No abstract

No abstract

No abstract

Abstract:The paper investigates the conceptual dichotomy of violence and nonviolence in reference to the self-immolations that have been taking place in Tibet for the last several years. First using the insights of Hannah Arendt to distinguish between the categories of violent, nonviolent and peaceful, I approach the question of violence as the problem of acts that transgress prohibitions against causing harm. Using that heuristic, I examine the ways multiple ethical systems are vying for recognition regarding the selfimmolations, and how a certain Buddhist ambivalence around extreme acts of devotion complicate any easy designations of the act as 'violent' or 'nonviolent'. I conclude by suggesting how any such classification inculcates us into questions of power and assertions of appropriate authority.Keywords: Self-Immolation; Tibetan Buddhism; Violence and Nonviolence; Power; Transgression Since 1998, over 130 Tibetans have taken their lives by "burning the body in fire" (ranglü merseg). These public performances are actions against the policies of the People's Republic of China, and in most cases are linked to demands for that the exiled religious leader the XIV Dalai Lama return to Tibet. The painful acts typically result in the actor's death, but have always been performed by willing agents, never upon others, and for that reason have been heralded as nonviolent. However the violence against Tibetan bodies seems equally clear, as the blistered and charred skin of their corpses attest. We are left with an oxymoronic phenomenon: a violent act of non-violent resistance. This paradox demands we reassess our categories, as "the self-immolations complicate a troubling model of non-violence and violence as immutable and distinct categories: a model prevalent not only in the framing of 'the Tibet issue', but also in secular liberal practices of applauding or delegitimizing various social and political struggles."1 Taking this as a starting point, in this essay I will examine some aspects of the relationship between the apparently mutually exclusive categories of violent and nonviolent in reference to the Tibetan self-immolations.It should be clear I am not attempting to determine whether or not the self-immolations should be labeled 'violent'. As will become clear, such labeling serves ideological ends, no matter how obvious such characterizations may appear. My discussion explores the ways ambivalent conceptions of harm are mobilized by these acts: If they are nonviolent, why do they also appear violent against the individual? Are they suicides, and what is at stake in that term? What relationship do they bear to the violence that lay at the heart of the sovereign state? What, ultimately, can we learn about our own binary of violence/nonviolence when we examine these acts? Such questions have import beyond the immediate context of Tibet, and will be useful in illuminating the effects of labelling particular political acts as 'violent' or 'nonviolent'.Violence has been shown in recent years to be a salient category...

No abstract