Peace is an interesting ideal, Rory Miller says, depending on how you define it:
Like a lot of ideals, it’s squishy enough that you can have other ideals directly opposed to your stated ends and throw enough words into the justification to miss the point.
The thing that gets me about peace activists is that peace is not a thing. It is the absence of another thing. Depending on how you define it, the absence of war or violence or conflict. Depending on how you define those, ‘peace’ ranges from a difficult improbability to an absurd impossibility. In any case where you are looking at an absence, you must look at the thing you want to remove.
You can’t effectively work for peace without taking a good hard look at war or violence or conflict (or all three, depending on your definition). And not a knee-jerk, disapproving look, either. A good hard look at why, if something is so bad, it is so prevalent. Why, if something must be fixed, it is so endemic in the natural world.
It is exactly like any other group attempting to censor or ban any other thing. Prohibition was an ideal, largely put forward by self-righteous teetotalers. People talk about violence, it seems to me, the way that they talked about sex in the fifties. They don’t. Most talk around it. If you have anything to say from experience, you are marginalized.
It kills dialogue. More to the point, it kills progress. Medicine advances as we learn more about disease. We solve problems by studying problems, not by meditating on an imaginary, problem-free end state. I guess, in a way, that is the defining difference between a peace-maker and a peace activist.
Crime fighting is an ideal, he says, just like peace:
And we won’t make progress until we take a good hard look at why crime is prevalent. Which means acknowledging that it works. It satisfies needs. It’s not just that there is little opportunity for honest employment in certain areas. There are damn few jobs, much less entry-level jobs, where you can make thousands of dollars a week, get automatic deference and an instant family.
Crime fighting is an attempt, instead of lowering the rewards of the criminal lifestyle, to raise the risks. Catch ‘em, book ‘em, hard time. You have to take a look, a hard look at whether that is a risk or even a punishment in this subculture… or just the way rugby players think about the occasional injury. I don’t think surveys will help… but I recall the young man about to be transported to prison for the first time at the tender age of eighteen. He was excited. In his family, doing time in prison was the rite of passage to manhood. Jail didn’t count.
And this is where we get to criminals. We look at them from our point of view and our world. Most of the things that make a career criminal would be and are profoundly dysfunctional in polite society. So we look at our world and us and the criminal and try to ‘fix’ what is ‘broken’.
There is nothing broken. For the most part (possible mental illness and stuff aside) the serious criminal is not incomplete. There is no pathology. He is perfectly adapted for his world. The things that we think of as normal and good, the things we try to instill when we rehabilitate, might be profoundly dangerous behaviors when he goes back to his old haunts and sees his old friends.
We pretend we are fixing a person, but in reality we are trying to reshape him into a person that makes us more comfortable. Altering a human for our purposes, not his. In the process making him more likely to die in his natural environment and he damn well knows it.
The few people I know who have truly rehabilitated themselves, started by deciding they wanted to live in the non-criminal world. That’s rare.