Recently, someone shared this on Facebook:
There are several things that bother me about this picture.
What it's meant to do, mostly, is to undermine the logical consistency of nonviolence. It's meant to underwrite the idea that violence, by its very essence, is logically necessary. We simply can't live without it. To be human is to be violent. So the picture poses a scenario in which a person like me -- that is to say a nonviolent pacifist -- can only vindicate violence when it hits close to home. That we can't logically defend the idea of nonviolence in the face of a knife or gun.
But, like I said, the picture bothers me for several reasons.
First, it assumes that there are only two principal actors in any scenario. This is a fault of modern Enlightenment thinking: It's too individualistic. Because it assumes that relationships between parties -- in this case, me and the guy with the knife -- play out in mechanistic ways. My alleged attacker would be assumed to be out for the most blood; while the victim can only play one of two roles. In the end, of course, this assumption is unrealistic. There more than two ways any relationship can play out and any scenario between two human beings can take place. Thing is, if I only believe there are two ways something can go down, then there become only two possibilities. That's what we call a self-fulfilling prophecy.
Secondly, the picture assumes that I'm in control of the situation. That's also a common lie of Enlightenment individualism. I'm not omnipotent. The picture assumes that I want to stop my attacker with violence, and that I can. That might be true, but in a situation with a violent weapon, it really doesn't ring out in reality. Witness the number of people who "freeze" when they're confronted by a knife or gun. Plus, imagine I'm not successful. What then? I can see the violence escalating to the point where someone must get hurt, regardless.
Thirdly, the picture assumes that I know everything there is to know about the situation and the person attacking me. Not only does it assume that events will unfold in one of two ways, but it also assumes that I know the consequences for each of those ways. What if I don't have all the information? Every conflict, by its very nature, is unpredictable. That's why law enforcement train repeatedly to assess risks in any situation. Since there are multiple people making multiple decisions all at the same time, the outcome is anything but fixed.
Fourth, I've highlighted already just how individualistic the picture is. It ignores the fact that my wife and my family are just as important actors in this scenario as I am. She (and they) hold certain values and are part of the decision-making here. What if she (and they) don't want me to put myself in this kind of risk? Maybe they feel the same way about me as I obviously do about them -- and want to see this end with as little tragedy as possible.
Fifth, what always bothers me about pictures like this is just how much they assume I'm innocent. That I'm the righteous victim to their evil ways. That I'm qualified to judge the scenario and the person with the knife in such a way that I'm qualified to be judge, jury and executioner. This picture assumes I have what it takes to be honest about my decision, that I'm fully objective. But I'm not. Even by the picture's own admission. See, this is the problem with Enlightenment individualist objectivity: It's always the other guy that has the problem, not me. But when I'm honest, I know the darkness and violence of my own heart. What makes me so qualified to rain down that violence on someone else, in an effort to curtail their own darkness? Or, to put it as it was put to me as a kid: Who am I to judge?
Sixth, this picture, and the questions that I usually hear that are like it, assumes the person attacking me doesn't have a good reason to do so. We just don't know what to do with the Jean Valjeans of the world. What if I'm the guy who antagonized the situation in the first place? Doesn't that mean I have more stake in what's happening than what the picture wants to admit?
Seventh, it's what the picture really assumes, the things that go so unevaluated that we never even notice them in our culture. It assumes that if I don't act, I'm not much of a man, husband, father, whatever.
Eighth, there's an implied egoism here. "Sure, you have a right not to act violently when it's just you, but not when it involves someone else." So the picture wants to have an altruistic core to it. But that altruism is really just egoism. I act this way not because they're people I love, but because they're mine. There's no suggestion that I have a reason to defend the person attacking me -- who is also someone's parent, sibling, friend. So what this picture really demonstrates is a selfishness. It wants to wear an altrustic mask, but it's selfishness to the core. (That's not to say that all self-interest is bad, but it's hardly Christian, so it's hardly the place I'd start.) I'm supposed to love this person, who is my neighbor -- even if it means he's also my enemy.
There are several things that bother me about this picture.
What it's meant to do, mostly, is to undermine the logical consistency of nonviolence. It's meant to underwrite the idea that violence, by its very essence, is logically necessary. We simply can't live without it. To be human is to be violent. So the picture poses a scenario in which a person like me -- that is to say a nonviolent pacifist -- can only vindicate violence when it hits close to home. That we can't logically defend the idea of nonviolence in the face of a knife or gun.
But, like I said, the picture bothers me for several reasons.
First, it assumes that there are only two principal actors in any scenario. This is a fault of modern Enlightenment thinking: It's too individualistic. Because it assumes that relationships between parties -- in this case, me and the guy with the knife -- play out in mechanistic ways. My alleged attacker would be assumed to be out for the most blood; while the victim can only play one of two roles. In the end, of course, this assumption is unrealistic. There more than two ways any relationship can play out and any scenario between two human beings can take place. Thing is, if I only believe there are two ways something can go down, then there become only two possibilities. That's what we call a self-fulfilling prophecy.
Secondly, the picture assumes that I'm in control of the situation. That's also a common lie of Enlightenment individualism. I'm not omnipotent. The picture assumes that I want to stop my attacker with violence, and that I can. That might be true, but in a situation with a violent weapon, it really doesn't ring out in reality. Witness the number of people who "freeze" when they're confronted by a knife or gun. Plus, imagine I'm not successful. What then? I can see the violence escalating to the point where someone must get hurt, regardless.
Thirdly, the picture assumes that I know everything there is to know about the situation and the person attacking me. Not only does it assume that events will unfold in one of two ways, but it also assumes that I know the consequences for each of those ways. What if I don't have all the information? Every conflict, by its very nature, is unpredictable. That's why law enforcement train repeatedly to assess risks in any situation. Since there are multiple people making multiple decisions all at the same time, the outcome is anything but fixed.
Fourth, I've highlighted already just how individualistic the picture is. It ignores the fact that my wife and my family are just as important actors in this scenario as I am. She (and they) hold certain values and are part of the decision-making here. What if she (and they) don't want me to put myself in this kind of risk? Maybe they feel the same way about me as I obviously do about them -- and want to see this end with as little tragedy as possible.
Fifth, what always bothers me about pictures like this is just how much they assume I'm innocent. That I'm the righteous victim to their evil ways. That I'm qualified to judge the scenario and the person with the knife in such a way that I'm qualified to be judge, jury and executioner. This picture assumes I have what it takes to be honest about my decision, that I'm fully objective. But I'm not. Even by the picture's own admission. See, this is the problem with Enlightenment individualist objectivity: It's always the other guy that has the problem, not me. But when I'm honest, I know the darkness and violence of my own heart. What makes me so qualified to rain down that violence on someone else, in an effort to curtail their own darkness? Or, to put it as it was put to me as a kid: Who am I to judge?
Sixth, this picture, and the questions that I usually hear that are like it, assumes the person attacking me doesn't have a good reason to do so. We just don't know what to do with the Jean Valjeans of the world. What if I'm the guy who antagonized the situation in the first place? Doesn't that mean I have more stake in what's happening than what the picture wants to admit?
Seventh, it's what the picture really assumes, the things that go so unevaluated that we never even notice them in our culture. It assumes that if I don't act, I'm not much of a man, husband, father, whatever.
Eighth, there's an implied egoism here. "Sure, you have a right not to act violently when it's just you, but not when it involves someone else." So the picture wants to have an altruistic core to it. But that altruism is really just egoism. I act this way not because they're people I love, but because they're mine. There's no suggestion that I have a reason to defend the person attacking me -- who is also someone's parent, sibling, friend. So what this picture really demonstrates is a selfishness. It wants to wear an altrustic mask, but it's selfishness to the core. (That's not to say that all self-interest is bad, but it's hardly Christian, so it's hardly the place I'd start.) I'm supposed to love this person, who is my neighbor -- even if it means he's also my enemy.