The Sermon of Violence By Justin Francis Leon V.

Nicolas

Blessed are the peacemakers for they shall be called the children of God. Sermon at the Mount

Violence speaks to us every day. Not only does mass media sensationalize such human interest for violent news, but more importantly, we may even witness or experience violence in our very homes, workplace and social circles. Before we answer the question of whether we hold non-violence or active non-violence is the only viable means to transforming society sustainable peace, we must answer first the question, Is violence a necessary social process? or even, When is violence a necessary response? My reflection on this is based on the following points, 1) violence as a natural reaction; 2) violence as a basic effect of political economy; 3) violence as a product of legitimation: 4) violence as having a function in society. All these points are related to our initial model that society is like a living organism with various subsystems . Specifically, nature dictates that an organism must adapt to its environment in order to survive. Violence may be considered as a reaction to protect ones self in order to survive. This may be seen in the reaction of wild animals, say the snake, or the porcupine, or even the small ant. They react to a stimulus that appears to be threatening. They react in such a way that their response would somehow intimidate a possible predator or adversary. IF the adversary pursues the animal, then the animal engages, in a fierce and violent manner, to protect its life, its young, or its territory. As the laws of physics teach us, there is a specific reaction to a every action. A violent action elicits a violent reaction, and that is to defend itself from the attacker. The same lesson is taught by the early thinkers of political economy such as John Stuart Mill, Thomas Hobbes, William Petty, and even Karl Marx, and that is to defend ones territory. It is basic in political economy that resources are needed for production. Ideally, these resources must be readily available from the abundant natural resources of a Nation State. Other nations that seek to further their production also seek resources elsewhere other than their territory, and they begin to conquer other lands. IN order to protect ones resources, the nation-state must defend its boundaries from possible threats. IF the conqueror comes in arms, and ready to inflict harm on the inhabitants of your land, the natural reaction is to defend your ranks, and retaliate in a manner that will at least neutralize the force being exerted upon by the foreign colonizer. Again, just as personal adaptation is justifiable, or even self-defense, defending ones territory and nation is as
August 4 Reflection Paper: CD227 SY 2011-2012 by Justin V. Nicolas Page 1

noble as an aim as survival itself. Armies are formed to defend the territory and each element in a composite swears to defend the territory for whatever cost. If it comes to violence, then for the defenders, reacting in violence is necessary. Ideology is the ultimate source of legitimation, for it is in such beliefs that a group is becomes somehow horizontally homogeneous. Culture and its accompanying values are also sources of legitimation. Mans reaction to what he considers as sacred even in the secular sense, creates a conviction that becomes compelling that one adheres to the collective notion of what is sacred. Religion may follow the same form of legitimation. The Crusades, the jihad or the holy War, or even the attack against the Jews are all violent outcomes of legitimizing beliefs. Behavior is determined by their beliefs and the desire to defend those beliefs. Whatever the underlying reason, be it political or economic, the legitimation is a religious one. Even in the Judeo-Christian tradition of upholding its laws, violence was present. The killing of the lamb as peace offering to God may be considered as a violent act and it symbolized the violence that man brought to the world through sin or by violating Gods laws. Despite the fact that Christians believe that the Ten Commandments is rooted in love, its application by the Israelites together with its natural law and the Law of Moses, offered a violent end for those who will violate its tenets. The Israelite who picks up firewood on the Sabbath day was stoned to death equal to the woman who was caught to be an adulterer, was in the same way stoned to death. But such a sanction was legitimized by a system to maintain its moral uprightness, or in the modern world, to maintain social control. The civil laws followed the principle of An eye for and eye and a tooth for a tooth. With this, violence is offered as a warning sign, a symbol of power, that whoever violates the law will be treated in accordance with such violence. In Michel Foucaults account of a man whose violation was that he tried to assassinate the King, the public execution where the convict was either hung in the gallows, garroted, or guillotined displayed the power of the King, that anyone who attempts to take the life of the King must be accorded the worst and bloodiest punishment, for the enjoyment of the public. With such a sanction, violence as a response to control violence was a necessary evil to maintain the integrity of those in power. Jesus Christ himself succumbed to anger, once when he drove the money changers away from the temple and vehemently chastised them for their defilement of the temple. This is referred to as holy indignation, which is the same logical response in a jihad. Although the act of cleansing the temple may be considered as a form of active nonviolence, in a way, it is in such a way that people also respond t their anger, in relation to their beliefs, that may lead t violence. Although later, Jesus Christ would clarify to his disciples that they should not react using violent means. He showed this by healing the ear of the soldier that Peter cut through a sword. The manner in which Jesus Christ was betrayed by Judas may also be considered as trying to create a violent response from the people by convicting an innocent man. The Zealots were a group of people who wanted to
August 4 Reflection Paper: CD227 SY 2011-2012 by Justin V. Nicolas Page 2

overthrow the Roman government by violent means. Their goal was to start a revolution and to put Jesus as King. The act therefore should not determine its being violence but the motivation behind it. Even in the previous examples, many great men had noble aims in using violence to meet that end. From a functionalist view, violence has a function in society, other than social control, and that is to show it effects when chosen my men and women to pursue. The Nagasaki-Hiroshima bombing, the Holocaust, or that eerie effect of having heard the news of a massacre, like that of the Ampatuan Mangandadatu slay, all of these leave a mark of the ill-effects of violence. Going back to the question, Is violence a necessary social process, I say, Yes, it was. Violence was a necessary response of humans in order to survive and adapt to its environment. Violence was necessary response to defend its territory from hostile forces. Violence was also a necessary response to achieve social control and to protect the people and the laws of the land. Violence was necessary to show us it ill-effects and to realize that violence begets violence. Violence has a sermon and throughout the years, we have heard what violence has to say. Violence lead to polarization, polarization leads to hate and war, and war leads to death of many whom violence sought to protect. When eschatological discourses continue to say Peace, Peace, when there is no peace, it is because many still want to listen to and have not learned from the sermon of violence. Violence is still embedded in the very structures of society. Violence has done its part in history and it has shown us where it leads. The sermon of violence presents violence as the anti-thesis of what we need to achieve, of what we want society to be. After learning of the message of violence comes the message of peace. What then should be the encompassing question of this new sermon? Maybe the better question is, Where is peace? Just as when one asks Where is violence? One would say that it may be inside ones self or internally motivated or it may be found outside ones self or externally influenced. This may be true with peace. Is peace found outside ones self? Is it something we find or observe outside? Or is peace found inside ones self. If such, then, the only response to survival or adaptation, are non-violent means. As Gandhi said, Non-violence is not a garment to be put on and off at will. Its seat is in the heart, and it must be an inseparable part of our being. .

August 4 Reflection Paper: CD227 SY 2011-2012 by Justin V. Nicolas

Page 3