Peace work is a heavy subject to tackle, but with her new book, Linn Stalsberg – with rolled-up sleeves and fresh perseverance – helps to put antimilitarism back on the agenda.
Text Hege Vadstein
On a warm evening in August, I walk past a beach. Even though it’s past nine o’clock, there are still many people swimming. Three boys, around twelve years old, have probably grown tired of swimming and start throwing stones at a pair of oystercatchers with a chick. The size of the stones and the force with which they are thrown would have killed the birds instantly if they had been hit. I consider the potential for damage to be relatively similar to dropping cobblestones directly onto the boys’ heads from a height of 15 meters. Something I also imagine myself doing.
I also imagine pressing the poop I just picked up after my mother’s dog into the boys’ faces. And I imagine scolding them, or calmly and smilingly walking over to them to try to explain why they shouldn’t throw stones at birds or any other animals. Something I simultaneously think I would hardly get through with; and in the worst case, a reaction from my side would only make the boys even more eager. While ignoring it all might contribute to them getting tired of animal cruelty more quickly? I hope so, which I know with myself is totally bullshit.
But hello, isn’t there anyone else who sees what they’re doing? Where are the parents? Aren’t there any adults around here? Absolutely! Not far away stands a burly guy in red swim trunks. Judging by his bearded smile, he is the proud father of at least one of the boys and seems quite pleased with their mischievous antics. Not much empathy or ability to think about consequences to expect from that side, I assume.
Before this evening walk, reading Linn Stalsberg’s essay «Krig er forakt for liv – et essay om fred» (‘War is Contempt for Life. An Essay on Peace’) had lifted my spirits, and even made me a bit hopeful. But now, having just witnessed yet another example (to me, a proof) that humans are inherently malicious and violent, my optimism vanished like dew in a Californian wildfire. And perhaps this is the point Stalsberg struggles with the most in her brilliant, readable, and extremely relevant book – the question of whether humans are inherently violent, and thus war a natural and inevitable consequence of this.
After the upsetting experience with the bird stoning, I felt compelled to read the book again – something I recommend everyone to do. Read the book at least twice. It is absolutely worth it, as the content and insights Stalsberg masterfully conveys are important, and perhaps more important than ever. Today’s ongoing wars not only destroy lives here and now but also destroy future life by driving us even faster into climate hell. According to Stalsberg, the military industry accounts for 13.5% of global greenhouse gas emissions and consumes vast amounts of intellectual and labor resources. On top of that, the world’s total military expenditures amount to 24 trillion kroner annually – which, according to the Stockholm Peace Institute, would be enough to solve the climate and nature crisis.
But then there is the issue of humans’ inherent violence and war as the natural and normal state. History is full of wars, and we humans are not always particularly kind to each other either. Many of the authorities Stalsberg refers to have grappled with this conundrum, including Albert Einstein and Sigmund Freud, both of whom were outspoken pacifists. Their correspondence on the subject was published in the pamphlet ‘Why War? A Correspondence’ in 1934. Freud argues that we are driven by both constructive and destructive impulses (eros and aggression), and that the solution to minimize the impact of the destructive impulses is unity and solidarity, but this is easier said than done, as laws are needed to achieve this. The problem, however, is that the law is controlled by power. Thus, power stands in the way of peace. And in this, he aligns with Einstein, who believes that wars are the result of those in power profiting from war – as the only ones, while everyone else loses – and therefore the power elites eagerly spread the idea that war is natural and the only solution to conflict. (Something that, according to Freud, unfortunately would influence legislation.)
The one who explains these conditions best, according to Stalsberg, is Antonio Gramsci, whom she frequently references throughout the essay. His thoughts on how the elites shape the will and worldview of the masses according to their own through cultural hegemony provide a clarifying prism through which to view militarism. This begins to crack and crumble the normalizing aspect of it. Although history books are full of wars, battles, and conquests, this narrative is merely a culturally conditioned and consciously chosen perspective. It could just as well have been conveyed e.g. in this way: “During this period, there were quite a few wars. They were initiated by greedy rulers who, for their own gain, pressured their peers to kill each other while heavily taxing them to finance the wars. But there were also other, much wiser and more interesting people and events at this time, so we will write about them instead.” Something like that. (And just to make a small recommendation here: this very approach has actually been taken by the Nordic Museum in Stockholm in its newly opened exhibition “Nordics – Life in the North through 500 Years.” Through top-notch communication techniques, the ruthless warlust of the rulers is exposed in all its pathetic – and oh so relevant – horror. And for all time periods, the thoughts and efforts of people who opposed war, plundering, and injustice are presented. So, take the train to Stockholm and treat yourself to a day at the Nordic Museum!)
Einstein, Freud, and Gramsci are among the thinkers Stalsberg introduces us to in the essay, along with many others who have thought clearly and wisely about the senseless unnaturalness of war. But even though the book is almost a treasure trove of uplifting quotes, surprising statistics, useful literature references, and clever arguments for antimilitarism and nonviolence, it is still quite frustrating to read about the peace movement’s work through the ages. Every time the movement has grown really big and strong, yet another bloody world war has emerged. Thus, people who should have stood together against power have once again clashed on the battlefield – slightly confused by propaganda about flags and fatherland.
If one has a touch of gallows humor, reading about these grim historical lines can be somewhat aided especially when it comes to Stalsberg’s description of how profitable deals are made between high-level power holders, while the foot soldiers shoot each other down in the trenches. For example, during World War I, Britain bought thousands of binoculars from the Germans, while the Germans in return bought rubber from the British. Both the binoculars and the rubber were used against the soldiers of the same state power that had sold the goods – binoculars for improved shooting down of German soldiers and rubber for tanks and other military vehicles for mowing down British soldiers. The deals were, of course, secret. And there is probably no reason to believe that things are done any differently nowadays.
Speaking of war, power, weapons, and profit, Stalsberg refers to Dwight Eisenhower’s warnings about what he called the “military-industrial complex,” where he pointed out the strong ties and collusion between a massive arms industry and high-ranking military and political leaders, who profited from each other: One party wanted to buy weapons, the other party supplied them. This might have been new in Eisenhower’s time, as he was appalled by the phenomenon. But based on what is common in Norway, we must assume that this has long since become the standard worldwide – and it probably explains why wars are continually sustained and why politicians’ spouses shamelessly invest in arms stocks.
So, is there any hope? Well, one can at least allow oneself to act as sand in the machinery – as Stalsberg does through this essay by highlighting the reasonable, obvious, and natural aspects of pacifism, nonviolence, and antimilitarism; or by adopting the mindset Gramsci swore by and borrowed from his like-minded colleague Roman Rolland: pessimistic intellect and optimistic will.
Peace work and nonviolent activism also offer a much more tempting menu of pleasant activities than militarism can provide. We mention (with Gene Sharp via Stalsberg and with some additional suggestions) a variety of actions: boycotts of goods, culture, sports, or academia, labor strikes, student strikes, petition campaigns, poster campaigns, subvertising, graffiti, underground newspapers, rent strikes, withdrawing money (if you have any) from the bank, squatting, chaining oneself, go-slow actions, marches, parades and other demonstrations, establishing shadow governments, or disrupting meetings or processes, etc.
And besides, according to this essay, Martin Luther is said to have claimed that war is as necessary for the world as eating and drinking is for humans. And who has really believed that guy? No, instead we can be inspired by the fight against slavery. It ultimately triumphed (at least legally) despite the fact that the rulers’ profits were based on slavery – in exactly the same way as with militarism and its industry. So, another world is indeed possible. As Stalsberg concludes, we just need to come together once again. And unlike Freud, she clearly does not see the law as an obstacle. We do not depend on changes in laws and regulations to collectively engage against war and for peace. We can start working against cultural hegemony at any time – something Stalsberg greatly contributes to with her book.
Despite the fact that the little bird family fortunately managed to flutter away unscathed from the stone throwers, I was in a dark mood as I walked on, and I felt nauseous for the rest of the evening. Disgusted by humanity’s tendency to kill or harm weaker individuals just to make the time pass. Disgusted by my Old Testament-like and violent thoughts of revenge, and disgusted by the father’s smiling acceptance. And perhaps most of all: disgusted by my own too slow or non-existent reaction ability (cowardice is probably a more precise description). It becomes an illustrative example of something Stalsberg writes towards the end of the essay: “If we do not try to challenge this system (the arms industry with its lobbyists, editor’s note) and demand disarmament, we are part of the problem ourselves.”
Basically, the whole situation with the birds and the stone-throwing constitutes an illustrative example, as it has similarities with ongoing military conflicts. But then the question arises, do aggressive regimes get tired and stop their misdeeds if they are ignored, as one – to camouflage one’s own cowardice – claims applies to thoughtless boys. What would have happened to apartheid in South Africa if no one in the international community had reacted? And how would our level of ethics be if we were not occasionally reminded of Arnulf Øverland’s words: ‘You mustn’t endure so sincerely well the injustice that doesn’t affect yourself!’
Krig er forakt for liv – et essay om fred
Linn Stalsberg
247 pages
Res Publica
2024
