Since Mohamed Bouazizi set fire to himself last month—inspiring a national uprising in Tunisia—nearly two dozen attempted self-immolations have been reported across the Arab world, three of them fatal. It is believed that most were political acts committed by people suffering from economic despair and political oppression, leaving many Arab leaders fearful that further uprisings may follow. This raises important questions about the dynamics of self-immolation and whether it is not only a legitimate form of protest, but also a strategic form of resistance.
To better understand it within the context of nonviolence, I turned to Michael Nagler, president of the Metta Center for Nonviolence Education in Berkeley, California. I began by asking him about the history of self-immolation, its ties to culture and religion, and whether we in the West should be careful to pass judgment.
While there are traditions within cultures (think of the Samurai code) and religions (Buddhist monk or monks appear to have set themselves on fire in Ancient Athens, prompting St Paul’s comment “if I give myself over to be burnt” in 2 Corinthians) that countenance self-immolation to various degrees, it is surely an act that impacts others in a universal, not to say shocking way.
The question is, what is the message it conveys? Buddhist monks immolating themselves in Vietnam had a desired effect, while the American who tried it in front of the White House did not. So while the statement “I no longer want to live” is universal, the interpretation of it is potentially positive in a culture (like Buddhist Vietnam) that places a high value on and understands the significance and power of self sacrifice, but not necessarily in a go-getter culture like our own.
Islam seems to me somewhere in between. The concept of martyrdom seems to have originated among Jews about two centuries after Christ, and Gandhi said of the martyr, Imam Hussein, “I learned from Hussein how to achieve victory while being oppressed.” However, there is a big difference between martyrdom and self-immolation, because the latter is voluntary while the former is only accepted.
Let’s take the case of a fast unto death, because Gandhi did accept and actually practice it, as we know, to good effect (that’s an understatement!). What people rarely realize is that there are five rules for such a drastic act, some of which might be met by the contemporary self-immolaters:
- You must be the man or woman for the job, i.e., really in possession of your will to live. Gandhi and the monks of Vietnam qualify. I doubt most of the imitators of Mohamed Bouazizi do.
- The audience you intend to reach must be a ‘lover,’ in Gandhi’s language: someone who has enough of a bond with you to be moved. I doubt this obtains in our case now.
- It must be a last resort. I don’t think other means have been exhausted here.
- The demand you are making on the opponent must be doable. I worry about the vagueness of what the contemporary martyrs are protesting. Bouazizi and the Korean farmer who killed himself at the World Trade Organization meeting in 2003 were simply at their wits’ end and could not go on living.
- It must be consistent with the rest of the campaign, or movement. In other words, the Irish fasters in Long Kesh prison, some of whom did give up their lives, more or less threw away the gesture because the rest of the revolt was not at all nonviolent at that time.
All this being said, there is yet another important difference between a fast unto death and self immolation: in a fast you are ready to give it up the instant the opponent has responded: you are trying to persuade him. With that accomplished, the fast has done its work and you go on living together. But when you immolate yourself you are not having a ‘conversation’ with the opponent. No reconciliation, for example, is possible. For this reason, I suspect Gandhi would have been horrified at what these imitators are doing, without in the least blaming them. He would have accepted their courage but tried to show them a better way.
While self-immolation may lack the constructive attributes of a nonviolent act like fasting unto death, it is, as Stratfor’s Rodger Baker recently explained, “a method of public death that doesn’t harm others in the same way that suicide bombings or attacks of that sort do.” This raises the question: does self-immolation deserve less criticism, particularly in a region where suicide bombing might be unfortunately more expected?
Immolation is vastly preferable to suicide bombing, of course. But it’s not perfect. It has the difficulties enumerated above, and it sends a message that there is nothing else one can do, while in reality other nonviolent options are usually available if you happen to know what they are (as so few of us do). This is by no means to overlook the courage of all people driven to that extreme; but it is to say that such a thing is to be contemplated only as a really last resort. And its results, as we can see, are hit or miss, unlike the famous fasts of Gandhi.
In the Garwahl district of the lower Himalayas, tradition relates that centuries before the Chipko (tree-hugging) movement began in the early 1970s hundreds of villagers had thrown themselves off a cliff when the local Raja began deforesting their land for his own profit. So their sacrifice was not entirely in vain: it had some effect on the Raja and left a legacy that the Chipko people could pick up.
In the rare case where suicide does have a powerful political impact, as in Tunisia, it is tough for advocates of nonviolence to relate. But there are important lessons to be learned, as Nagler explained.
We should take from the act the courage and self-sacrifice it implies without thinking to imitate it directly in the same form. We progressives (or whatever we are) often make this mistake: to focus on tactics without understanding their underlying dynamic… This is an opportunity to get some nonviolent principles before the eyes of the public, who badly need to know that nonviolence is not some hapless, hit-or-miss action but a science with discernible principles we can all learn to use much better than we do at present.
A new book explores how Miss Major has persevered over six inspiring decades on the frontlines of the queer and trans liberation movement.
Humor in Native culture has never been simply about entertainment. Comedy is also used to fight cultural invisibility and structural oppression.
Waging Nonviolence is hiring a writer to interview leading movement figures and analysts and produce one Q&A-style article per week. The writer will work with our small editorial team to identify the interview subject each week. For the most part, we’ll be looking to hear from activists, organizers and scholars who can shed light on… More
I appreciated the article. A few thoughts:
We should be careful before we hierarchize martyrdom and self-immolation on the basis of voluntary and involuntary action. A great number of Christian martyrdoms (even most, according to a few scholars) were by all modern interpretations voluntary. I certainly agree that the ideal historical portrayal of a martyr is an involuntary sufferer (thus even the colloquial and casual use of the term in a sarcastic manner). However, this is largely a construction of the post-Constantinian church and the Christian tradition.
This may be a reason why we have such debates over whether self-immolation is a good or perfect act. First, our ideal of sacrifice is involuntary, even though it is practically rare (would we want to see Jesus’ death as involuntary?). Second and more practically, we judge, as I’m sure you know, from a privileged position from which it is easy to suggest other possibilities. There are more and more of those among us who have lost much over the last few years due to the economy and hard circumstances for whom the possibility of self-immolation might be a more realistic possibility.
Thanks for your work.
Thank you for your comments. I think you make great points. We are extremely privileged to be able to ponder these questions and even suggest alternatives. But, in a sense, I think those of us with an understanding of nonviolence have a responsibility to suggest alternatives. So few people are aware of the power they hold as ordinary citizens—power that is constructive, not destructive. So it’s important to take moments like these and show that violence isn’t the only way. I think that’s the point Michael is making when he explains how Gandhi might have reacted to these recent self immolations.
I have been looking for some intelligent writing about self-immolation on the web, and your piece is one of the few I have found. Can I just express my initial gut reaction, though? I appreciate that you are a man of principle, and in general I guess I agree with most of the principles you hold, but there is something odd – something violent almost – in the way you try to squeeze a phenomenon like this into a schoolmarmy straighjacket of rules and anxieties about whether an act is legitimate or not. I have just watched some video footage of the Vietnamese monk who killed himself, and I am still harrowed by the sheer excess of the act. His fellow monks were bowing in front of him as he was consumed by the flames. I personally feel called up to do something similar. Not to stand in judgment, or join in some chatter about whether the act meets 5 criteria – criteria we have formulated while sitting comfortably in our armchairs. Of course we need to go on judging and coming up with criteria, and there is no reason to immolate our armchairs, but there are times when we need to recognise that it is better to just stop the chatter, say nothing, and bear witness.
I’m sorry, I have just seen your comment on my interview of last January. The fact that when you saw the Vietnamese monk’s immolation you “feel called up to do something similar” illustrates perfectly the danger of that action: it can exert compelling attraction on others to imitate it, whether or not there is a reason to. I don’t think that’s always going to be healthy.
Secondly, whether or not we believe what you call “the straightjacket of schoolmarmy rules” those rules operate, and we would be wise to learn what they are. If I jump off the roof because I don’t like the schooolmarmy law of gravity, my preferences won’t save me. Nonviolence is scientific; that’s the point I was trying to make. Very few in the West understand that, so it’s natural that you also would not.
And finally, this is not a question of “legitimate” or otherwise. It’s purely a scientific question of whether it will work. Thanks very much for your comments!
Self-immolation can take different forms. As the individual in this article was making a statement of nonviolent sacrifice. I had a friend who did the same thing because the voices he was hallucinating told him to do so.
It is my experience that the next step in humanities evolution is into a totally nonviolent species willing to sacrifice not only on the individual level but also on the natonal level. Where each nation can unilaterally disarm and demilitarize for the good of all nations on our planet. Thereby surviving short and long term unto the end of the cosmos.