By Pooja KumbharColumnist
Pacifism is a wonderful conviction in theory, yet it is often rejected by the majority as being an unattainable ideal. However, that same majority of society does not even hold non-violence or war resistance as ideal standards.
Starting with the earliest thoughts on the “ideal state,” as depicted by Plato in his book “The Republic,” the utopian society consists of three main classes, one belonging entirely to a military. The conflict is not in the reality of violence and warring, but rather in what we strive for. Peace is nowhere on the agenda.
Some of the greatest and most praised movements in history were achieved through peaceful protesting. Ghandi, Rosa Parks and John Lennon stood firm in their beliefs and made a difference in the world. It is vital, then, particularly for college professors, to keep an open mind to dissenting opinions, for their duty is to cultivate individualism in a way that betters the world that we live in.
Hofstra University’s political science department is one that is well-known around the nation — its professors coming from phenomenal walks of experience. But it has come to my attention that many professors absentmindedly assume that there is consensus agreement in the ethical acceptance of violence and war.
One of the most bothersome moments of my Hofstra career took place in a freshman year writing course. My professor blatantly remarked that pacifists were stupid. She said that pacifist ideas do not exist, and she ridiculed its fundamentals. In her heated rant, she had spat out an ignorant statement, assuming the silence of the class to mean that everyone agreed with her.
A few moments afterward, I was disappointed in myself for not raising my hand and contradicting the woman about pacifism and how it goes along with open mindedness, which she very well needed to teach that class.
Government is certainly necessary for the protection of human life and functioning, because, like Hobbes noted, “the life of man in the state of nature is solitary, poor, nasty, and brutish,” and the natural consequence of people’s mutual desire is war.
The consequences of human reality are overpowering, but the practice of absolute pacifism, or at least collectively striving for it in a mutual global effort can bring about a revolutionary change.
One too many states and individuals have deeper faith in positivity resulting from violence as opposed to positivity resulting from non-violence. Militant warring is a manmade structure that we, as the ignorant, egotistical, arrogant, greedy human beings that we are, have created to force upon others.
We are fighting for peace? Warring is hypocrisy. Warring is a state of human conflict in which we lose all humane ability to resolve problems in a civil way. We resort to savagery — inhumane behavior of killing our own kind. We stoop so low that we create machines 10 times our own strength to destroy one another. What are we?
Pacifism is an abstract ideal, possibly inapplicable in the harsh realities of this world, yet the belief itself deserves more light and respect.