Nonkilling

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
This logo, created by Glenn D. Paige, explains the concept of nonkilling combining the ancient Asian yin-yang symbol with the recent brain research finding that stimulation of the pathways between systems of the brain controlling emotions and movement can assist change from violent to nonviolent human behavior. Analogously Creative Transformational Initiatives (blue), drawing upon Nonkilling Human Capabilities (white), can bring an end to Human Killing (red).

Nonkilling, popularised as a concept in the 2002 book Nonkilling Global Political Science, by Glenn D. Paige, refers to the absence of killing, threats to kill, and conditions conducive to killing in human society.[1][2] Even though the use of the term in academia refers mostly to the killing of human beings, it is sometimes extended to include the killing of animals and other forms of life.[3] This is also the case for the traditional use of the term "nonkilling" (or "non-killing") as part of Buddhist ethics, as expressed in the first precept of the Pancasila,[4] and in similar terms throughout world spiritual traditions (see Nonkilling studies). Significantly, "nonkilling" was used in the "Charter for a World without Violence"[5] approved by the 8th World Summit of Nobel Peace Laureates.[6]

Terms[edit]

In analysis of its causes, nonkilling encompasses the concepts of peace (absence of war and conditions conducive to war), nonviolence (psychological, physical, and structural), and ahimsa (noninjury in thought, word and deed).[7] Not excluding any of the latter, nonkilling provides a distinct approach characterized by the measurability of its goals and the open-ended nature of its realization. While the usage of terms such as "nonviolence" and "peace" often follow the classical form of argument through abstract ideas leading to passivity, killing (and its opposite, nonkilling),[8] it can be quantified and related to specific causes, for example by following a public health perspective (prevention, intervention and post-traumatic transformation toward the progressive eradication of killing),[9] as in the World Report on Public Health.[10]

In relation to psychological aggression, physical assault, and torture intended to terrorize by manifest or latent threat to life, nonkilling implies removal of their psychosocial causes. In relation to killing of humans by socioeconomic structural conditions that are the product of direct lethal reinforcement as well as the result of diversion of resources for purposes of killing, nonkilling implies removal of lethality-linked deprivations. In relation to threats to the viability of the biosphere, nonkilling implies absence of direct attacks upon life-sustaining resources as well as cessation of indirect degradation associated with lethality. In relation to forms of accidental killing, nonkilling implies creation of social and technological conditions conducive to their elimination.[7]

Approach[edit]

Figure 1: Unfolding Fan of Nonkilling

Paige's nonkilling approach has strongly influenced the discourse of nonviolence. Paige's position is that if we are able to imagine a global society that enjoys an absence of killing, we would be able to diminish and even reverse the present harmful effects of killing and utilize the resulting public funding saved from manufacturing and employing weapons to create a more benevolent, richer and more socially just world.[1][11]

Nonkilling does not set any predetermined path for the achievement of a killing-free society in the same way as some ideologies and spiritual traditions that foster the restraint from the taking of life do. As an open-ended approach, it appeals to infinite human creativity and variability, encouraging continuous explorations in the fields of education, research, social action and policy making, by developing a broad range of scientific, institutional, educational, political, economic and spiritual alternatives to human killing. Also, in spite of its specific focus, nonkilling also tackles broader social issues.[12]

A considerable literature on nonkilling describes various theoretical and conceptual approaches to nonkilling and codifies a set of potentially useful conceptual lenses. Nonkilling Global Political Science (NKGPS)[1] advocates a threefold paradigmatic shift in human society to the absence of killing, of threats to kill, and of conditions conducive to killing. Paige's stance is to create a society free from killing, thereby reversing the existing deleterious effects of killing, and instead employ the public monies saved from producing and using weapons to create a benevolent, wealthier and overall more socially just society. Since Paige introduced his framework, a body of associated scholarship, guided by the Center for Global Nonkilling, a Honolulu-based NGO with Special Consultative Status with the United Nations Economic and Social Council, has developed across a variety of disciplines.[13][14] Through academic work sponsored by the Center, it has both associated NKGPS with previous nonviolent or peace-building scholarship from different religious frameworks, including Buddhism,[15] Christianity,[16] Hinduism,[17] and Islam,[18]. and expanded on these traditions, providing it a broad functional and moral inheritance.[19] Within the NKGPS approach, preventing violence and encouraging peacebuilding involves applying NKGPS as a global political science through advocacy work in favour of a paradigmatic shift from killing to nonkilling, utilizing various conceptual lenses. Paige's own work focused on the Korean peninsular,[20] but scholars have applied NKGPS to a wide variety of regional and national conflicts,[13] for example the Balkans[21] and the Philippines.[22]

The nonkilling approach emphasizes that a global nonkilling society is not free of conflict, but that the overall structure of society and processes do not originate in or rely on killing. Paige introduced a wide array of concepts to support nonkilling. For instance, Paige advocated the societal adoption of three main concepts of peace, namely the absence of war and of conditions that might lead to war; nonviolence, at the psychological, physical, or structural levels; and ahimsa, that is, noninjury in thought, word and deed, whether from religious or secular traditions. Paige also advocated a taxonomy for assessing individuals and societies:[1]:76

  • prokilling⁠—consider killing positively beneficial for self or civilisation;
  • killing-prone⁠—inclined to kill or to support killing when advantageous;
  • ambikilling⁠—equally inclined to kill or not to kill, and to support or oppose it;
  • killing-avoiding⁠—predisposed not to kill or to support it but prepared to do so;
  • nonkilling⁠—committed not to kill and to change conditions conducive to lethality.

Another concept introduced by Paige is the ‘funnel of killing’. In this five-fold lens for viewing society, people kill in a ‘killing zone’ which can range from a single location to theatres of war and which is the actual place where the killing occurs; learn to kill in a ‘socialisation zone’, such as a military base; are educated to accept killing as necessary and valid in a ‘cultural conditioning zone’; inhabit a ‘structural reinforcement zone’, where socioeconomic influences, organisations and institutions, together with material means, prompt and sustain a killing discourse; and experience a ‘neurobiochemical capability zone’, that is, immediate neurological and physical factors that lead to killing behaviours, such as genes for psychopathic behaviour. Paige advocated an ‘unfolding fan’ of nonkilling alternatives (Figure 1), which involves deliberate efforts in each zone to minimize killing.[1]:76 In this alternative construction, killing zone interventions can take spiritual forms, for example faith-based mediation, or nonlethal technology interventions, for example stun guns or teargas. Transformations in socialization zone domains involve nonkilling socialization education, while interventions in the cultural conditioning zone occur via the arts and the media. In the structural reinforcement zone, socioeconomic conditions (such as a dependence on fossil fuels) are effected with the aim of avoiding any potential justification for lethality. Finally, in the killing zone, interventions along clinical, pharmacological, physical, or spiritual/meditative lines are designed to free people, for example the traumatised or psychopaths, from any tendencies to kill.

Various theoretical elaborations on nonkilliing exist. For instance, Motlagh[23] introduced a fundamental objective hierarchy of steps to transform the social institutions that can contribute to nonkilling. Motlagh emphasizes that societal transformation towards nonkilling needs social institutions to adopt inspiring symbols of perpetual peace and concepts such as weapon-free zones, as well as actions like eliminating economic structures that support lethality, protecting the environment, and defending human rights.

In a broad conception, nonkilling opposes aggression, assassination, autogenocide, contract killing, corporate manslaughter, cultural genocide, capital punishment, democide, domestic killings, ethnic cleansing, ethnocide, femicide, feticide, gendercide, genocide, honor killing, ritual killings, infanticide, linguicide, mass murder, murder–suicide, omnicide, policide, politicide, regicide, school shootings, structural violence, suicide, terrorism, thrill killing, tyrannicide, violence, war, and other forms of killing, direct, indirect or structural.

See also[edit]

References[edit]

  1. ^ a b c d e Paige, Glenn D. (2009). Nonkilling global political science (2nd rev. English ed.). Honolulu: Center for Global Nonkilling. ISBN 978-0-9822983-0-5. OCLC 704984465.
  2. ^ Bhaneja, Balwant (2008), "Nonkilling Political Science", Encyclopedia of Violence, Peace, & Conflict, Elsevier, pp. 1356–1362, doi:10.1016/b978-012373985-8.00234-8, ISBN 978-0-12-373985-8
  3. ^ Kool, V. K.; Agrawal, Rita (2009). "The Psychology of Nonkilling". In Pim, Joám Evans (ed.). Toward a nonkilling paradigm. Honolulu: Center for Global Nonkilling. ISBN 978-0-9822983-1-2. OCLC 463312339.
  4. ^ Stewart McFarlane in Peter Harvey, ed., Buddhism. Continuum, 2001, page 187. Buddhist Scriptures in Pali language have explicit reference to nonviolence and nonkilling: monks should not only themselves abstain from killing but should also refrain from encouraging other people to kill themselves (Vinayapitaka III: .71-74)
  5. ^ 8th World Summit of Nobel Peace Laureates, Charter for a World without Violence. Rome, December 15, 2007. Archived May 10, 2009, at the Wayback Machine
  6. ^ "To address all forms of violence we encourage scientific research in the fields of human interaction and dialogue and we invite participation from the academic, scientific and religious communities to aid us in the transition to nonviolent, and nonkilling societies".
  7. ^ a b "Nonkilling Global Society", in Peace Building, edited by Ada Aharoni, in Encyclopedia of Life Support Systems (EOLSS), Developed under the auspices of the UNESCO, 2005, Eolss Publishers, Oxford.
  8. ^ Drago, Antonino (2009). "Nonkilling science". Toward a nonkilling paradigm. Pim, Joám Evans. (1st ed.). Honolulu, Hawaii: Center for Global Nonkilling. p. 388. ISBN 978-0-9822983-1-2. OCLC 463312339.
  9. ^ DeGue, Sarah; Mercy, James A. (2009). "Nonkilling public health". Toward a nonkilling paradigm. Pim, Joám Evans. (1st ed.). Honolulu, Hawaii: Center for Global Nonkilling. p. 388. ISBN 978-0-9822983-1-2. OCLC 463312339.
  10. ^ Krug, Etienne G. (2002). World report on violence and health. Geneva: World Health Organization. ISBN 0-585-46807-9. OCLC 53032850.
  11. ^ Sponsel, Leslie E. (2019), "Reflections on the Possibility of a Nonkilling Society and a Nonkilling Anthropology", Militarization, Duke University Press, doi:10.1215/9781478007135-082, ISBN 978-1-4780-0713-5
  12. ^ Pim, Joám Evans (2009). Toward a nonkilling paradigm (1st ed.). Honolulu, Hawaii: Center for Global Nonkilling. ISBN 978-0-9822983-1-2. OCLC 463312339.
  13. ^ a b Pim, Joám Evans; Sponsel, Leslie Elmer (2010). Nonkilling societies. Center for Global Nonkilling. ISBN 978-0-9822983-4-3. OCLC 755014543.
  14. ^ Evans Pim, Joám (2018-09-02). "Nonkilling 101 — Is a nonkilling society possible?". Journal of Peace Education. 15 (3): 248–254. doi:10.1080/17400201.2018.1535471. ISSN 1740-0201.
  15. ^ Paige, Glenn D; Gilliatt, Sarah (1991). Buddhism and nonviolent global problem-solving : Ulan Bator explorations. Center for Global Nonviolence Planning Project, Spark M. Matsunaga Institute for Peace, University of Hawaii. ISBN 9780982298305. OCLC 555620156.
  16. ^ Meagher, Robert Emmett (2015). "Nonkilling and Necessity in the Christian Tradition" (PDF). In Pim, Joám Evans; Dhakal, Pradeep (eds.). Nonkilling Spiritual Traditions Vol. 1. Honolulu: Center for Global Nonkilling. pp. 173–194. ISBN 978-0-9839862-6-3.
  17. ^ Dhakal, Pradeet (2015). "Hindu Vision of Nonkilling" (PDF). In Pim, Joám Evans; Dhaka, Pradeep (eds.). Nonkilling Spiritual Traditions Vol. 1. Honolulu: Center for Global Nonkilling. pp. 151–162. ISBN 978-0-9839862-6-3.
  18. ^ Satha-Anand, Chaiwat (2015). "The Nonviolent Crescent" (PDF). In Pim, Joám Evans; Dhaka, Pradeep (eds.). Nonkilling Spiritual Traditions Vol. 1. Honolulu: Center for Global Nonkilling. pp. 243–260. ISBN 978-0-9839862-6-3.
  19. ^ Nonkilling history : shaping policy with lessons from the past. Adolf, Antony., Center for Global Nonkilling. (1st ed.). Honolulu, Hawaii: Center for Global Nonkilling. 2010. ISBN 978-0-9822983-5-0. OCLC 778829640.CS1 maint: others (link)
  20. ^ Chung, Dae-Hwa (2012-06-30). "Nonkilling Korea: Six Culture Exploration Glenn D. Paige and Chung-Si Ahn (eds.) (Seoul National University Press, 2012)". Asia Review. 2 (1): 247. doi:10.24987/snuacar.2012.06.2.1.247. ISSN 2234-0386.
  21. ^ Bahtijaragić, Rifet; Pim, Joám Evans (2015). Nonkilling Balkans. University of Sarajevo, Faculty of Philosophy. ISBN 978-0-9839862-7-0. OCLC 945449485.
  22. ^ Paige, Glenn D.; Abueva, Jose Veloso (2004). Towards a nonkilling Filipino society : developing an agenda for research, policy, and action. Aurora Aragon Quezon Peace Foundation & Kalayaan College at Riverbanks, Marikina. ISBN 9780982298305. OCLC 607179962.
  23. ^ Motlagh, Vahid V. (2012). Dator, James A. (ed.). Nonkilling Futures: Visions (PDF). Honolulu: Center for Global Nonkilling. pp. 103–105. ISBN 978-0-9839862-2-5.

External links[edit]