#title On Gentle Violence
#author Maurits Fennis
#LISTtitle Gentle Violence
#date 01/13/2023
#source https://anarchistnews.org/content/gentle-violence-maurits-fennis-0
#lang en
#pubdate 2023-01-15T11:36:19
#topics anarchism, violence, anti-state



In anarchist circles, we often hear about the subject of violence in its
direct forms, such as the violence in state repression, violence enacted by
the police, violence perpetrated by individuals with a different ideological
alignment. We also hear about violence originating from within our own circles,
such as violence during protests and uprisings, defensive violence against
aggressors, the destruction of property and looting, etc.

In short, when we discuss violence, we talk about it as physical violence,
which we either endure or initiate.

Discussing violence within this context automatically introduce moral
conundrums, such as whether the people who assume roles that enforce state
domination, such as the police, should be treated humanely or not. Whether
properties such as small, local stores should be damaged during a protest
or not. In other words, if physical violence, and the intention to harm is
directed at us, should we counter this aggression with aggression of our
own? And if we do, what are the limits to this violence? Although these
are important questions to address and violence in the face of oppression
should not be condemned, the discussions that follow <em>do </em>lead us away from
discovering what else could be considered violent and what its effects might be.

To give an example, if we as anarchists reject the legitimacy of the state, this is a
form of violence towards the idea of the state. If I were to be asked to describe the
nature and characteristics of the state, in my attempt I would roughly describe the
state as something fictitious; a house of cards held together by rituals, ceremonies
and bureaucratic duct-tape. To me, the state has no legitimacy and so removing the
legitimacy from the idea requires little cognitive effort. I do not have to suddenly
change my perspectives on where I live, the broader environment and my social
and professional relationships. In other words, I don't have to remove the
scaffolding of my life because it is built on top of a different foundation; on
anarchy.

Now, if we tried to convince someone else of our convictions, when we
try to explain our perspective and this person considers the existence of
the state as something unquestionable, immutable and permanent, we are
committing violence to that idea. In order for this person to consider other
methods of social organization, they first need to abandon the concept of the state.

To abandon what we know can be an alienating experience, and can cause a
visceral response; we truly believe that what we think we know is real and to
abandon it is to rip out a part of ourselves, leading to responses that are often
involuntary. We might feel offended, violated or disgusted at the alternative that is
presented before us. Our response to such alienation can result in anger and outrage.

Moreover, to people who are inclined to be intellectually conservative, any new
idea is not only confusing, but a real existential danger to the status quo. If a person
sets out to take care of and maintain something their ancestors have painstakingly
built and slowly grows to be fond of it, considers it to be important heritage and
develops an affinity with it, the worst thing that could happen to them is its
very destruction. To them, there are no other real options and if there are,
they should appear to be as significant and grand as what they are asked to
abandon.

The absolute nature of the state comes from its self-imposed historical
significance and its entanglement within our lives. Although it might be
our intention to liberate others from it, we will have to provide them with
something to conserve first. To simply propose something new is <em>violent</em>; to
guide someone to something new that needs stewardship and care is <em>gentle violence</em>.