Derrick Jensen wants to destroy civilization. The well known author, environmental activist, philosopher and “anarcho-primitivist” argues we should speed up the impending collapse of the global industrial society because when “civilization” collapses the aftermath won’t be as bad as if we simply allowed it to collapse on its own. He asks, “Do you believe that this culture will undergo a voluntary transformation to a sane and sustainable way of living?” Most respond no. He then continues, “How would this understanding – that this culture will not voluntarily stop destroying the natural world, eliminating indigenous cultures, exploiting the poor, and killing those who resist – shift our strategy and tactics? The answer? Nobody knows, because we never talk about it: we’re too busy pretending the culture will undergo a magical transformation.”

On more than a few occasions I have been in conversation with a young socially conscious person who has been impacted by Jensen’s books. His work includes popular titles such as “A Language Older than Words,” “The Culture of Make Believe” and his more recent “Endgame: The Problem with Civilization.” He has written on domestic abuse and western culture, colonialism, environmental destruction, globalization, racism, technology and violence. While he writes powerfully about the social ills of the day he also inspires despair and hopelessness. “Have you been reading Derrick Jensen?” This is the question I asked those young socially conscious people who seemed to have suddenly lost their idealism and vision. I knew the answer to the question was yes because Jensen had done the same thing to me. I knew from personal experience how Jensen can “shell-shock” his readers into pessimism.

Jensen has written on numerous topics but I want to focus on how he portrays “civilization” in the video “Star Nonviolent Civil Disobedience.” In the above video Jensen describes a fictional version of Star Wars that we never heard about. Instead of destroying the death star as the Jedi’s did in the real Star Wars, Jensen imagines what would happen if they had used nonviolent civil disobedience instead. The video is self-explanatory so I don’t need to describe the whole thing. But what isn’t so clear is how inaccurate of a comparison “civilization” is with the death star. When Jensen advocates for the destruction of civilization he always follows with “whatever that may be.” By his own account he has a hard time describing a clearly defined, locatable and separate thing known as civilization. Whereas in the video he compares the death star – a clearly defined and easily identifiable “other” with civilization – which by his own accord is difficult to locate.

Jensen would like us to believe that civilization is comparable to the death star. But in reality these are terribly flawed comparisons. Civilization is not a big sphere in the sky that can be destroyed with a missile. There is no simple solution to the problems that we face. And this is why Jensen’s entire project misses the mark. Destroying civilization would essentially mean destroying ourselves. We all know that you can’t kill yourself by holding your breath, but yet this is what Jensen is asking of us. Unfortunately for Jensen’s theory the death star ie. civilization is in our homes, schools, factories, religious institutions, organizations and in our own minds and bodies. This may seem obvious but Jensen’s false analogy makes it seem for the moment that civilization can be isolated and targeted for removal.

Ok, if we are supposed to adopt violence as a possible strategy to destroy civilization, what should we do? Jensen’s only offering is to suggest we need to blow up cell phone towers and damns, as there is nothing morally wrong with doing this he claims. But why stop there? Why does Jensen only name these two things? Surely there are much worse examples of civilization that should be brought down if we were to follow his theory consistently. Think of shopping malls, Wal-Mart, corporations…etc. Why single out cell phone towers? Why start with damns? And what happens when we destroy all of the cell phone towers and damns? Jensen offers no explanation. He offers no analysis of what the future will look if we follow his plan. His own inability to offer a detailed description of what civilization is and what part of it should be destroyed with violence reveals Jensen’s flawed comparison to the death star. Civilization is not an easily identifiable object to be targeted for destruction.

Jensen’s larger goal like Ward Churchills’ in “The Pathology of Pacifism” and Peter Gelderloos’ in “How Nonviolence Protects the State” is to expand the number of strategies that activists use. Nonviolence dominates in almost a religious fashion they argue and because most have never entertained the idea of using violence we will never know our full potential when responding to the problems of the world. Perhaps if people were to start using violence, momentum would build for others to follow and our attitudes would change. This line of thinking represents the shift that Jensen would like to bring about.

As someone rooted in the tradition of nonviolence, in its history, methodology and use you might find it strange that I encourage my fellow activists to read Churchill, Jensen and Gelderloos. If Gandhi’s philosophy was to “experiment with truth” we can’t turn a blind eye to those who claim to have different truths. I am most interested in how we think, rather than what positions we hold. I don’t think people should accept nonviolence as an attitude for social change because Gandhi, King or myself tells them to. Rather, I highly recommend a rigorous examination of the philosophy of nonviolence and the best way is often by reading its most staunch opponents. If one discovers that violence is their path then so be it. We live in a free country. I will try and persuade them to the benefits of nonviolence but I am most interested in them reaching a decision based on a well- explored, critical and thoughtful examination. Many people do not realize this but Gandhi and King both shared this same ranking system, 1.) nonviolent resistance 2.) violent resistance 3.) passivity. Thus, resisting evil violently is better than submitting to it and not resisting. In “Endgame” Jensen recognizes this within Gandhi’s work but he is also troubled by what he considers many dogmatic statements about nonviolence in his writings. The topic of nonviolence and violence is a huge area of investigation but I think that Gandhi, King, Jensen and myself can all agree that an individual should thoughtfully examine their own conscience, explore different truths and make up their own mind.

Finally, while I disagree with Jensen’s call to arms and find his insistence on destroying civilization childish and wishful thinking this post is mainly about his method. I feel it is important to call out his attempt at oversimplifying the complex nature of civilization. Watching this video may confuse the viewer into believing violence can be as easily employed against the death star as it can be against civilization. When in reality civilization is as complex as our minds and is found in our homes, schools and religious institutions. But as this is about method, I therefore am open to persuasion. I am simply stating that Jensen’s analogy is false and I am not convinced yet of his position. But I am open-minded. It will take more than him telling us to blow up cell phone towers and a star wars nonviolence parody.


Bookmark and Share