Fighting Against

What type of action brings about effective, sustainable change?

I  demonstrated and marched in the 60s. We thought we were going to change the world. In some ways we did. In many ways we didn’t. Since then I’ve learned about effective and sustainable change from a number of places: mindfulness practices, Gandhian nonviolence principles, Aikido, process work and Taoism, Nonviolent Communication, and from nature.

Slowly I began to question, what is an effective way to meet resistance to change? What is sustainable change? How sustainable is overcoming and defeating another? 

Nonviolence (and related approaches) seems to present a another way than fighting against others who we deem to be enemies. For instance, Thich Nhat Hanh says, “Love is the essence (the core, the heart) of nonviolence.” Thru Gandhi’s example I know that nonviolence also involves standing up for one’s truth with honesty and courage. I still wonder, what is love? How can we possibly love even those who cause pain?

These remain open questions for me, yet as I explored the ways that nonviolent principles have been embodied in the world, I developed an hypothesis: fighting against an “enemy” is not the most effective way to bring about sustainable change.

I see this as only an hypothesis, something to explore, not a statement of “truth”. Still I feel shy even writing it. I imagine only one reaction: “This is totally naive, devoid of reality, and not worth even thinking about. This is weak, passive, and would let tyrants run wild.” Am I suggesting that fighting against Hitler was the wrong thing to do?”

What am I suggesting?

In our mindfulness courses we use an exercise adapted by George Leonard from aikido. Aikido is a martial art and its movements are often described in militant terms yet, at it’s core, aikido is a form of nonviolence. 

Leonard writes: “It’s counterproductive to use any word or action intended to devastate an attacker. Violence, whether physical or verbal, begets violence.”

The aikido process is described by George Leonard in this way:

“When confronted by any attack or problematic incoming energy…the aikidoist generally moves toward the attacker and slightly off the line of attack, simultaneously making a turning maneuver that leaves him or her next to the person and facing in the same direction. In this position, the aikidoist is looking at the situation from the attacker’s viewpoint. It’s important here to add one more phrase to that statement. The aikidoist is looking at the situation from the attacker’s viewpoint without giving up his or her own viewpoint. This entering and blending maneuver immediately multiplies your options… From this position, many possibilities exist, including a good chance of reconciliation ….This isn’t to say that we should always blend.”

Blending involves maintaining your own center and making use of the other person’s energy, using their momentum instead of fighting against it. Sometimes controlling another’s aggression is necessary but it’s done with the intention of protecting the attacker.  read more

Another model that has been important to me is nonviolent communication (NVC). From NVC I take in basic assumptions or hypotheses, for example: that all human beings share the same needs and all actions are attempts to meet needs.

From an NVC perspective, I recoil from the militant words used in this discussion of aikido. Except in very limited situations, I rarely choose to describe the other person as an attacker or to think of myself as being attacked.

Still aikido principles of centering and blending, seem to speak to me. For one thing aikido helps me really take in that nonviolence is not passive. It gives me a picture of what this means. It also seems to lead me in new directions when it comes to devising nonviolent strategies for change.

Both Gandhian nonviolence and centering and blending in aikido involve moving in close, making contact, even placing oneself in a place of great danger directly in the path of one’s “opponent”, and from that place connecting with the humanity of the other person while maintaining touch with one’s own humanity.  This can require great courage. It involves  an ability to see the situation and the other person clearly, with curiosity, nonjudgment, beginners mind, and trust plus an ability to see  and work with enemy images when they come up. It involves compassion for oneself. These same principles are central to a mindfulness practice.

 So back to my hypothesis:

Fighting against or trying to control an “enemy” is not the most effective way to bring about sustainable change.

What does this mean?

To me it means that one way sustainable change happens is when one can remain centered, balanced, and grounded while from that place finding ways to blend. Blending involves honoring your own viewpoint while moving with the other person’s energy instead of fighting against it, and being open to many possible outcomes.

In other words, to see the situation from the other’s perspective;  to be willing to encounter and work with whatever is happening while making it clear that you are not willing to let the other person’s energy overwhelm you; to connect with yourself and the other person in a deep and loving way; to move with the other person’s momentum instead of fighting against it. From this position being open to a variety of outcomes, looking for avenues toward meeting needs on all sides, and contributing to another from a place of heartfulness instead of from fear or coercion.   Only when necessary, controlling another’s actions with force but never with the intention of engaging in reprisal or revenge.

Jon Kabat Zinn writes:

If someone attacks you, he is already out of his mind in a certain way, has already surrendered his own point of independence and balance by the very irrationality of that aggressive act. If you do not succumb to fear and lose your own equanimity and clarity, but rather, enter into and blend with the attacking energy while maintaining your own balance and center, you can use the attacker’s intrinsically unbalanced energy and momentum against himself with an economy of effort, doing the least harm and the greatest good. You blend with the opponent, guiding him back around your own center and neutralizing the attack. This can be accomplished almost without touching him. Yet he is undone, and has no idea how it even came about…”

This is an hypothesis. It is something I’m exploring, testing. I want to see what it means in the real world. I want to investigate how it is possible to embody this idea in difficult situations.