Ben Gockel

Book Review, Political Violence, 3-24-2011

Prof. Reiter

The Monkey Wrench Gang is a work of fiction written by Edward Abbey and published in

1975. The novel is centered around a motley cast of characters who come together coincidently

and discover that they all share a common hatred for the destruction of nature in the American

West. They see the blighting as coming from industry and human manipulation of the

environment and they embark on a quest to halt the spread of destruction through violence

directed at machinery and buildings. This novel touches on two major themes that we have

hashed out over the semester: First, is the ordinary citizen capable of violent acts in the right

circumstance? Secondly, can politically charged violence not targeted at humans be construed as

terrorism, and can it be successful?

Before publishing The Monkey Wrench Gang, Edward Abbey was an accomplished

naturalist author who wrote a few non-fiction works concerning the beauty of the American

southwest, including the seminal Desert Solitaire. Through reading Abbey, it becomes clear that

he supports the natural order of nature and, conversely, condescends man's influence on the

landscape. This viewpoint manifests itself in the characters of The Monkey Wrench Gang, who

commit various acts of terrorism in order to stave off the human development of nature. This

destruction is portrayed to the reader in a jubilant way, and is celebrated by the “gang” of

activists who are very positively described by Abbey. Clearly, the author is condemning the

human impact on nature through smart, empathetic characters who excitedly wreak havoc in the

desert and invites the reader to re-think the role of violence as as ends to political means.

The narrative of The Monkey Wrench Gang does not follow the traditional path of a
novel. The first third of the book is dedicated to each of the characters before they meet each

other, showing that, while the cast comes from extremely varied backgrounds (a Vietnam war

veteran, a surgeon, his mistress and a mormon) they bond over their ecological beliefs. The fact

that these characters are from benign backgrounds, yet form a synergic eco-terrorist gang that

efficiently uses violence brings me back to the 101st battalion. Is every individual in society

capable of violent acts, given favorable conditions?

The story of the Monkey Wrench Gang lends itself well to Goldhagen's idea that, given

appropriate circumstances, ordinary men will transcend “appropriate” behavior and commit acts

of violence. After the characters realized their shared passion for nature and contempt for dams,

strip mining, suburban sprawl, etc they excitedly banded together to take action. This echoes

Goldhagen, who describes the “willing executioners” of the 101st that are encouraged by

camaraderie among the battalion.

Additionally, the Monkey Wrench Gang begins to destroy bigger and more important

targets as the narrative continues and the cast of characters gets whipped up in a destructive

fervor. This increasing intensity of violence seen as normal by the gang is similar to the 101st

battalions accustomedness of committing violent acts. First, the men are herding jews into

ghettos, then they are whipping them and finally, shooting them in the back. The Monkey

Wrench Gang starts by destroying construction equipment, then blowing up mine buildings and

bridges and sets its sights on blowing up a dam by the end of the book. Both narratives are

examples of ordinary humans committing increasingly extraordinary acts of violence as a result

of the circumstances they find themselves in.

Abbey makes a strong statement when he writes about violent acts being attributed to a
positive political movement. Heck, today he might be considered a terrorist as he explicitly

describes how to destroy a backhoe with Karo syrup, or how to make thermite to bring down a

bridge. However, Abbey is carful to emphasize that this type of righteous violence should not be

aimed at people, but at infrastructure. This is where I come to a dilemma: should these acts be

considered terroristic if they do not target or harm innocents? I find that they should be

considered terrorists, as they are being forced to act outside the traditional power structure in

order to enact changes.

Both the readings and out class have struggled to define terrorism, which makes it more

difficult to describe the actions of the Monkey Wrench Gang. Indeed, Edward Abbey wrote this

novel in 1975, decades before the atrocities of 9/11 and the current War on Terror, so I am wary

of assigning a modern paradigm to an older work of fiction. However, the Monkey Wrench Gang

follows some of the same activities for similar reasons that modern day terrorists do: an inability

to change behaviors through appropriate channels.

The Gang seeks to halt the spread of human development through the desert , yet they

cannot approach the companies and ask them to halt. Instead, they enact a clandestine war on the

local construction and mining companies, using violence and destruction in the night. I believe

that they turn to this level of violence because they see no other way of competing with the

destruction in the name of progress. In this way the gang are following the route of terrorists,

who choose to enact violence on innocents in order to affect the powers-that-be indirectly. The

Gang is also targeting human development, but indirectly by sabotage and not human lives. The

similarity between these two groups manifests itself in the manner in which they influence

institutions of power.

The Monkey Wrench Gang illustrates the eternal struggle between the powers-that-be and
those who wish to enact change, but find that traditional avenues of influence are blocked.

Similar to terrorists, the Gang utilizes violence and destruction as a way to force change, but they

do it without harming individuals. However, I maintain that the Gang is a terrorist group, as they

follow the same path of influence as bonafide terrorists do by using violence. Abbey's book also

illustrates the fact that ordinary people, given the right circumstances, are able to commit violent

acts outside of societal norms, as reflected in Golhagen's work about the 101st battalion.