“It is better to be violent, if there is violence in our hearts, than to put on the cloak of non-violence to cover impotence.’’

 – Mahatma Gandhi

Modern psychology generally employs the term, ‘’integrated violence.’’

Without going into very much detail, this broadly refers to the ABILITY someone has to become violent, justifiably, should the need arise (Defending one’s own self, or another, from potentially lethal harm), but never ever engaging in violence otherwise. In other words, self-control, maturity, (moral) education, socialisation, etc… Yours truly does not necessarily agree with words such as ‘’taming’’ especially in today’s attempts at feminising men and boys, and demonising masculinity; we see how in times of crisis, the world returns to praising men and traditional masculinity (COVID-19 style). It therefore is always to be maintained and celebrated. However, that is a separate issue.

Therefore, being ABLE to become violent should the need arise, but otherwise NOT engaging in it, is the hallmark of every mature soul, especially, but NOT limited to, masculine archetypes. Many modern works use Mufasa, from the Lion King, as the epitome and symbol of this integrated violence within one’s character-particularly the scene where he stands on Pride Rock at the beginning of the film, as Zazu flies towards him. The stern look on his face, is immediately contrasted with his smile at Zazu.

Or when he tells Simba he is only brave and fights when he must, before playing with his son, after he has given the hyenas a sound thrashing.

Violence, and the ability to fight, are not in themselves evil or dirty. Like all else, context is key. Food in a plate is nourishment and even artwork. But on your shirt, is simply dirt. Greed is horrible and the cause of many ills, but greed in the acquisition of knowledge, arts and sciences, is salutary and worth striving towards. Anger is a chimera, but being angry at injustice, especially when directed at others and the disenfranchised, can be a fuel for betterment and change. Context! Context! Context!

Same with violence/fighting. Even Gandhi, clearly opposed to it, basically divided it into three, as a cursory look at his works would show- same with Mandela.

It is basically what religion, in its unadulterated form has been saying for 10 thousand years, and is very linked to the emotional state of the individual, intention, purpose, and so forth;

-The non-violence of the strong.

This is a situation where the principal actor is CAPABLE of using violence but unwilling to do so. It is driven by his strong desire for the pursuit of the right ends, using the right means. This is what we are to aim for.

-Violence in suspension

This is a scenario where the principal actor INTENDS and WANTS to use violence but is constrained by external factors, such as witnesses, or fear of prison. Though common, and practically keeps some degree of order in society, this is not truly and ultimately virtuous, since Gandhi shared Aristotle’s conception of the exercise of virtue, as contingent on the act being done VOLUNTARILY, no matter what.

 Like Socrates saying, an unexamined life is not worth living. Similar to Robinson Crusoe, the protagonist in Daniel Defoe’s classic, musing within himself, that, was not committing anything untoward after being stranded on a desert island for over 25 years, because he was moral and disciplined; or simply because there was nobody to test him, tempt him, try his patience, his virtue, etc… So, this is suboptimal, since it is not truly INTEGRATED, but rather driven by external factors, which are subject to change. Many such practitioners of this category should civilization break down due to war/civil unrest, resort to their baser tendencies.

-Non-violence of the coward

This is the form of non-violence where the principal actor is both INCAPABLE of and is UNWILLING to challenge his opponent, due to fear/cowardice. This type of non-violence is but a shield to hide one’s own impotence; a farce if you will. Even misdirected courage, as opposed to cowardice, is preferable, since virtue, in its purest form, is the pursuit of the Good, which leaves no room for the cowardly.

And that is what the opening quote refers to; it is ultimately best to be able to become violent and dangerous should the NEED arise (against the forces of evil, so to speak) than to be a coward, unable and unwilling and fearful to fight when need be, and yet PRETEND to be peaceful. Better to be violent when you feel it, if it really is what you want, since that at least would be more honest, and less cowardly, than to pretend and fake peaceful vibes. Do not hide behind lofty terms to mask your inadequacies.

And many are like this today. Many choose friends and even partners for relationships because they seem ‘’decent’’ or ‘’nice’’ when in fact they are harmless, and there is no virtue in being harmless, like a hamster, or lemming.

Such a person is useless in times of crisis, and those around him when they realise what they thought was ‘’nice’’ was actually ‘’harmless’’ (the third category previously discussed) it is often too late. Repeated disappointment has transpired, and mistrust has developed in the relationship. And they (the harmless ones, masquerading as ‘’nice and decent’’) build up resentment for themselves and those around them. This process, at best, leads to ugliness amongst relations between people, as well as long-term lack of trust; and at worst, actual societal harm (Some researchers have put not all, but a number of mass-shooters, and sympathisers of totalitarian regimes in this category actually; also for several additional reasons), in an attempt to ‘’compensate’’ for these feelings of inadequacy and impotence.

Thus, HAVE the capacity for violence, but BE NOT violent, unless and until absolutely necessary; hence, one embodies the very epitome of self-control, strength, calmness, and reliability-like Mufasa 😊.

Those who mistake this for harshness, are as blind as those who mistake being harmless for being nice/decent-and their views are flawed and do not count. They too must seek to re-evaluate their criteria for interacting with humans, as well as take an introspective look at themselves.

Such individual human maturity, shall lead to a greater societal maturity, as previously discussed in several posts.

“The inauguration of a world civilization such as no mortal eye hath ever beheld or human mind conceived…Who is it that can imagine the lofty standard which such a civilization, as it unfolds itself, is destined to attain? Who can measure the heights to which human intelligence, liberated from its shackles, will soar? Who can visualize the realms which the human spirit, vitalized by the outpouring light of Bahá’u’lláh, shining in the plenitude of its glory, will discover?” – Shoghi Effendi