I woke up this morning with nonviolence still on my mind, so I'll continue this "thread".
In world arenas where armed conflict is possible or likely, nonviolence is a major step forward. I mean, leaders who espoused nonviolence in recent history were promoting a step in the right direction for humanity, and I honor them. They did shift the energy considerably, and started to open the way to less brutal ways of solving human disagreements. They shifted human consciousness.
But today, in 2022, there seems to be more violence than ever, at least it feels that way. And when I look at groups of protesters, say, on opposite sides of the street and any given divide, it is hard to distinguish them from one another. Faces are angry, voices are angry, the placards can be cutting and nasty. The "vibration" I feel as an observer (even when I am more supportive of one side) can be hard, confrontational and, yes, even potentially violent. The duality construct is still very much in place, as is the notion that sides are aligned against one another. Each group may hope very much that they will "win".
So what was on my mind this morning was semi-humorous (if there is such a thing!) Have you ever heard of a musician described as "nonviolent"? A visual artist? A sculptor? A choreographer or dancer? A creative writer or poet? A basket-weaver or potter? I mean, the whole context of creating art is to create beauty -- there is no "presumption of violence" that creative people have to differentiate themselves from. And the inevitable contrasts that artists deal with are just that, contrasts. They are not sides to be pitted one against the other. I've said this before -- in a choir, it is not the job of the altos to attack the basses, or the tenors to attack the sopranos. The various sections don't fight to be louder or more dominant, they work together to blend. Visual artists don't set red against green, or clay against metal. Dancers don't pick up their partners only to throw them violently to the ground. Knitters don't purl in order to attack their previous row of knitting, they do it to create beautiful and hardy rows of stitches.
Now, this isn't to say that in our competitive economic construct, there isn't stressful effort to perfect skills, to get grants, to survive, and to be seen/recorded/sold. But that is more a reflection of how we have chosen to operate, financially, than the arts themselves. And artists in various media often comment on or illustrate societal ills, wars, and injustice. But what they do creatively in that effort is fairly unlikely to be violent, per se.
I guess all I am saying is that there is a realm of human effort that is, to its essential core, beyond "nonviolent". I'm still struggling for the right word on this Saturday morning, but it's helpful to remember that violence isn't the only human condition, and not all human activities have to reference it. Those of us who are just "done" with violence and conflict can turn to artistic expression, not so much as a refuge, but as a valid larger model (completely outside the violence orbit) for society's future.
