Personal Choices

After reading the articles by James, McAllister, and Kokopeli and Lakey I was left pondering the question of when do we need to move from nonviolent resistance to physical resistance? I chose here to not say "when do we move from nonviolent resistance to violent resistance" because in the situations that the authors discuss, they are talking about defending oneself through physical resistance, as a last resort. Pat James states that "Common sense as well as nonviolent principle dictate that an aggressive physical response to threat is the last choice for self-defense." After, exhausting nonviolent means of resistance, it is acceptable to physically resist an aggressor. However, James seems to somewhat discredit this argument when she goes on to give evidence for the usefulness of using physical resistance as soon as one feels that their person is being violated. James states that "The main reason for choosing physical resistance in a physical attack is that it is most likely to work. [...] The researchers report that the more quickly a woman responds with physical force, the less likely she will be raped, and that early recognition of danger is the single most important factor in preventing or deflecting an attack." In these circumstances though, I feel that the use of physical force to defend one's life is warranted. I understand that those who were part of the Civil Rights Movement and other nonviolent movements stayed passive when being brutally beaten. But that was their personal choice. Also, their nonviolent actions were part of a strategic campaign for social change. What social change can be brought be an individual who remains nonviolent while being raped in a back alley? Personally, I think that using physical force to defend one's life or the life of another, when it is sufficiently threatened, is absolutely justified. Is it nonviolent? No. But if I were being attacked or witnessed someone else being attacked, I would physically resist. What do others think? Do you think that in the case of self-defense, physical force is justified? Would you remain nonviolent even if you were being raped by an attacker?

However, the victim may not have to resort to physical force if they were to follow Pam McAllister's suggestion to "refuse the attacker's script." By refusing to show fear, the victim could potentially throw their attacker off. McAllister though goes on to endorse the notion that by clinging to nonviolent values, we can affirm our humanity. She says, "I refuse to be a victim and I refuse to endorse violence by resorting to it." While I can understand this argument in a wartime situation, I have a hard time believing that it applies to individual attacks on a person. I didn't really care for McAllister's arguments, and I am wondering what others think. Do you think that you're endorsing violence, if you use physical force as a form of self-defense?

In Bruce Kokopeli and George Lakey's article, they look more at the connection between violence and nonviolence as related to masculinity and femininity. They say that "The ultimate proof of power/masculinity is violence." They go on to discuss how homosexual men face the same oppression as women, in a patriarchal society. I at first thought they were going to go on to advocate for a more feminine society. However, they are rather intelligent for articulating the need for a society that blends both masculine and feminine characteristics. This article leads me to question how accessible nonviolent resistance is to men, in our patriarchal society. If a man backs down from a fight he's usually called a "wimp" or a "sissy." However, no one seemed to call Martin Luther King, Jr. or Gandhi a wimp. I think that men acting nonviolently is acceptable when its understood that they are part of a group and acting for some kind of social change. At the individual level though, a man acting nonviolently out of principle is socially unacceptable. Do you think that individual men can act nonviolent on principle in the present society? What do you think would have to change for men to act nonviolently, in all social situations, without being seen as a "wimp" or even worse, a girl?