J.Rzaev – professor of Murmansk State
Pedagogical University,
candidate
of philosophy
The
Violence and Nonviolence Problem Highlighted at Two Scientific and
Practical
Forums
(Informational and
Critical Review)
The
violence and nonviolence problem is an exceptionally important problem of
modern times. It applies to all life spheres of modern man, the political one
first of all. It has to do with the peculiarities of our transitional period,
during which some spiritual crisis manifestations, the cultivation of cruelty,
as well as the infrequent violation of fundamental moral values, which have
been worked up by humanity during thousands of years, are making themselves
felt vividly enough. Hope, the reader will get acquainted with the stuff of the
two mutually combined scientific forums on the aforesaid subject not without
interest. One of the forums (Tromso, Norway) had an international level, while
the other (Murmansk, Russia) was carried at a narrower scale, although there
was no less acute statement of important debatable questions there. Of course,
about a year has passed already since the time, when those forums took place.
But anyhow the problem hasn’t at all lost its topicality. So, the author has
found it quite reasonable to write the present problem article in the form of a
detailed analytical review (in addition to the brief information, which he had
published some time ago). He’s been guided by the idea, that such genre is more
suitable for realizing the need of setting forth the stuff in a most vivid way.
The
contents of the forums will be presented further on. And now let us make a few
preliminary judgements from the point of view of the problem’s history. That
problem has certain historical bounds. In all probability, it became acute
within the framework of the social structure, which had sprung up under the
slogan of freedom, equality and brotherhood, having brought to life the
Enlightenment device about all men’s right for life, private property and
freedom of speech. The Bourgeois system is meant here – the one, which does not
allow anybody to own another person from the point of view of legislation. It
excludes anybody’s right for killing a person or committing physical violence
against one (as well as some spiritual forms of violence). As is well known,
the right for violence was characteristic of Slave-owning and Feudal systems.
It is
obvious, that the violence and nonviolence issue has been existing for at least
two centuries. Certainly, the issue has come to life in connection with the
violation of the enunciated civil rights, committed by some ruling circles, as
well as because of some economic, political and psychological complications in
regulating social relations. At first it appeared in the West and then it moved
over to the East in connection with the development of the national liberation
movement. Hereafter the issue acquired no less significance in the conditions
of violating civil rights under the totalitarian regimes of the Socialist
system and after that in some new circumstances, which were caused by the
transition of the USSR (and its natural consequence – the former Soviet
republics) towards the so called Capitalist forms of social order.
Recently,
the violence and nonviolence issue has acquired some new contours and contents
in connection with the development of the globalization process, the expansion
of transnational corporations’ sphere of activity and the appearance of
antiglobalistic and some other kinds of social movement. I think, that happened
to be the cause of springing up and developing a special investigation trend in
modern humanitarian science (especially political theory), concerning the task
of preserving peace and limiting force measures in social relations. In its
turn, that phenomenon brought to life some new research centers – “Peace
Studies” in various countries. Well, the Tromso center is, probably, one of the
most prominent among them. It is being governed by Ole Mjos, Vidar Vambheim,
Jorgen Johansen and Rune Henriksen.
* * *
In
November 2002, from 28th to 30th , the international
symposium at the Tromso University on Nonviolence took place. It
is significant that representatives from all the continents came to the forum,
more than thirty people in all: some researchers of Institutes for Peace and
Conflict Transformation, teachers of university and college humanitarian
departments, specialists of media, as well as some students and postgraduates,
specializing in peace problems. English was the common language of intercourse
(no translating into other languages being done). The author of the present
review had the status of the representative of the Russian Philosophical
Society.
That
multifarious forum set oneself the task of developing further scientific
research on the above mentioned issue, and the following questions were
correspondingly put forward in the order of the day:
a) What is
already done on the subject?
b What
else is to be done?
c) How can
it be realized in practice (first of all in organizational and financial
respects) with a view of forthcoming investigation in corporate forms?
The
symposium was inaugurated by an introductory speech, made by Ole Mjos – the
Tromso Peace Center Chair Person, its work directed by Jorgen Johansen.
While
discussing the above mentioned questions, the following subjects were singled
out in quite a legible way:
·
Mahatma Gandhi’s legacy;
·
Possibilities of Using the Inheritance in Our Days;
·
Moral and Pragmatic Aspects in Realizing Nonviolence
Principle in the Modern World;
·
Theoretical and Practical Experience in Preserving
Peace and Implanting Non-force Resistance Methods in Some Eastern and Western
Modern Countries;
·
Potential Opportunities of Mitigating Aggressiveness
by Changing Social Consciousness;
·
Methods and Perspectives of Struggle against
Terrorism.
As a result
of the symposium’s work, a certain resolution was adopted on the necessity of
using the internet system for salving research tasks in a corporate way and
broadening the circle of the participants, with a view of closing the
humanitarians’ investigation activity and the practical activity of political
movements’ participants – those adhering to the nonviolence idea.
Much
attention was paid to Mahatma Gandhi’s inheritance. A certain point of view was
expressed by Sean Chabot (the Netherlands). Together with some specialists,
holding to the same views, he gave the proof of the idea, that Gandhi’s system
was incomparably more multifarious, flexible and malleable, than the Western
nonviolence systems, which had been worked out before him. Gandhi’s system was
evaluated by Sean Chabot as being quite an opposite to some Western
investigators’ point of view, such as Charles Tilly, Doug MacAdam, Sidney
Tarrow and some others. He pointed out, that Mahatma did not confine himself to
making demands and laying claims to the opponent, i.e. the establishment – a
whole range of various organizational means and methods were worked up by him
during the struggle, and a solid system of using discursive language was
created on that ground, irrespective of ideological, religious or any other
differences between the participants.
Gandhism,
it was said further, possessed yet another unique peculiarity: undeviating
striving for the aim of arousing sympathy in the English people and even in the
British power itself towards the Hindus and Muslims of India. That kind of
behavior demanded a great skill. Gandhi was so consistent in his using the
nonviolence method, that sometimes the latter heated psychological reaction,
wild anger and correspondingly – toughening punitive measures on the part of
the establishment, which sometimes ended in great bloodshed. The point is,
that, according to purely psychological reason, the establishment used to
anticipate from the very beginning, that the opposite side would give a
reciprocal reply to their violent actions, but instead they came across some
strange “inactivity”, that was carrying in itself somewhat moral reproach. And
it was taken by the butchers as real mockery, aimed to humiliate them.
It was
stressed at the forum, that Gandhi’s activity was founded on the principles of
collectivism and drawing all the population strata into the struggle. The
protest actions, organized by him, used to find broad positive response among
the masses in the other parts of the world.
Rather
many participants of the symposium expressed their assurance, that Mahatma’s
resistance repertoire was not merely the result of the national leader’s
genius, but that actually it was the consequence of the Indian society’s
collective experience and mind, it having an international significance.
As is
known, Gandhi began his political career in South Africa, where there lived an
Indian ethnical minority, approximately 13 million natives. As Chabot noted, on
September 11 (what a strange coincidence of dates, by the way!) 1906 there
was the first resolute act of stubborn resistance against the establishment,
which was organized by Gandhi as a protest against the so called “Black Act” -
the Asiatic Law Amendment Ordinance, that humiliated the honor of the Indian
people to a very large extend. On that portentous day Gandhi took the
floor at the Johannesburg Imperial Theatre with a demand that the notorious Act
be nullified, otherwise every Transvaal (now UAR) Hindu would prefer being put
to jail to the continuation of living in the existing conditions. Let them
insult and flog us, he said, and let it be that we go hungry and do hard work,
and let them deprive us of our property and even deport us abroad and what-not,
but as long as there remains even a handful of us, who are really true to our
pledge, there will be only one end of the struggle, and that will be our
victory.
Such was
the birth of “Satyagraha”, the method of vindicating the truth in a very
tenacious way with the help of various non-force measures. By the way, it was
noted at the symposium, that the term “satyagraha” contains a whole complex of
semantic meanings, namely: spiritual force, love, nonviolence and readiness to
suffer for the truth cause.
On having
experienced the satyagraha method in South Africa, Gandhi transferred that
experience directly to India. However, before it all the satyagraha
participants had been put to jail together with him. Since then he had to
endure his imprisonment at least five or even six times more. He perished, as
the whole of humanity is sure to bear it in mind, having been assassinated by a
fanatical Hindu-fundamentalist, who allegedly accused him , Mahatma, of his
breaking with the Hindu orthodoxy and showing an excessive adherence to
Muslims, satyagraha brothers.
The
participants of the symposium noted, that it was quite characteristic of
Gandhi, that in cases when satyagrahas happened to lose their self-control and
failed to keep to their nonviolence principle (which was very rare, just as an
exception) Gandhi was the first to take responsibility and show his readiness
to go to jail of his free will in a very honest and selfless way.
Ultimately,
after several dozens years of fighting, the British powers had to
quit India under the mighty pressure of the satyagraha movement.
Further it
was stated, that during the struggle there were separate events of quite a
tragic character. They were connected with some individual cases of
satyagrahas’ deviating from the nonviolence principle. There was a case, for
instance, when separate groups of them put some government buildings to fire
and killed a group of British officials there. Those satyagrahas had been
reduced to despair and lost their self-control. The reciprocal reaction that
followed was no less savage and beastly: during one of peaceful demonstrations
(when Gandhi himself was in jail), the policemen began raining blows, in
cold blood, on the demonstrators’ unprotected heads with their steel-shod
lathees. According to Sean Chabot’ description, hundreds and hundreds of sculls
were being fractured, the marchers going down like ten-pins. Meeting no violent
resistance, the butchers became enraged and commenced kicking the demonstrators
savagely in their abdomens and what-not. But they didn’t manage to cause any
desperate or frightful cry, nor to make the column stop or fall to pieces.
Still new and new ranks continued walking forward in silence and without fear.
It was a wonderful victory of the proud and unsubmissive spirit over the cruel
and beastly material force.
The whole
history of Gandhi’s life and his activity is a vivid example, that he was a
very active political worker, who struggled for national liberation in quite a
stubborn and unwearied way, nonviolent resistance being his stable principle.
So, the stock term “non-resistance” doesn’t somehow accord with his manful and
energetic activity. And that is just what was especially mentioned at the
scientific forum.
The forum
gave a detailed analysis of the history of the nonviolence investigations, and
some contours of the forthcoming research work were designated. A thorough
report on the subject was made by Brian Martin (Australia). Besides, a detailed
critical analysis of creative work, carried by American researcher Gene Sharp,
who is considered to be a classic in nonviolence , was also represented (1).
Which was done by Stellan Vinthagen (Sweden) as well as some other participants
of the symposium. First of all, they stated, that Sharp, in his interpretation
of nonviolent resistance, kept, in general, to such a position, that was rather
close to Gandhi’s views. So, he stated, that real success, while applying
non-force resistance to the establishment, could be only in case of the masses’
collective action. Further, just like Gandhi he adhered to the point of view,
that it was the broadening of peoples’ civil rights, but not changing the
social and political structure, that was to be the aim of collective non-force
resistance; in other words, the idea of social revolution was excluded.
Besides, Sharp is sure, just like Gandhi, that in the conditions of the masses’
nonviolent struggle for their civil rights the ruling circles, who, speaking
generally, have a mighty material power of suppression, have a much less chance
for severe counter action, for in such a case they are actually forced to reciprocate
with humanitarian principles and abstain from violent deeds. Vinthagen regards,
that in the further exploration of Gandhi’s inheritance it is necessary to
clear up the following important question: how and why does Gandhism preserve
its significance in modern circumstances, irrespective of temporal and regional
differences in the history’s development? From his point of view, the
investigation of the question should have a multilevel character, embracing
regional, national and global aspects.
At the
same time C.Vinthagen paid special attention to the fact, that the character of
the Sharpian interpretation of the nonviolence method differed rather much from
the character of its interpretation by Mahatma Gandhi in one important respect.
He noticed, that Sharp’s conception was actually based on the typically
Anglo-Saxon understanding of struggle principles, which presupposed that each
of the opposing sides should try to display their free will, but at the same
time they should strive for breaking the will of each other. It is just a
pragmatic approach, in contrast to the moral one, the latter presupposing
gaining sincere mutual understanding and reconciliation. By the way, the forum
participant Howard Clark (Spain) paid attention to the same thing. Having made
reference to Robert Borrows (2), he stressed the importance of distinguishing
the following notions: “undermining the power” and “changing the will” of both
the parts. Participant Martin Arnold (Germany) insisted on the same thing,
having interpreted Gandhi’s method as reducing the conflict to mutual
understanding. As it is known, in a number of modern investigations the
pragmatic method has been put to criticism in a series of works. They qualify
the Sharpian theoretical point of view as purely “technical”, which can be
reduced to a mere sum of certain methods of struggle, the latter having no
solid moral support. It actually lacks some inner striving for achieving mutual
understanding, in other words, it lacks constructive spirit.
According to the critics’ opinion, as it was stressed at the symposium, Sharp
merely proceeds from cold computation, or from his consideration, that the
non-force resistance method is more advantageous and
yielding better results in comparison with the force one, because it makes
the power to abstain, in a similar way, from force actions. The pragmatic
approach, as V. Vinthagen put it, is characterized in the critical literature
as being calculated mainly on external influence, and its main aim is breaking
the opponent’s will, while the truly Gandhian method is interpreted as
presupposing some deep moral source and inner striving for disposing the
opponent to mutual reconciliation. The moral approach is guided not by the idea
of getting a sudden result, but by the resolution of conducting durable and
stubborn struggle for the truth. Such an approach was regarded by
satyagrahas as the highest moral ideal.
So,
Gandhi’s and Sharp’s comprehension of nonviolence are similar enough from the
point of view of the external side, but there are grave differences between
them from the point of view of their inner contents. With that in view
Vinthagen put forth the task of a deeper comprehension of the notion
“nonviolence” by humanitarians. He also made a suggestion, that the simultaneous
elaboration of such urgent issues, as communication, dialogue, mutual
understanding, cognitive assimilation of other cultures’ spiritual values etc.,
should be constantly carried on. He considered, that in conducting the
investigation it would be expedient to start incorporating the insights of such
prominent social scientists as James Scott, Jeffrey Alexander, Anthony Giddens,
Alberto Melucci, Jurgen Habermas, Pierre Bourdieu, Michel Foucult and some
others. It is important, to his mind, to avoid one-sidedness and try to keep to
the golden mean. The point is that some researchers, for instance, such as
MacCarthy and Kruegler, consider Gandhi’s teaching to be too much idealistic
and even mythological due to its sublime moral ideal. But as a matter of fact they
themselves are probably no less utopian and mythological, although they may not
notice it. Because they run to another extreme – the extreme of pure
pragmatism, which is apt to reduce all to pure technical methods and overlook
other very important sides of the matter. And here is one of the illustrations
of the one-sided pragmatic approach, which was displayed at the forum: the
Baltic states, they said, that initially used to show strong interest in
nonviolence, have recently joined the NATO, which is guided mainly by military
power. It is obvious, that the lack of a firm moral aim has had such a plain
consequence.
There was
also a question about the necessity of close unity between the nonviolence
theory and the practice of its utilization, and he said, that theorists and
practical workers should give aide to each other in the working out new
methods. The above mentioned Brian Martin spoke on the question, and he made a
reference to Gregg’s book “The Power of Nonviolence” in particular (first
published in 1934). And here he noted, that Gandhi’s method is presented
figuratively as some “spiritual ju-jitsu”, with the help of which the actor is
getting the power of surpassing the opponent due to the latter’s being
embarrassed.
A number
of speakers talked about some modern practical experience of several countries,
where nonviolent methods of salving social problems found their successful
application. They mentioned, for instance, the USA 1955-1965 experience of the
black population’s fight for their civil rights under the leadership of Martin
Luther King; certain attention was paid to Cameroon’s experience in preserving
peaceful relations in that specific African country with a very peculiar
multi-ethnical composition (more than two hundred ethnical units!); further,
some Norwegian experience of non-force struggle, and some essential moments of
the masses’ nonviolent resistance in modern India, Sri Lanka and some other
countries were retraced.
The
Cameroon experience was reproduced by Saibou Issa. That is an experience, which
demonstrates some separate moments of the practice of preserving peace on the
basis of preventive methods, the methods of reconciliation, which are being
worked up there at rather a high theoretical level, namely, at one of the
university scientific centers. Those are systematic and single-minded meetings
of high ranked Christian and Muslim clergymen, designated for the common
salvation of the problems of mutual understanding between people, adhering to
those beliefs, with the clergymen’s further peacemaking influence upon their
parishioners. That is also the successive and methodical popularization of
tolerance and mutual understanding, which is being applied to the
multi-ethnical population through the media and some other channels, including
the educational system. Certain instructive work with the aim of getting the
masses acquainted with different cultural traditions of the African continent
and Western countries is also being done. In that African country, as Saibou
Issa put it, the sphere of applying force measures is narrowed considerably in
comparison with the other countries of the same continent, in spite of
Cameroon’s poli-ethnical composition.
Some
experience, which had been done within the geographical space of the Northern
Europe, was illustrated by an example of Norway, which was done by the above
mentioned participants Sean Chabot (Amsterdam) and Stellan Vinthagen
(Gotteburg). They demonstrated the nonviolence method, that had been applied in
the Southern part of Norway, at the borough of Innerdalen, where the management
had made plans of building a new big river dam, which would, undoubtedly, spoil
the local population’s normal existence and might worsen their environmental
conditions. So the local dwellers moved down into the valley of Innerdalen,
established a village community there and began toiling the land. In that way
they actually started building an alternative society in the midst of the
dominant system. After that the building of the water dam could not actually be
realized, otherwise it would simply kill the inhabitants of the community. And
the objectionable project was abolished. In this incident we can see certain
similarity with the activity of some. Indian satyagraha communities, including
Tolstoy communities in some districts of Transvaal.
There were
some more reports, opinions, judgements and interesting remarks at the forum,
but it’s impossible for one author to take all into account and state it on
paper; besides, it would be too much diffused.
It was
stressed, that the humanitarian science is being in the face of the crucial
task of further complex nonviolence investigations on the basis of the common
efforts of sociologists, political theorists, the theorists of international
relations and some other humanitarians, a supposition being put forth that in
our century there might appear some modern nonviolence repertoires, quite new
in their essence and absolutely different from the Gandhian one. By the way,
one of the participants has put forth an idea, that there is necessity of
working up the nonviolent resistance method in the aspect of fighting for the
salvation of ecological issues – Rai Ramanatapillay, USA.
Besides,
they pointed out special necessity in working up the nonviolence problem with
reference to some authorities of modern philosophical thought, such as,
for instance, the above mentioned Jurgen Habermas (“communication theory”) and
Michele Foucault (“power theory”) and also Irving Goffman (“drama theory”).
There was
also a special question, deviating to a certain extend from traditionalism.
That was the question of the possibility and expediency of instilling
nonviolence methods into the process of regulating social relations on the
basis of the cardinal change of social consciousness. Speaking presumably, it
could be reached on the basis of using some new knowledge about the essence
of the Being and in particular of “man’s being-in-the world” (if applying
the Existentialistic term, although it lies within the framework of another
philosophical tradition). Some peculiar knowledge is meant here, which proceeds
from experimental and theoretical elaboration in such spheres of science, as
Quantum Mechanics, Informatics and some non-traditional Psychology of
transpersonal type. Dzhalal Rzaev (Russia), the review’s author, made a report
on the subject. In his speech he used the materials of his work “Transpersonal
Psychology against the Syndrome of Aggressiveness and Terrorism. A Way to
Peaceable Disposition (Philosophizing Theses on the Topic of the Day)”.
(By the
way, In May 2002 the
theses, 2 printer’s sheets, were sent by him to the Russian Federation
President, as their subject had special social and political actuality; whence,
in the same month, they were passed over for consideration to the machinery of the
RF Security Council and Foreign Ministry, and a copy was put to the President’s
library. In the same year, 2002, the booklet was reprinted, as a theses
article, in the Saint-Petersburg scientific magazine “Juridical Thought”) (3).
Using that
article, D.Rzaev expressed an idea, that, speaking in principle, violence,
which is displaying itself so intensively in various spheres of modern social
being, is actually the consequence of the circumstance, that animalistic sings
are still sustaining in man. In extreme cases it displays itself in war
clashes, as well as in some other cases of man’s mutilating and assassinating
the representatives of his own human kin. Animals usually kill the
representatives of other species, while man is destroying the ones of his own
kind, it being done by him with animalistic passion. Speaking figuratively, Man
has started from the bank of the past, but he hasn’t yet reached the new bank.
And it is just because of his half-and-half state and bifurcation that he,
possessor of the techniques, is sometimes more horrible, than the most
predatory wood beast, as it was pointed out by a well-known Russian thinker
Eugen Trubetskoi still a century ago (4). It’s obvious therefore, that the way
to nonviolence, which modern humanity needs most of all, may lie along the line
of the radical reconstruction of man’s consciousness. The latter is to be freed
from its hyper-aggressive state. Active spreading elucidative knowledge
about the achievements of the Transpersonal Psychology, mainly based on Karl
Gustaf Young’s teaching of the “collective unconsciousness”, which displays
itself in instincts and the so called “archetypes”, could, stated the author,
stand humanity in good stead. We need the elucidative spreading of the
knowledge and the information with a view of embracing different social strata,
broad pupils and students environment first of all. The author is sure, that
the cultivation of the knowledge, produced by Transpersonal Psychology, could
mitigate aggressiveness in society and thus establish gradually some
new type of interpersonal relations and correspondingly - relations between
social groups, as well as between states. The point is, that Transpersonal
Psychology is able to raise man’s consciousness to a new world perception
level, and quite a new world paradigm can and should be formed by
it. At that level the Existence, including the human one, appears to be whole
and indivisible in its core. Which allows to distinctly realize and
keenly feel, that all the “I-s” make up, in principle, a unique kin
community. The new world paradigm is naturally concurring with the
intuitive world perceiving, which used to be characteristic of Ancient East
sages (for example, Bhudda) and some antique philosophers (Anaksagor,
Heraclitus, Parmenid and others) and which corresponds to the newest
discoveries of certain natural and technical sciences, mainly, Quantum
Mechanics, Cybernetics, Informatics. Those branches of knowledge testify to the
fact, that every physical atom and even every geometrical point of the Universe
contains in itself all information about the whole world. Similarly, the
Transpersonal Psychology experimental data are indicative of that every
individual’s subconsciousness contains in itself information about the whole of
the Universe, in all its temporal and spatial aspects. Besides, in certain
unusual states of mind some “omni-sameness” of the Being reveals
itself through our subconsciousness and we get the feeling of “I” and “You”
being one. The reader cannot but agree that such kind of world seeing can’t
help lowering down the degree of aggressiveness, in principle.
It was
accentuated by the speaker, that Transpersonal Psychology has already made more
than a dozen thousands experiments, which are based mainly on the
utilization of a special “wholotropic breath”. It is just with the help of it,
that those who are put to test acquire an unusual psychic state and some
“wholotropic consciousness”. The vast number of experiments secure
their high representativeness. Just on the foundation of those numerous
experiments quite a definite conception of the integral character of Man’s
Existence has been formed in the non-traditional psychological science of
transpersonal type during the last forty years. By the way, those who are put
to test acquire a specific “inner eyesight”, a “volumetric” one. It embraces
the whole of the Universe, as it has been already mentioned, in all its spatial
and temporal aspects. That is a wholographic world seeing, and it
discloses the Beeing’s integrity in contrast to the usual world seeing, which
is plane and comparatively limited, in a natural way. This
special world perceiving is disclosed on the basis of the collective
unconsciousness, there being certain identity between a great number of
individual “subconsciousness-es”. (Although it doesn’t exclude certain
diversity, conditioned by some individual peculiarities of different people).
Besides, the volumetric world seeing is consonant, in principle, to some
Ancient East sages’ insight, as well as, in a sense, to the XIX century Russian
religious philosophy’s integral world view,
expressing the idea of “the all-unity of the world”. (It seems to
me, that certain difference between the philosophical traditions does not, in
principle, change the essence of the matter).
The
Transpersonal Psychology’s achievements are impressed in such reliable
scientific works as, for instance: Stanislav Grof. “Beyond the Brains” or his
“Wholotropic Consciousness” (5) and some other works of the kind.
Then the
speaker stressed the idea, that it was time for implanting the cult of the new
knowledge and new world understanding as the foundation for mitigating the
aggressiveness syndrome and establishing gradually such new relations between
people, which would rest on the nonviolence principle. The knowledge,
that is represented by Transpersonal Psychology, should become, to the author’s
belief, the common property of all the population strata.
Nowadays,
continued the author, it is very important to deeply understand, that in the
third millenium such an extreme kind of aggression as war is losing its
“natural character”. The available argument that the whole history of the
mankind proves of the war’s natural and inevitable character, is
actually untenable and retrograde. History does not prove of
anything concerning the future, it only shows what and what took place
before, but it does not give any proof that things, which were before, must
perpetuate their existence. Under the modern conditions war is fraught with
humanity’s death, according to the common knowledge.. It’s time for the man to
surpass himself at last (in the better, positive meaning of
Nietzsche’s poli-variative notion of “Superman”). He should get rid of the
remnants of his animal-like nature and of his reasonable will’s palsy
(6), which is usually expressed in such a peculiar phenomenon: people,
especially the power that be, are often set in motion not by their good will,
but by their evil one, which is in the habit of applying not to
the right mind, but to the arch one in order to get
permission for this or that action.
It is time
for embarking on the path of forcing out gradually the stereotype formula “man
is a wolf to man” with a new presupposed formula: “man and
man are one”. Otherwise, the first formula may be perpetuated helplessly
(or, in most probability, then all the formulas may lose any significance at
all due to the Mankind’s self-destruction). But it is necessary to stipulate,
that the second formula may not have real significance in a literal sense,
it may have real meaning only in principle, because in interpersonal and
social relations there are such natural and rather firm factors, as rivalry,
psychological incompatibility, world view differences as well as ethical ones,
envy, wickedness, priding themselves, a variety of inclinations, different
levels of individuals’ spiritual development, certain social, economic and
political contradictions, ambitions and cupidity, all of which work for
people’s disintegration, and so on. But the thing is, that it is the general
consciousness level that may play the most important role, and in case of
suitable common efforts it may become the dominating factor.
The question is about the general raising of man’s consciousness to a
higher level of rationality, which can be reached first
of all on the foundation of the thorough investigation and discovering the
mysteries of the irrational subconsciousness sphere, however
paradoxical it may sound. It is just on that foundation that it is possible
to make social relations more rational.
An idea
was expressed by the author, that it is Philosophy first of all that could play
a very important and special role in working out the measures of limiting and
mitigating the various forms of modern extremism (including such a horrible
sickness of the age, as terrorism). He meant Philosophy, taken not only (and
not so much) in its pure aspect, but also in its applying function.
Possessing rather a firm ideological and methodological kernel, which is
characteristic of Philosophy in general, that kind of philosophy is able to
respond rather rapidly to various social sicknesses, that come to life in the
process of the history’s impetuous development, and find most suitable ways of
getting rid of them. Philosophy is supposed to do that together with certain
sciences and in the spirit of Post-positivism (philosophical trend,
which is being fused with science, in a sense). Besides, it is supposed to do
it under the condition of its unflinching proceeding from the idea of the
Existence’s wholeness and indivisibility. Such kind of Philosophy has been
provided by the author with a special epithet: “Philosophy of Wholeness”
(or one may call it “Philosophy of Rapid Response”). According to his
notion, that is such a way of thinking, which is guided by a higher level of
world perceiving in comparison with the habitual one. Actually the wholographic
world perceiving is meant here, although it is designated for salving quite
earthly tasks. Well, as they say, extremities coincide. It is easier to
penetrate into the deep basis of the morbid symptoms, which bring to life
various social problems, and to sort out suitable instruments for “healing
operations” from the lofty pedestal of the volumetric consciousness. One
should take into account, that wholeness in general is always the embodiment of
perfection, in other words, the noumen (the Existence’s spiritual
depth) is higher than the phenomenon (something that is only seen on the
surface).
The man’s
mind, noted the speaker, has reached a comparatively high altitude of achievements
by now. In particular, it has discovered the mystery of the atomic kernel. That
kernel contains in itself not only blessings, but also threatening
possibilities of great corporal and material demolition. It appears, that the
same mind is obligatory to secure quite a broad application of such
discoveries, which are capable of limiting that danger significantly. One of
them is just the discovery of the new world seeing, made by Transpersonal
Psychology (as well as some other investigation trends). It is just that
discovery that can consolidate the idea, that the
Existence (human in particular) is whole and that man and man are one,
according to the notion’s deep essence. The point is, that there is some kin
essence in the depth of the human nature, which, however, has still
revealed itself insufficiently. But anyhow, the spiritual should counterbalance
the material in a comparatively not distant future, which would be the
revelation of the truly human nature and the realization of the matter of liberating
man’s spirit from the remnants of his beastly nature. Anyhow, man is, so to
say, “the opening”, “the ray of hope” of the Being (Martin Hydegger). The
knowledge, that is generated by Transpersonal Psychology, carries in itself the
unity of harts. And even if that Psychology is fraught with some danger, just
like all new things, which are experienced insufficiently yet (the more so that
the subconsciousness is a very subtle sphere), anyhow, that danger is far less,
than the one, which is hidden in the atom’s unbridled energy. We should use the
information, represented by Transpersonal Psychology, in a suitable way, in
order to establish the required equilibrium balance.
True,
sometimes one can hear the following objection: “Well, why should the masses believe
in things, which they haven’t ever perceived themselves, the more so that the
things are miraculous?”
It would
be quite reasonable to use in this case the following counter question: “And
have you ever seen an electron or at least an atom? No. So why do you believe
that they do exist?” Of course, those are different spheres of the Being, in
one case that is physical, while in the other – physic, but in principle it
doesn’t change the matter. And the most important thing is, that the
non-traditional psychology of transpersonal type is not at all striving for
ousting the traditional psychology and science in general with a view of
substituting them for itself. No, it only pretends on broadening the world
seeing scope and thus supplementing traditional science considerably.
One can
here another objection: “Well, all sorts of Para-Psychology are only making for
the development of charlatanism, a whole army of “magicians” and “healers” and
various “sheramizhnics” is growing.and they are posing as some representatives
of a special science, “Para-Science”, while making a profit by their evil
activity, as a matter of fact.”
It stands
to reason: charlatanism has always parasitized on good deeds. But in the modern
situation it is necessary and possible to clearly differ science from
quasi-science by opposing the Transpersonal Psychology, that is the child of
the Youngian conception of collective unconsciousness, developing within the
bosom of the Post-positivist Philosophy, to all the nonscientific trifle. Their
similarity is purely external, and one must be able to distinguish them from
each other from the point of view of their contents and orientation. Otherwise,
the mankind may ruin a very necessary scientific experimental trend, which
opens the way to a new world seeing and helps establishing a very necessary new
world paradigm.
Then the
author focused his attention once again on the significant idea, that
establishing the new exploration trend within the violence and nonviolence
problem framework on the basis of applying the Transpersonal Psychology’s
achievements would correspondingly require the dynamic development of certain
elucidative activity. Retrogradism , the fear of all the new, which have not
been put to experience to a sufficient extend as yet, and the critics’
reference to some elements of mysticism is untenable just like it would be
untenable to reject the scientific inheritance of S.Freud and K.G.Young.
According to the author, mysticism is nothing but a thing, that has not yet got
scientific explanation clearly enough and that immediately loses such a
character after having been explained.
In
conclusion, the reporter made a generalized assertion, that the
Transpersonal Psychology is really (if concentrating one’s
attention to the terminological aspect) a para-science,
i.e. a science of nontraditional character, which, nevertheless,
operates with quite a scientific method, the
method of experiment, followed by its theoretical
explanation, for investigating the mysteries of the irrational
(“mystical”) sphere of the Being. And it is just in this sense that it is
necessary to evaluate it as a very valuable progressive addition to the
traditional scientific knowledge about the Universal Existence, the Man’s Being
in particular.
(Generally speaking, the borders
between science and para-science are very
mobile. It is enough to apply to the following phenomenon: in August
2003 there appeared sdme striking experimental data concerning water; they were
published in the Russian magazine “Novij Vek” (“The New Age”) in an article
entitled “The World Is Ruled by the Water?” The data had been obtained on the
basis of five hundred experiments, conducted by one of the traditional science
research institutions, namely, The Russian Ministry of Public Health
Federal Scientific, Clinical and Experimental Center of Diagnostics and
Treatment Traditional Methods. It had been done together with the M S U
Biological Department. Those data are simply penetrated with the spirit of
“mysticism”. It has been found out, that the changing of the water’s structure
and its characteristics is dependent directly on the changing of the man’s
psychological directive. And it has been ascertained by the Japanese biologist
Yamoto Masao , that there is direct dependence between the water’s structural
specification , on the one hand, and the contents of the man’s words and
thoughts as well as the genre of music, playing by its side, on the other. The
water conducts itself just like some reasonable substance, like a
bearer of the universal information, possessing a kind of “computer memory” and
combining in itself material as well as spiritual and “mystical” bases. By the
way, that is consonant, in a sense, to the intuitive insight of the first
Ancient Greek philosopher Fales, who conceived the water not otherwise but as
being the God’s substance).
But still
the author assumes one more objection: sometimes they say, that it is impossible
to learn the irrational from the rational thinking position in principle,
for they have quite inadequate natures.
Well, there is another counter question to such
kind of objection: how then does the rational thinking comprehend the physical
microcosm’s mysteries, if the components of the microcosm are quite different in
principle from the macrocosm’s phenomena in their nature? How can it be
comprehended on the basis of rational logic?
In reply
they usually state like that: the Quantum Mechanics’ achievements can be, and
really are, used in practice, for the realization of man’s
necessities (the truth criterion is actually meant by practice in this
case). In other words, the Quantum Mechanics’ achievements are subordinated to
rational logic, because they have practical significance.
But the
same can be asserted concerning the Transpersonal Psychology’s achievements. In
accordance with a number of experimental data (about which we can read in some
works of the above-mentioned doctor of medical science, professor Stanislav
Grof), those of them, who have been put to test and gone through wholographigc
world seeing, very often change sharply their behavior strategy in their everyday,
or practical, life, being guided by their peace-loving position,
conditioned by their new world perceiving they have acquired. That perceiving
tells them distinctly, that the Being is whole, so man and man are one, in
accordance with the man’s deep nature (7). And that means nothing but that there
is possibility of Transpersonal Psychology achievements’ usage for the man’s
positive needs. And in this case the role of that science (or, to be more
exact, para-science) consists in gradually taking off some mystic cover from
certain phenomena in the sphere of subconsciousness.
* * *
Such is the picture of the Norwegian symposium
from the point of view of its grand total. At least the author of the review
sees it that way. So, having analyzed a number of concepts, which were examined
at the symposium (of course, far from all), let us carry away to Russia. But
before that let us enumerate all the participants of the Tromso symposium,
which haven’t been mentioned above. They are: Lennart Bergfeldt (Sweden),
Haakan Wiberg (Denmark), Guliano Pontara (Italy), Rodrigo Tavares (Portugal -
Norway), Andrew Rigby (the UK), Ken Brown and Julie Garber (the USA),
Alvaro-Cedeno (Costa-Rica - Norway), Senthil Ram, Jai Sen and Tseten Lhasso
(India), Mette Rokke (Norway).
On
December 18 2002 a round table on a similar problem of violence and
nonviolence, which worked along the line of the Russian Philosophical Society,
took place within the walls of the Murmansk Pedagogical University. Those
present were mainly lecturers in philosophical subjects and postgraduates,
approximately a dozen persons in all. The round table was inaugurated and
guided by the Chair Person of the Russian Philosophical Society Murmansk Department
V.Ratchkov-Apraksin and the Chief of the Philosophy and Sociology Chair
V.Samorodov. The main attention was focused on the following questions:
·
Need for Further Specifying Violence and Nonviolence
Notions;
·
Moral Evaluation of Gandhi’s Political Activity;
·
Nature and Essence of Modern Extremism, Privately
Terrorism.
The
discussion was based on the usage of some materials of the Tromso Symposium.
Some analysis of its stuff was made by the author of the present review. While
dealing with the question about the reasons for the violence and nonviolence
problems’ actuality and illustrating the practical experience of certain
countries, which had been picked up by him at the Tromso symposium, he touched
upon the specific peculiarity of a similar problem in the conditions of modern
Russia. He reminded those present of the cases, when some peaceful
demonstrations were suppressed in that country, also of a spontaneous massacre
at one of the Moscow markets, that was mainly directed against some tradesmen
of non-Russian nationalities from the former Soviet republics, as well as of
the mass killerism, raging terrorism and some other negative things like that.
After
which reporter L.Koroteyeva spoke on the issue of further specifying the violence
notion. She accentuated on the power relations sphere, concerning politics.
Having paid attention to the fact, that formally the means of exercising power
are divided into two groups – the means that are calculated for the object’s voluntary
submission to the power and the ones of a compulsory character, she
stressed that actually any political power is resting on violence, for,
suppose, according to O.Massing’s observation (in his article “The Power”), the
power inevitably presupposes domination and submission relations (8). Here only
different degrees of manifesting violence can be meant. Merely in case of
the compulsory form of submission violence is dominating.
(The author of the present review
does not quite agree with that point of view, although he didn’t happen to
express his opinion on the question in the process of discussion. To his mind,
it is not quite reasonable to regard submission to the power, made by the
object free of will, to be the result of the state’s violence. Here the term conscientious
self-limitation seems to be more suitable, the
limitation being made on a moral foundation, and the essence is determined here
actually not by the degree, but by the quality itself. True, sometimes the
power succeeds in making the citizens limiting their will conscientiously with
the help of ideological manipulation. But that’s a horse of quite another
color. Besides, such kind of violence is only spiritual).
It was
noted by Koroteyeva, that violence as a political means is always resting on
fear. The other attributes of political violence, said she, are as
follows: high probability of having human victims and lower degree of
possibility to predict the results (because passions may become heated).
Further it
was ascertained by the speaker, that violence as a political means must be
limited by double bounds: legal and political ones. However, she said, the
modern world does not keep to it, unfortunately. The following rhetoric
question was put by her appropriately: “ Where are we driving after the Berlin
Walls’ downfall? We’ve gone through the euphoria period, which was determined
by the new role of the UN and by the re-establishment of the order at the
Persian Bay by the Great Powers’ common efforts, and for a certain time we had
a firm belief in “the new world order”. Yet, proceeding from the Yugoslavian
events, that phase have begun dying away, and some fear before a next violent
conflict has begun coming again to the surface of the world political
relations.”
A special
point of view in the aspect of the causes of violence’s springing up was
presented by V.Tsilyov in the same matter of specifying the notion of violence.
According to him, in some cases nonviolence itself may become the cause of
violence’s generation, if the first is brought to the absolute. Of course, it’s
very paradoxical. But it’s not for nothing, he noted, that, according to Plato,
for instance, democracy is substituted for tyranny appropriately, just if the
first is brought to the absolute. In accordance with the reporter’s observation
(his activity belonging to the sphere of psychological service), it happens
infrequently, that one can see in some modern collective bodies in Russia
certain fits of anger, being contiguous with their youngsters’ readiness for
violent manifestations as a protest against some elder team members’ attempts
at limiting their freedom, even if only to the lowest extend. It usually
happens, when the youngsters break the social norms of behavior. So which is
the cause of it? That consists, in Tsilyov’s mind, in the following: they have
got such a home education during the re-organizational period (“perestroika”),
which lacked orders for submission, and that’s why they are intolerant of any
criticism. But that is just the reason for the elders, upholders of order, to
resort sometimes to force – no matter what kind of it: physical or spiritual.
Well, this
example, which is, perhaps, not like having enough significance, nevertheless,
tells us about the necessity of a more multifarious understanding of the terms
“violence” and “nonviolence” and more dialectical approach to realizing their
correlation.
Further
there was a conversation on the topic of specifying the notion of nonviolence.
The author of the review again took the floor and spoke on the subject. He drew
those present’s attention to a certain inexactitude, that had taken root in the
application of the notion. He appealed not only to Gandhi’s inheritance, but
also to the one of L.Tolstoy. It was noted by him that, for instance, according
to his observation during his teaching philosophical subjects for many a year,
rather infrequently students are ridden by a lame interpretation of Tolstoyism
as, allegedly, the teaching of “non-resistance to the evil”. (The last quite
important words ”with force”, which are very necessary here, are rather often
omitted mechanically, for short). Because of that psychological nuance the
Tolstoyism concept turns out to be distorted, they merely call it a
“non-resistance theory” without beating about the bush. As a matter of fact,
they substitute the notion of “nonviolence” for the above mentioned notion of
“non-resistance”.
Obviously,
the terminology, that is rooted in Russian, demands, for the sake of fidelity,
some correction – to what, by the way, some Tromso forum participants, who knew
Russian a bit, paid attention right away during their exchange of opinions with
the author. The point is that the word “non-resistance” contains a paradoxical
meaning. .One should be sure, that it is one of the unfortunate drawbacks in
the Russian language – the language, that is quite rich in general from the
point of view of its contents and expressive opportunities. And mark you, even
if we take the whole phrase, namely, “non-resistance to the evil with force”,
all the same we’ll see that, although it expresses Tolstoyism in a more correct
way, still it would stand in need of being substituted, in any case, for a more
reliable and secured terminological alternative: “nonviolent resistance to the
evil”. It appears, that the word “resistance” is more adequate to Tolstoyism’s
spirit (as well as Gandhism’s one) than the word “non-resistance”. In this case
one should speak about resistance to the evil, having in view,
that the resistance is to be put to life through non-force actions. Besides, it
is important, that in doing that one should apply certain differentiation with
a view of distinguishing between the opposite sides’ statuses. Because the
sides are quite unequal in their material power. In all probability, it would
be reasonable to use the term “nonviolent resistance” concerning the actions of
the “civil masses”, while in speaking about
the political power’s actions we would, probably, need the
term “nonviolent coercion”. In other words, it is necessary to flexibly
distinguish (if keeping to sociological terminology) between the actor and the
opponent (or sender and addressee) in order to express the essence of the
matter more exactly and limit the possibility of sense distortion.
Further a
circumstantial discussion about the nonviolent resistance experience, applied
by the Indian satyagrahas, sprang up, and it brought to light two different
approaches to the moral evaluation of Gandhi’s inheritance.
The gist
of the first point of view (V.Samorodov , L.Fyodorova) is like that: in
evaluating Gandhism one should use a special approach of high moral standards,
which would somewhat exceed the Gandhian morality. Having assured all the
present of his loyal attitude to Gandhi’s famous image on the whole, Samorodov,
however, confided to them, that in listening to the report of the Tromso
symposium participant about the leader’s vital activity, he couldn’t but help
experiencing some peculiar emotional state, which somehow suggested him an
idea, that there was an illegitimate swelling of Gandhi’s personality cult. It
seems to me, he said, that Gandhi brought more misfortune and trouble to the
Indian people, than luck and benefits, because he used to stick strikes on his
fellow -tribesmen’ heads and incredible suffering, coming from the hands of the
butchers. The historical reality, he stated, suggests the idea, that under the
pretence of observing the nonviolence principle there was actually quite
another thing, which looks like provoking brutal and savage dealing with the
masses, that could be avoided in principle, if the satyagraha movement, exited
by the leader’s political arrogance, were not so much fanatical. In such a
case, interrogated Samorodov, was it really worth while carrying on the
sacrificial fight? Perhaps, the civilization process, which was quite
characteristic of the New History, would have brought to granting sovereignty
to the Eastern peoples in the final end by itself?
There was
also an opinion, partly supporting that point of view (V.Ratchkov-Apraksin),
that, speaking in general, any political leadership, directed at cardinal
changes on the foundation of this or that invented doctrine, deserves moral
blame, for it may be fraught with imposing the leader’s will on a person (who
is a value in itself, as a matter of fact) and thus entailing some unwarranted
sacrifices. Besides, continued Ratchkov-Apraksin, if speaking about nonviolence
in a concrete way, with taking into account the ethnical factors, one can
hardly consider Gandhism to be an inheritance, that may deserve the general
attention of our contemporaries, because actually it is a narrow
ethnical phenomenon.
There was
still another point of view (V.Tsilyov), which was reduced to the statement,
that in evaluating Gandhi’s inheritance one should proceed from taking into
account the satyagrahas’ needs in their realizing one of the two certain
alternatives--violence and nonviolence and preferring the one, that is fraught
with less sacrifices. Well, the very logic of life, stated the disputant, tells
us, that the nonviolence method is just the right one in such a case. It is
quite probable, that, in case of satyagrahas’ choosing the violence method,
there might be thousands of times more tragic victims and broken sculls. And
for confirming that idea of his Tsylyov brought out the following example: the
Russian October Revolution called forth the bloody civil war and mass political
repression, which carried off dozens of millions of lives. Besides, he
concluded, one can hardly set hopes upon the spontaneous course of the history,
upon its civilization process, allegedly going on by itself.
There was
one more point of view, which managed to balance a bit the extremes of the
previous ones (review’s author). He considers, that there are no sufficient
grounds for regarding any political leadership, directed at cardinal changes in
social life according to this or that doctrine, to be deserving blame. Anyway,
all depends on the doctrine’s contents and the ways of its realization. But, in
speaking specifically about Gandhi, one should suppose, that his activity might
contain some mistakes, which is quite a different matter. IT is quite
possible, that in some cases, which brought the masses to tragic sacrifices,
more flexibility was required, perhaps, it was necessary to give resolute
actions up in a circumspect way in those strained situations. It appears, that
the modern political theory thought and political struggle practice demand
taking the mistakes (well, if they were at all) into consideration. As far as
Mahatma Gandhi’s nonviolent resistance teaching itself is concerned, it is
necessary to stress, that it is very actual in modern conditions, the more so,
that it was worked up and put to experience by him quite thoroughly. It is
obvious, that it’s impossible to do without its studying, even if from the
critical point of view, in modern political life, where there is rather a keen
question of surpassing violence.
Hereafter
the polemic exchange of opinions was moved over to the plane of the question
about the modern violence’s roots, the roots of
terrorism in particular. The following participants expressed their opinions on
the issue: again the author of the review (his above mentioned article’s
materials were used here), V.Ratchkov-Apraskin and A.Sautkin.
According
to D.Rzaev (author), the international terrorism, manifesting its various forms
of extremism, is the consequence of the unhealthy breaking of the mankind’s
“social organism” to pieces, of the mutual alienation of its parts and of their
aggressive character , conditioned by it. If trying to see the terrorism’s roots
from the position of covering a wide range of the history, we should, probably,
point out such a not the least of the factors as strengthening violation spirit
and its disseminating everywhere beginning with the end of the XIX century. The
violence spirit began defying the values, common to all mankind, as a
consequence of “the God’s death” (the famous Nietzschean figure of speech).
Violence expressed itself in various forms, such as: shooting demonstrators in
different countries, various repressive actions in Soviet Russia; the terror,
conducted by the Hitlerite establishment; some repressive activities in
People’s Republic of China during the “Cultural Revolution”; the Polpot terror
in Kampuchia; the multifarious plotting of the American C.I.A., marked by
numerous assassinations in different parts of the world; the barbarous bombing
of some Asiatic and European countries (Vietnam, Yugoslavia, Iraq) and many
other similar things. The violence spirit has inspired fear, anger, despair,
some anxious feeling of the loss of sanctity and of lowering the value of man’s
life, as well as the sense of hopelessness and some other negative feelings.
Probably, it is just on that tide, that the corresponding morbid reaction
appeared, which included in its contents some imitation to existing violence,
they copying the methods of the state terror itself in a certain outline. It
looks as if a complete loss of faith in the law’s force, in the possibility
of salving problems of personal and social plane in a legitimate way has revealed
itself.
One of the
most important traits of terrorism as a morbid social phenomenon consists,
according to the reporter, in the following: it is the expression of some
irrational, instinctive and destructive forces, that are showing themselves on the
foundation of resentment and the feeling of hopelessness and are being
accompanied by cynicism and such an idea of courage, which has been changed for
the worse in a morbid way, as well as by the will’s inner discord and the
deadening of the sense of responsibility for one’s actions; also fanaticism,
amounting to suicide – irrespective of whether it is individual terror or one
being organized on a broad scale, as group criminality. Some insidious
rationalism, displaying itself in a refined invention of the methods of
destruction with the broad application of technical facilities is also
characteristic of modern terrorism. By the way, there is one more auspicious
condition for the international terrorism’s development, and that is the fact
that politics and morals have turned out to be quite incompatible things in
the modern world.
An opinion
was expressed by the disputant, that a balanced combination of force and
non-force forms in the struggle strategy and the unity of the struggle’s
tactical line and that strategy should be an indispensable condition of
successful fight against terrorism. The force component of the strategy and the
spiritual one are to make up an organic whole. Pure force approach is,
undoubtedly, fraught with augmenting the evil on both the sides and
perpetuating it for an indefinitely long time.
The next
orator, V.Ratchkov-Apraskin, expressed an idea about the importance of
comprehending the modern terrorism’s nature from a purely philosophical
position, representing it as a phenomenon, springing from the
depth of man’s existencia,
the latter being the displaying of something, that can be presented as a
rebellion of the existering spirit. Well, it refers to the irrational
sphere, said the orator, and that’s why one cannot do without such Sartrian
notions as: “the daily life’s hell”; the striving for “a Collective Paradise”
through “the fall into the inert historical practice”; the person’s rendering existential
freedom through participating in the historical process; and some
others. Ratchkov-Apraksin also considered, that in comprehending the modern
terrorism’s nature and looking for suitable ways of fighting against it one
could not do without resting on still a broader system of notions, such as the
evil, the good , fear, horror, scare, will, freedom, justice, independence and
others. Besides, the orator called in question, true, to a certain extend only,
such a notion, as “international terrorism”, meaning that the term had become 
a too much objectified
stereotype. He made a supposition, that in connection with adding the
epithet “international” to the complicated notion of “terrorism” the latter had
became, so to say, too “rationalized”, “metaphysicallized”, “scientificated”
and deprived of its real philosophical depth and its personalistic contents’
multifariousness.
The third
participant, A.Sautkin, focused his attention on the thought, that the
phenomenon of terrorism should be investigated in the contents of the social
violence general theory, which should have truly philosophical and scientific
planes. In his judgment he proceeded from certain methodological principles,
concerning violence and nonviolence, which have been published by certain
Denisov. The latter considers, that violence is quite an appropriate phenomenon
in man’s life and activity; that this phenomenon demands concrete historical
approach ; that one shouldn’t merely limit oneself to the negative evaluation
of forcible actions and lose sight of their aim motivation; that violence has a
dual function in the historical process (destructive as well as constructive);
and that now it is necessary to realize the need of investigating the
available opportunities of excluding violence from the political practice (9).
A.Sautkin
considered then, that it was important to distinguish between a terrorist and a
mere criminal, who, criminal, may apply the same forms of violence at times,
but without any political motive. They have outward resemblance, while their
inner stimulus are quite different (and mark you, the stimulus are not the
least of the factors in political life!). Oh yes, terrorism does include a
criminal act, said the disputant, but it isn’t an end in itself, it only has a
certain symbolic load, actually it’s only a means of realizing some political
aim. Besides, as the disputant noted it, one should take into consideration,
that in certain cases terrorism turns out to be advantageous for the state
power itself. If one doesn’t take into account all those nuances, he said, the
nature of terrorism as a peculiar social phenomenon becomes too emasculate and
one-sided.
In his
going on defining terrorism the reporter made reference to the opinions of some
Western investigators – the English scientist G.Worldlaw and the German
scientist A.Pfal-Traugzer. According to Worldlaw, he stated, terrorism is the
application of ( or at least the threat of application ) violence by an
individual person or a whole group with a view of arousing horror among the
population and thus compelling the power to satisfy the laid down demands (10).
According to Pfal-Traugzer, the following inalienable traits are characteristic
of terrorism: a) availability of political views; b) purposeful application of
violence with a view of arousing scare; c) availability of organizational
structure; d) public isolation of the subjects of terrorist activity (11).
In the
final end the reporter pointed out the following additional peculiarity of that
phenomenon: it actually is a compulsory communication, one side
striving for compelling the other one to giving such a reply, which is
advantageous for it, the first one, and has been formulated by it also. And
it’s very important to notice, according to Pfal-Traugzer, that the compulsory,
forced communication does not presuppose “lending an ear to…”, in other words, dialogue
is excluded.
Well, such
is the picture of the Murmansk round table. Now let us enumerate some
participants, who haven’t been mentioned above. They were as follows:
V.Fyodorov, D.Goligoozov, R.Hatsevich, L.Osipov and Bourdina-Apraksina.
By the end
of the round table the author of the review informed those present about the
forthcoming international scientific conference on nonviolence, which is being
planned to take place in India in 2004-2005 approximately – as it has been
determined roughly at the Norwegian symposium. By the way, it was declared
there, that the Tromso Center for Peace Studies is actually an open society for
all those wishing to take an active part in its work, and in connection with
that the author of the review called the Murmansk round table participants’
attention to the fact, that there was certain theoretical output in Russia,
which could help the philosophical society members and some other people to
prepare themselves for the forthcoming conference in a suitable way. Lately, a
special subject, called “Nonviolence Ethics”, has, for instance, been
introduced at the Sivil Service Academy, patronized by the President – its
instructors being guided by the mentioned scientific output (12).
* * *
All the
above said is, undoubtedly, an additional evidence of the violence and
nonviolence problem’s being very important and topical in our days. The reader
is sure to see, and it follows from the contents of the present review, that
the problem really demands further intensive elaboration on a deep scientific
and philosophical basis by the common efforts of those, who are not indifferent
to the cause of peace and the cause of preserving the human community from its
further loss of spirituality.
In
connection with that let us try and build the presupposed system of the
elaboration’s perspectives, proceeding from the grand total of the two
presented forums:
1) There
are quite good achievements on the problem, but still there is a number of
substantial aspects, which require serious additional working out, a deeper
investigation of the nonviolence notion’s semantic contents first of all.
2)
Obviously, there is a grave necessity in elaborating such a specific theme as
“violence and nonviolence dialectics”, for there are no real possibilities for
excluding force measures from the society’s life as yet. Probably, it would be
reasonable to make an attempt at creating and developing some general theory of
violence and nonviolence, presupposing the elaboration of the corresponding
system of categories and regularities.
3) In
order to realize the violence and nonviolence dialectics in a deeper and
many-sided way, it is necessary to draw the representatives of philosophical
thought, with its full variety of modern trends, into the elaboration of that
sort of dialectics. It is important, that the academic research in that field
shouldn’t be sullen in its own framework. It’s necessary to closely join it
with the practice of eliminating violent forms of interaction between persons,
social groups, states and peoples.
4) It is
necessary to develop such an effective form of practical activity, directed
against the abuse of violent measures in political life, as composing
collective memoranda by scientific research participants, addressed to the
masses and the violence inciters, especially those concerning the issues of
working out and actualizing the plans of arranging military clashes. The modern
political reality suggests an idea, that the intensive scientific elaboration
of methods for exposing sophistical means of excusing some practically
aggressive violent actions, applied against sovereign countries, is quite
necessary.
5) A very
important role in the cause of preserving peace can and must be played by the
scientific working up of the question, that in the XXI century war against
sovereign countries, which has not been sanctioned by the UN, is more and more
becoming an unnatural phenomenon, fraught with direct developing it into a
world war, which, in its turn, might lead to the destruction of the whole of
humanity.
6) The
issue of modern terrorism as one of the most acute social ailments of the
modern age is to rank high in elaborating the general subject of violence and
nonviolence. The working out of scientific foundations for creating, by the
joint forces of certain countries, some anti-terrorist general strategy,
including a certain force component together with a no less significant
non-force (spiritual) one, is required without fail. And the tactical line of
the struggle is supposed to be subordinated to that kind of strategy.
7) It
would be reasonable to comprehend creatively and accept Tolstoyism and Gandhism
spiritual inheritance, taken in their unity and comparison, as the common
methodical foundation for the realization of scientific and philosophical
research on the modern problem of nonviolence.
8) The
working up of the theme of nonviolence may demand, that the newest knowledge
(traditional and non-traditional) about the wholeness and indivisibility of the
Existence, including the Man’s one, should be used broadly The knowledge, which
is, probably, capable of transforming gradually the Man’s consciousness in the
direction of getting it free from aggressive instincts, is just meant in the
case.
9) In
order to get a fruitful development of corporate research activity on violence
and nonviolence subject, it is necessary to widen the circle of communication
forms and apply such an effective means, exceeding the bounds of scientific
midst, as, for instance, constant communication with the broad masses of the
population of other countries (including students without fail) with
elucidative purposes.
R e f e r e n c
e
- Reporters made
reference to one of Gene Sharp’s well-known works in the West – “The
Politics of Nonviolent Action” (1973).
- Reporter
mentioned Robert Borrowes’ work “The Strategy of Nonviolent Defence:
Gandhian Approach” (1996).
- Д Рзаев. Трансперсональная психология – против синдрома агрессивности и терроризма. Путь к миролюбию (Философические тезисы на злобу дня). –
(Reprinted in Saint-Petersburg magazine “Юридическая мысль”.- 2002--. №3, №5).
- Трубецкой
Е. Мировая
бессмыслица
и мировой
смысл // Смысл
жизни. – М.:1994. - С.269-270;
272-279.
- Гроф С. За
пределами
мозга.
Рождение,
смерть и
трансценденция
в психотерапии.
– Нью-Йорк, 1993. Translated
from English . Его же: Холотропное сознание. – М., 2002.
Translated from English.
- Ролло Мэй.
Воля (translated from English) //
Судьба и
воля.
Психология
свободы
(Хрестоматия).
– Минск -
Москва, 2000. С.165-167.
- Гроф С. За
пределами
мозга (see point 5). С.66.
- Массинг О.
Господство //
Полис. – 1991. - № 6. С.107.
Translated from English.
- Денисов В. Размышления о насилии в современном мире // Россия и современный мир. –
2002. - № 1. С.150.
- Cited with
reference to: Моджорян Л. Терроризм и национально-освободительные движения // Государство и право. – 1998.-
№ 3. С.82.
- Пфаль-Траугзер А. Правый терроризм в ФРГ // Актуальные проблемы Европы. –
1997.- № 4. С.130-135.
- а) Антология ненасилия.-- Москва--Бостон,
1992;
б) Ганди М. Моя вера в ненасилие.-- Мартин Лютер Кинг. Любите врагов ваших. – Гусейнов А.А. Этика ненасилия // Вопросы философии.-- 1992.-
№ 3;
в) Глобальные проблемы и общечеловеческие ценности. М., 1990-- Разд.1, 2;
г) Принципы ненасилия: классическое наследие. – М., 1992;
д) Рубен А. Семинар-практикум по ненасилию. – Гусейнов А.А. 198 методов ненасильственных действий // Философские науки.– 1991.-
№ 12;
е) Тоффлер Э. Третья волна. -- М., 1999. Translated
from English.
* * *
Dear
readers! Please, apply for information to the Tromso Center for Peace Studies
and the Murmansk Department of Russian Philosophical Society:
Jorgen Johansen, jorgenj @ peace.uit.no
Dzhalal
Rzaev, polar-light @ mail.ru