The View from the Long Grass

We were left to find our own way to the park. And, to be honest, they didn’t seem too concerned about whether we turned up or not. As such, I wasn’t sure why I bothered to show up for sports. But I still went. It’s just that I didn’t join in with the sports. Instead, I lay down in the long grass. From there, I scrutinised the other kids, who chose to take part in the games on the mown grass. And even then, back in junior school, I got the sense that there was something a bit sinister going on – that this insistence on organised games on the part of our teachers had some peculiar motives. I was the only runaway, long-grass boy in my class. There were a few runaway girls. We spent our time together, getting our first inkling of rebellion. At senior school, this pattern continued. There was a group of runaway boys. We told jokes and had conversations at the edges of the playing fields. Now though the teachers were a bit more concerned by our non-participation. As a punishment, we were sent off to jog around the perimeter of the large park where school sports were held. We would jog to the furthest end of the park and then just continue our conversations. Or we would stop by the areas where the girls were playing hockey and pass some time watching their game. By this time though our fellow pupils were joining in the criticism of boys like us who didn’t participate. Those who were not team-players, good sports, and all the rest. There was something wrong with us – they obviously thought. From our point of view, of course, it meant the indoctrination of the teachers (and thus, of society) was beginning to work. Our fellow pupils were on their way to being the kind of obedient drones that society seems to want – contained on the mown grass, within the painted lines of the sports fields. The long grass was not for them. The long grass was for freaks and weirdos. The view from the long grass however, is that the accepted way of doing things is strangely skewed. And, in particular, that society wants us to be canon-fodder if necessary. Society wants its citizens to fight wars on its behalf – wars that are really just arguments between a few psychopathic world leaders. Not to fight would be to risk imprisonment or execution and the condemnation of one’s fellow citizens. The ‘solidarity’ of team sports of course makes it easier for the ‘othering’ of foreigners in later life – an essential part of learning to destroy human life – so critical in modern warfare. All this for lines drawn on maps – lines drawn by people who are unlikely to do any fighting themselves – lines drawn by bureaucrats who speak of ‘collateral damage’ and cost benefit analysis and not of the sanctity of human life. It would have been good – at this juncture – to have presented a rational argument for why fighting wars is a bad idea. But unfortunately the arguments that I might seek to offer are not so easy to express. So, instead, as a way in, let’s look at two scenarios: The first scenario is – you are a strong, tall, fit man and a small skinny man comes along and tries to abduct your child. There’s a very high chance that you can fight off this skinny man and save your child. The second scenario – there’s a despotic ruler of a nation that has nuclear weapons. The despotic ruler just wants to take over the world. He has no interest in subduing or enslaving the people of other nations. He is not even interested in conserving buildings or infrastructure. He is okay just with blowing up the whole world and poisoning it for decades to come. Just so long as the world is his. This is the other end of the spectrum. And surely most of us would feel this situation to be intolerable. But would we still choose to fight against such a despot? Well, we might think that somewhere along this spectrum – from the most obvious small-scale situation to world destruction – there may be a cut-off point. A point where we would say – thus far and no further. Because, after all, once a nation is willing to destroy the whole world – and is fully capable of doing so – then there’s really no point of fighting anymore. Surely? Wouldn’t you think? But no – and the reason why rational argument about pacifism is so difficult – we as Western liberal democracies, are still very much weighted towards still fighting at that most extreme end of the spectrum – still willing to raise arms against the absolute despot. Well, maybe, dear reader, you are surprised at this conclusion. What’s really strange is that the issue is hardly raised at all. The existential threats of all-out nuclear war, catastrophic climate change, the collapse of global eco-systems and the large-scale pollution of the environment – these issues hardly figure in our elections. Most of our political parties are signed up for retaining and potentially deploying nuclear weapons. Most of our leaders are signed up for fighting that all-out nuclear war against some future despot. And most folk vote for one of those big political parties. Most folk – though the issues hardly even figure in their voting decision – most folk sign up for nuclear holocaust. Why this complacency? Why this refusal even to think about the big existential questions? I can’t help thinking back to the sports field – the training, from an early age, to just go with the flow, do what everyone else does – to not raise awkward questions, to not think too much about what we’re actually doing and what it all means. By the time we reach adulthood the indoctrination is more or less complete. Not much chance of heading for the long grass now. Not much chance of even seeing the long grass. And so, I can only really just state the long grass position. Yes, there are hypothetical scenarios, involving personal dangers like child abduction, where we might use force. But, generally speaking, fighting is just a terrible idea. And that’s the only reason to offer. Fighting is a terrible idea. Avoid it at all costs. Refuse, absolutely refuse, to be involved. Refuse to condone any kind of armaments and armies and all the rest. Utterly condemn it, at every opportunity. And don’t believe the rhetoric of politicians who claim to be on the side of peace whilst their finger hovers over the nuclear button. Let me just explain then why the long grass position is best left just as that stark declaration of war being abysmal and stupid. You see, if you start from the shallow end of the pacifism spectrum – the weakling trying to abduct a child – then there’s always another scenario that can be suggested that involves a little more violence. And if you accept this reasonable and slightly more violent scenario, then wouldn’t you accept this next scenario? And the next. And the next. Until, before you know it, we’ve crossed the whole spectrum to the one where we think it’s still reasonable to try to fight a despot whose sole intent is to destroy the whole world. Many politicians are there – and without a qualm of conscience they’d ask the citizens of their nation to give their lives to defend their ideological position. But you see how difficult it is to draw a line in the sand – how difficult to arrive at a rational argument for saying – this far and now further. The other thing so problematic with pacifism is that there’s only a very minor benefit in being a solitary pacifist. It is just a gesture that you hope others will take note of. And of course, if your nation happens to be at war, then there are a lot of severe disadvantages in being a lone pacifist! It would take a significant proportion of a population to adopt pacifism before the nation would be unable to raise an army, and even then, all that would be achieved would be to force the nation into surrender or capitulation to any other nation that might be threatening it. So we’re faced with having to convince a significant majority of THE WHOLE WORLD into laying down their arms before we would get to the world peace that seems like the sensible and obvious way for people to live. That, it seems to me, is the cruel irony of pacifism. Any child of three could tell you that it would be better for people to live in peace with one another instead of fighting and killing. Yet it seems just so incredibly difficult for adults to achieve. Naïve – they will scream at you – that’s just not the way the world works! So the argument is not on the side of the long grass. The long grass position will always be a minority thing. We will be described as cowards and traitors, lacking in patriotism – lacking even in moral integrity. The long grass position is always going to be contested. But I’m never going to give it up.