nerd teacher [books] reviewed Pacifism as Pathology by Ward Churchill
Not My Analogy
2 stars
First and foremost, I do not like the analogy of things (racism, coercive pacifism) to pathology. I think better analogies for these things will often be found in (fundamentalist) religion and cults, especially when you look at the topics addressed within this text. The analogy is better, and it is less likely to accidentally lend itself to people acting as if they have no responsibility in it. (Granted, I suspect the reason why they opted for pathology was because of the focus on creating a program of therapy that would assist people in being less pacifist. I also don't agree with the focus that Churchill had on utilising 'radical' or 'reality' therapy, and this is because it is a big ask to get therapy to not come with the trappings of the hegemony in which it's situated.)
I also think that, regardless of the time period these essays come …
First and foremost, I do not like the analogy of things (racism, coercive pacifism) to pathology. I think better analogies for these things will often be found in (fundamentalist) religion and cults, especially when you look at the topics addressed within this text. The analogy is better, and it is less likely to accidentally lend itself to people acting as if they have no responsibility in it. (Granted, I suspect the reason why they opted for pathology was because of the focus on creating a program of therapy that would assist people in being less pacifist. I also don't agree with the focus that Churchill had on utilising 'radical' or 'reality' therapy, and this is because it is a big ask to get therapy to not come with the trappings of the hegemony in which it's situated.)
I also think that, regardless of the time period these essays come from (between 1986 and 2016), there is a real lack of structural critique for hierarchy. It does exist in specific passages, but it often undermines the connection of institutions to how people learn these forms of passivity in the first place. They just continue a common feature that I've noticed in many texts that can criticise the state but not institutions of the state that they perceive to be useful, beneficial, or helpful. This is particularly true for not noticing (or caring to notice) the ways that academia and schools play into teaching a specific narrative around pacifism and nonviolence.
I also think it should be highlighted that "coercive pacifism" or "hegemonic nonviolence" are far better signifiers of what they're talking about and clarifies their position, since they do hold empathy and respect for "devout and principled pacifists." (Terminology choices of the authors, by the way, also made me more cognisant of the Pacifism as Religion/Cult rather than Pacifism as Pathology analogy, which they flip between with ease. I still think the former would've been better.)
Additional random notes: Even when I find aspects compelling, I find edgy men annoying because they often have a tendency to overlook things they deem as Not Very Valuable because they can't see how it fits into the grand scheme. There is a Bob Black call-out footnote in one of the essays that literally sent me down a rabbit hole of adding more information to how appalling he is. I did actually resonate with some outlined events and their discussions of them because we could rewrite those sections in 2026 and have the same issue.
