Suggested citation:

Kelly, T. L. (2000). "Transformation Analysis Part I: Violence as Transformation." (Unpublished graduate paper, Portland State University, October 2000). Portland, OR: Author.

Introduction

The popular opinion is that conflicts ought to be solved through nonviolent means, barring the extremist view that terrorism is the only way to get results, though the terrorist is usually seeking only temporary results for the sake of propaganda. I am interested in why we assume that violence is not the answer, and that in the assumption we do not examine the transformative nature of violence while we espouse the same for nonviolence. It could be argued that dissecting violence into elements of its nature is not useful in the long run, and especially in a world that needs to reduce violence in order to survive. However, I am curious if we're missing something in the message from violence, that may help us discover why violence in Western culture is escalating despite our best efforts.

Violence as Transformation

There is a young man in Portland who was so stricken with what was diagnosed as schizophrenic affective disorder that he spent all his days in a catatonic state, with no attempts at or acknowledgement of communication with other human beings. In fact, it was this very state of catatonia that resulted in the diagnosis. He spent six years this way. One day, as he was shuffling zombie-like down the hall of the institution in which he was committed by his family, two male patients on the ward leaped out of a room in front of him and proceeded to severely beat up the catatonic young man. It was the classic "random act of violence" we all fear and believe to be at the root of contemporary problems. The catatonic man lay on the floor, his face and body bruised and his eyes swollen shut. He was carried into his room and treated for his wounds. During this treatment, our catatonic man suddenly began to yell obscenities and swore to get revenge on the two men who had beat him. He jumped out of bed and continued yelling out long, complex, clear sentences of anger and retribution, of societal injustice, how he was mad as hell and wasn't going to take it anymore - it could even be said that he gave a speech that was compelling and important, to the amazement of all. The man's face (albeit the swelling) had turned from catatonic to expressive and focused. His gate became directed and assertive. One could say that the transformation was miraculous. He continued in this vein for several days, discussing his family and world politics and his favorite foods and the meaning of life - the ward staff gathered around him as if they were audience to a prophet - until his wounds healed. Shortly after his wounds healed and the novelty of his transformation had worn off amongst those who had for days comprised his audience, the young man gradually returned to his catatonic state, where he remains to this day.

The irony of this event is not lost on the staff, who now and then bring up the taboo proposition that a good beating would rouse the young man back into real life, where his audienceawaits more words of a sort of wisdom not heard often in society, much less in the mental ward.

In another instance, there is a case in which a woman who was violently raped by a stranger ultimately claimed that it (her suffering of the crime) transformed her life - for the better. She claimed that as a result of the assault, she "woke up" to awareness of all the ways in which she was being "raped" in her life - metaphorically speaking. She claimed that before the rape she felt as if she had been walking around "hypnotized" and that now she was "awake and alive" to her life. She even went as far as to seek out her attacker (who was eventually captured and imprisoned) to forgive him, because she felt forgiveness was the only way to "balance" the rewards of her transformation. One could argue that this woman's process was actually a creative way to bring closure to her suffering, but the woman claims otherwise. She stands by her claim that her suffering had transformed her for the better, and the transformation would not have occurred without something as abrupt and life-altering as a rape.

What is going on here? How can violence be the catalyst for positive change when we have been told for so long that violence is wrong and "violence is not the answer" to any problem and can only result in tragedy?

There are also examples of the transformative power of violence in larger contexts than the personal. Many have been killed violently in wars that were justified on the basis of their power to transform societies for the better. America wouldn't be America if a lot of people hadn't been slaughtered in the process. Even if you don't agree that America as a grand experiment is a positive thing, it can't be denied that America's idealogical foundation in "unalienable human rights" is a transformation from how people were governed and how people viewed the human condition before America came to be, and that the transformation continues its effect around the globe in often positive ways. However, for the sake of this paper, it is not so important to revisit the "revolution as progress" argument in order to see clearly how violence and coercion has worked as a transformative agent throughout history. Philosophers have considered the issue in the past: In the preface to Frantz Fanon's 'Wretched of the Earth', Jean Paul Sartre argues that "irrepressible violence ... is man recreating himself" and that through this recreation, the weak become strong. (Fanon, 1963). It would appear from these examples that not only is violence implicated in the structure of our history, but in the nature of our being as well.

However, in the same work, Fanon, though he argues for the necessity of revolution, violent though it may be, gives a clue as to one the elements that separates the transformative powers of violence and nonviolence. Fanon blames the failings of nationalism on the "intellectual laziness of the middle class" (149). Keeping in mind the example of the American revolution, consider Fanon's claim that the bourgeoisie rises to power only insofar as it seeks to mimic the bourgeoisie of the "mother country" that rules the colony. In the following excerpt, Fanon suggests that the native bourgeoisie mistakenly attempts to control the colony to the same extent as the colonial bourgeoisie it attempts to displace:

The national middle class which takes over power at the end of the colonial regime is an underdeveloped middle class. It has practically no economic power, and in any case it is in no way commensurate with the bourgeoisie of the mother country which it hopes to replace. In its narcissism, the national middle class is easily convinced that it can advantageously replace the middle class of the mother country. But that same independence which literally drives it into a corner will give rise within its ranks to catastrophic reactions, and will oblige it to send out frenzied appeals for help to the former mother country. (149)

Why is this significant? Because it point to the critical difference between transformations of violence and nonviolence, or coercion and non-coercion - that the society built through non-coercive means may not be subject to the cycle described above, and therefore may be less apt to encounter the forementioned "catastrophic reactions."

Nonviolence as Transformation

Reports of the transformative quality of nonviolence are extensive. Nonviolent movements such as The Peace Corps, Beyond War, the Fellowship of Reconciliation, and the practice of the release by children worldwide of thousands of paper "peace" cranes, are just a few examples of diverse expressions of the transformative quality of nonviolence. It is significant, however, to note that many of these movements and efforts arose in response to violence. It could be said that violence, then, is implicated by proxy in the efforts themselves. If the violence had not occurred, or at least the potential for violence, would the movements have arisen on their own? [NOTE: a more thorough examination of "Nonviolence as Transformation" is covered in my essay of the same name, available on this site.]

The Nature of Violence

What is it about violence, then, that is so attractive? One radical theory takes a look as far deep inside a person as one could go - into the soul (or whatever one considers to be on the same scale as "soul"). Robert Stein suggests that the soul has awareness of itself before knowledge of taboo (Stein, 1974). Could it be that the soul is driven to connect itself with other souls using any means available, including coercion and violence? If the root drive for violence is driven by something as beautiful and as necessary as the human need to connect with others on some level other than the material, how are we to survive our violent tendencies? Is this why religion arose in the first place - to systematically deal with this contradiction?

This may be a step in understanding the difference between violent and nonviolent transformation. Perhaps what is missing in the equation of violence is recognition of a very basic human need for ritual. In order to recognize the violent "beauty" within us, tribes of old created elaborate rituals of myth and spirit that mimicked violent coercive behavior without actually engaging in it for real, and therefore avoiding Fanon's "catastrophic reactions." There was acknowledgement of the soul so that the soul was satisfied and did not have to find its way out through taboos. Though the human condition has evolved to include "human rights" into the equation for survival, there has not been an evolution of sacred ritual to match this huge responsibility to our souls.

Conclusion

I don't pretend to have the answers to the questions I bring up in this paper - I am mostly interested in asking the tough questions and then, by hook and by crook, weaving a few scenarios that may be useful for future determinists. Overall, I think it is very important to continue to look at the nature of violence as a vital component of how to get along with each other in an increasingly complex world. It is critical, as we are faced with greater diversity in our cultures and in ourselves, that we match progress in this area with progress towards a "science of the soul," as Joseph Campbell termed it. Only by understanding the contradictory nature of human beingness will we reach that level of nonviolent behavior that makes sense in the larger scheme of things.

References

Fanon, Frantz, (1925-1961). The Wretched of the Earth. Pref. by Jean-Paul Sartre. Trans. by Constance Farrington. New York, Grove Press, 1963.

Stein, Robert. Incest and Human Love: The Betrayal of the Soul in Psychotherapy. Baltimore, Penguin Books, 1974.

Campbell, Joseph. The Power of Myth. Anchor Books/Doubleday, 1991.