In our Friday hangout those of us there discussed pacifism, and whether being a pacifist is compatible with being a Jedi. We had a serious look at the fundamental definition of being a pacifist:
“A person who believes that war and violence are unjustifiable.”
We largely concluded, after discussing our own personal views of what it means to adhere to a principle of non-violence, that being a Jedi is not compatible with that strict concept of being a pacifist. Absolute pacifism and being a Jedi are not compatible; as we all concluded that being a Jedi means we must in fact support the concept of physical violence for emergency defence of self or others. That as adherents of a pragmatic, applied philosophy we must admit that diplomacy and other means of peaceful resolution can, and have, failed in the past. That there are individuals who will refuse, or are unable, to be reasoned with and for whom there is no other course but violence. When confronted with individuals as such, we thus have a moral imperative to defend ourselves and others. To paraphrase a lesson, I once gave:
“If you are sincere in being a Jedi and living your path; then you are at least one good person trying to do good in the world. Allowing harm to come to yourself because you believe in the sanctity of human life is foolish, and self-defeating; what is better for this world? You, as a person trying to do Good, or the allowance of the person doing harm to continue on unabated?”
One need not agree with the logic presented in said lesson, and indeed, disagreement is one of the boons of living in a time of peace. We are free to let ideas fight over us, rather than us fighting over ideas. Ultimately; the Jedi way is not one of absolute Pacifism. However, it is one that advocates the value of peace, as a means and as an end. Above, I discussed one benefit of peace; in a free society it allows the conflict of ideas without the violence of war. It allows for economies based on trade, and moderated by market demands, but also creativity and the liberty to create new avenues. It allows for people to be where they are most needed, or most prosperous, rather than trapped behind walls crafted by enmity. It broadens perspectives and allows people to confront ideas and issues from a place of growth.
No society, or individual has ever benefitted from perpetual war; war is not in of itself good nor evil. It is merely a monster that consumes everything in its path, and it is worse than Hell; it makes no distinction between the innocent and the guilty. War is the plague that man unleashes on its self and destroys all things. Be it philosophy, nations, families, or anything human; war is an affliction that cares nothing for its victims. Conflict narrows perspectives, and our ideas of ourselves become divorced from individuality; conflict reduces humankind to the mentality of my tribe, my clan, my nation be it right or wrong. Conflict enforces a mindset of victory or defeat, and in this the novelty of being wrong, and learning from mistakes is not nurtured, but instead punished because the situation is life or death (or being part of the in-group or out-group from the civilian perspective).
Therefore, as Jedi we advocate for peace, as both a means and as an end; we believe peace provides the most opportunity for growth, but because we recognise that peace does not mean the absence of competition. Peace provides a platform for competition which is not inherently destructive. Therefore, we advocate peaceful living and the pursuit of inner peace; it does not mean to stagnate or to not confront ideas and experiences. Rather, it is not to waste energy on conflict that is futile and artificial. We invite conflict into our lives by creating it or acting in a way to allow it to persevere.
This, however, is only one part of the conversation and I shall not put words in the mouths of the other participants; the above is solely my own perspective but coloured by the conversation. Aside from the concept of pacifism, we also discussed pragmatic responses to violence, and we largely agreed that it is circumstantial and appropriate responses are best judged by context. We also came to some consensus that you can only effectively deal with the violence you expect and have prepared yourself for. I brought up the established notions of civilian self-defence, and that we know most adult individuals will have only one major fight in their life, and they will have had said fight before they have left mandatory education. Similarly, that regarding acts of violence, civilians are more likely to be confronted by a violent attack in the form of an attempted mugging.
Speaking of knowing the nature of the violence, we know of three various approach strategies being common in cases of civilian violence:
1) An initial approach, and one often trained against in martial arts is the “blitz”. The attacker strikes suddenly with force to rapidly overcome the victim, and gain control of the situation. Most often used by physically stronger, or armed, criminals it is often the “assumed” approach in a lot of self-defence training, but it is only one type of approach.
2) The “Ambush” method is essentially as it is described. The approach is characterized by the attacker waiting for certain conditions to be met (like allowing people to pass through an isolated area), before acting to swiftly subdue their victim. Most often employed against women, by rapists, but a common method used by many criminals of opportunity. The key difference between this approach, and the “blitz” approach, is the waiting aspect on the perfect opportunity.
3) The final means of approach is what is called the “Con” where the attacker performs a deceiving action, to get the victim into a vulnerable position in order to make the “real” attack easier. For example, asking their intended victim what the time is to get them to look at their watch or phone, and thus take their eyes off their attacker.
In all these examples, what we have is the attacker being in range, and ready to begin the attack without any real cues to their proper intention. We also need to keep in mind that all three of the approaches can become blurred. For example; 3 and 1, where the attacker performs a distraction but then immediately attacks their victim. Arguably, this undermines any argument for using a weapon, or various tools, for self-defence. The civilian, in a civilian setting, when considering the situation, they are mostly likely to be confronted with would be best off practicing a form of reality Based-Self Defence. Similarly, they would be best off practicing strategies which will best prevent them from being vulnerable to these sorts of attacks.
However, this is a very narrow view. Everyone’s self-defence needs are fundamentally different. Similarly; the approaches above are very broad, and the commonality and differences from country to country, and indeed community to community, differ vastly. When it comes to pragmatic approaches to violence, the individual Jedi does need to consider the types of violence they are likely to face. A Jedi in the sphere of security work, or where they may face violent individuals in the work-place, has very different needs to someone who has no such concerns. Depending on country, one has different concerns about potential escalation of force: the average citizen in the U.K is unlikely to have any form of weapon on their person, and thus if they become violent will try to engage with their bare hands or an improvised weapon. Contrast this to the U.S, where depending on the State, there is a 1/3 or 1/5 chance that the individual is carrying a fire-arm, and that number is based on legal ownership. The potential for an aggressive altercation with a stranger to escalate into potentially lethal violence differs immensely when discussing averages.
As such, as a Jedi, it is important to ask one-self two questions when we consider literal peace, and how we confront the issues of violence in our lives:
1. What does peace mean to you as a Jedi? Where do your beliefs fall when it comes to the interconnections between factors of force and matters such as civil resistance, and so on.
2. What is “violence” in the context of your life? Do you live a life where violence is potential outcome on most days, or is violence something you have never had to give significant consideration? What are your individual self-defence needs, or what can you contribute to issues of violence in your community?
There are no right nor wrong answers, but it would be wrong as a Jedi to never explore these questions, or deeply consider what “Peace” truly is, and what brings an end to peace.