| Interesting post, Rohan. I often contemplate the question of what the best method is to combat oppression. One of the key distinctions in my mind, apart from violent/non-violent, is the distinction between working within the system of oppression and rejecting the system altogether. Of course, these two distinctions overlap in a substantial way, but I do not think they are 100% co-extensive. That is, there are some people, Gandhi comes to mind, who believed that non-participation was critical to meaningful reform, but should be conducted in a non-violent fashion. For example, instead of fighting within the system of the salt industry to increase Indian control, Gandhi thought that non-use of British salt was a preferable alternative. That being said, it is hard to say anything meaningful about either of these distinctions when we abstract away the facts of the situation.
Another related issue I think is important is the risk of co-option that comes with any movement. I visited Occupy Wall Street twice last year, and each time I came away with the uncomfortable feeling that it almost seemed as though the banks wanted the protest to continue so that society would feel as if something was being done, when in reality, the protests did little to change the system. This is great for the banks since, if people feel as if something is being done, then efforts won't be taken to find real solutions. In effect then, there is a risk that Occupy Wall Street made things worse. But on the other hand, bankers attempting to change bank policy from within might also risk co-option since people at the top can pull strings and pervert any attempt at reform into a further entrenchment of the status quo. This relates to the distinctions discussed above -- perhaps the better choice is the one that lowers the risk of co-option. But maybe in either case, co-option is inevitable. I don't know, I don't have a solution. But it's troubling.
-- PrashantRai - 25 May 2012 |