A 'Normal' Disgrace:Tolerance Threshold Expansion

[RascalPuff]

MILBANK MEMORIAL FUND

Preventing Violence Against
Women and Children


Ronald B. Taylor
January 1998

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Introduction

Domestic violence is a deadly crime, a social menace, and a costly public health problem. Most of the victims are women and children.
Community leaders and legislators continue to search for workable––and affordable––policies to curb the violence and heal the wounds.

Domestic violence can explode anywhere, anytime, and within any economic class. In Los Angeles, for example, a doctor was arrested, in September, 1995, after shooting and killing his ex-wife in a crowded courthouse hallway as the couple's young daughter watched in horror. He had previously been arrested for battering his wife, and, after the divorce, had violated court orders to stay away from her. Weeks before her death, this frightened, battered woman had reported that her ex-husband was still harassing her. According to the Los Angeles Times, she told the court, "I cannot free myself from his attempts to dominate and control my life."

Domestic violence can take the form of threats, verbal abuse, battering, rape, and murder. It is an escalating pattern of coercive behavior that includes physical, sexual, and psychological assaults against a current or former intimate partner or against children.

Researchers Evan Stark and Anne H. Flitcraft, co-directors of the University of Connecticut Health Care Center's Domestic Violence Training Project, have concluded that domestic violence may be the single most common cause of injury among women seeking medical attention, surpassing auto accidents, muggings, and rape combined. Their studies show that 40 percent of the women seeking medical attention are, or have been, victims of such violence. They estimate that from 20 to 25 percent of the women in the United States––more than 12 million––are at risk of being abused by an intimate male partner. As many as 4 million women are battered each year in this country; nearly three thousand are killed.

Child abuse and domestic violence are closely linked. Clinical studies show that men who batter women frequently abuse their children. Some battered women neglect their children, fail to protect them, abuse, and even kill them.


The statistics are grim: two thousand children die in outbursts of family violence each year; 140,000 are injured physically and emotionally. In at least half of these cases there is evidence of both child abuse and domestic violence. Child abuse and woman battering have often been (and in many areas continue to be) addressed as separate issues. Although child abuse laws predate domestic violence legislation by decades, the term "domestic violence" as it is applied by the law and by battered women's advocates tends to obscure its impact on children.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Violence Against Women and Children: A Perspective

The damage to the victims of domestic violence is staggering. The financial burdens, public and private, run into the billions of dollars; they include the costs of law enforcement, health care, and social services, plus the loss of jobs, wages, and productivity. In 1994 the American Medical Association estimated that the costs of domestic violence exceed $45 billion annually. In 1996 the National Institute of Justice, using a different methodology, estimated that domestic violence costs well over $100 billion a year: $67 billion is incurred because of domestic violence against adults; $32 billion results from the effects of child abuse; and the remainder of the money goes to law enforcement and the criminal justice system.

Domestic violence is deeply rooted in our culture. Once sanctioned by religion and codified by English common law, wife-battering and corporal punishment were considered a legitimate exercise of a man's power over his woman and his children. Although laws in the United States no longer allow a husband to beat his wife and children, too often domestic violence is still considered a private affair. This attitude has changed somewhat in recent years. Laws have been instituted to criminalize brutal behavior and to improve the safety of women and children. Old attitudes, however, are hard to bury.

Public efforts to protect children began more than a century ago, long before there was a battered women's movement to push for domestic violence reforms. Until the middle of this century, however, child welfare activists were primarily concerned about exploitative child labor, juvenile crime, and issues involving widows and orphans. Child abuse within the family did not become a major concern until the 1960s.

By the early 1970s, battered women and their allies joined in grass-roots efforts to expose and combat the effects of domestic violence, mainly as it affected women. Community by community, they developed a patchwork of shelters and advocacy programs to intervene in and prevent domestic violence. State coalitions and task forces formed; national resource and technical support centers provided services and training; and legislators passed laws making domestic violence a crime and adopted policies to offer battered women and their children some protection and help.

Child welfare workers and battered women's advocates often disagree about how to tackle the issue of family violence. Their philosophies diverge, their professional terminologies are different, they do not seek the same outcomes, and they compete for funding and recognition. There is, however, a growing awareness that child abuse and domestic violence are connected, and many advocates are now trying to overcome their rivalries and cooperate with each other.

Domestic violence, then, is a complex issue that crosses cultural, economic, and political boundaries. It can involve alcohol and drug abuse, juvenile delinquency, adult criminal conduct, poverty, and homelessness.

"We have made a start [and] are beginning to establish domestic violence as a community issue," said Anne Menard, director of the National Resource Center on Domestic Violence. "But there is much, much more to be done," she continued. It is not enough to pass laws that mandate reporting domestic violence and arresting batterers or that make criminal sentences tougher. Experts urge building strong, protective support systems for the victims and mandatory treatment for batterers.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Violence Against Women and Children: Impacts and Reactions

Many women, victims of domestic violence, live in fear of pain and death. They are isolated, often lacking in self-esteem. They tend to blame themselves for what is happening and they try to explain away the bruises and broken bones. They may suffer depression and anxiety; some turn to drugs or alcohol and attempt suicide. A surprising number of them prove to be survivors; they develop strategies to endure and to protect themselves and their children. However, without help, escape is terrifyingly difficult. Few can simply walk away. Even if they flee, they may be stalked, harassed, or killed.

The traumatic impact of domestic violence on children is well documented. Rich or poor, these are children at risk. Most survive (often at great physical and emotional cost), others do poorly in school, drop out, or run away. Some turn to violent crime, some find marginal jobs, and others may even have successful careers. They have children and repeat the violent cycle: abused boys and girls who become abusive parents.

Long-range studies of school children show that youngsters from violent homes are twice as likely to commit brutal acts as children growing up in nonviolent homes; victims of child abuse and/or neglect are far more apt to become violent teenagers; the highest rates of youth violence and criminal conduct occur where there is both spouse abuse and child abuse.

These studies show an alarming connection between family violence and violent juvenile behavior. Violence of all kinds is on the increase. U. S. Justice Department reports show that the number of juveniles charged with violent crimes is up sharply; te en murder rates have more than doubled in two decades; the suicide rate has doubled.

While their numbers may be relatively small, the most violent of these youngsters display shocking behavior. The damage they do is horrendous. The cost of apprehending and incarcerating these violent young criminals runs into the billions of dollars.

To be continued:

[RascalPuff]

New York Times reporter Fox Butterfield, in his book, All God's Children, gives examples of these costs. Nearly 100,000 youngsters were incarcerated in the United States in 1995, which represents a tripling of the numbers in two decades. The chronic juvenile offenders often end up in adult prisons. The cost of running the nation's adult prisons (including parole and probation) totaled $50 billion, up from just $4 billion in 1975. These figures do not include the billions spent on police work.

Butterfield traces the costly origins of violence by looking closely at a single case, that of convicted murderer Willie Bosket, considered the most violent criminal in the New York penal system where it costs $75,000 a year to jail a juvenile. Bosket has a quick mind but lacks empathy or conscience. He bragged about committing scores of robberies and stabbings before he shot and killed two Manhattan subway riders in separate 1978 crimes. He was 15 at the time, a violent, abused, and neglected child who had been in and out of foster care and juvenile lockups.

"The seeds of Willie's problems were planted early," writes Butterfield. When Bosket was born his father was in prison for murder. His mother lived in Brooklyn with men who beat her and the boy. She neglected him, beat him. In Butterfield's words, Willie began the "long journey into a kind of social void" at an early age. In public school, he threw tantrums, hit teachers, fought other kids, skipped class, and ran the streets robbing and, finally, killing.

"Children who are beaten learn to treat others the same way, using aggression to get what they want," Butterfield concludes. In other words, they are conditioned to react violently.

The Willie Bosket case is an extreme example of how a violent personality was formed and at what cost.

Recent studies of brain development and function reveal that the impact of parenting on emotional competence and stability starts very early. Children who are cared for and loved learn self-worth, empathy, and self-control.

"The emotional lessons we learn as children at home and at school shape the emotional circuits," writes psychologist and New York Times reporter Daniel Goleman in the best-selling book Emotional Intelligence. This means that childhood and adolescence are critical times in shaping the powerful emotions that govern our lives. A chaotic, brutal family environment can be a school for violent, deviant behavior.

Domestic violence can be found anywhere: the inner city, suburbia, rural areas. Reactions to it are most often crisis oriented: a 911 call to police, a bloody victim rushed to the hospital. If there are children in the home and they are uninjured, police take them to a juvenile hall or an emergency shelter and report the case to child welfare workers. If the children are in danger, they may be placed in foster care.

If charges are filed against the batterer, he is booked and sometimes jailed briefly. The woman's wounds are treated and, when she is released from the hospital, she may find temporary safety in a crisis shelter. In many communities little else is done to change the dynamics of violence. Eventually the woman and her children may go home or they may move to a safer place. Even when the courts order the batterer to stay away, a woman may be attacked again.

Take Nicole Brown Simpson, for example. Los Angeles police responded to her frantic 911 calls several times before they charged O.J. Simpson with wife battering in 1989. The couple divorced, but witnesses later testified that the battering did not stop. In June 1994 she and a friend were killed and murder charges were filed against Simpson. Although he was acquitted, the case focused the nation's attention on domestic violence.

In the aftermath of this double murder, domestic violence became a hot-button issue in 1995. The media discovered domestic violence. Stories appeared in newspapers, on television. Sports Illustrated (July 31, 1995) pointed out that Simpson was not the only sports figure headlined in domestic violence scandals. In a special report headlined "Sports' Dirty Secret," the magazine commented: "When scarcely a week passes without an athlete being accused of domestic violence, it is no longer possible to look the other way."

Thirty states passed 140 domestic violence laws; 100 had been passed the year before. Alabama, for instance, appropriated money for the Coalition Against Domestic Violence; New Mexico funded a new Domestic Violence Court. In California a legislature that had previously budgeted $1.5 million a year for domestic violence programs came up with $22 million––spread over two budget years––and passed a flurry of new laws.

Notorious cases attract public attention and the reactions almost always focus on the justice system, with a cry for tougher laws and harsher sentences. Lost in the uproar over crime and punishment are other equally important issues. Little attention is paid either to the causes and effects of domestic violence or to the shortcomings of health care and social service systems that struggle to help the victims and stop the violence.

Physicians and nurses are often the first to see the results of domestic violence. But their response has been to treat the bloody wounds without recognizing and responding to the underlying causes. That is beginning to change as more hospitals develop protocols and professional schools develop curricula to train students to recognize and respond to domestic violence.

As more people become aware of the problem, unexpected issues arise. For instance, some insurance companies are (or were) denying battered women health, life, and even homeowner insurance coverage. The risks are too high, these carriers explained. Even women who escape to a new life cannot always get insurance because their history of being battered is in their medical records.

Half of the 16 large insurance carriers surveyed by Representative Charles E. Schumer (D-New York) in 1994 admitted denying coverage when a woman had a history of being battered. He has introduced a bill to outlaw such discrimination, as have Representative Susan Molinari (R-New York) and Representative Bernie Sanders (I-Vermont).

A spokesman for a large carrier denied that it had ever automatically denied coverage to victims of domestic violence. The company agrees that corrective legislation is needed to ensure that women are not denied coverage because they are, or have been, victims of domestic violence. It also supports legislation to ensure that insurance benefits are not paid to the abuser who causes injury or death.

Another insurance company acknowledged that it had denied coverage in the past but has since reversed that policy. This carrier supports legislation that prohibits insurers from denying coverage to a person because of a history of being victimized by domestic violence, and it has taken the lead in founding the Corporate Alliance to End Partner Violence, an industry group to promote public awareness and prevention programs.

Trade groups like the American Council of Life Insurance (ACLI) and the Health Insurance Association of America (HIAA) agree that some limited regulation is needed to ensure that victims of domestic violence are not excluded from coverage. The ACLI would support state legislation but opposes any attempt to impose federal regulations. The HIAA would support regulation to prohibit denial of coverage for medical expenses but would not support requiring coverage for disability or long-term care coverage.

The National Association of Insurance Commissioners, representing state insurance regulators, has drafted model state legislation to outlaw such discrimination. The NAIC reports that six states––Connecticut, Massachusetts, Delaware, Florida, Iowa, and California––have passed antidiscrimination laws and that 14 others are considering similar action. - Ibid

Post Script
The noteworthy 'normalisation' and frequent denial of this national disgrace is evident in many of the unsettling responses to the post at http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=56821

WAG THE POODLE

[RascalPuff]

AS early as 1842 Spencer indicated what he conceived to be certain general principles of right and wrong in political conduct, and from that time onwards his ultimate purpose was to find a scientific basis for the principles of right and wrong in conduct at large. He felt this to be an undertaking of pressing urgency, and this purpose was carried into effect with the Principles of Ethics, the first part of which was published in 1879 under the title of The Data of Ethics, and the concluding parts in 1893, the entire work having thus occupied Spencer's attention for a period of fifty years.

[THE EVOLUTION OF CONDUCT - HERBERT SPENCER - FROM 'PRINCIPLES OF ETHICS']

WHAT constitutes advance in the evolution of conduct as we trace it up from the lowest types of living creatures to the highest? It is the more numerous and better adjustment of acts to ends; for this not only furthers prolongation of life, but it also furthers increased amount of life. We must also recognize those adjustments which have for their final purpose the life of the species. It is an error to suppose, however, that either of these kinds of conduct can assume its highest form without its highest form being assumed by a third kind of conduct yet to be named. For beyond so behaving that each achieves his end without preventing others from achieving their ends, the members of a society may give mutual help in the achievement of ends, and thus their conduct may assume a yet higher phase of evolution.

The conduct to which we apply the name 'good' is the relatively more evolved conduct, and 'bad' is the name we apply to conduct which is relatively less evolved. We regard as good the conduct furthering self-preservation, and as bad the conduct tending to self-destruction. Parental conduct is called good or bad as it increases or decreases the power of perpetuating the species by fostering progeny. And the form of conduct is most emphatically termed good which is such that life may be completed in each and in his offspring, not only without preventing completion of it in others, but with furtherance of it in others. Conduct called good rises to the conduct conceived as best when it simultaneously achieves the greatest totality of life in self, in offspring and in fellow-men.

Analysis of the standards of the different moral schools shows that every one of them, whether perfection of nature is the assigned proper end of life, or virtuousness of action, or rectitude of motive, derives its authority from this postulate as its ultimate standard, that life is good or bad according as it does or does not bring a surplus of agreeable feeling. The implication common to their antagonist views is that conduct should conduce to preservation of the individual, of the family and of the society, only supposing that life brings more happiness than misery.

Let us consider them separately.

Perfection is synonymous with goodness in its highest degree, and hence to define good conduct in terms of perfection is to define good conduct in terms of itself.

Pass we now to the views of those moralists who make virtuousness of action the standard. If virtue is primordial and independent, no reason can be given why there should be any correspondence between virtuous conduct and conduct that is pleasure-giving in its total effects on self, on others, or on both; and if there is not a necessary correspondence, it is conceivable that the conduct classed as virtuous should be pain-giving in its total effects. Which is impossible; for examination will show that the conception of virtue cannot be separated from the conception of happiness-producing conduct.

[HAPPINESS AND BLESSEDNESS]



IT is curious to see how views of life and conduct which originated with those who propitiated deified ancestors by self-tortures enter even still into the ethical theories of many persons who have years since cast away the theology of the past, and suppose themselves to be no longer influenced by it.

In the writings of one who rejects dogmatic Christianity together with the Hebrew cult which preceded it, a career of conquest costing tens of thousands of lives is narrated with a sympathy comparable to the rejoicing which the Hebrew traditions show us over destruction of enemies in the name of God. Along with the worship of the strong man, along with this yearning for a form of society in which the supremacy of the few is unrestrained, and the virtue of the many consists in obedience to them, we naturally find repudiation of the ethical theory which takes the greatest happiness as the end of conduct.

We not unnaturally find this utilitarian philosophy designated by the contemptuous title of 'pig-philosophy.' And then, serving to show what comprehension there has been of the philosophy so nicknamed, we are told that not happiness but blessedness must be the end. Obviously, the implication is that blessedness is not a kind of happiness. And this implication at once suggests the question--What mode of feeling is it? If it is a state of consciousness at all, it is necessarily one of three states--painful, indifferent, or pleasurable. Does it leave the possessor at the zero point of sentiency? Then it leaves him just as he would be if he had not got it. Does it not leave him at zero point? Then it must leave him above zero or below zero.

Each of these possibilities may be conceived under two forms. That to which the term 'blessedness' is applied may be a particular state of consciousness--one among the many states that occur, and on this supposition we have to recognize it as a pleasurable state, an indifferent state, or a painful state. Otherwise blessedness is a word not applicable to a particular state of consciousness, but characterises the aggregate of its states; and in this case the average of the aggregate is to be conceived as one in which the pleasurable predominates, or one in which the painful predominates, or one in which pleasures and pains exactly cancel one another.

What, now, shall we say of one who is for the time being blessed in performing a work of mercy? Is his mental state pleasurable? If so, blessedness is a particular form of happiness. Is the state indifferent or painful? In that case the blessed man is so devoid of sympathy that relieving another from pain either leaves him wholly unmoved, or gives him an unpleasant emotion. So that if blessedness is a particular mode of consciousness temporarily existing as a concomitant of each kind of beneficent action, those who deny that it is a pleasure, or constituent of happiness, confess themselves either not pleased by the welfare of others, or displeased by it.

Otherwise understood, blessedness must refer to the totality of feelings experienced during the life of one who occupies himself with the actions the word connotes. This also presents the three possibilities--surplus of pleasure, surplus of pains, equality of the two. If the pleasurable states are in excess, then the blessed life can be distinguished from any other pleasurable life only by the relative amount or the quality of its pleasures; it is a life which makes happiness of a certain kind and degree its end; and the assumption that blessedness is not a form of happiness lapses. If the blessed life is one in which the pleasures and pains received balance one another, or if it is one in which the pleasures are outbalanced by the pains, then the blessed life has the character which the pessimist alleges of life at large. Annihilation is best, he will argue; since if an average that is indifferent is the outcome of the blessed life, annihilation at once achieves it. And if a surplus of suffering is the outcome of this highest kind of life called blessed, still more should life in general be ended.

In conclusion, we may say that no school can avoid taking for the ultimate moral aim a desirable state of feeling called by whatever name--gratification, enjoyment, happiness. Pleasure somewhere, at some time, to some being or beings, is an inexpugnable element of the conception.

[RascalPuff]

Creating a Non-Violent World—Is It Really Possible?

Introduction—Confronting the Ideological Beast

America is desperately searching for heroes! If this were not true we would not see the incredible success of blockbuster action movies featuring mostly males with superhuman powers who fight for the underdogs by battling greed, injustice, and corruption of power. We have all seen time and again, story after story, encounters between the forces of good and the forces of evil; and we are constantly being challenged to take a side and fight. The emphasis of popular culture in mass media is a perpetuation of violence as the primary solution to the problem of enforcing the American Dream—“The Myth” (Hedges); like Superman fighting for “truth, justice, and the American way of life.” This portrayal of violence as a necessary judicial tool works inevitably to subjugate the most vulnerable people of our planet, namely women and children. It accomplishes this by portraying unrealistic ideologies and distorting and exaggerating differences among race, class, gender, age, sexuality, and especially religion. The media uses images that “shock and awe” our sensibilities—causing us to constantly react—deflecting our attention away from resistance and away from collective empowerment. “One of the most obvious signs of widespread acceptance of violence is the amount of it that routinely appears in media.” (Wood 314) Violence has become a pervasive part of our reality causing us to react with fear—a state in which we can be easily controlled and manipulated.


The media is a multinational enterprise—an “Eminent Domain”—which is the luxury of a privileged few who influence our popular culture and control the mechanism through which the mythologies of popular culture are transfixed. Its primary existence serves to preserve their control of global socio-economics in posterity by bombarding us with so much violence that we scarcely have time to be aware of the fact that we are being manipulated. However, there are those subtle geniuses who emerge from the frontlines and through personal experience have concluded that the status quo is a never ending merry-go-round leading to the annihilation of both sides. In other words, they have come to realize that hero fixation is a sickness that symbiotically—Ying Yang, 69—enforces victimization. These geniuses work behind the scenes influencing the media content, often changing its’ focus or challenging accepted norms. Although there are many people who are actively participating in efforts to transform the socio-economic landscape on many different fronts whether through academia, media, or politics, the most effective means to communicate ideas is through writing.


Ideological Framework—the Root of All Evil?

In this class on gendered communication, one such genius we have been privileged to become acquainted with Julia Wood’s book Gendered Lives—Communication, Gender, and Culture, and her efforts to educate us about gender issues. Another such genius is Chris Hedges who has written a controversial book called War Is a Force That Gives Us Meaning.

Julia Wood, in her book, indicts every human being when she says that “Cultural acceptance of gendered violence is supported— subtly and overtly, deliberately and inadvertently — by a number of social practices and institutions.” (Wood 319)
Wood seems to be suggesting that we all participate consciously or unconsciously in social systems that reinforce cultural acceptance of violence.


In his book, Hedges argues that the realization of the American Dream has been tied enigmatically to violent conflict since its inception. America is in the grips of a “plague of nationalism” (Hedges 43) wherein “we abandon individual responsibility for a shared, unquestioned communal enterprise, however morally dubious.” (Hedges 45) This “plague” will lead to the “destruction of many cultures” and perhaps even our nations own “self destruction.” Chris Hedges tells us that he…
“…wrote this book not to dissuade us from war but to understand it. It is especially important that we, who wield such massive force across the globe, see within ourselves the seed of our own obliteration. We must guard against the myth of war and the drug of war that can, together, render us as blind and callous as some of those we battle.” (Hedges 17)


Hedges book is an indictment that charges the reader to talk openly about our country’s violent nature and it’s fascination with war, and not to remain silent accomplices. Hedges also challenges the media to wake up and not be so “eager to be of service to the state during war…Such docility on the part of the press” makes “it easier to do what governments do in wartime, indeed what governments do much of the time, and that is lie.” (Hedges 23)

According to Hedges, “the only antidote to ward off self-destruction and the indiscriminate use of force is humility, and ultimately, compassion.” (Hedges 17) Julia Wood would say
“I believe that change on how we view and enact gender is needed and possible and that the knowledge in this book can empower individuals to change their personal lives and our shared world.” (Wood

I would like to say that “repentance” is the most efficient way of taking individual responsibility and turning the national tide.

Repentance—A Critical Intervention in Reality

The idea of repentance is something that I first encountered when I was a child. My parents taught me the concept as part of living the Christian way of life. If I committed a wrong against another human being or sometimes even my own body, I would need to repent from my sin through confession; and sometimes, I would even get punished. From my studies of the bible I got mixed messages of war and peace. My perceptions of right and wrong were often distorted by reading passages that talked about the conquering Israelites killing all the women and children because the men of their ethnic clan were considered unclean and unworthy of inhabiting their promised land. Punishment and retribution were taught alongside mercy and compassion. What kind of lessons are these passages from the bible communicating to believers? What kind of lessons were my parents communicating to me when they spanked me as a child? That punishment in and of itself was an act of violence by an adult perpetrated on a child—indeed by my very own parent! “One of the most important institutions shaping cultural consciousness, including perspectives on violence, is the family (Noddings, 2002)” (Wood 316) Reading Hedges’ book inspired me to question the origins of violence in the world and how to go about the arduous task of creating a non-violent world. Is this really possible? Even Hedges himself has his doubts. “Force is and I suspect always will be part of the human condition.” (Hedges 16) What I have discovered from my quest into this subject is that everything is possible if we speak and care about it. We need to wake up to the reality of personal power and collective action. Our fundamental global ideology needs to change from a focus on me to a focus on us.

The United States of America is certainly not the first or only nation in the world to engage in violent conflicts. Indeed, throughout recorded history, mankind has been engaged in violent conflicts. “The historian Will Durant calculated that there have only been twenty-nine years in all of human history during which a war was not underway somewhere.” (Hedges 10) And yet, who does not dream of a utopian world. I tried to imagine what the world would be like if all mankind were restored in all its divinity, if all people were getting what they needed, instead of taking what they wanted—everyone would be loved and nurtured. Violence would not exist. Famine would not exist. *Death (*'the ideal enemy of fear' - RP Kaidu) would slowly cease to exist until we re-evolved back into our created state of being—magnificent eternal creative beings who control time and space, who inhabit the universe with unlimited creative expression, forever and ever. This reality is in a realm that exists beyond the symbiotic conflict of the forces of good and evil—“The Myth.” This is how I envision the future of humanity. However, with so much violence, chaos, and fear in the world today, how can I make a difference? I am only one person! What can I do when it seems that the majority of the world’s inhabitants are hero-fixated; literally transfixed in idolatry and retribution—each person being forced into rugged individualism—forced into a system of winners and losers? We are talking about a massive beast of a system where the Religions of the world collude with the Governments and Rulers of the earth in an attempt to exercise control over the masses and preserve their positions of power—their money, property, and prestige; by creating, disseminating, and enforcing “The Myth.”

To be continued:

[RascalPuff]

Where do we begin to unravel the deadly web of violence our world has inherited in the wake of this collusion? How do we effectively and non-violently persuade others to abandon the violence that has consumed their entire existence—this never ending battle between good and evil? Many of our world leaders have come together to create a standard for human rights that all nations and people of the world could embrace as a means to establish world peace—through the adoption and enforcement of laws that support the Universal Declaration of Human Rights of the United Nations; and yet this declaration has not been universally accepted by all the nations of the world. (http://www.un.org/Overview/rights.html) Violence continues to reign supreme! Repentance to me now means something entirely different. Repentance must be a literal re-thinking of the reality in which I must operate. The old code of “an eye for an eye” has proven to reinforce violence and a new strategy for dealing with conflict is needed.

Embracing Non Violence—Altering Communication

Marshall Rosenberg PhD is the director and founder of The Center for Non-Violent Communication and also a clinical psychologist who spent his early years working…
“…with youths at reform schools. The experience led him to conclude that, rather than help people to be more compassionate, clinical psychology actually contributed to the conditions that cause violence, because it categorized people and thus distanced them from each other; doctors were trained to see the diagnosis; not the person. He decided that violence did not arise from pathology, as psychology taught, but from the ways in which we communicate.” (Killian 5)

In the biographic introduction to an interview with Mr. Rosenberg that appeared in The Sun, February 2003, interviewer and writer D. Killian informs us that Rosenberg’s initial revelation that eventually led to developing his method of non-violent communication (NVC) and the formation of his international non-profit organization. Rosenberg believes that compassion is…
“…a natural human trait. Our survival as a species depends on our ability to recognize that our well-being and the well-being of others are, in fact, one and the same. The problem is that we are taught behaviors that disconnect us from this natural awareness. It’s not that we have to learn how to be compassionate; we have to unlearn what we’ve been taught and get back to compassion.” (Killian 5)
Essentially the main thrust of non-violent communication is to “restore a state in which people care about one another’s well being.” (Killian 6)

This is accomplished by a facilitated process through which both sides, at first, are encouraged to speak candidly about what they want the other side to understand. Both sides are also encouraged to practice active listening skills; paraphrasing and repeating what the other side says. The next step is to get both sides to talk about what they feel in response to what the other side said. Usually this leads to empathy, and the realization that both sides feel the same things. Once compassion is established then the discussion is directed at what each side needs to restore the peace. (Killian 7) Rosenberg has worked with people in conflict all over the world. His efforts have taken him to Israel, Palestine, Columbia, Brazil, Slovenia, Argentina, Poland, Africa, as well as the United States; “examples of countries where Nonviolent Communication is being utilized by teams of peace activists.” (CNVC.ORG Rosenberg Bibliography) Rosenberg’s method of communication works at all levels of human experience, from interpersonal relationships to world affairs.
“Central to NVC is that all moralistic judgments, whether positive or negative, are tragic expressions of needs. Criticism, analysis, and insults are tragic expressions of unmet needs. Compliments and praise, for their part, are tragic expressions of fulfilled needs. So why do we get caught up in this dead, violence-provoking language? Why not learn how to live at the level where life is really going on? NVC is not looking at the world through rose-colored glasses. We come closer to the truth when we connect with what’s alive in people than when we just listen to what they think.” (Killian

I know many people can see the value in this type of communication when resolving conflicts between individuals, but how do we expect world leaders to talk when they are discussing, for example, the actions of George W. Bush? Rosenberg’s answer to a question similar to this was:
“Somebody reasonably proficient in NVC might say, “I am scared to death when I see what Bush is doing in an attempt to protect us. I don’t feel any safer.” And then somebody who disagrees might say, “Well, I share your desire for safety, but I’m scared of doing nothing.” Already we’re not just talking about George Bush, but about the feelings that are alive in both of us…coming closer to thinking about solutions…because we’ve acknowledged that we both have the same needs. It’s only at the level of strategy that we disagree…When our consciousness is focused on what’s alive in us, we never see an alien being in front of us.”(Killian
D. Killian, the interviewer for the article on Marshall Rosenberg, brought up a really good point in response to Rosenberg’s arguments. Killian asked,
“In the US right now, there are some people who would have a lot of trouble hearing this. During a memorial for September 11, I heard a policeman say all he wanted was payback.”(Killian

Rosenberg responded to this by saying,
“One rule of our training is: empathy before education. I wouldn’t expect someone who’s been injured to hear what I’m saying until they felt that I had fully understood the depth of their pain. Once they felt empathy from me, then I would introduce my fear that our plan to exact retribution isn’t going to make us safer.”(Killian
From what I have read in this extremely in-depth and candid interview, Rosenberg gives many amazing examples of his work with conflict situations and cites data from various studies and research being published by philosophers, psychologists and sociologists. During the interview, Rosenberg and Killian discuss the meaning of the term “domination culture”, which apparently is a term Rosenberg borrowed from Walter Wink who wrote a book called Engaging the Powers That Be. Essentially, Wink’s concept…
“... Is that we are living under structures in which the few dominate the many. Look at how families are structured here in the United States: the parents claim always to know what’s right and set the rules for everybody else’s benefit. Look at our schools. Look at our workplaces. Look at our government, our religions. At all levels, you have authorities who impose their will on other people, claiming that it’s for everybody’s well-being. They use punishment and reward as the basic strategy for getting what they want. That’s what I mean by domination culture.”(Killian


This “domination culture” is what I was talking about in my opening paragraph about the “Eminent domain” being “the luxury of a privileged few.” In exploring the example of mainline religions, the “myth” that they have established is that man is basically evil and requires salvation. The media colludes by reinforcing these values, beliefs, customs and traditions. By following the rules established by God for mankind’s well-being being, mankind will be rewarded with eternal life in heaven, if he does not, he will suffer the torments of hell or the grave. Corporations reap millions in profits as people consume to conform. Horrible and extreme acts of violence been committed in the name of religion due to such a complete surrender of man’s own will to his God. Even the language that I am using to describe this ideology is gendered and reflective of the power structure.

The oppressed people of the world are the innocent victims of this socio-economic beast that has religious ideology riding on its back—The Babylon American Dream Machine. However, today many more people are embracing non-violent communication methods—even changing their vocabulary—and embracing new ways of looking at human social relationships that ultimately recognize human needs and validate our basic human trait of compassion—a complete acceptance of all people—regardless of their age, race, class, or gender. “There is a great deal that each of us can do to lessen gendered violence. The most basic, personal choice is to decide that you will not engage in or tolerate violence in your relationships.” (Wood 320)

To be continued:

[RascalPuff]

According to Rosenberg,
“Social psychologist Milton Rokeach did some research on religious practitioners in the seven major religions. He looked at people who very seriously followed their religion and compared them to people in the same population who had no religious orientation at all. He wanted to find out which group was more compassionate. The results were the same in all major religions: the nonreligious were more compassionate. Rokeach warned readers to be careful how they interpreted his research, however, because within each religious group, where two radically different populations: a mainstream group and a mystical minority. If you looked at just the mystical group, you found that they were more compassionate than the general population…the mystical minority see compassion and empathy as part of human nature. ‘We are this divine energy,’ they say. It’s not something we have to attain. We just have to realize it, be present to it. Unfortunately, such believers are in the minority and are often persecuted by fundamentalists within their own religions…Rokeach calls the judgmental group the Salvationists. For them, the goal is to be rewarded by going to heaven. So you try to follow your religion’s teachings not because you’ve internalized an awareness of your own divinity and relate to others in a compassionate way, but because these things are “right” and if you do them, you’ll be rewarded, and if you don’t you’ll be punished.”(Killian 9)

Apparently Rosenberg is attempting to help us understand the difference between the efforts of those who use negative inducements to accomplish changes while others use attractive inducements to accomplish changes. The difference seems clear to me. Each has a different ideological basis to accomplishing change. One uses force or the threat of force while the other uses acceptance, compassion, and understanding. Essentially, Rosenberg contends that by learning how to communicate in a non-violent manner, one actually facilitates peace!

Personal Transformation—Collective Transformation

There is one final thing I want to discuss, although I am trying to keep this paper down to a manageable size, I am feeling that there is so much that can be said about creating a non-violent world. Perhaps I have indeed bitten off a huge topic but I do wish to do it justice. The big question after considering Rosenberg, Hedges, and Wood on this journey of discovery into creating a non-violent world surprisingly, I have found some amazing connections in the Eros and Thanatos chapter of Chris Hedges book that support one of the primary means at our disposal to accomplish our task. Wood calls it “being an effective change agent,” (Wood 10) Rosenberg called it “connecting to what is alive in all of us,” (Killian 7) Hedges calls it “love,” I call it the most powerful exercise of our free will—loving others as we want to be loved—taking a proactive approach to communicating the fact that we care about the well being of every living being.

“Love, when it is deep and sustained by two individuals, includes self-giving—often self sacrifice—as well as desire. For the covenant of love is such that it recognizes both the fragility and the sanctity of the individual. It recognizes itself in the other. It alone can save us.” (Hedges 161)

Before one can build a world consensus, individuals must first come to the realization that a future non-violent reality is possible. As each new individual comes to the realization, he/she joins with other individuals who come to the same realization and consensus begins to build. However, there are so many obstacles to overcome; the largest of these is the desire by some individuals to advocate violence as a means to accomplish their goals. In the Eros and Thanatos chapter, Hedges points out that Freud believed that Love and Death (Eros and Thanatos in English) were “forces…in eternal conflict. He was pessimistic about ever eradicating war. All human history, he argued, is a tug-of-war between these two instincts.”(Hedges 15 For many years this man—Freud—influenced popular thinking. Since then men like Hedges, Rosenberg—women like Wood—are attempting to redefine our point of view and look toward reconciliation of the sexes and collective empowerment as a means to end violence. I wish to bring into the discussion the ideas of another great man, Paolo Freire, whose ideas have and are challenging the status quo. Even though it seems the whole world is fascinated by this conflict of Love and Death, they point us in the right direction, each in their own way. What can we do to break up this symbiotic and destructive relationship?

Well, Hedges indicted us with a passionate plea to examine war, the ultimate form of miscommunication, in all its apparent intricacies—warning us about its seductive and addictive qualities. He demonstrated that many, many people voluntarily give up their free will to indulge in patriotism, nationalism, and to fight the wars oblivious to the suffering their actions are bringing to bear on the innocent victims. We are deceived by the myth through systematic deception and propaganda designed to conform us into the “us and them” mentality. We are driven by fear of chaos and violence. And in defending our nation and our way of life we are actually oppressing the people who are becoming our enemies; we are the ones to blame for the hatred directed at our nation.

“As long as we think abstractly, as long as we find in patriotism and the exuberance of war our fulfillment, we will never understand those who do battle against us, or how we are perceived by them, or finally those who do battle for us and how we should respond to it all. We will never discover who we are. We will fail to confront the capacity we all have for violence. And we will court our own extermination. By accepting the facile cliché that the battle under way against terrorism is a battle against evil, by easily branding those who fight us as the barbarians, we, like them, refuse to acknowledge our own culpability. We ignore real injustices that have led many of those arrayed against us to their rage and despair.” (Hedges 180)

Chris Hedges is like the prophets of the ancient Hebrew Scriptures who came to call the world to repentance. Rosenberg, on the other hand, is attempting to show us that the problem lies in the way we communicate; that we can facilitate peace by learning to communicate in a non-violent way. But, the ideas of Paolo Freire, are truly revolutionary, and governments who have embraced his concepts have not only seen huge increases in literacy rates, but have also seen their citizens become more empowered politically and able to take a more proactive approach to facilitating peace in their communities. (http://www.nl.edu/ace/Resources/Freire.html) Freire’s ideas are based on neo-Marxist ideologies around personal and collective empowerment.

When I took my first writing class a couple of years ago, I was introduced to an author named Paulo Freire who wrote a book called Pedagogy of the Oppressed. In his book the reader is asked to consider the foundations of education and learning. Freire, in chapter two of this book, wants us to understand that humanity has been enslaved by a misguided and oppressive system of education that deprives students of creativity reduces their potential for personal transformation, and leaves them feeling depreciated and unfulfilled. (Freire 27) Freire call this the Banking Concept of Education. This concept has prevented us from realizing our innate potential and has robbed us of our free will. We have become docile, “well-behaved” citizens that more closely resemble sheep; we can be easily controlled and manipulated. In that writing class, we were given an essay written by Freire regarding this concept. Our assignment was to read the essay and then write a paper discussing our reactions to his ideas. His ideas profoundly influenced me to engage in a critical evaluation of myself and it is now my belief that before anyone can engage in truly facilitating peace they must first undergo a “critical intervention in reality.” (Freire 42)

In his essay, Freire went on to describe an alternate method of education wherein students and the teachers are equals; he calls it the problem-posing concept. Instead of considering students as mere “receptacles to be filled,” problem-posing education considers students as “conscious beings” and teachers as knowledge facilitators (Freire 41). Within this system, students are transformed by the “emergence of consciousness” (Freire 42). This "emergence" causes a “critical intervention in reality” that affirms our innate potential (Freire 42).


To be continued:

[RascalPuff]

Banking vs. Problem-Posing – An Example

Many times in the past I have felt like an equal with my teachers, as well as dehumanized by my educators. I remember a particular situation involving a piano teacher who had a tremendous reverence for classical music. She felt that only those who had years of instruction were qualified to compose music. I was so excited about learning to play a few songs on the piano. But we always had to practice for an hour doing finger exercises to warm up before we got to play any particular pieces.

While practicing on our piano at home, I began to experiment with patterns that I saw emerging before my eyes on these black and white keys. As my fingers glided from one end of the keyboard to the other, my mind was seeing multiplicity. Evidently I had an ear and an inherent knack for improvisation. Well, I created some songs of my own. On one particular day I really wanted to show my teacher what I had created. My songs had become my emotional expression of wonder. She wouldn’t even let me play the songs for her. She scolded me for having the audacity to imagine that I could compose music after only having had lessons for three months. I was crushed. I swore that I would never touch a piano again. I stopped having lessons, but I kept on experimenting in secret.

Years later, I met a woman from Brazil who played the piano. She impressed me with her ability to improvise. She took the time to show me some basic techniques that helped to rekindle my passion for music. This woman exemplifies the kind of problem-posing teacher that Freire talks about. I feel lucky to have met her, and I feel privileged to have since had several teachers who must surely be committed to the problem-posing concept.

Critical Intervention in Reality – The Inventory Process

Ultimately, an honest and thorough self-evaluation is paramount to beginning the process of self-discovery. Even Jesus is quoted in the bible saying, “The truth will set you free.” Freire says that “in problem-posing education, men develop their power to perceive critically the way they exist in the world with which and in which they find themselves; they come to see the world not as a static reality, but as a reality in process, in transformation” (Freire 45). Therefore, we must align ourselves with individuals committed to problem-posing education if we are to “more wisely build a future” (Freire 45). Aligning ourselves with others is taking collective action.

The Inventory Process – An Example

I know many things—bits of information either by memorization, personal experience, reading, watching television, and so on. Some things I know because of unpleasant circumstances, and other things I learned out of great joy. Throughout all of my academic experiences, my personal point of view, my fundamental perceptions of reality, I find a common thread. No cohesion existed in my life until I took the time to stop learning and reflect on the past. It was imperative that I take an inventory of my life’s accumulations. I started with all of the things I feared or hated. These seemed like as logical as any a place to start because they caused me the most discomfort.

In my list, I included some ominous things like religion, taxes, and law. I began to see how many decisions I had made in my life were based on the circumstances of the moment. For example, I learned that I could hurt myself falling off the table when I actually did fall and hurt myself. My mother had already told me repeatedly not to climb up on top of the table. I learned not to play with matches when my mother made me sit and light a thousand matches in a row until I puked. I learned that elementary school children can be very cruel and vicious because of their taunts and prejudice. I learned the times tables by heart. I learned that you could be placed under arrest for picking flowers in someone’s front yard. I learned that some freedoms I could not posses, no matter what the cost. All of these things that I had learned as a child remained with me into my twenties. I was very unhappy about a lot of things, and I had no idea where to begin the arduous process of sorting things out. This process, for me, was very much like declaring bankruptcy in the banking concept of education.

The Essence of True Knowledge

This process I am engaged in has taught me that the essence of true knowledge is a combination of memorized information filtered through the eye of personal experience, a storehouse of endless bounty freely imparted to cognitive minds. Each and every one of us must take response-ability. What is true for us is what coalesces as a result of the decisions we make based on the available data and experience at any particular moment in time. We need to consider ourselves as beings in progress, able to reevaluate and restructure our reality at will.

This process I just described connects us to “what is alive in us” and allows us to connect to “what is alive in all of us.” (Killian 7) It represents our emancipation from ignorance and injustice. It is our ticket to a non-violent world. “Then you can make informed choices about what you believe and about what identity you wish to fashion for yourself.” (Wood 11) By engaging in a critical intervention in our reality, we find love for ourselves and forgiveness for others. And in forgiving others, even those considered our enemies; we take a proactive step in loving them and diffusing the anger and hostility that is being directed towards us. This is the only way we are going to be able to survive as a species. This is the only way to conquer the Thanatos instinct.

“To survive as a human being is possible only through love. And, when Thanatos is ascendant, the instinct must be to reach out to those we love, to see in them all the divinity, pity, and pathos of the human. And to recognize love in the lives of others—even those with who we are in conflict—love that is like our own. It does not mean we will avoid war or death. It does not mean that we as distinct individuals will survive. But love, in its mystery, has its own power. It alone gives us meaning that endures. It alone allows us to embrace and cherish life. Love has power both to resist in our nature what we know we must resist, and to affirm what we know we must affirm. And love, as the poets remind us, is eternal.” (Hedges 184-185)

Future Outlook—Obedience or Consensus?

What is preventing us from beginning our process of self-discovery, recreating the reality within which we exist?
“To be a credible catalyst for change, you must be informed about gender inequities and how they are created and sustained by communication within our culture. You must understand how conventional views of masculinity and femininity lead to inequities, how they reflect cultural values, and how institutional, social, and personal communication sustain the status quo.” (Wood 10)

In Julia Wood’s book we read about countless examples of how gendered communication leads to gender inequities and assumptions about the nature of the relationships between people that not only have a profound impact on the quality of women’s lives but also demonstrates how gendered communication is harmful to all human beings. As examples of these aforementioned concepts in action, providing us a deeper look into the dynamics at work in restructuring our reality, and assisting us in identifying the road blocks to success, for this next section, I will be referring to readings from chapter 28 of the book Current Issues and Enduring Questions: A Guide to Critical Thinking and Argument, With Readings (Barnet and Bedau 809-886) because I think we may find a clue understanding these roadblocks through a discussion of the concept of free will.


In a recent class, I was asked to consider the concept of free will and it is where I was first introduced to the works of Plato, and particularly to a selection entitled Crito, the third in a series of four dialogues telling the story of the final days of Socrates (469-399 B.C.). In this selection, which reads like a play, we are privy to an imaginary debate between Socrates and Crito. Socrates has dedicated his entire life to illuminating the minds of his fellow Athenians and has voluntarily submitted to prison and certain death because he places obedience to the law of his country as his highest moral imperative. Crito, a long time admirer of Socrates, “urges him to escape while he still has the chance.” (Barnet and Bedau 810)

To be continued:

[RascalPuff]

CRITO: … Besides, Socrates, I don’t even feel that it is right for you to try to do what you are doing, throwing away your life when you might save it. You are doing your best to treat yourself in exactly the same way as your enemies would, or rather did, when they wanted to ruin you. What is more, it seems to me that you are letting your sons down too. You have it in your power to finish their bringing up and education, and instead of that you are proposing to go off and desert them, and so far as you are concerned they will have to take their chance. And what sort of chance are they likely to get? The sort of thing that usually happens to orphans when they lose their parents. Either one ought not to have children at all, or one ought to see their upbringing and education through to the end. It strikes me that you are taking the line of least resistance, whereas you ought to make the choice of a good man and a brave one, considering that you profess to have made goodness your object all through life. (Barnet and Bedau 812-813)

Crito is convinced that Socrates is making a mistake. He believes that Socrates could do more good alive than dead. However, Socrates had pondered his decision well before Crito’s arrival. Socrates responds to Crito by telling him,
SOCRATES... I cannot abandon the principles which I used to hold in the past simply because this accident has happened to me; they seem to me to be much as they were, and I respect and regard the same principles now as before. So unless we can find better principles on this occasion, you can be quite sure that I shall not agree with you; not even if the power of the people conjures up fresh hordes of bogies to terrify our childish minds, by subjecting us to chains and executions and confiscations of our property…Serious thinkers, I believe, have always held some such view as the one which I mentioned just now: that some of the opinions which people entertain should be respected, and others should not. (Barnet and Bedau 813-814)


In sharp contrast to Socrates, we also were offered a selection written by Martin Luther King Jr. from his jail cell in Birmingham, Alabama. Up to this point, negotiations had failed to win the support of the community, so King felt that he had no choice but to “prepare for direct action.” The nature of Kings direct actions are revealed in the following passage.

You may well ask: “Why direct action? Why sit-ins, marches, and so forth? Isn’t negotiation a better path?” You are quite right in calling or negotiation. Indeed, this is the very purpose of direct action. Nonviolent direct action seeks to create such a crisis and foster such a tension that a community which has constantly refused to negotiate is forced to confront the issue. It seeks so to dramatize the issue that it can no longer be ignored. My citing the creation of tension as part of the work of the nonviolent-resister may sound rather shocking. But I must confess that I am not afraid of the word “tension.” I have earnestly opposed violent tension, but there is a type of constructive, nonviolent tension which is necessary for growth. Just as Socrates felt that it was necessary to create a tension in the mind so that the individuals could rise from the bondage of objective appraisal, so must we see the need for nonviolent gadflies to create the kind of tension in society that will help men rise from the dark depths of prejudice and racism to the majestic heights of understanding and brotherhood. The purpose of our direct-action program is to create a situation so crisis-packed that it will inevitably open the door to negotiation. (Barnet and Bedau 843)


I think it is most interesting that King mentions Socrates in his letter when talking about creating tension through crisis. This is very much in line with Freire’s ideas about “critical intervention” in reality. The reality confronting King was entrenched racism and prejudice, and the direct-action program he was endorsing was a “critical intervention” in that reality. Socrates concluded that obedience of unjust laws would eventually demonstrate their injustice, while King concluded that there were two types of laws: just and unjust. He advocated obedience to just laws, but disobedience to unjust laws. King says,
“To put it in the terms of St. Thomas Aquinas: An unjust law is a human law that is not rooted in eternal law and natural law. Any law that uplifts human personality is just. Any law that degrades human personality is unjust. All segregation statutes are unjust because the segregation distorts the soul and damages the personality. It gives the segregator a false sense of superiority and the segregated a false sense of inferiority. Segregation … ends up relegating persons to the status of things. (Barnet and Bedau 845)


Finally I wish to discuss the experiments conducted by Stanley Milgram (1933-1984) who also wrote a book on conformity. The excerpt from his research entitles The Perils of Obedience was both shocking and revealing. Milgram writes:
Obedience is as basic an element in the structure of social life as one can point to. Some system of authority is a requirement of all communal living, and it is only the person dwelling in isolation who is not forced to respond, with defiance or submission, to the commands of others. For many people, obedience is a deeply ingrained behavior tendency, indeed a potent impulse overriding training in ethics, sympathy, and moral conduct. The dilemma inherent in submission to authority is ancient, as old as the story of Abraham, and the question of whether one should obey when commands conflict with conscience has been argued by Plato, dramatized by Antigone, and treated to philosophic analysis in almost every historical epoch. Conservative philosophers argue that the very fabric of society is threatened by disobedience, while the humanists stress the primacy of the individual conscience. (Barnet and Bedau 855)


Milgram set up an experiment to test the lengths people were willing to go to obey an authority, even when “pitted against the subjects’ strongest moral imperatives.” It was shocking to me to read about the “extreme willingness of adults to go to almost any lengths on the command of an authority.” (Barnet and Bedau 855) What I though was most revealing was the fact that only a handful of people in the experiment stood on their conscience and terminated the experiment.


All of the subjects seemed concerned with personal responsibility for causing harm to the student in the test, and most of the subjects were willing to go to great lengths to inflict pain on the student only after they were assured by the authority that they would not be held personally responsible for inflicting the electric shocks. To me this experiment demonstrated that every one of the subjects had a conscience, and that they could dismiss their conscience if they were assured that they would not be at fault if they caused serious injury or even death. This experiment demonstrates, in a shocking way, why it is so important for us to care about the well being of all individuals because if we cared about the well being of someone we are being told to harm—in obedience to the authority we are under—we would resist that authority and take action to stop the harm being done.


Discussions about free will and determinism, obedience and defiance can be extremely confusing; especially to a person who has no sense of purpose—that has lost their identity. And yet a clear understanding of these concepts and their personal implications are tantamount to becoming an “effective agent for change.” (Wood 10) This is why I am so vehement on this concept of an inventory process—a critical intervention in reality. Why not take a thorough look into our lives without judgment? Why not accept ourselves exactly where we are right now? How else can we build a future? If we build our lives on denial, we will surely fail.


Until we have fully taken a good look into our lives, we merely masquerade as people. We spend our lives reflecting the qualities and behavior demonstrated to us through popular culture as represented to us through the media—what we admire in the lives of others. Often we reflect not only what we like, but what we also detest. The nature of addiction is to hide in things that hurt us. We are like thieves only because we believe we are. If we truly are children of the Earth, we deserve to have all that is good. Why should we have to feel like we are stealing just to get love, or poorly constructed imitations? We settle for a "trade" instead. We make deals. And if we are still left with the emptiness we started out with, then we steal again. This pattern eventually becomes a vicious cycle. Why should we steal what should freely be given?


To be continued:

[RascalPuff]

This has been an amazing journey for me researching this topic about creating a non-violent world. There is so much more that I could talk about, so many directions my search has taken me but, alas, I seem to have arrived at page twelve. Letting go of the idolatrous and all consuming concept of good and evil is a whole five page paper in itself, and will most likely be the subject of some future paper. So, in conclusion I would like to stress that it is possible—as one person—to make a difference in my immediate surroundings, as well as, to collectively make a difference nationally, and globally. By aligning myself with people who have drawn similar conclusions about needing to take a radically different approach to solving the world’s conflicts, I have the power to change the world—one soul at a time. I can see that leading by example and taking a non-gendered, non-violent approach to all my communications and conflicts with people in my daily life “connecting to what’s alive in others,” seizing opportunities to inform others about these life changing ideas, resisting communication that is gendered in such a way as to create inequity among the sexes, and participating in non-violent demonstrations of resistance to violent conflicts I will grow to the point where fear will no longer dominate my thoughts and my life. I will live with the satisfaction of knowing that I am participating in a worthwhile endeavor that will increase the quality of life I experience and the level of personal peace and security every human being will enjoy. We can be my own heroes.

Works Cited

Barnet and Bedau. Current Issues and Enduring Questions: A Guide to Critical Thinking and Argument, with Readings, Sixth Edition. Boston, MA: Bedford/St. Martin’s 2002.


Centre For Non-violent Communication. Marshall B. Rosenberg, PhD Bibliographical Information http://www.cnvc.org/mrbio.htm: retrieved May 13, 2003.


Freire, Paolo. Pedagogy of the Oppressed. The Banking Concept of Education. New York, NY: Continuum International Publishing 2000.


Hedges, Chris. War Is A Force That Gives Us Meaning. New York: Public Affairs/Perseus Books Group, 2002.


Killian D. Beyond Good & Evil: Marshall Rosenberg On Creating A Nonviolent World. Chapell Hill, N.C.: The Sun Magazine, February 2003. Available online at http://www.thesunmagazine.org/326_Rosenberg.pdf


United Nations. Universal Declaration of Human Rights Adopted and proclaimed by General Assembly resolution 217 A (III) of 10 December 1948. http://www.un.org/Overview/rights.html: retrieved May 13, 2003
.

Wink, Walter. Engaging The Powers: Discernment and Resistance in a World of Domination (The Powers, Volume 3). Fortress Press, November 1992.

Wood, Julia. Gendered Lives: Communication, Gender, and Culture. California: Wadsworth/Thomson Learning, 2003.


Best regards, RP (Kaidu)