Sean Gonsalves
There are several mealy-mouthed, bumper-sticker phrases being used in political debate to which we turn our focus this week – ”cut and run” and its linguistic cousin, ”in the face of terrorism we have to do something. We can’t just sit around and do nothing,” or some variation on the idea that state power ultimately rests on military power. Therefore, according to the logic of this narrow definition of power, those who oppose war are somehow weak do-nothings. Of course, so-called ”legitimate” violence, or the ability to make war, is power. But what kind of power? Is there any other kind of power that is more powerful than military might? … Political theorist Hannah Arendt, author of ”The Origins of Totalitarianism,” writes: ‘Violence and power are not the same,” she wrote. ”Power and violence are opposites; where one rules absolutely, the other is absent,” which is why ”to speak of nonviolent power is actually redundant.” How could Arendt make such a claim? Arendt observed that power is ”created not when some people coerce others but when they willingly take action together in support of a common purpose. Power corresponds to the human ability not just to act but to act in concert.” … In Jonathan Schell’s ”The Unconquerable World,” he suggests that power ”based on support” be called cooperative power and power ”based on force” be called coercive power. ”Both kinds of power are real. Both make things happen” and ”to the degree that a people is forced, it is not free.” You can’t really appreciate the insight Schell provides unless you consider the unquestioned assumption in all this war talk that coercive power is the only kind of power that exists, as expressed in the claim: ”If we cut-and-run from Iraq, it will be seen as a sign of weakness.” But isn’t it possible that our reliance on coercive power over an uncooperative people is seen, not as a projection of strength, but as a sign of desperate weakness? Students of Chinese martial philosophy might think so. ”Those who excel as warriors are not martial. Those who excel in combat do not get angry. Those who excel in conquering the enemy do not do battle. Those who excel in employing men act deferentially to them,” according to Tao Te Ching.