Direct action and positive change

I watched the movie, Iron Jawed Angels, tonight. The movie stars Hillary Swank as Alice Paul, and focuses on the direct action, non-violence met with violence, portion of the women's suffrage movement. It was hard to watch, with hunger strikes and forced feedings and beating of protestors in the street. It brought up many thoughts for me, but the one thought that keeps coming up is one that seems to provoke argument from protestors (perhaps from my own inarticulateness and perhaps from the indefensibleness of my position, I really don't know which one): there's got to be a better way to make change happen. As much as I believe in direct action being an incredibly effective method of creating change, I am also struck by how violent it is.

Let me first say what I don't mean by how violent I see it, before casting stones at me (or rather before taking direct action against me). I don't mean that the violence against protestors is excusable. I don't mean that the goals of the protest or the protest itself (and I'm not confining myself to suffrage here, but to direct action protests as a whole) is not worthy, perhaps even noble. I don't mean that those individuals throughout history who have suffered as victims (both the known and the unknown) of the state by following through on their conviction were following the wrong path or suffered needlessly. I believe wholeheartedly that the violence is inexcusable, that the goals of non-violent protestors are usually noble, and that the path they followed was the path they needed and had to follow given their circumstance.

I am saying that non-violent protest does not seem to escape a cycle of anger and conflict. Having seen protestors, listened to protestors, read protestors' writings, and been in the middle of protests myself, I believe that anger is usually simmering if not boiling over. The anger is usually justified and well placed; that is, it's not misplaced anger but anger placed squarely where the anger should be targeted. But anger it is.

I also see a desire for conflict, a belief that only through conflict can one create change. Perhaps conflict is the wrong word, even. Struggle might be a better one. Struggling against one's bounds. Struggling against oppression. Struggling for freedom. Struggling for choice.

All of that anger and struggle rubs this armchair Taoist the wrong way. There should be a way to create change--meaningful change--without poisoning it with anger and conflict. But see, now we get to the indefensible portion of my position--I don't know how. And once that's on the table, I can see the arms being thrown up in the air and hear the gasps of exasperation. But I don't.

This is where I ramble, with distinct thoughts which I don't have connections between yet.

--Creating something has more chance of creating lasting change than destroying something, whether or not the thing being destroyed should be destroyed.

--Beauty will impact society deeper and longer than ugliness.

--Pleasure will draw more adherents than pain.

--Given two people, one who changes her position because she doesn't like its consequences, and another who changes her position because she discovers one whose consequences she likes, the second person is more likely to keep hold of her new position.

Somewhere in the amalgam of those thoughts lies my idea. But right now, it is too late at night for me to put them together.

My love to all of you.