Category: Community Violence

Religion and violence have played a major role in history, whether it be using religion to start a war or using religion to break away and become your own state. The Crusades is the most well known religious wars in history. It was a bunch of wars that were paid for by either the nobility or the church to take back the holy land from muslim rule. The idea came along from Pope Urban II when he made his speech at Clermont. The Pope had received word from Alexios I of Komneons, the Byzantine emperor that he needed help against the Selijuq Turks who took a lot of land from him and his army wasn’t strong enough to compete and he didn’t have enough money to fund a war. Pope Urban II decided that he didn’t want to just help him by giving him funds, he decided to give a speech to use his power for a holy war.

The Crusades is a time of controversy for the church, it questioned how much power the Pope actually had and if it was always right to follow the Pope because he received the key to heaven. The Pope said “All who die by the way, whether by land or by sea, or in battle against the pagans, shall have immediate remission of sins.” (blackboard) This is controversial because during this time period some of the lesser nobility were killing and pillaging for money either because they weren’t in any position to inherit anything or they were just too poor. Obviously, killing another human being, especially a Christian was against what Christianity stood for that’s why the Pope saying this is basically giving out a get out of hell free card by going to kill other human beings just because they were of a different religion. Pope Urban II said . “Let those who for a long time, have been robbers, now become knights. Let those who have been fighting against their brothers and relatives now fight in a proper way against the barbarians.” (blackboard) This plays the question if some noble were to kill Christian people, rape Christian people and steal from Christian people then does that mean as long as they go kill people of a different religion or rape people from a different religion or steal from a different religion it’s justified because god or the pope said so? The Pope says throughout this speech that “I grant them through the power of God” meaning as long as I say so, God said so. People will blindly follow the Pope because of this urge of gaining remission of sins and potentially getting some spoils of war from sacking cities on the way to the holy land.

The Pope believes 100% that because he is ordering the killing of heretics that the people and himself will earn the right of a remission of sins and after you die go to heaven for it. In the speech it also says “Let those who go not put off the journey, but rent their lands and collect money for their expenses”. (blackboard) There are also other reasons to declare a holy war against people of a different religion, which is how the world works, money. By using violence and faith together there is almost always something it common and that is money. The more money the church has the more followers it gets resulting in the church getting more power. This was the last thing said in Pope Urban II speech for the crusades and it’s one of the strongest. With the lesser nobility out of the way the only thing they needed to get them to actually go was money. Also with more money that meant more mercenaires that can be hired to go fight for the church.

Another example of how faith can justify violence is the St. Bartholomew’s Day massacre. The duke of Guise had full command over the enterprise and said “it was the will of the king that, according to God’s will, they should take vengeance on the band of rebels while they had the beasts in the toils.” (De Thou 1659) Even though nobody questioned him the catholics decided to kill the protestants because it was the will of the king and of course, God. This alone gave the catholics the boost they needed to just massacre the protestants because they didn’t have the same way of thinking. Because of this about 3,000 Protestants were killed in Paris and about 70,000 were killed in france for no other reason than God and the king enforced it.

The Last Example of how religion and war are connected is the thirty years war which was a war fought in central Europe between 1618 and 1648. After the next in line holy roman emperor Ferdinand II tried to enforce Catholicism on his territories in Bohemia and Austria which were Protestant it led to a rebellion. Countries not related to the conflict saw this as an opportunity to attack territories near them because as long as it’s against somewhere not of your religion it’s fine. Many of the people used this excuse of “Well they aren’t catholic so kill them and take their land” to take land and kill people. “This year [1630] was a bad one for the Protestant religion everywhere, and if the Swedish king had not opposed the emperor in the field, the German princes would have been finished.” ( Hans Heberle 1597-1677)

In conclusion, religion and war has almost always been connected as long as there is some sort of gain. Humans always want more and when they have the chance to they will go for it. The Crusades, St. Bartholomew’s Day massacre, and The Thirty Years War all had some things in common whether it be power, land or money there is always some ulterior motive to something when it comes to religion and war.

Sources

1. http://germanhistorydocs.ghi-dc.org/pdf/eng/Doc.7-ENG-Heberle_en.pdf
2. https://sourcebooks.fordham.edu/mod/1572stbarts.asp

The most central focus of this paper is how violence has presented itself in Buddhism, especially in Sri Lanka and modern Asia, and, in connection with Buddhist ethics, how this is facilitated through the interpretation of a particular doctrine. Thus, it is necessary to place an emphasis on a multitude of violence-enabling concepts that are present in Buddhist doctrines, such as karma. Although karma firstly appears to have no connection to violence because it states that human actions inevitably have consequences that are determined by the intent of the actor, many individuals and their families have endured discrimination, ridicule, isolation, and harsh treatment because of the alleged evil they committed in past lives. While this is not exactly direct physical violence, there are many other ways in which violence can be committed against people, and Buddhist values are sometimes named as the rationale behind such acts. For instance, Buddhist nationalism has been one of the major driving forces that have contributed to widespread violence against ethnic groups like the Indo-Aryan Muslim Rohingya of the Rakhine State in Myanmar, and this has caused a grand amount of harm which has only fueled Islamophobia in the both the Buddhist and outside world.

Considering the common inclination that describes Buddhism as forever harmonious and free of conflict, it takes much deliberation to qualify that this doctrine of nonviolence nevertheless continues to harbor practitioners that condone and promote violence, and who even use the doctrine to justify it. Inspecting this topic more closely, it seems that many Buddhists have refused to practice this sort of violence, but the Buddhist code that governs the life of monks allows them to defend themselves, even though this same code prohibits the act of killing, even in cases of self-defense. And even with this creed of non-violence, there have been numerous cases that feature Buddhist nationalists and monks killing for the sake of “protecting the faith.” Given acts like these but also with the knowledge that there are numerous, if not a majority of, Buddhist monks and practitioners who do not align themselves with violence, I plan to explore the manner in which these cases are either defended or used as evidence against the common idea of Buddhism being the embodiment of nothing but a peaceful religion.

Slovenian philosopher Slavoj Žižek writes about a particular story that can be referenced when analyzing violence in situations when it is repeatedly justified or overlooked. The narrative begins with: “There is an old story about a worker suspected of stealing: every evening, as he leaves the factory, the wheelbarrow he rolls in front of him is carefully inspected. The guards can find nothing. It is always empty. Finally, the penny drops: what the worker is stealing are the wheelbarrows themselves.” What this goes to say is that we often underestimate how violence can be systemic because we naturally view violence on the individual level. Because we frequently view violence as a subjective matter, we are blinded to the possibility that we all have the capacity to be offenders as well, as opposed to being blameless observers. Under this mindset, acts of violence are random events that disturb the typical peace of everyday society, instead of posing as demonstrations of what is already ingrained in every community.

In terms of Buddhism, this quote brings about the investigation into Buddhist regimes and how they have the ability to possess violence at the structural level, have ways to justify and/or hide this brutality, and are neglectful in issuing acknowledgements and reactions to the stress and outcomes of said violence. If governing bodies really do have the power and access to violence, then they also own the potential of granting or limiting access to this knowledge, along with the capability of determining how their societal participants are able to review each occurrence. In this case, there is one idea present that can be contested by its clear opposition: Is violence systemic to the society in which we live (or the Buddhist system), or is it rather a completely separate entity that only features itself once an individual manifests it inside the nation? In other words, we must examine whether violence is a natural phenomenon that takes place given any circumstance, even in Buddhism where non-violence is one of the most central convictions, or the opposite: that any violent acts are isolated incidents, as monk Matthieu Riccard declares.

In light of explaining some of the violent tendencies of Buddhist actors, especially those in Myanmar and Sri Lanka, it is essential to first delve into the history of the groups that are affected by such violence: namely the Rohingya of Myanmar and Muslims of Sri Lanka. Firstly, the Rohingya are an ethnic minority in Myanmar, and they are considered to be the “most persecuted minority in the world,” according to the United Nations. This description of the Rohingya is used chiefly due to the fact that Myanmar has refused to recognize the existence of this group of people for thousands of years. Beginning in the 1430s, Muslim settlers traveled to the Arakan State (now the Rakhine state of Myanmar) and were taken over by the Burmese Empire in 1784. Forty years later in 1824, Britain conquered Burma and made it part of British India, and Muslims from Bengal came to Burma as migrant workers as a result. By 1864, Burma’s Muslim population had tripled because of Britain’s rule in the nation; even though Britain made a deal with the Rohingya to create an autonomous state in exchange for their help in World War II, Britain did not keep this promise, and the majority Buddhist Burmese people began to resent the Muslim community, viewing them as invasive, uninvited workers. About a century later in 1948, Myanmar gains its independence from Britain, but this new government does not offer a Muslim state for the Rohingya people either. Instead, they do not acknowledge that the Rohingya are part of Myanmar by excluding them from the constitution and actively work to cast them out of the country. For example, the government of Myanmar passes a citizenship law in 1982 that denies the Rohingya citizenship, which means that they are considered to be stateless and ack even the most basic rights within the nation. Out of the 135 recognized ethnic groups in Myanmar, the Rohingya are not counted, despite there being over one million living in the country.

Where Buddhism comes to play in this history is through the majority-Buddhist government-sponsored persecution of the Rohingya, beginning in 1962 when Myanmar becomes a military state. Named “Operation King Dragon,” Burmese military forces target the Rohingya people and commit various human rights violations against them, including rape, destruction of private property, and mass arrests under no evidence-based foundation. Due to this violent and overt victimization, many members of the Rohingya began to flee to Bangladesh to escape capture. Those who stayed in Myanmar still face hardships by the Buddhist majority, including the inability to access social services and education and limited access to both birth control and marriage. In more recent years, Amnesty International has stated that Myanmar is trapping the Rohingya through a “dehumanizing apartheid regime,” and the United Nations has added that the nation of Myanmar is guilty of ethnic cleansing.

In the case of Sri Lanka, we have seen a severe outbreak of rioting and protesting against the Muslim community over the past few decades. In 2014, 10,000 people were forcibly displaced by violent rioting, and 80 percent of these people were Muslims. This overt violence sparked national attention, and the media was especially drawn to images of extremist Buddhist monks who were at the head of these brutal attacks. It is a well-known reality that these monks have attacked peace demonstrations, political party rallies, and individual religious (Muslim) minorities. Instead of directly addressing the cause of these violent riots, which is widespread anti-Muslim sentiment, Buddhist President Rajapaksa blames foreign forces, declaring that these forces threaten “post-war peace and reconciliation” for the country, without giving specifics as to which forces or the reasoning behind such attacks. Although many Sri Lankans have named Muslim organizations as the cause of these riots, Muslim groups have “no history of agitating for secession or territorial autonomy,” and there is “very little history of violent Islamic extremism” on the island. Contrary to this rationalization, the Sri Lankan administration has described that the country is vulnerable to Muslim extremism and has noted that Islamic radicals have been discovered as the primary threats to the nation’s security. In October of the same year as these riots (2014), the President allows Myanmar Buddhist extremist group “969” and the Bodu Bala Sena (a Sinhalese Buddhist nationalist organization) group of Sri Lanka to meet in Colombo to discuss the threat that Buddhism faces by Muslim groups like the Rohingya. Under the militarized regime by Rajapaksa, violence has been legitimized as a mechanism to solve problems, utilizing Muslims as a scapegoat and portraying them as the primary terroristic threat to national security.

Without a doubt, Sri Lanka has offered itself as a nation-state which declares itself as a home to “a pure Buddhism.” Modern forms of Sri Lankan Buddhism have more of an ideological basis which emphasizes purity, authorizing the misrepresentation of practice and ideologies through “reference to an ‘imagined’ previous state of virtuousness.” In other words, the reimagining of Buddhist doctrine, which has occurred in numerous religions as well, has caused massive conflict between Buddhist nationalists and religious minority communities like that of Muslims. One of the most pressing issues that is a result of this reconceptualizing of Buddhism is that there is extensive state-sanctioned violence against minority groups under the grounds that Buddhism is under threat of extinction and needs protection. For instance, the Sri Lankan Constitution declares that Buddhism has the “foremost place” in society, and the State has the right and duty to “protect and foster it.” Thus, the combination of Buddhist nationalism and ethnocentrism has found its place in state policy and the very foundation of the government, which means that any other religions are inherently undesirable and unwelcome in Sri Lankan society due to the perception of discrimination against Buddhism. There is a political party in the vanguard of these anti-Muslim beliefs called the Jathika Hela Urumaya, which is the National Sinhalese Heritage Party. Founded by nationalist monks with the desire of territorial and religious integrity, the JHU has enlarged the spectrum of ethnic and religious exclusivity and has lowered the democratic legitimacy of the nation. Under the primary doctrine of the JHU, Sri Lanka should be “ruled according to Budhdist principles,” and the government has the obligation to “protect the Buddhist religion” by any means necessary. While it is important to describe this political organization and its implications for both the government and the rest of society, it must be noted that this group has faced criticism, and it is just one example of an extreme form of Buddhist interpretation that does not speak for all Buddhist practitioners.

That being said, some Buddhists in Sri Lanka have perceived their religion to be under attack from various threats such as an increase in Muslim migrants, and violence has to be the only way to defend Buddhism. This has been the case for the large-scale militarism which has victimized itself while also justifying aggression in response to the realization of understood dangers to the preservation of Buddhism, contributing to the “just-war” analysis of the majority of these believers. However, there is notable tension between those who believe Buddhism is under constant danger and rationalize the use armed violence with those who adhere to strict nonviolence. One speaker who has condemned all sorts of violence stemming from Muslim attacks in Southeast Asia is Buddhist monk Matthieu Ricard, who stands by the principle that Buddhism has never been and will never be a religion that promotes violence. He provides a direct counterargument to the sources which claim that Buddhism possesses an inherently violent doctrine and asserts that even though there have been acts against ethnic groups like the Rohingya, these are all isolated incidents; there is not a time when Buddhism will ever accept violence as part of the religion. While condemning Buddhist nationalists for not properly representing the faith, Ricard places the blame on an individual basis instead of on the religion as a whole, calling for radical passivism. For example, Ricard emphasizes the concept that “there is not a single sentence in [Buddhism’s] canonical scriptures that could be interpreted as an encouragement to inflict harm on others,” which promotes the idea that Buddhism does not differentiate killing in times of peace and war. Simply put, there is no such thing as a “just war” or “holy war,” as nationalists propagate, and the use and encouragement of such theories are never in the name of true Buddhism. In direct reference to the overt discrimination against the Rohingya in Myanmar, Ricard states that the use of the words “killer monks” is a “contradiction in terms” because once a monk kills someone or persuades another person to kill, he is “immediately dispossessed of his monastic vows, forever.” So, these monks who claim to be Buddhist or commit these acts of persecuting the Rohingyas (or any other disadvantaged and underprivileged group) under the name of Buddhism are in flagrant contradiction with the teachings of Buddha. Thus, Ricard sees violence as an entity that is not systemic in nature, in contrast to other scholars such as Professor Michael Jerryson, who instead examine how Buddhists justify and overlook violence, which illuminates and problematizes the relationship that many Buddhists hold with violence.

As a renowned professor of religious studies at Youngstown State University, Jerryson has scrutinized how Buddhists have dealt with the violence of blasphemy toward the sanctity of the religion and how they have subsisted in the face of such conflicts. He reviews common Buddhist approaches to war and violence and explores the wider field of lived choices and the doctrine that relates to such choices using the basis of ethics. While providing a chronological overview of Buddhist-inspired conflicts, wars, and the ethical debates surrounding these events, Jerryson addresses the ambiguous subject matter of violence. Applying the Buddhist interdiction of ahimsa (non-harm/non-injury), he reviews doctrinal and historical cases in which Buddhist doctrine or individual Buddhist practitioners themselves have warranted harm/injury by means of murder, torture, capital punishment, and discrimination.

“I feel lethal, on the verge of frenzy. I think my mask of sanity is about to slip” Morality and violence will always be a controversial issue designed to shock and aims to make the readers question their own views and feelings on morality. The shocking and extreme nature shown by the violent and psychopathic actions, thoughts and feelings that are portrayed in both American psycho and a Clockwork orange can make readers question there own innate desires possessed by both characters. Both characters act as a caricature of men descending into violent and aggressive frenzies, not a psychological thriller but a depiction of society and its blurred views on morality- or lack of it. In both American Psycho and Clockwork orange, Burgess and Ellis use a single character to conflict with societal ideals of the society that surrounds them, this is a device used to shock the reader when reading both books Context: 1960s counter-culture Motives and explanations for the characters views and violent actions can directly relate from the societies of the time in which the books were written.

The clockwork orange was written in the 1960s which was a prominent time for the phenomenon counterculture which was an anti-establishment movement. Throughout the 1960s, teenagers and popular culture at the time provided as a concern for society, with the media ‘terrified’ of youth anarchy, deregulation and societies perception of ‘loose morals’. As the 1960s progressed, widespread social tensions also developed, concerning other issues, and tended to flow along generational lines regarding human sexuality, women’s rights, traditional modes of authority, experimentation with psychoactive drugs, and differing interpretations of the American Dream. Many key movements related to these issues were born or advanced within the counterculture of the 1960s. A lot if not all of these issues and subject matters are tackled in both American psycho and a clockwork orange. Due to the controversial issues, both books caused outrage not just nationwide but worldwide. Counter Culture also marked a new era of scientific possibility, which lead human psychiatrists into hubristic confidence in new methods for example the electric shock therapy Alex encounters in a ‘Clockwork orange’, At the time psychiatrists believed that these methods could ‘ force people to love, and behave properly’- this then would be referenced in Alex’s constant pondering of the choice of morality.

Although both American psycho and a clockwork orange contain very similar subject matters that shocked readers and critics alike, they were published 20 years apart when culture was very different. A clockwork orange was published in 1962 and American psycho was published in 1991, a completely different social climate. The 1960s as previously mentioned was the birth of counter culture ad led to major social change and revolution throughout the decades, but the 1990s was popular with subcultures and the birth of different groups and social change that hasn’t been seen as clearly since. This is frequently referenced in American psycho with the clear differences between social classes and the importance the Patrick Bateman puts on social class and the worth he places on this. This could be a form of social commentary on the consumerist society in America at the time, the men in jobs such as Patrick Bateman’s at the time were often thought to disregard morals for wealth and further career opportunities. This is evident in the clear reinforcement of social class throughout American psycho and reflects the economic and social climate throughout 1990s America.

In America Patrick Bateman represents the 1% of America which own 90% of America’s wealth, making American psycho possibly a commentary on the social and class systems referenced in Patricks hatred of the homeless which ends up being his first target in his murderous spree- whether it be real or fictional it shows the classist aspect and the worth-or lack of- Patrick and the 1% he represents views those that they view as lower than them. Patrick Bateman, though symptomat­­­­­ic of genuine fears surrounding the emergence of capitalism in the late eighties, is by no means real; he is a literary creation, an archetype through which the author unleashes his scathing criticism of rabid consumerism. UNFINISHED Most readers of the novels tend to feel comforted by the legality of the actions in American psycho and A clockwork orange, The lack of social acceptance of these actions can comfort readers and cements the lack of morality that is conveyed in both novels, yet what is frequently ignored is the themes of power,narcissism, misogyny and violence- all frequently seen throughout mainstream society.

Although Alex’s rapes and Patricks violently sexual experiences are extreme and are caricatures of misogyny and sexism, they can still link back to popular society as shown by popular video games at the time which exploits deep feelings of violence, power and in essence a lack of morality and some scenes can often be a clear imitation of Alex and Patrick’s highly controversial and repulsive actions. Misogyny is a clear and striking factor throughout both books and remains a key point of controversy for those who read the books, Patrick’s disregard for women is clear in the way he describes them with anger and as just an object to fulfill his desires. Although American psycho is sometimes seen as a form of satire and not to be taken literally, this is supported by the questionable ending that confused many readers on whether Patrick actually had carried out the gruesome murder or if it’s just a figure of his imagination, The book focuses on violence and ‘bloodlust’ but with the overlying theme of men’s vanity and arrogance. Analyzing the book through a female gaze focuses on violence and the ugly underbelly of the male ego, it discusses and disputes our expectations and pivots the story from obvious plot hooks and choices. By writing from Bateman’s perspective Ellis focuses intently on the ways women are mutilated, raped, disfigured, and killed.

After a point his mayhem doesn’t shock – it bores. Ellis’s sexism is actually most apparent in scenes in which Bateman isn’t killing anyone at all. As the journalist Sady Doyle puts it, Ellis’s American Psycho “can’t be a satire of misogyny, because the author takes his own misogyny perfectly seriously, and has embedded it into the structure of the book itself.” LANGUAGE: Throughout American Psycho the language is highly sophisticated showing the arrogance and class of Patrick Bateman. His detached arrogance originally reads as an unnerving biographical style which has an unmatched level of self-absorption. This overwhelming amount of narcissism carries through to the present tense used in the narrative which therefore dramatises Patricks obsessions with his lavish and self indulgent lifestyle in which he is deliriously doomed to the repetitive nature of his lifestyle, with the sequence of high-class exclusive restaurants, clubs, only interrupted by violent outbursts and sexual encounters- which often lead to the infamous scenes of violence that the book has become famous for.

Throughout the book, Patrick’s restaurant outings are never the same twice and the way he records the menu choices “Van Patten has the scallop sausage and the grilled salmon with raspberry vinegar and guacamole” not only does this show his neuroticism but the repetitive nature of his life and the encounters he shares. In a Clockwork orange Alex uses a neologism, a creation of his own language which is a mix of Russian and Cockney slang that creates a context-specific concept. The book is separated into 21 chapters, this is not an accident as 21 is the legal age of being an adult in America which symbolises human maturity – the 21st chapter refers to this and is highly significant as it includes Alex assessment of his own adolescent and draws attention to moral freedom- the freedom of Morality and someone’s own conscious choice of action. The dystopian, futuristic landscape that Anthony Burgess created for his most famous novel was only made more apocalyptic by the obscure, fictional slang that Alex and his ‘droogs’ spoke. Much like George Orwell with his ‘Newspeak’ in Nineteen-Eighty Four (1949), Burgess aimed to create a timeless language to depict his dystopian future, perhaps the reason why the novel has had such longevity. The language also removes the action of the novel from a specific location, and the city it is set in could stand for anywhere from Manchester to Leningrad, London to Los Angeles.

Morality throughout literature, language and time is a question of choice, with morality being linked back to biblical times in parables such as the good Samaritan. Morality is seen as a choice links morality to responsibility, “is it better for a man to have chosen evil than to have good imposed upon him?” In a Clockwork orange, the lines of morality are challenged and redefined by a new perspective. This idea is repeated throughout a clockwork orange with Alex questioning good and our choice in it, “Does God want goodness or the choice of goodness? Is a man who chooses to be bad perhaps in some way better than a man who has the good imposed upon him?”. This idea not only examines the cynical nature of society and its values but exaggerates and draws attention to societies overall lack of choice but also gives us an insight of Alex’s brain and therefore the brain of someone with no clear conscience or defined view of morality and good or evil- an abnormality. Through both a Clockwork Orange and American Psycho, the evil and lack of morality is demonstrated as an uncontrollable urge, just as Patrick satisfies his appetites for his luxury lifestyle he must satisfy his appetite for violence and murder.

The violence and evil is part of both Alex and Patrick in both novels which portrays it as a disease, shown in the quote ““I have all the characteristics of a human being: flesh, blood, skin, hair; but not a single, clear, identifiable emotion, except for greed and disgust. Something horrible is happening inside of me and I don’t know why. My nightly bloodlust has overflown into my days” A question throughout a clockwork orange is: is moral depravity better than forced morality? Where does immorality figure in all of this? Throughout American Psycho, Bateman’s shockingly violent outbursts somehow become more normalised and as readers we become numb to the brutal attacks upon sex workers, women and homeless men, yet it’s his conventionally ‘normal’ and monotonous behaviour that Ellis demonstrates in encounters in which he discusses popular culture, such as Whitney Houston and Phil Collins, This dates the novel but keeps it as a ‘naturalistic’ style novel, a style supposed to reflect how things are, in a biographic style of Patrick’s life. ‘Whitney Houston is one of the warmest and most complex and altogether satisfying rhythm-and-blues records.’ by commenting on Popular culture it reminds us of the setting of the novel but emphasises Patricks human side.

While Alex in a Clockwork Orange is regarded as an anti-social outcast and minority, Patrick is seen to be at the ‘peak’ of his life – he is successful, good looking and features all the characteristics of a man who achieved the American ideal in the 1990s. In Patricks own words “society can’t afford to lose me, I’m an asset” this highlights how conforming Patrick is in his daily life, his violent nightlife is the only exception to society’s expectations, Patrick to the common eye would be the epitome of social desirability and a representative of the consumerist society he lives ins ideals. By having a morally corrupt and blatantly evil man as the peak of social desirability, Ellis is using irony to express his views on the state of the society he lives in and what it can become. While Patrick is extremely socially desirable, Alex is the complete opposite and represents what society feared that counter culture would make their society become. While Patrick’s desirability comes from money, power and status, Alex’s representation of societies outcast shows his lack of interest in materialism, The motivations of Alex and Patrick are so completely different due to societies at the time.

Whilst concerns around the use of humanitarian intervention are not new, justifications for waging war in the name of humanitarianism are becoming increasingly common. Airstrikes in Syria, for example, have shown how the international community uses humanitarian language to defend violence against other states. (Dexter, 2019). It is in this context that Jeremy Moses (Moses, 2020) calls for humanitarian organizations to disassociate themselves from state agendas and embrace a ‘pacifist ethos’, incorporating the traditional principles of humanitarianism into their work with a particular focus on neutrality.

Largely basing his arguments on the writings of the former Vice-President of the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) (Pictet, 1979), Moses’ article is framed around two questions. Firstly, why is neutrality important to humanitarian ethics, and how has it been neglected?; secondly, how could a ‘pacifist ethos’ benefit the future of humanitarianism?

In the first half of his article, Moses provides a convincing argument around the link between neutrality and humanitarian ethics, writing of ‘its relation to the principle of humanity that stands at the heart of humanitarian aid provision.’ (Moses, 2020: 70). This centrality of humanity is maintained by Larissa Fast, who claims that it ‘is the most universally and uncritically accepted humanitarian principle’ (Fast, 2015: 111). First articulated in 1965 by ICRC, humanity is the commitment to saving human lives and the refusal to prioritize the lives of some above others (Moses, 2020). Thus, if all humans are to be treated equally, ‘political friends and enemies alike’ (Moses, 2020: 70), humanitarians need to be politically neutral and must refrain from allying with a state or particular ideology.

Moses (2020) then explores the reasons for a shift away from the traditional principles after the Cold War. Although some organizations such as the ICRC still try to adhere to political neutrality, others are now ‘in pursuit of a more thoroughgoing universal justice and the promotion of human rights and democracy’ (Moses, 2020: 75). As non-governmental organizations (NGOs) began to work more closely with states, (Barnett, 2011), they no longer wanted to ‘treat the worst symptoms’ of military conflict and began to address the ‘root causes’ (Moses, 2020: 73), largely through development and democratization, but also through military intervention. Consequently, humanitarianism became too closely aligned with state power (Moses, 2020: 81). Despite providing an accurate explanation for the split between ‘traditional’ and ‘new’ humanitarianism, this narrative has been discussed before and therefore does not particularly offer anything unique (Barnett, 2011). Nonetheless, this context is still valuable, especially for a reader who may be new to the field.

In the second half of his article, Moses writes that the only way for humanitarian organizations to separate themselves from state agendas and return to ‘genuine’ humanitarianism is to incorporate a ‘principle of consistent non-violent action and opposition to war’ (Moses, 2020: 77); specifically a ‘pacifist ethos’. By arguing for a ‘pacifist ethos’ rather than a commitment to absolute pacifism (Moses, 2020), Moses recognizes that strict adherence to pacifism would not align with neutrality, the main principle that humanitarians should retreat to. A purely pacifist principle would need all actors to be pacifists themselves, requiring them to speak out against war and preventing them from accessing victims as warring parties would not view them as neutral. Although this may seem confusing for some readers, as Moses is urging humanitarian organizations to sustain an anti-war voice, following a ‘pacifist ethos’ rather than following an explicit pacifist stance would enable organizations to maintain an implicit anti-war position without compromising the traditional principles (Moses, 2020).

Furthermore, a ‘pacifist ethos’ would also be useful to address the concerns of humanitarians who are critical of neutrality because of its implied complicity with human rights abuses (Slim, 2015 in Bradley, 2021). By following a ‘pacifist ethos’, organizations have a reference point (Moses, 2020) to see if intervention would escalate violence and ‘diminish protections of human rights’ (Charney, 1999: 835) as can be seen in cases such as Kosovo. Here, Moses has successfully removed the association of complicity from neutrality to intervention, putting forward a convincing argument for a need to embrace a ‘pacifist ethos’.

Of particular value is Moses’ assertion that a ‘carefully constructed pacifist ethos’ would allow humanitarians to adhere to the principle of neutrality without reducing humanitarianism to a choice between acting in a political or apolitical manner’ (Moses, 2020: 76). scholars tend to describe ‘traditional’ humanitarianism as non-political (Barnett, 2011 and Chandler, 2011), in reality, humanitarian actors are profoundly engaged in the political world, as they need to cooperate with political authorities or warring parties to access victims of conflict. (Warner, 1999). https:international-review.icrc.orgsitesdefaultfilesS1560775500092397a.pdf) Following in the footsteps of the ICRC, Moses writes that ‘staying silent and continuing to provide aid to victims, in such cases, constitutes real political engagement’ (Moses, 2020: 79). Miriam Bradley further supports this theory that neutrality does not mean a detachment from politics, as classical humanitarianism is, in itself, a kind of political project in that it is grounded in a liberal ethic of valuing all lives equally.’ (Bradley, 2021: 14)

Whilst Moses’ argument for the embrace of a ‘pacifist ethos’ is convincing, it would have been worth discussing the failure of post-war interventions in greater depth. Peace interventions and post-war reconstructions have contributed to the increased occurrence of post-war violence and crime (Howarth, 2014), strengthening Moses’ argument for humanitarianism to return to ‘its traditional mode’ to achieve a ‘less violent world’ (Moses, 2020: 82). Nevertheless, this is a detailed and rigorously argued article about the need for humanitarians to uphold the traditional principles whilst also bringing to light the question of how organizations should respond to mass atrocities. Whilst it is difficult to imagine how non-violent approaches could have stopped mass murder in Cambodia or genocide in Rwanda, how can humanitarians follow a doctrine based around the right to life but ‘simultaneously legitimize violence to right human abuses?’ (Ignatieff, 2010 in Wheeler, 2001: 4). Thus, despite the need for armed intervention, it can be argued that this should not come under the realm of humanitarianism. The only way for humanitarians to truly place the commitment to saving human lives at the center of what they do is to embrace a ‘pacifist ethos’ (Moses, 2020) and adhere to traditional principles.

The Napoleon Complex, also known as “Little Man Syndrome” is defined as, “A popular term for the inferiority complex that short men (under 5 ‘9’) in society are commonly assumed to possess, which causes them—at least per theory—to overcompensate by trying harder than men of average height (5 ’10’) in life’s activities” or, “Men who feel the least masculine are nearly three times more likely to commit violent acts compared with those who are comfortable in their skin.” In Of Mice and Men by John Steinbeck, this syndrome can be seen in one of the characters, Curley. Curley is a short, feisty, man that’s always picking fights. When his complete opposite, Lennie, a big, burly, guy shows up at the ranch this syndrome becomes most evident.

In Of Mice and Men by John Steinbeck, Lennie, and Curley are much more similar than you think. Lennie and Curley both get very violent when angry. Evidence of this supporting Lennie can be found on page 72. On this page, Lennie and Crooks are sitting in Crooks’ room and talking, while George and everyone else are in town. Crooks starts talking about what would happen to Lennie if George got hurt or died and Lennie gets very aggressive and stands up and “walked dangerously towards crooks” and demands to know “who hurt George?” (Steinbeck 72). This shows that Lennie has a very short temper and when this temper is provoked, he becomes very violent and aggressive. Curley is not that different. Curley gets angry when he finds his wife lying dead in the barn after Lennie accidentally breaks her neck, and immediately knows it was Lennie who did it. Curley threatens “I’m gonna get him” and that he’ll “kill the big son-of-a-bitch” himself. (Steinbeck ). Another way that Lennie and Curley are different is how they are both very misunderstood and therefore, isolated from the rest of the group. Curley is isolated because no one gets along with him and he’s always trying to start fights. This is first evident when Lennie and George meet Curley for the first time “He glanced coldly at George and then at Lennie. His arms gradually bent at the elbows and his hands closed into fists. He stiffened and went into a slight crouch.” Since Curley is so aggressive from the beginning, he gets on George’s bad side and is isolated from everyone else.

Although they may be very similar, they are also very different. While Lennie is big and harmless, Curley is small and always threatening/causing fights with people. One situation that clearly shows their differences is. Because of these differences, another difference is also evident. Lennie gets in trouble by accident while Curley goes around looking for/ asking for trouble. Evidence of this is shown when Curley first walks into the barn looking for his wife, and Lennie is

In Of Mice and Men by John Steinbeck, although physically, Lennie and Curley are very different, their actions and behavior are very similar, and while similar, they are also very different. Both Lennie and Curley have very violent personalities, and because of this are misunderstood and isolated. But, on the contrary, Lennie is physically intimidating, but in all reality very harmless, while Curley is the exact opposite, Curley is a very small man and not very intimidating physically, but he has a very violent attitude.