At the beginning of this year, as part of the work that pays bills, I found myself checking out a book on digital logic design. The book was intriguing because it made use of a piece of open-source digital circuit simulation software. (I always like reading about how to use free tools!) As I read the preface, I ran across a paragraph titled, "How to Acquire Intuition?" The paragraph explained why instilling mathematical rigor through proofs is a key part of instilling the mathematical intuition needed to understand digital logic circuits. As a criticism of the modern way in which many technical subjects are taught, the authors wrote the following sentence:
All we can say is that this strategy [that is, the non-proof strategy] is in complete disregard of the statement: "When you have to shoot, shoot. Don't talk" [Tuco in The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly].
Let me assure you that today's post is not about digital circuits! But I have to admit that the quote intrigued me for reasons that are completely non-technical. You see, I have never watched The Good, The Bad, and the Ugly - although I have known that this movie and other movies like it helped launch the big-name careers of some hitherto obscure actors, including Clint Eastwood. So I checked out a few YouTube clips from The Good, the Bad and the Ugly, and I pondered the career of Mr. Eastwood.
I have seen only a couple of Clint Eastwood movies in my entire life, but I know that he made a big name for himself as an actor by specializing in the portrayal of
morally ambiguous leading characters, characters for whom one might root if one was still a kid, but whom one's parents might not allow around their children. A case in point is his
Dirty Harry character - a cop who doesn't quite play by the rules, a cop who makes us wonder whether or not he'll really do the right thing in the end, a cop whose message seems in part to be that the end justifies the means. Eastwood's "spaghetti Western" roles were similarly morally gray characters, a somewhat jarring contrast to the image of the American cowboy which had been built up in American culture until that time - the absolutely pure and wholesome blond-white-and blue adult male "Boy Scout" in white hat, set in opposition to the utterly evil, black-hatted villain in the western movies and pulp novels of the early to mid-20th century.
Eastwood's characters largely get away with their moral ambiguity in his movies, as things usually seem to work out in their favor by the time of the closing credits. In other words, the consequences of moral ambiguity are portrayed as positive for the ambiguous character who has the right skills. Yet there are other storytellers who provide a glimpse into the costs and side effects of such ambiguity. One such storyteller was the late
John le Carre, whose subject matter was the spy as an agent of government and empire. Like Eastwood's characters, le Carre's characters were intended to poke holes in a romanticized depiction of a certain type of hero - namely, the sort of uber-cool, gadget-laden, macho adventurer-spy typified by
James Bond. Like Eastwood's characters, Bond is morally ambiguous in his means, but in the movies, it's always okay because we are told that the ultimate end is ultimately good. In le Carre's work, by contrast, the spy is seen as a
morally ambiguous agent of a morally questionable empire, and the things which the empire demands of the spy in the course of his job frequently end up destroying his soul.
Thoughts of le Carre (whose audiobooks I have recently been enjoying) bring me to a central question of tonight's post, namely, what sort of society we create for ourselves when we choose to live by the dictum, "Do not be excessively righteous, and do not be overly wise. Why should you ruin yourself? Do not be excessively wicked, and do not be a fool. Why should you die before your time?" (Ecclesiastes 7:16-17) In such a society, we may start out with a righteous end, yet find that in our misguided zeal we choose means that are completely incompatible with the end we profess. Or - and this seems far more likely nowadays - we may find ourselves searching for ends
and means which maximize our own personal advantages regardless of the ultimate righteousness of those ends, even though we say otherwise. This leads to such things as the ambiguity and the sometimes immense suffering that comprises the legacy of
Mao Zedong. Or the fiendish Machiavellian legacy of
V.I. Lenin and the horrors which the Bolsheviks unleashed on Russia and Eastern Europe. Or the regime of the recently ousted former President Trump (although he seems to have heeded the part of Ecclesiastes which said not to be too good and to have disregarded the part that said not to be too evil!). Or the legacy and ongoing "witness" of the white American Evangelical/Protestant church, which has by now conclusively proven that it has nothing to do with the Lord Jesus Christ because it has no intention of ever doing what He commanded - especially in the Sermon on the Mount. Rather, this church has shown that it is the
spread-legged whore and serving wench of secular earthly economic and political power, a mere means to a materialist end consisting of earthly domination for a certain select group of people. When we consider American evangelicalism, we see that one consequence of the toleration of moral ambiguity is a society in which people say things merely to try to achieve certain effects in their hearers, rather than saying things in order to communicate truth. Hence, for instance,
the Right's defense of Trump even in the face of Trump's own moral contradictions.
In short, if Clint Eastwood's characters are the sort of people whom good parents don't let near their children, then morally ambiguous societies are the sorts of places in which good parents don't let their children play - because someone is bound to get hurt in such places. When such societies do arise (for "it is inevitable that stumbling blocks come"), then it becomes necessary for decent people to resist such societies and the masters who run them. This has been the motivation for the series of posts I have written on strategic nonviolent resistance during the Trump presidency, and especially during the last eighteen months. And if one goes through some of the literature on strategic nonviolent resistance that was written and published before the middle of the last decade, one sees that a righteous cause is a necessary ingredient of successful resistance. It is not by itself a sufficient ingredient - for a righteous cause still needs good strategy - but without a righteous cause, what reason do people have to join a struggle? Especially when joining a particular struggle may result in the loss of life, liberty and property?
- Cowardice and nonviolent struggle do not mix
- Cowards seek to avoid the conflict and flee from danger, while the nonviolent resister faces the conflict and risks the dangers involved
- Bravery in this technique of struggle is not only moral valor but a practical requirement
- Civil resisters ought to have confidence in the justice and force of their cause, principles, and means of action (Emphasis added)
Note that last point. In other words, righteous ends must use righteous means. Another writer, Jack DuVall, made the same point in a series of paragraphs titled, "Power from Ends" contained in an essay titled, "
Civil Resistance And The Language of Power." To quote DuVall, "For civil resistance to work, it has to shred the legitimacy of power-holders to whom it is opposed and
model a higher legitimacy based on representing the real aspirations of the people.
But the fastest way to forsake that advantage is to resort to means that are not seen as legitimate." (Emphasis added.) This, for instance, is why Gene Sharp in his writings
rejected both violence, sabotage, and the destruction of the opponent's property as appropriate means of struggle.
Contrast such moral clarity with more recent attempts during the last five or six years by so-called "civil resistance scholars" to "gray-wash" the theory and practice of strategic nonviolent resistance. I am thinking particularly of a book I bought within the last few months titled,
Civil Resistance: What Everyone Needs To Know by Erica Chenoweth. (I told you all in
an earlier post that I was reading a book for which I might write a critique soon. A delay of two months isn't exactly "soon," but I've been dragging my feet somewhat - partly because I've been busy, and partly because some parts of Chenoweth's new book make me choke. More on that in another post.) I had guardedly high hopes for the book when I first heard about it, but I had already begun to prepare myself for the possibility that Chenoweth might have become among the morally compromised "scholars" who now seem to inhabit the International Center on Nonviolent Conflict. It's a good thing I did prepare myself. For on page 57 of her book, she seeks to legitimize those who want to include property destruction in the arsenal of what she calls "civil resistance", saying, "When it is disciplined and discriminating, and sends a clear message, property destruction can be considered a nonviolent method of sabotage..." And she goes on to cite the Boston Tea Party as an example of the wise use of sabotage in a nonviolent struggle. However, I'd like to suggest that perhaps the backfire among loyalists which resulted from this act has been overlooked. And on page 79, she suggests that sometimes a movement can achieve strength only by partnering with allies who may not be willing to remain nonviolent, saying that "...questions of justice and political effectiveness are often in tension. Most scholars of civil resistance stay agnostic on this question by leaving aside moral questions altogether and focusing on strategy, not morality..." Similarly, chapter 3 of her book appears at first reading to be a moral minefield for a reader such as myself, as she paints those voices who advocate for allowing limited movement violence as people who are engaged in an honest debate over the effectiveness of tactics.
But it seems to me that the evaluation of civil resistance tactics and strategy solely on the basis of their supposed "effectiveness" can lead to a trap if we ignore the righteousness or unrighteousness of the strategy and tactics in question. (It can also lead resisters to adopt means, methods, and ends that are both immoral and violent.) For by ignoring questions of morality or righteousness, we ultimately ignore the Scriptural maxim that "...whatever a man sows, this he will also reap." Such a maxim is easy to forget precisely because we humans tend to look at trends from time scales that are too short. By way of analogy, for those who are handy with math, consider a parabolic function whose vertex is positive and nonzero, yet whose vertex is a maximum and not a minimum. Over a short enough interval of the independent variable, the function looks like it will rise forever. But over a long enough interval, we see that the function value eventually crashes back to zero before becoming forever negative. Such are the ultimate results of moral graywashing - sooner or later, you lose.
