Module 2, Week 1 – Science & Conversations

I shared this briefly in my reading reflection for Chapter 8 of the Search, but I had a conversation with my husband about Syria in the car one day. I appreciate him because we share similar political views. So in this case we both do not support the use of force and U.S. involvement in Syria. Our difference is in our outlook on what would actually happen; he was convinced that U.S. would do whatever it wants because it is the super power, and we cannot effect any change. Whenever we talk about war, violence or use of force, he thinks his view is more realistic and I am naïve. He believes that there will always be war, because that’s how it has been throughout the history of human kind. In his view, use of violence is absolutely justified in order to stop violence or protect a school shooter.

When I shared that the problem I see is that we resort to violence because we know how it “works” (I am thinking we could call it the “science” of violence). We do not too well how nonviolence works on the other hand – and we would not know its full potential unless we are willing to test it. My husband’s counterargument was that it will take us a very long time to understand it, if at all, and in the meantime we need to protect ourselves from others’ violence. I think he has the common perception of violence as a “quick fix.”

I also shared a few examples of how nonviolence has been used to peacefully resolve conflicts, such as civilian-based defense and the recent case of Antoinette Tuff, who stopped a school shooter in GA. Responding to my second example, my husband said that – while he agreed her spiritual training and technique helped – she was just very lucky. His point was that, if the shooter had set his mind on killing children and school staff, she would be dead; but because his target was the police, she was able to defuse the situation. I can definitely see the point that he was trying to make, so I definitely expressed that. However, I also shared that it should not discredit her contribution – if she reacted violently, the situation would have been much worse.

On the topic of ending war, my husband said the only extreme situation that could unite the entire world is probably an invasion by outer space beings. He said that unless there is a common enemy, greed will always divide people. He did admit that his perspective stems from his inability to completely believe in the goodness of human nature.

While we did not agree on many points, I was happy with how the conversation turned out because, first, I did not get upset, and second, I was able to listen and be respectful. I did not try to make my point to be right – while acknowledging that I could understand where he was coming from, I just simply shared my perspective. He could agree or disagree. I shared that I needed to remain optimistic if I were to seriously pursue peace and nonviolence as my life’s passion. If I cannot, then there is no point in doing this kind of work! He did agree to that point.

On the topic of Syria, I said that regardless of what may happen, we cannot simply give into resignation. I believe we have an obligation to voice our concerns and try to make a difference. I told him that I had signed about 2-3 petitions that week. He initially said he did not believe it would make a difference, but when we came home, I found him looking for some online. He showed me a page and asked, “Is this what you signed? Do you think it really matters?” When I said yes, he signed the petition 🙂

For the assignment this week, I had this conversation with my wife. I basically asked her if she thought that humans were by nature violent. After thinking on this for a minute or so she responded that she thought that human beings by nature were emotional. I thought this was a true and interesting response. She stated that she thought that the emotions could be negative and that could lead to violent actions. On the other hand she also mentioned there were positive emotions that could lead to more beneficial outcomes.

She also mentioned that there were some people who were just sick in a way. She mentioned Hitler and mentioned that no rational person could think like this. I mentioned that sometimes you will be walking down the street and hear someone saying something seemingly crazy such as “kill all the so and so (fill in the blank)”. However we don’t automatically say ok and do what this person suggested. So what does that say about the “rationale” man who follows what this “sick” person said.

Our conversation veered towards how governments and others use methods to control others. We had just watched the “Serenity” movie from the Firefly series I mentioned in an earlier post. (Spoiler alert) In the movie the main opponent is “The Alliance” which is an American/Chinese alliance that works to take over the galaxy. A method of control they try is to release a chemical in the air which makes people docile and easier to control. The chemical has the unintended affect of decreasing people’s motivation to the point that they eventually stop wanting to do anything including eat and they just basically lay down to die. A small portion of the population suffers the opposite effect and becomes mad and overaggressive and kill and maims in brutal ways. I mentioned this fictitious example of government using methods to attempt to control the population. While fictitious I think it has many comparable real life examples and my wife agrees. I then told her about the “Century of Self” in which Freud’s findings are used to manipulate the population and control them in a desired way. I mentioned the work of Edward Bernays (although during the conversation I can’t remember his name for some reason). One of the examples I mention is how he manipulated women to start smoking. I ask if she thinks that people are manipulated like that now by government and she agrees but throws in it is just not the United States. I agree but basically reiterate that it is not just the United States but it does include the United States which she agrees with.

I throw out the question that if it is then possible that governments use such tactics to increase the violence in a society for the benefit of a few. She agrees and mentions it is probably that a lot of what is disseminated is carefully planned behind closed doors by a small group in which only a minor portion of the information is true. I mention Star Wars (spoiler alert) and how governments keep or increase their power. You will notice a trend in that I use another science fiction reference, this time Star Wars. Even though this story is fiction it was created based on consistent mythological themes found throughout history, partly inspired by Joseph Campbell’s work “The Hero with a Thousand Faces” and sometimes serves as a good reference point as it can contain themes that are repeated throughout history in a story, that while fictitious, is widely known. In the Star Wars prequel the evil emperor comes to power by manipulating people and creating conflict. He starts a war and uses the war to consolidate and increase his power. I actually considered doing my master degree thesis on this as I think it is an interesting way to show a true theme that can be seen, unfortunately it cannot be stopped in real life though by shutting off the movie. After this point my wife agrees to an extent that government may manipulate people to be more violent than they are through such means and reasons.

For me and my wife to even have this conversation I think was a constructive step in itself. I think things we talked about illustrated some of my concerns and thoughts in ways she may not have understood before and I think the reverse is true in that I understood her better as well. I thought the conversation was helpful and was pleased with it.