on peace n nonviolence

That I Would be Good

That I would be good even if I did nothing
That I would be good even if I got the thumbs down
That I would be good if I got and stayed sick
That I would be good even if I gained ten pounds

That I would be fine even if I went bankrupt
That I would be good if I lost my hair and my youth
That I would be great if I was no longer queen
That I would be grand if I was not all knowing

That I would be loved even when I numb myself
That I would be good even when I am overwhelmed
That I would be loved even when I was fuming
That I would be good even if I was clingy

That I would be good even if I lost sanity
That I would be good
Whether with or without you

Hand in My Pocket

I’m broke but I’m happy
I’m poor but I’m kind
I’m short but I’m healthy, yeah
I’m high but I’m grounded
I’m sane but I’m overwhelmed
I’m lost but I’m hopeful baby
What it all comes down to
Is that everything’s gonna be fine fine fine
I’ve got one hand in my pocket
And the other one is giving a high five
I feel drunk but I’m sober
I’m young and I’m underpaid
I’m tired but I’m working, yeah
I care but I’m restless
I’m here but I’m really gone
I’m wrong and I’m sorry baby

What it all comes down to
Is that everything’s gonna be quite alright
I’ve got one hand in my pocket
And the other one is flicking a cigarette
And what it all comes down to
Is that I haven’t got it all figured out just yet
I’ve got one hand in my pocket
And the other one is giving the peace sign
I’m free but I’m focused
I’m green but I’m wise
I’m hard but I’m friendly baby
I’m sad but I’m laughing
I’m brave but I’m chickenshit
I’m sick but I’m pretty baby

And what it all boils down to
Is that no one’s really got it figured out just yet
I’ve got one hand in my pocket
And the other one is playing the piano
And what it all comes down to my friends
Is that everything’s just fine fine fine
I’ve got one hand in my pocket
And the other one is hailing a taxi cab

aka: Clay Bird

Dir. Tareque Masud

This movie is based on the director’s childhood experience in a madrasah during the late 1960s in East Pakistan (now Bangladesh).  It tells about interreligious relations in the area.  Due to the sensitivity of the issue, this movie was banned from public screening in Bangladesh.

(ceritanya agak lambat dan datar… anyway, banyak insight yang bisa didapat dari film ini, terutama seputar pendidikan agama secara formal di sekolah dan secara informal di tengah masyarakat… yang pengin belajar tentang toleransi, pengerasan agama, hubungan antar agama, n konflik komunal wajib nonton film ini!)

Dir. Menno Meyjes

If you’re interested in knowing Hitler’s life before he came to power, you should see this movie.  Do you know that he was an artist (painter) before he become "the Hitler"?

(keren!)

Dir. Stacey Title

This movie is about a group of friends, all claim to be liberals.  They regularly invite different kinds of people at their place.  Over dinner, the guests are asked to share their views on certain issues.  At the end, the group of friends decide whether the guest should be served a normal wine, or a poisoned wine.

(menegangkan… jadi kebayang2 apakah aku akan melakukan hal yang sama — membunuh, maksudnya! — jika dihadapkan pada situasi yang sama… film ini akan membuat kita berpikir ulang soal what it takes to be a real liberal, soal etika, n soal private justice)

aka: Turtles Can Fly

Dir. Bahman Ghobadi

This film is the first to be made in Iraq after the fall of Saddam.  It’s mainly about children attempting to survive in an adult world on the eve of the US invasion of 2003.

(sumpah, buaguuuus banget… must see pokoknya… sinematografinya jempol, castingnya hebat, ceritanya insightful… film ini dengan lihainya merangkum berbagai macam tema, dari latar belakang perang, child labour, land mines, perdagangan senjata, motherhood, etc… masing2 tema ‘cuma’ disentuh sedikit, tapi dalam… one of the best movie i’ve ever seen)

“(The) key idea behind this theory is that liberation is not necessarily only the responsibility of the oppressed.  Intermediate groups, especially those that have an identification with both the oppressor and the oppressed, can play a key role.  Intermediate groups are links in the chain of nonviolence.  If the oppressed cannot through their own actions persuade the oppressors to change their views and actions, they may nevertheless be able to create sympathy among third parties who themselves have more influence with the oppressors.  Sometimes the chain will be a long one, with several intermediaries along the way between the oppressed and oppressor” (Galtung, cited in Martin and Varney 2003: 138).

A simple way to illustrate how nonviolence work is to see it as a jiu-jitsu: when used against opponents who are able and willing to use violent measures, it rebounds the violence against its perpetrator.  As the violence bounces back to the perpetrator, change becomes possible.

The ideological school believes that nonviolence works as a moral jiu-jitsu:  when faced with fearless, calm, steady, and nonviolent reactions, violence itself helps to overthrow its user.  The exponent of nonviolent action is superior to the attacker in at least three ways (Gregg 1935: 26).  Firstly, this person has taken a moral initiative, one which the opponent is not trained to respond to.  Secondly, this person knows what is really happening in such struggle and how to control the process.  Thirdly, this person’s self-control conserves his or her energy, while the opponent is exhausted by prolonged anger.  Thus, the opponent loses moral balance and starts questioning the appropriateness of his or her conduct.

Meanwhile, the pragmatic school sees nonviolence as a political jiu-jitsu, aiming at throwing an opponent off balance politically, allowing the repression to rebound against the perpetrator’s position and weakening his or her power.  As mentioned by  Sharp (1973: 109-113), “an extensive, determined and skilful application of nonviolent action” against “opponents who are able and willing to use violent means” will “disturb or frustrate the effective utilisation” of the opponents’ forces, alienate the general population from the opponent, as well as increase sympathy and support for the nonviolent action.  More specifically, he identified three groups that can be affected by such political jiu-jitsu:

“(1) the general grievance group and the usually smaller group of nonviolent resisters; (2) the opponents’ usual supporters, on various levels, including among the general population, the opponents’ functionaries, administrators, and enforcement agents, and at times even the top echelons of officials; (3) uncommitted third parties, whether on the local or world level” (Sharp 2005: 407). 

There are two main ‘schools’ of nonviolence: the ideological and the pragmatic. The ideological school believes that nonviolent actions are based on ethical reasons and the belief in the unity of means and ends.  Meanwhile, the pragmatic school sees that nonviolent actions are conducted upon the belief that they are the most effective method available in the circumstances. 

Moving from the binary model above, which sees nonviolence as either ideological or pragmatic, Weber and Burrowes developed a framework which incorporates a ‘tactical-strategic dimension’ into the existing ‘ideological-pragmatic dimension’.  While the ideological-pragmatic dimension shows the nature of commitment to nonviolence and the approach to conflict which the activists utilise, including the relationship between means and ends, the tactical-strategic dimension focuses on the depth of analysis, ultimate aim, and operational time-frame which activists use.

Tactical nonviolent actions are conducted through short to medium term campaigns to achieve certain goals within an existing social framework.  Meanwhile, strategic nonviolent actions are based on a structural analysis of social relationships and are concerned with the fundamental transformation of the society.  While tactical nonviolent actions seek reform, strategic nonviolent actions speak about long-term revolutionary strategy.

(taken from Weber and Burrowes, in Peace Dossier 1991)

Boserup and Mack (1974: 37-54), grouped nonviolent actions into: (1) symbolic actions, (2) denial activities, and (3) undermining activities. 

Symbolic activities are those aimed at providing the psychological basis for the resistance, giving emphasis on (a) demonstrating the unity and strength of the resistance, both to its exponents and opponents, and (b) delimiting the resistance group, and therefore forcing other parties to take a stand, either for or against. 

Denial activities are those aiming on preventing the opponent from achieving his or her initial objectives, conducted through (a) physical obstruction and sabotage, and/or (b) non cooperation. 

Undermining activities aim at undermining the opponent’s ability to continue the fight – splitting and weakening the opponent.  They focus on (a) seeking for the opponent’s conversion, (b) appealing to the opponent’s conscience, (c) splitting the opponent’s home front, and/or (d) mobilising international support. 

A successful nonviolent action brings about change through one of the following mechanisms: (1) coercion, (2) conversion, or (3) persuasion. 

Coercion is “taking away from the opponent either his ability to maintain the status quo or his ability to effect social change” (1962: 19).  The effectiveness of this mechanism depends on (a) how dependent the opponent is to the nonviolent exponent, and (b) the relation between the opponent and a third party (1962: 19). 

Conversion means that the opponent “comes around to a new point of view which embraces the ends of the nonviolent actor” (1962: 20).  While “coercive nonviolence undermines the opponent’s ability to resist the demands of the nonviolent actor, nonviolent conversion removes the opponent’s reason for resisting” (1962: 21). 

Persuasion refers to a condition where the opponent is not converted, but “accepts a new image of the nonviolent actor, an image which discourages the use of violence against him” (1962: 21).  It works when a nonviolent exponent manages to convince others that they are not appropriate targets for violent repression (1962: 22).  Being able to project a self-image as a ‘nuisance’, and not as a ‘threat’, a nonviolent exponent is close to a resolution of the conflict (1962: 23).

The above mechanisms were adopted and slightly modified by Sharp (1973: 705-776) into (1) coercion, (2) conversion, and (3) accommodation (Randle 2002: 79).  In a later publication, Sharp (cited in Randle 2002: 79-80) introduced another mechanism, labelled as disintegration, which refers to “a situation where the opponent’s power structure collapses altogether under the pressure of civil resistance”.