Denise Borraz Trepat

Sociology of Violence
Professor Sandra Castro

Alternatives to violence: reality or utopia?

Through this semester, we have been studying violence and its patterns. We have reached

some conclusions such as the fact that, although it appears in patterns, violence is everywhere in

our society. Also, with the development of technologies and our big dependence on the media,

we create a 24/7 “violence effect”. In this paper, I would like to talk about a more positive and

perhaps less realistic topic: alternatives to violence. One of the main issues we encounter in our

society regarding this topic is that violence is often fought with violence. We then realize that we

find ourselves in a cycle that is difficult to leave since it has no end. For this reason, I think that

these four authors I will present in the paper have an interesting point of view on alternatives to

avoid violence that might be important to discuss. Nevertheless, we might also need to consider:

Is there a way to fight violence without creating more violence or is that a utopic thought? Is it

possible to eradicate violence at all?

First of all, with the intention of answering the first question, we find that some modern

intellectuals and leaders do believe in that possibility, such as our first author, Aung San Suu

Kyi. She is a politician from Burma (currently Myanmar), a small country in Asia, who believes

that the root of violence and corruption is fear. It is the fear of losing power, she explains, which

corrupts human beings. According to Aung San Suu Kyi, fear is connected to all the other kinds

of corruption (desire, hate, ignorance) and it can only be fought with courage. For her, courage

equals freedom and there are three basic values that will fight violence and corruption; truth,

justice, and compassion.

 Regarding justice, she talks about laws and democracy and reminds the readers that laws

are not just the solution to corruption but also a big step towards achieving human dignity. It is

important to consider that Aung San Suu Kyi speaks through experience since Myanmar used to

be considered one of the most repressive and abusive military regimes until it transitioned to a

new government in 2011. Another interesting part of her theory is that she says there is a need

for a relationship between politics and ethics because of the advance of technology and its effects

on our society. Nevertheless, she says that it is not enough to ask for freedom, democracy, and

human rights. Those cannot exist without sacrifices for the truth (our main goal) and a big

resistance against corruption. I think her theory can be understood when she says that “saints are

the sinners who go on trying” (315). There is no freedom without sacrifice and effort and that

freedom from fear is both the mean and the end. She finishes her theory with a really positive

note and belief in humanity saying that courage and compassion will always rise up because fear

is not the natural state of civilized men.

Personally, I think Aung San Suu Kyi’s theory on how to avoid violence and corruption

has a lot of positive points. I think her theory is interesting because she intends to change people

from the inside, focusing on their core values in order to build the three main ones that she

considers are the three main pillars to achieve freedom and peace (truth, justice, and

compassion). She talks about political change, which also attacks the root of the problem since

politics rule our lives and are the root and balance of our society. Also, she has a very positive

attitude when she talks about courage moving the world and always winning over fear. However,

going off of that, her point of view can seem in some ways utopic. It is really beautiful to assume

that courage is always going to win, but it seems to me that we live in a society in which fear is

the king. As we have studied this semester, we live in a Culture of Fear. America is living
through a period in which fear moves the strings of everything that happens, especially in

politics. Citizens are scared and make decisions based on that fear of the unknown. Finally, I

would like to add that everything in the world is necessary, even negativity, in order for other

things to exist. Thus, fear is necessary in some kind of way so courage can exist and vice versa.

The next author we will talk about is Martin Luther King Jr. Very well known in

America, Martin Luther King Jr. talks about non-violent resistance as an alternative to violence.

He supports his idea explaining that this non-violent resistance was used by the student

movement in the South and all over the United States. He talks about the necessity of courage

(which seems to be a recurring theme when it comes to fighting violence) and he then explains

the most important points to practice non-violent resistance. The first and most important point,

he says, is to understand that the means must be as pure as the ends. This is a premise that

communism, for instance, did not understand since in this kind of government, as Martin Luther

King Jr says, the end justifies the means.

The next important point would be the principle of non-injury. The non-violent resistance

has two sides; external and internal. The most important part of this theory is that it does not only

claim that there needs to be an avoidance of physical violence but also an avoidance of violence

of spirit. According to him, there needs to be what the Greeks called agape, a kind of love that

goes beyond romantic or friendly love; a love that is understanding, creative, good and that seeks

nothing in return. Then, he talks about the necessity of loving everybody (including the enemy).

To achieve that, he says, it is really important to understand the difference between loving and

liking. It is really difficult to like somebody who is hurting you, but we must learn to love them.

That same love is the force that will stop the violence.
 The next principle would be suffering as a creative and powerful force. Martin Luther

King Jr says that the difference between violent and non-violent methods is that with the first one

others suffer and with the second one you are willing to accept your own suffering. Again, as in

Aung San Suu Kyi, we encounter the idea of suffering as a necessity to achieve freedom and

peace. Finally, he makes a point that I think is the key to achieving that ‘superior’ love in order

to resist violence: his last principle is that in human nature there is potential for goodness. If we

think human beings are good by nature, I believe we fall into a non-realistic thought.

However, Martin Luther King Jr explains that human beings have the potential for both

bad and good and it is our duty to get the good out of them. There is a dichotomy, he says, so if

there is bad in somebody there must be good too. He ends his theory by saying that we have the

moral obligation to refuse to cooperate with evil even if that means to question the laws. It is

important to remember, as he says, that what Hitler did was once ‘legal’. He also explains that

“our nation in a sense came into being through a massive act of civil disobedience for the Boston

Tea Party was nothing but a massive act of violence”(306).We need to understand that laws are

made by human beings and we are not perfect.

I personally appreciate the fact that Martin Luther King Jr bases his theory on morals,

something that I believe our society is beginning to lack and is the base of any well-functioning

civilization. I also liked his explanation on the difference between liking and loving. I truly

believe that he is right and I myself have experienced this with people around me. You cannot

like everybody but you can choose to love, which is one of the most important bases of

Christianity. Another aspect that I like about his theory is his idea of human nature, which seems

realistic more than optimistic since both bad and good are considered. Nevertheless, there are

some aspects of his theory that might not work in our society due to the nature of it. I truly
believe that we live in a relativistic society, in which morals are not standard but can vary

depending on the situation. I believe there is a lot of brainwashing and lack of education that will

not allow supporting a society in which people refuse to cooperate with evil since they do not

know how to distinguish it on their own (or they might believe evil is not even real but a social

construct that is relative).

The next theory I will discuss is bell hooks’ idea of a world without racism. Gloria Jean

Watkins, known as bell hooks, is a feminist and social activist that believes in the possibility of

what she calls a beloved community, a place in which racism does not exist and we have

forgotten about racial differences. She says that the problem with our society is that people have

given up trying. Back in the days, there were a lot of activists who fought for this idea and, as

she says, in some kind of way we can say they achieved something. Bell hooks believes that her

beloved community exists for those who have educated themselves in order to let go of the white

supremacist's values in which this land was founded. There is a big transformative power in love,

which she believes is the basis of everything. She also adds that love does not come without

sacrifice (a premise that we have heard from both authors discussed previously). One of the most

important point that bell hooks makes is that this acceptance of other races will come not from

the eradication of differences but by its affirmation. We cannot deny or give up our own culture,

but we need to deepen our bonding connecting our origins. Bell hooks states that nowadays we

find multiple groups with a nationalist separatist thinking among black people. This is just a

reaction to the covered racism that our society is experiencing. A few years ago, racism seemed

to be more obvious, but nowadays it is covered, which makes it even more dangerous and

difficult to finish with. This just shows the roots of white supremacy established in our country.

The problem is that most of this white supremacist groups believe that white people are
‘inherently racist’ and therefore they refuse to make any effort to change. This is because, as she

says, “denying their agency allows them to believe white privilege does not exist even as they

daily exercise it” (311). Thus, the key to creating a beloved community, is, as bell hooks

explains, to encourage and embrace challenge and change and to make a deep commitment to

society and ourselves.

What I found especially interesting about bell hooks’ theory is that she talks about both

sides of the problem, while other authors just focus on one (whether it is white or black people).

She understands that there needs to be a change from both sides in order to accept one another. I

really appreciated the fact that bell hooks’ bases her theory on historical facts and talks about the

roots of the problem. The most important point I think she makes is the need for education. In

my opinion, this is the point the other two theories are lacking and one of the reasons why I think

they might not be as effective. Courage, truth, justice and understanding are really difficult to

achieve without an education to support them. I also agree with bell hooks’ idea of culture

acceptance. Being from another country, I have experienced cultural shock coming to the United

States (even if I come from a Western country). I think it is really important to acknowledge all

culture and accept them in order to be able to end violence and discrimination. We need to accept

the differences, as bell hooks says, in order to create a stronger community. Although I think this

theory is realistic, there are still a few points that I think might be problematic. For some reason,

people fear change, and that is one of the main points bell books makes; a need for change. I also

think her idea of beloved community might be somehow utopic since everybody is different and

there will always be hate in one way or another. Nevertheless, I agree that our goal should be the

beloved community, even if we can never get there. Finally, as the other two authors, bell hooks

talks about sacrifice. But again, the problem is that not everybody is willing to sacrifice. We live
in a society that I think is scared of love. Every day more we see with the rise of technology the

problem that our society is experiencing when it comes to love, commitment and relationships;

we are not ready to sacrifice for what we are scared of.

The last author I will be talking about is one of the most important people that fought

against violence in a non-violent way. Mahatma Gandhi can be considered the father of non-

violence as method to end violence. He believed that the world is ruled by brute force, and I do

not think he is wrong. Although Gandhi has always been portrayed as somebody who always

chooses non-violence, I was really surprised when I read his idea that between cowardice and

violence, violence must win. Of course, if possible nonviolence is much more powerful than

violence, but sometimes there is no other way. We cannot turn our face away from the problem

and be cowards. Gandhi believes that strength comes from will and not from physical capacity.

Curiously enough, our fourth author brings up what all the others have also talked about: self-

sacrifice. In order to achieve peace and truth (our goals), there must be a conscious suffering, and

that path is just for the strong and powerful. Another concept that repeats itself is love; especially

love for everybody. Gandhi explains that fear and love are contradictory; an idea with which I

truly agree. Love is one of the most powerful things human beings have, and one must be brave

enough to handle the happiness but also the pain that comes with it. Finally, the most important

point he makes is that non-violence is a way of living, not just an experiment. In a letter to M.

Asaf Ali, Gandhi himself said: “It is part of my life (nonviolence) and the whole of the creed of

satyagraha, non co-operation, civil disobedience, and the like are necessary deductions from the

fundamental proposition that non-violence is the law of life for human beings”(297). Mahatma

Gandhi did truly live by that, and he proved to the world that non-violent methods could win

over violence.
 I was really happy to hear that, against the beliefs of most people, Gandhi did think that

violence was still better than cowardice. I think that our society is full of cowards and people

nowadays are too comfortable and scared to fight for what they want. I find that most people

justify themselves saying that violence is not the solution, but in many cases it's just cowardice

disguised. What I also like about Gandhi’s ideas is that they are realistic and have been proven

by him. He truly lived by his ideals and suffered and loved in name of freedom and peace. I also

enjoyed the fact that he talks about power and strength, but that is what also brings me to the

downside of this theory. I do not think that strength and power are for everybody, although I do

not think Gandhi was assuming that. Also, this method might have worked in India for Gandhi,

but who knows if it would work in all situations. Violence will not disappear. Mahatma Gandhi

also says that the goal is the Truth, but that is difficult to find in a society in which technology is

on the rise and with it the media. We have sources everywhere telling us what to think and that

would not be a problem if we did not have an education crisis. Again, the root, for me, is in

education and all the other basic points cannot be achieved without it.

After having analyzed these four theories, I could say that the one that could be most

effective and realistic would be the non-violent method that Gandhi and also Martin Luther King

Jr talk about. However, the ideas and principles that bell hooks establishes in her text Beloved

Community: A World Without Racism might be closer to what I think. Thus, the most effective

theory might be a combination of Gandhi’s actionable ideas with bell hooks’ morals and points

on education.

In my last paper on why America was violent, I mentioned racism, gun control, gender

inequality and diet as the main problems that the United States are facing right now causing a

violent society. I believe racism and social inequality could both be solved through bell hook’s
ideals. In the end, both are issues of acceptance of what is different. Another solution that I

talked about for these two problems was education, which also is an important point in bell

hooks’ theory. If we all learned to accept our differences we would understand that although we

are not the same we are equal. It does not matter what race or what sex, education needs to

enforce the idea that we are all people. If through education we could study other cultures instead

of just focusing on our own, we would be able to connect our origins, as bell hooks says, and

then be more powerful together. It is interesting to see that all authors talk about unconditional

love, does that not mean anything? Why do all these diverse thinkers bring it back to the same

point? Maybe when we learn to understand that we will be able to finish with inequality and

racism.

When it comes to gun control, I would like to go back to Aung San Suu Kyi. As she says,

we are very fortunate to live in a democracy where we have laws that give us human dignity.

Laws, as she says, are also the solution that will end violence and corruption. I think this says it

all regarding gun issues in the United States. Aung San Suu Kyi’s ideas are what we need to

understand in order to solve this problem. Establishing more laws to regulate guns would just

help end violence and would give us more human dignity since we would have a more civilized

society. Finally, the diet problem facing The United States can be approached through any of

these theories, since they all talk about one same topic; truth. We are deliberately being lied to

and we do not know what we are consuming. The biggest problem with this almost poisoning of

the population is corruption. Companies do not care about our health; they just care about

making money as fast as they can. There is a corrupt system in which money (desire) is more

important than human beings themselves. How can a society work if material and socially

constructed things are more important than human beings?

 To conclude, I think that the alternatives to violence are infinite. Through this paper, we

have seen four important theories, but there are much more and, in my opinion, all much more

powerful than violence itself. As all authors agree with, freedom, truth, and love are just for the

strong and those willing to sacrifice in order to change the world. Some of these statements

might sound utopic, and some theories seem more effective than others, but in the end, it is worth

trying everything in order to end violence. Unfortunately, I do not think violence can be

completely eradicated, but like Martin Luther King Jr says dichotomies are necessary and

therefore, where there is violence, there is an inherent potential for peace.

 WORKS CITED

Aung, S. S. K., & Aris, M. (1995). Freedom from fear, and other writings. New Delhi:
Penguin Books.

Best, J. (1999). Random violence: how we talk about new crimes and new victims.
Berkeley, Calif.: University of California press.

Gandhi, & Iyer, R. (1991). The essential writings of Mahatma Gandhi. Delhi: Oxford
University Press.

Hooks, B. (1995). Beloved community: A world without racism. Killing Rage

King, Martin L. Jr (1961). Excerpt from Love, Law and Civil Disobedience. Found
in http://bigfatgenius.com/2220%20Fall%202010/King%20-
%20Love%20Law%20and%20Civil%20Disobedience.html