The Spire

Todd Rado ’26

Opinions Editor

“Why can’t we all just get along with people we disagree with?” “We need to have civil discourse as a society.” “violence is never okay.” These are ideas constantly repeated by the media, by our college administration, and by individuals to the degree of constant bombardment. The concepts seem obvious. After all, what social good comes from harming your fellow man? This rhetoric, however, has become so pervasive, it has reached the level of a subconscious, hypnotic, knee-jerk condemnation to non-passive resistance. This is the point to when it must be dissected: when is violence and disruption acceptable? To ask this is not a call to violence, rather, it is a pushback on the dogma of negative peace.

Before answering the aforementioned questions, one must consider context and alternatives. What is negative peace? What is it about our society that pushes people to something so final as violence? What else can one resort to? To answer, we must understand where civility politics comes from. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr., in his Letter from Birmingham Jail, outlined two kinds of peace: negative peace, the absence of tension, and positive peace, the presence of justice. If we are to also accept his interpretation that violence is the “language of the unheard”, then at its core civility rhetoric is little more than the enforcement arm of negative peace. How do we know this is the genuine intention? Simple: The corporate state is the full monopolization of violence, and much the same condemnation isn’t coming from those preaching civility. Given the UN definition of terrorism that involves the intimidation and coercion of a population through the perpetuation of violence, police brutality, militarization, forced evictions, de jure banning certain identities, the military-industrial complex and corporatism can only be understood as terroristic. Violence against the state or against a corporation or a complicit opposition in service of a movement, it follows, is self-defense. No wonder, then, biting back has become such a popular idea.

Regardless of this perspective, one may make the obvious claim that violence in kind is eye for an eye (which given the fact I am citing Martin Luther King to defend situational violence makes my claim somewhat ironic). That leaves the question: what other options are there for a movement? Let’s take the example of October 7th. In 2018 after Trump’s recognition of Jerusalem as capital of Israel, an event known as the Great March of Return occurred along the border of Gaza – a near-fully peaceful demonstration against the Israeli blockade (one Israeli soldier died). For protesting, 223 Palestinians were executed by the IOF until the protest was violently suppressed.

 Even if not a single Palestinian was killed by the IOF and the march was simply ignored, the continuation of the restriction of aid that Israel has historically practiced is in itself a response of violence, given the vulnerable lives it endangers. Therefore, given a state which does not tolerate peaceful messaging, that leaves one other option. This not to say violence is good, but to say eye for an eye implies violence is a circle, however, oppression necessitates top-down violence, that must be disruptively shaken from the bottom-up.

This brings us to the very macabre question: is there a positive to violence? Assuming you don’t buy into the perspective that the corporate state is so inherently violent against its people, it must be torn down and built anew, social movement theory has still returned the answer that violence is a net benefit for progressive social action – especially for moderates. Within social movement theory, there is a well-documented theory by Herbert H. Haines known as the “Radical Flank Effect”. The term was coined within his paper, “Black Radicalization and the Funding of Civil Rights: 1957-1970” which made the realization that as radical wings increased in non-peaceful action, the participation and funding in moderate wings of the movement increased simultaneously. Haines found that, in spite of white backlash, there occurred, quote, “an important acceptance and facilitation of ‘reasonable’ black activism [that] would not have been made without the progressive radicalization of large numbers of blacks…” (Haines, 1984) 

Let us take this framing and apply it to two recent cases: Luigi Mangione, and the aforementioned case of Palestine. popular uprisings, to a degree almost beyond parody, reveal the opposition’s nature. In the case of Luigi, his universal popularity – seen as more favorable than Congress – has come from the universal acknowledgement that Brian Thompson led a deeply evil and money-hungry company, which made money off of de facto executing working people through insurance denials. Luigi speaking to that rage in the most extreme and self-sacrificing manner possible prompted more organization, and more awareness of and solidarity around the issue. The civility response came from Governor Josh Shapiro, stating that “In America, we do not kill people in cold blood to resolve policy differences or express a viewpoint,” seemingly forgetting the time he autographed a bomb. This suggests the action against this hypocrisy, injustice, and doublethink by Luigi has been extremely positive for the movement. The same goes for Al-Aqsa flood: since the savage Israeli response, unfavorable views of Israel have risen dramatically, now being the majority view. While neither effort could be called a victory (yet), they are stronger now for their radical flank than they were prior to them. Thus, it must be relented that violence is effective, and has a positive role in social struggles – and can thus save many lives – in the right context.

Therefore, why violence? It is at times rational, necessary, arguably sensible, and effective in fighting an injustice, in a way peaceful, friendly conversation is not. Obviously, violence should be a last resort. However, given the state of our society, it is not invalid to ask if we are at the last resort, what options are available to us to attain justice, and, if none, perhaps it is worth supporting the struggle, even if violent. 

Featured image courtesy of Google Images