “provoking violence” (when it is already
massive) or that by remaining nonviolent pacifism can “morally com-
pel” the state to respond in kind must be considered as deep-seated
and persistent delusions.
Finally, it must be pointed out that many supposed “deeply principled”
adherents are systematically deluding themselves that they are really
pacifists at all. This facet of the symptoms is marked by a consistent
avoidance of personal physical risk, an overweaning attitude of per-
sonal superiority vis-à-vis those who “fail” to make overt professions
of nonviolence, and sporadic lapses into rather unpacifist modes of
conduct in interpersonal contexts (as opposed to relations with the
state).
Pacifism is racist. In displacing massive state violence onto people
of color both outside and inside the mother country, rather than ab-
sorbing any real measure of it themselves (even when their physical
intervention might undercut the state’s ability to inflict violence on non-
whites), pacifists can only be viewed as being objectively racist.
Racism itself has been accurately defined as a pathology. Within
the context of pacifism, the basic strain must be considered as compli-
cated by an extremely convoluted process of victim-blaming under the
guise of “antiracism” (a matter linking back to the above-mentioned
delusional characteristics of the pathology of pacifism).
Finally, both displacement of violence and victim blaming intertwine
in their establishment of a comfort zone for whites who utilize it (per-
haps entirely subconsciously) as a basis for “prefiguring” a complex
of future “revolutionary” social relations which could serve to largely
replicate the present privileged social position of whites, vis-à-vis non-
whites, as a cultural/intellectual “elite.”
The cluster of subparts encompassed by this overall aspect of the
pacifist pathology is usually marked by a pronounced tendency on
the part of those suffering the illness to react emotionally and with
considerable defensiveness to any discussion (in some cases, mere
mention) of the nature of racist behaviors. The behavior is typically
manifested in agitated assertions - usually with no accusatory finger
having been pointed — to the effect that “I have nothing to be ashamed
of” or “I have no reason to feel guilty.” As with any pathology, this is
the proverbial telltale clue indicating s/he is subliminally aware that s/
he has much to be ashamed of and is experiencing considerable guilt
as a result. Such avoidance may, in extreme cases, merge once again with delusional characteristics of the pathology.
Pacifism is suicidal. In its core impulse to prostrate itself before the
obvious reality of the violence inherent in state power, pacifism not
only inverts Emiliano Zapata’s famous dictum that “It is better to die
on one’s feet than to live on one’s knees”; it actually posits the propo-
sition that is it best to die on one’s knees and seeks to achieve this
result as a matter of principle. Pacifist Eros is thus transmuted into
Thanatos.
While it seems certain that at least a portion of pacifism’s propensity
toward suicide is born of the earlier-mentioned delusion that it can
impel nonviolence on the part of the state (and is therefore simply er-
roneous), there is a likelihood that one of two other factors is at work
in many cases:
1. A sublimated death wish manifesting itself in a rather commonly re-
marked “gambler’s neurosis” (i.e., “Can I risk everything and win?”).
2. A desublimated death wish manifesting itself in a “political” equiva-
lent of walking out in front of a bus (“Will it hit me or not?”).
In any event, this suicidal pathology may be assumed to follow the
contours of other such impulses, centering on repressed guilt neuro-
ses and associated feelings of personal inadequacy (in all probability
linked to the above-mentioned subliminal racism) and severely compli-
cated by a delusional insistence that the death wish itself constitutes a
“pro-life” impetus. It is interesting to note that the latter claim has been
advanced relative to European Jews during the 1940s.
From even this scanty profile, it is easy enough to discern that paci-
fism - far from being a praxis adequate to impel revolutionary change
- assumes the configuration of a pathological illness when advanced
as a political methodology. Given its deep-seated, superficially self-
serving, and socially approved nature, it is likely to be an exceedingly
difficult pathology to treat and a long term barrier to the formation of
revolutionary consciousness/action in the North America. Yet it is a
barrier which must be overcome if revolutionary change is to occur,
and for this reason, we turn to the questions of the nature of the role
of nonviolent political action within a viable American transformative
praxis, as well as preliminary formulation of a therapeutic approach to
the pathology of pacifism."
-Ward Churchill, 'Pacifism as Pathology', p. 40-43.
" As with any pathology, pacifism may be said to exhibit a characteristic
symptomology by which it can be diagnosed. Salient examples of the
complex of factors making up the pathology may be described as fol-
lows:
Pacifism is delusional. This symptom is marked by a range of indica-
tors, for example, insistence that reform or adjustment of given state
policies constitutes a “revolutionary agenda,” insistence that holding
candlelight vigils and walking down the street constitute “acts of soli-
darity” with those engaged in armed struggle, or - despite facts to the
contrary — that such things as “the nonviolent decolonization of India”
or “the antiwar movement’s forcing the Vietnam war to end” actually
occurred.
At another level — and again despite clear facts to the contrary - insist-
ing that certain tactics avoid “provoking violence” (when it is already
massive) or that by remaining nonviolent pacifism can “morally com-
pel” the state to respond in kind must be considered as deep-seated
and persistent delusions.
Finally, it must be pointed out that many supposed “deeply principled”
adherents are systematically deluding themselves that they are really
pacifists at all. This facet of the symptoms is marked by a consistent
avoidance of personal physical risk, an overweaning attitude of per-
sonal superiority vis-à-vis those who “fail” to make overt professions
of nonviolence, and sporadic lapses into rather unpacifist modes of
conduct in interpersonal contexts (as opposed to relations with the
state).
Pacifism is racist. In displacing massive state violence onto people
of color both outside and inside the mother country, rather than ab-
sorbing any real measure of it themselves (even when their physical
intervention might undercut the state’s ability to inflict violence on non-
whites), pacifists can only be viewed as being objectively racist.
Racism itself has been accurately defined as a pathology. Within
the context of pacifism, the basic strain must be considered as compli-
cated by an extremely convoluted process of victim-blaming under the
guise of “antiracism” (a matter linking back to the above-mentioned
delusional characteristics of the pathology of pacifism).
Finally, both displacement of violence and victim blaming intertwine
in their establishment of a comfort zone for whites who utilize it (per-
haps entirely subconsciously) as a basis for “prefiguring” a complex
of future “revolutionary” social relations which could serve to largely
replicate the present privileged social position of whites, vis-à-vis non-
whites, as a cultural/intellectual “elite.”
The cluster of subparts encompassed by this overall aspect of the
pacifist pathology is usually marked by a pronounced tendency on
the part of those suffering the illness to react emotionally and with
considerable defensiveness to any discussion (in some cases, mere
mention) of the nature of racist behaviors. The behavior is typically
manifested in agitated assertions - usually with no accusatory finger
having been pointed — to the effect that “I have nothing to be ashamed
of” or “I have no reason to feel guilty.” As with any pathology, this is
the proverbial telltale clue indicating s/he is subliminally aware that s/
he has much to be ashamed of and is experiencing considerable guilt
as a result. Such avoidance may, in extreme cases, merge once again with delusional characteristics of the pathology.
Pacifism is suicidal. In its core impulse to prostrate itself before the
obvious reality of the violence inherent in state power, pacifism not
only inverts Emiliano Zapata’s famous dictum that “It is better to die
on one’s feet than to live on one’s knees”; it actually posits the propo-
sition that is it best to die on one’s knees and seeks to achieve this
result as a matter of principle. Pacifist Eros is thus transmuted into
Thanatos.
While it seems certain that at least a portion of pacifism’s propensity
toward suicide is born of the earlier-mentioned delusion that it can
impel nonviolence on the part of the state (and is therefore simply er-
roneous), there is a likelihood that one of two other factors is at work
in many cases:
1. A sublimated death wish manifesting itself in a rather commonly re-
marked “gambler’s neurosis” (i.e., “Can I risk everything and win?”).
2. A desublimated death wish manifesting itself in a “political” equiva-
lent of walking out in front of a bus (“Will it hit me or not?”).
In any event, this suicidal pathology may be assumed to follow the
contours of other such impulses, centering on repressed guilt neuro-
ses and associated feelings of personal inadequacy (in all probability
linked to the above-mentioned subliminal racism) and severely compli-
cated by a delusional insistence that the death wish itself constitutes a
“pro-life” impetus. It is interesting to note that the latter claim has been
advanced relative to European Jews during the 1940s.
From even this scanty profile, it is easy enough to discern that paci-
fism - far from being a praxis adequate to impel revolutionary change
- assumes the configuration of a pathological illness when advanced
as a political methodology. Given its deep-seated, superficially self-
serving, and socially approved nature, it is likely to be an exceedingly
difficult pathology to treat and a long term barrier to the formation of
revolutionary consciousness/action in the North America. Yet it is a
barrier which must be overcome if revolutionary change is to occur,
and for this reason, we turn to the questions of the nature of the role
of nonviolent political action within a viable American transformative
praxis, as well as preliminary formulation of a therapeutic approach to
the pathology of pacifism."
-Ward Churchill, 'Pacifism as Pathology', p. 40-43.