"If one's goal is not harmony but the empowerment that comes with using violence, it is in one's interest to be in a state of war. In such cases, war is not only the context for violence but also the excuse for it." (Juergensmeyer 152)
To be perfectly honest, this quote highlighted near the end of class today reminded me of a conversation I had this past summer - a conversation with a fellow from Belfast in a bar in Berlin around 1am. One way or another, (after counteracting his pints with falafel), we got into conversation about the Troubles. In the course of the discussion, he made a comment that seemed to come partially from his upbringing and relative liberalness (is that the word I want?), partially from national frustration, and perhaps partially influenced by the self-assurance enhancements of alcohol. In any case, his comment was this: it was, quite simply, an excuse to be violent - something he'd decided, at that point, had become inherent in the Irish nature.
My initial reaction was vague surprise at his cynicism and what seemed to be a bestialization of a national character to which he belonged. Regardless of the somewhat abnormal setting, the discussion required a bit more digging, through which conversation I learned that he'd been orphaned young, both adopted parents had served actively in police forces, and they'd raised him in a secular (possibly agnostic) household. ...all of which could explain a fair bit, and reminded me slightly of various Veterans for Peace movements and organizations, in the US and elsewhere (eg Israel) - those directly caught up in conflict can often be the ones most loudly advocating peace later on, having experienced the horrors of violence. ...On the other hand, we also find things like cycles of violence and revenge.
Truly, I'm not completely sure at the moment what this post is leading to, it's just a bit of thought floating about in my head. Could also be connected to my last post, in that a conflict can become complicated - or perhaps over-simplified in some cases - by mobilizing other matters, like religion, in it's continuation. Even to the point that the actors and bystanders become so entangled in it that it seems an excuse for violence...
That sounds like quite a conversation! I think it's very interesting that he sees the violence as part of his national culture. It's sad, but it says a lot about how "big" these conflicts can get--fighting for so long & for so many "reasons" that it just seems like it's always been that way, or that it's intrinsic to the situation. I guess a combination of economic & social pressures, a view that nothing can be changed in normal ways and then linking in religions...what makes up the conflict is in a lot of ways what defines the group. What a horrible way to be defined. It sounded like this guy wasn't ok with this violent "national identity", and I hope that's an indicator that some people are fed up with violence and are looking for ways out for their society.
ReplyDelete