Previous editorials

Current editorial

February 2021

December 2020
November 2020
October 2020
September 2020
July 2020
June 2020
May 2020
April 2020
March 2020
February 2020

December 2019
November 2019
October 2019
September 2019
July 2019
June 2019
May 2019
April 2019
March 2019
February 2019

December 2018
November 2018
October 2018
September 2018
July 2018
June 2018
May 2018
April 2018
March 2018
February 2018

December 2017
November 2017
October 2017
September 2017
July 2017
June 2017
May 2017
April 2017
March 2017
February 2017

December 2016
November 2016
October 2016
September 2016
July 2016
June 2016
May 2016
April 2016
March 2016
February 2016
January 2016 (supplement)

December 2015
November 2015
October 2015
September 2015
July 2015
June 2015
May 2015
April 2015
March 2015
February 2015

December supplement
December 2014
November 2014
October 2014
September 2014
July 2014
June 2014
May 2014
April 2014
March 2014
February 2014

December 2013
November 2013
October 2013
September 2013
July 2013
June 2013
May 2013
April 2013
March 2013
February 2013

December 2012
November 2012
October 2012
September 2012
July 2012
June 2012
May 2012
April 2012
March 2012
February 2012

December 2011
November 2011
October 2011
September 2011
July 2011
June 2011
May 2011
April 2011
March 2011
February 2011

December 2010
November 2010
October 2010
September 2010
July 2010
June 2010
May 2010
April 2010
March 2010
February 2010

December 2009
November 2009
October 2009
September 2009
July 2009
June 2009
May 2009
April 2009
March 2009
February 2009

December 2008
November 2008
October 2008
September 2008
July 2008
June 2008
May 2008
April 2008
March 2008
February 2008

December 2007
November 2007
October 2007
September 2007
July 2007
June 2007
May 2007
April 2007
March 2007
February 2007

December 2006
November 2006
October 2006
September 2006
July 2006
June 2006
May 2006
April 2006
March 2006
February 2006

December 2005
November 2005
October 2005
September 2005
July 2005
June 2005
May 2005
April 2005
March 2005
February 2005

December 2004
November 2004
October 2004
September 2004
July 2004
June 2004
May 2004
April 2004
March 2004
February 2004

December 2003
November 2003
October 2003
September 2003
July 2003
June 2003
May 2003
April 2003
March 2003
February 2003
January 2003

December 2002
November 2002
October 2002
September 2002
July 200
June 2002
May 2002
April 2002
March 2002
February 2002

December 2001
November 2001
October 2001
September 2001
July 2001
June 2001
May 2001
April 2001
March 2001
February 2001
December 2000
November 2000
October 2000

16 Ravensdene Park,
Belfast BT6 0DA,
Northern Ireland.
Tel: 028 9064 7106
Fax: 028 9064 7106

This is an archive of material
mainly from 1992 until December 2020.
Please go to our CURRENT WEBSITE
for material from January 2021 onwards.
What's new?

Billy King


Nonviolence News



These are regular editorials produced alongside the corresponding issues on Nonviolent News.

Editorial 235 supplement: January 2016

[Return to related issue of Nonviolence News]

Larry Speight brings us his monthly column–

Violence and gender

The world is often a violent place and, in some cases, getting more violent. That is not to say that nonviolence and nonviolent approaches are absent, far from it especially at ground level, but that violence tends to be seen, by governments, proto-governments (ISIS) and insurgents, as the normative way to go. Unfortunately it is usually the way to go, or take people, to hell and not return. In the case of violence by the rich West, a feature is also the failure to take responsibility for what is, in part or in whole, the repercussions of their own violence (e.g. in the flow of refugees to Europe).

Some great advances have been made over decades in a variety of fields of human endeavour. Awareness of alternatives to armed conflict is more prevalent but even where people are aware of them they may be discarded, by the powerful or the would-be-powerful, as unnecessary or not applicable to them. Possibly the most impressive relatively recent surge forward for humanity, in thinking and in practice, has been the advance made by women over a number of decades but stemming back centuries. This has taken place through sustained women’s activism.

Even in Western societies, however, feminism still has much to achieve, in breaking through glass ceilings in work and other environments, achieving equality in work tasks in the home, eliminating everyday sexism, and overcoming so-called, interpersonal, ‘domestic’ violence, the figures for the last being horrific. Unfortunately patriarchy is still alive and kicking in both active and passive resistance to the advancement of gender equality. In the international scene, and specifically in relation to women’s involvement in peacemaking, UNSCR 1325 (do a word search if you want to look it up), dating from 2000, is often seen as setting the scene for equal women’s participation.

However, “Candid Voices from the Field” (mentioned in the news section of Nonviolent News and featured in our Readings in Nonviolence in this issue) is an up to the minute review of the limitations and barriers to women being fully involved in peacemaking; the subtitle is “Obstacles to a Transformative Women, Peace and Security Agenda and to Women’s Meaningful Participation in Building Peace and Security.” In some ways it makes depressing reading because there are many such obstacles. It does however make strong and valuable conclusions and recommendations, and there are positive stories included too.

In relation to Northern Ireland the report points out (p.32), “....17 years after the peace agreement, with the refusal of the UK government to include Northern Ireland in its NAP [National Action Plan] on UNSCR 1325, the political environment for women’s empowerment and participation in Northern Ireland’s post-conflict governance remains extremely challenging.” The UK government proclaims that every peace process everywhere should fully involve women - except for that in Northern Ireland which happens to be part of the United Kingdom and the primary peace process within its borders. This speaks volumes for how seriously the issue is taken by those in power in Britain.

Which brings us on to the issue of masculinity and violence, and ‘Candid Voices’ speaks of the need to “include work on alternative masculinities with men to challenge the gendered roots of armed conflict and the role of patriarchy in maintaining the power and privilege of make power elites....” (p.63). There is a clear need to challenge and overcome what could be termed ‘masculinearity’ – the socialisation of boys and young men into patriarchal roles and approaches, and the notion of only one, macho, definition of manhood. Redefining masculinity is a key factor in overcoming violence at all levels; most violence is perpetrated by men.

However men can also be victims of dominant definitions of masculinity and gender, and this was largely the focus for a Transitional Justice Institute/Ulster University postgraduate seminar which is also written up in this issue, on ‘Masculinities, Violence and (Post-)Conflict’. We have to be careful in this area not to wander into ‘Masculinist’, ‘Fathers For Justice’-type territory, blaming women for the position of men, and problems men have. Men need to be allies to women and support the wide changes which are necessary for full women’s involvement in society and in peacemaking. But women can also be allies to men in helping men change; you just need to look at the gender of most of those presenting at this seminar to realise that (see photos).

There is an INNATE poster which speaks of ‘Gender’ as ‘a word that many men believe does not include them’ and then goes on to advise them to consult a dictionary. Men and women are sometimes projected as binary opposites. We do not want to say there are no differences stemming from nature or nurture but that quite clearly we need to be allies to, and for, each other, both in change to do with gender and wider change. We all need to be peacemakers and changebuilders, and we need to help each other as much as we can, in whatever ways we can, whatever our gender.


Larry Speight brings us his monthly column –

Doublethink and Inclusive Sense of Identity

The December - January floods in parts of Ireland and the UK, the 2015 Paris climate change agreement and concerns expressed by politicians and commenters about the state of the Chinese economy brings an aspect of how humans think into sharp relief. The aspect in question is best described as ‘doublethink’, a term coined by George Orwell in his dystopian novel 1984. Orwell describes doublethink as:

“The power of holding two contradictory beliefs in one’s mind simultaneously, and accepting both of them. … To tell deliberate lies while genuinely believing in them, to forget any fact that has become inconvenient, and then, when it becomes necessary again draw it back from oblivion for just so long as it is needed, to deny the existence of objective reality and all the while to take account of the reality which one denies.”

The cause of environmental problems such as climate change, loss of biodiversity, death of the seas, soil erosion and air pollution are widely understood as is the role they play in undermining the fabric of life, disrupting economies, causing ill-health, early death and creating conditions that lead to civil unrest. In spite of this, powerful political players and complacent citizen alike employ doublethink through supporting the values and practices that cause ecological collapse while simultaneously pledging to conduct their affairs in a more ecologically sustainable way.

Doublethink can be seen in everyday life. During the fine months of April to September many people on these islands take woodland walks, cycle through rolling hills, fish in lakes and picnic in parks and at the seaside. Yet a substantial number of them undermine the ecological integrity and aesthetic value of the places they visit with litter amounting to millions of tons a year. While thrilled to see wild animals and plants we are driving many to extinction through pollution and destruction of their habitat. In fact, as New Scientist, 23rd January 2016, reports we cause 100,000 species to become extinct every year.

Whilst doublethink causes great harm through dishonesty and the role it plays in oppressive attitudes such as racism, sexism and militarism, it can serve useful purposes as in enabling people to deal with psychologically challenging situations. Examples include enabling medical personnel deal with mangled bodies caused by serious traffic collisions and helping people come to terms with personal tragedy. Doublethink helps many people live a meaningful life in the face of the glaring inevitability of personal oblivion. Doublethink likely evolved as a survival mechanism and will probably always be a part of what it means to be human. The challenge is how to prevent doublethink subverting our need to effectively address issues that affect our wellbeing and survival.

One possible way is expanding the circumference of our sense of identity through accepting the case that in spite of cultural diversity, different religious beliefs and skin colour we are all related through shared ancestry. We also need to accept that we are not a species apart from nature but are nature and wholly dependent on it for every nanosecond of our life. There is no escaping the fact that our origin is shared with all life forms going back 3.8 billion years when single celled prokaryotic cells, such as bacteria, evolved. ( Our bodies are composed of the substances spurted across the cosmos at the moment of the Big Bang 13.8 billion years ago.

Current political and environmental events show that a sense of identity based on these inclusive factors is not a theatrical construct divorced from everyday life. In all probability the mass movement of refugees into Europe is in large part due to the United States, Britain and France selling arms to countries such as Saudi Arabia and in the past Syria who unsurprisingly use them. The Guardian, 27th January 2016, reports that since Prime Minister David Cameron came to power Britain has sold £7 billion worth of weapons to Saudi Arabia who are using them to kill civilians in Yemen. Another factor is the recent overthrow of governments that Britain and the United States decided were despicable, although they had done business with them over many years. The political chaos and unending wars that have followed have caused civilians to seek refuge in other countries. Treating other societies as ‘other’, which is doublethink, brought about the circumstances that have caused the refugee crisis. Treating nonhuman life as separate from us, as a bank of resources to be used not only to meet our needs but for superficial gratification – which is doublethink, has led to climate change, the loss of biodiversity and other maladies which are the cause of great suffering and may lead to the collapse of civilization as we know it.

The hope for humankind and our fellow species is that change in how we think, relate and do things is a constant. The question is, will enough of humanity embrace a more inclusive and empathic sense of identity before it is too late?

Copyright INNATE 2021