“Three Studies For Portrait of Lucian Freud” by Francis Bacon

Putting the “path of least resistance” model in context: An eliminative hierarchy of selfhood towards peace with Otherness

Following from the previous section, the essentially three-tiered “path of least resistance” model for overcoming violence-societies includes an essential deliberate movement and societal collaboration of self-interest in health and well-being. We cannot, must not go down this path without asking and examining why these ideas are so alien to us. Collectively, it is either that we skipped a grade level that we were not prepared for and moved directly into shared society against the will of self-interest, or we skipped a grade level because we were thought more advanced than we actually were. We required that extra time to get to know one another and learn what it means to live in shared society. 

This absence of shared community either occurred within sociocultural DNA early in the evolution of our social selves or, and possibly both, it is a more recent eclipse where we can place a strong suspicious view of post-WWII universalism. As I previously hinted towards, if we were to have a good governance model that emphasized the importance of self-value over inflated self-importance, individual actors would be less in the way of things and this alone would do wonders for communal perceptions of what it means to live together, in this shared space, localized and global. 

I stated in the previous section that,

First must come the elimination of structural violence, then what must follow is the letting go of violence of the self. The educational model would prepare and sustain a path towards this deliverance, but not complete the work. A new pattern of selfhood must be explored expeditiously. An adroit sovereignty of self awaits those to release their importance over the Other in all matters of displaced rhythms of selfhood and false alliances of ego. To become another is to become oneself. It resolves interpersonal violence as well as spiritual malfeasance and the relenting whispers of arcane retributive glances towards denial of form. 

This resolves a great deal of violence-debt but does not meet the nutritional source of the matter of getting to a post-violence society. There is after-care to consider. If, first, institutional change caresses the collaborative self towards systematic change then the educational model that transfixes the self towards a strong, unrelenting invitation of peoplehood propels the self towards self-regulation and the inviting of spiritual, abstract, and dexterous forms of unrolling the scroll of inviting, shared selfhood. 

It is true that the educational model that works towards preparation of the individual becoming the collective is needed regardless of what regulatory reparations are performed within and alongside the elimination of structural violence forms. However, this is an educational model that is firmly and specifically separated from capital interest. The removal of capital reward from firm study is holistically required to replace the burden of support from the individual to the group. Joanne Savage, et al., concluded in their study, “The Role of Poverty and Income in the Differential Etiology of Violence: An Empirical Test,” that there are greater incidences of violence among their sample with those in lower income brackets. Their conclusions, drawn from their data, was,

The pattern of mean incomes suggests that violent delinquents live in families with lower incomes than nonviolent-only offenders (M = $43,051 compared to $54,374) and nonviolent-only offenders have the highest income in both data sets, even compared to nonoffenders (M = $51,352). The poverty rate among violent offenders was 20.3%, compared to 14.6% among nonviolent-only offenders. The poverty rate among nonoffenders was 15.9%, slightly higher than the nonviolent-only group. (2019, 9)

With the from-the-ground-up approach of a holistic Green New Deal paired with an institution so invigorated with anti-capitalist values that it invites the beginning of a post-capitalist environment, structural change manifests itself in many, divergent forms. The marriage of capital and wealth separates the more valuable self-interest of the self-valued principle of wealth of knowledge. Throughout the entire three-tiered path of least resistance model it is the invitation and value of knowledge that alleviates a great deal of violence-debt and exhilarates the self away from violence-customs. 

Mary McCormick illustrates in her article, “Through a Different Lens: The Social Sanctioning of Family Violence,” that 

During most of the nineteenth century and the early part of the twentieth century, child abuse and neglect were articulated as failure to train the child in moral conduct, and failure to provide discipline and structure to the developing child, thus failing to socialize him to assume his role as a productive citizen (Dolgin, 1997; Peled & Kurtz, 1994; Chicago Vice Commission, 1911). It was not until Henry Kempe identified battered child syndrome in 1962 that the outcomes of harsh parenting or corporal punishment were viewed as child maltreatment, a social problem, not a parental option in child-rearing (Peled & Kurtz, 1994). Society’s ambivalence toward violence in the family is apparent in the various definitions and interpretations of battering and abuse including, physical aggression toward a child or intimate partner, corporal punishment, harsh parenting, non-accidental physical injury, assault, and crimes against women (Ateah & Durant, 2005; Rothenberg, 2002). Based on these definitions, violence in the family has been viewed as the result of individual pathology, moral failure, lack of internal control or as a crime (Worden & Carlson, 2005; Erickson, 2000). (2007, 46)

Our inherited roles in perpetuating a culture of violence-customs regulates the sustained chores of non-violence inquiry against a backlash of those who wish to preserve traditional modes of violence. This is not without willful participation or collaborative insistence on a focus of capital-centered, valued violence. McCormick continues, 

The use of force in families in the service of maintaining the social order is normative. While regulating behavior is essentially a function of family structure, when this structure breaks down, it is the role of society through its institutions and structures to regulate the behavior of the individual (Durkheim, 1951; Ross, 1900). Coercion and control, in other words socially sanctioned aggression through financial, legal and religious institutions and structures, becomes culturally consonant. (2007, 53)

That the behavior of the family is symbolic of the totalitarian instruments of violence-coercion through history is not the placeholder of releasing sustained violence, but the knowledge of symbiotic relationships is. The educational model, again, would seek to release a great deal of factor and form from the divergence of familial violence-customs. With that, we would be better positioned to navigate the impulses of the avenue where the forces of “self-control” blanket over the glossed indices of structurally placed violence resources. The self and the collective are already firmly related. It is releasing the light of the potential of making this a beautiful relationship that adheres towards a future without violence or control; being released from possessiveness, and informed of the doctrinal dislocation of where the venues of selfhood relies. 

Painting: “Three Studies For Portrait of Lucian Freud” by Francis Bacon