We the People [1] has a story on the use of “V for Vendetta†masks in a nonviolent movement:
On November 6, 2006, a lone man in a “V†mask and clothing visited security checkpoints at the White House, the main Treasury Building, the Department of Justice and the Capitol, to deliver a letter and the Petitions for Redress. A short videotape of the encounters has made its way around the Internet, including links from sites such as MySpace.com.
The letter informed the leaders of the Executive and Legislative branches of the federal government that up to 100 people in “V†masks and clothing would gather in silent vigil at those locations on November 14th to await a response to the Petitions for Redress.
True to his word, at 11:00 A.M. on Tuesday, November 14, 2006, nearly 100 men and women in “V†masks and clothing could be seen walking along different streets in downtown Washington, DC, all heading to Lafayette Park across Pennsylvania Avenue from the White House.
Let me say that I’m a huge fan of the film. In the span of a couple of hours, V encapsulates the true nature of power. Governments govern by the consent of the people, even if they don’t know it. Rulers, being human, have no power not external to themselves and when their subjects remove consent, their control ceases instantaneously. It is a powerful truism that is as timely today as it has been in any totalitarian context.
That being said, I have a fundamental concern about the use of masks in nonviolent protest. Masks conceal your identity and provide a basis behind which nonviolent practitioners can hide and thereby escape culpability. This is one of the sticky issues of nonviolent theory and I, for one, believe that the use of masks inherently robs protestors of the moral authority behind their actions. A nonviolent practitioner needs to send a message to bystanders that they are courageously willing to accept suffering for their cause. That they will sacrifice themselves in full view of their contemporaries in order to highlight injustice. While the mask’s symbolism is indeed powerful, I fear that the impact is minimized in its anonymity.
On the other hand, a crowd of people in masks is certainly intimidating as hell!
So what do you think, does nonviolent resistance require transparency, or are covert actions just as legitimate?
[2]
Links:
[1] http://www.givemeliberty.org/RTP2/UPDATES/Update2006-11-18.htm
[2] http://www.addtoany.com/share_save?linkurl=http%3A%2F%2Fthehindsightfactor.com%2Ftruth_does_not_hide_from_power&linkname=Truth%20does%20not%20hide%20from%20power
[3] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alan_Moore
Comments
Good points
Resist, I think you made some really good points. I especially like the parallel you made between the idea transcending the individual identity - astute observation and it has definitely cast this issue I am struggling with in a new light. "Beneath these robes lies not a man, but an idea - and ideas are bulletproof". And true, literature (and this was a true modern classic by any account) certainly retains both symbolic and literal (pun intended) relevance inarguably applicable to this case.
Also, your point is well taken about the increased dangers of facial recognition under the threat of retribution from this government. Yet I still wonder if the exposure of one's identity under this increased threat does not make one's point all the more powerful - we know the risks and are willing to endure them. Especially when you consider that many nonviolent practitioners who came before us risked death and torture for their beliefs.
T, I think to characterize "Guy Fawkes" as a violent anarchist would be to miss the point. True, he employed violent means which I find difficult to condone - though to be fair it was ALWAYS in self-defense. But an anarchist? No, there was nothing to indicate he was opposed to a system of laws. In fact, I'd say that he was pro-government - with the caveat that "governments should be afraid of their people." This was a populist movement which was very much a nonviolent seizure of direct rule by the majority. It was an overthrow of a "silent" totalitarianism that had creeped up slowly, an authoritarian regime wearing its own mask of democracy and benevolence. As I said to Resist, I retain some concern over the costs of anonymity, though I don't think I would go so far as to characterize it as cowardice. I think it is more likely that the practitioners chose a symbol they felt would resonate with outsiders.
Out of curiosity, I wonder if anybody has an opinion about the use of sabotage (a la V or likewise) and whether or not this qualifies as nonviolence (assuming, of course, that all steps are taken to ensure that nobody is injured in the process).
I understand the power of the medium
Yes - Moore disassociated
Maybe just a little?
urwalker - i would disagree
And they weren't using the masks for anonymity
You gotta show who you are...
Where'd you get that from?
Where'd you get that from? In some parts of Argentina I could see fear of retribution generally, but just from police? This is news to me... I'm not saying it's not the case, I just haven't seen this in the news.
Well,
Yeah
It's a lot of showmanship
That is your viewpoint
that is your viewpoint, valid for you, perhaps, but it adds nothing to the discussion, nor did it address his question very directly.
i think the message is quite clear. within this "display" is a multitude of statements, if one chooses to see them.
one, V was a movie, a work of fiction. so was 1984, Farenheit 451 and Kafka's The Trial. Works of fiction have a disturbing habit of sometimes pointing their criticisms quite flatly at what is happening in current events.
we know that The Crucible was as much a story about the Salem Witchtrials as it was an examination of the "witchhunt" mentality that permeated the US during the McCarthy era
-- in music, song writers have long used metaphors and symbols to codify their true feelings and thoughts in songs about love, politics and freedom --
i think you are wrong about it being thought-provoking. i just think you are emotionally dead to such things, because you choose to be cold hearted and ambivilant. that is your "m.o."
to me, this was brave and anonymous - an anti-Cindy Sheehan statement, in where the statement was loudly "it is not who we are that is important, it is how we feel, it is the idea"
that was also the message of the movie, so using the symbol to parralell that message was a nice touch.
now, if they all sat there in scream masks and held up signs - that would be much more silly. but the outfit WAS part of the statement, because V stood for something...and the idea is not fiction, even if the movie was.
besides, while usurped by V - the original mask is a guy friday mask, which adds a whole new complexion to the statement they were making, which certainly require anonymity.
You're comparing a comic book to 1984?
one, V was a movie, a work of fiction. so was 1984, Farenheit 451 and Kafka's The Trial. Works of fiction have a disturbing habit of sometimes pointing their criticisms quite flatly at what is happening in current events.
You're comparing a comic book to 1984? Whatever; I had nothing to say about the applicability of the source material. It's the gesture I find vapid...they're staging a non-violent demonstration by dressing as a violent anarchist.
i think you are wrong about it being thought-provoking. i just think you are emotionally dead to such things, because you choose to be cold hearted and ambivilant. that is your "m.o."
One hardly chooses their modus operandi. That's simply how I work...I'm not overly impressed by theatrics and pageantry. So were I walking down the street and saw a bunch of protesters dressed as V, I'm not going to find their message overwhelmingly compelling, I'm just going to point and giggle.
to me, this was brave and anonymous - an anti-Cindy Sheehan statement, in where the statement was loudly "it is not who we are that is important, it is how we feel, it is the idea"
What bravery is there in anonymity? To be anonymous in public is to hide from reproach. Cowardice.
And what is the idea being conveyed? That the government should fear us, sitting here placidly?
now, if they all sat there in scream masks and held up signs - that would be much more silly. but the outfit WAS part of the statement, because V stood for something...and the idea is not fiction, even if the movie was.
Exactly. If they want to don the outfit, set something on fire. If not, and you're still going for the theatrical angle, shave your head and walk around barefoot in a white robe and wire-rimmed glasses. If you're going to go in costume, then play the fucking part.
What good would it do
their movement to act in a hostile way?
hell, i wish i was there to stand among them, would have felt very empowering and must have been very strange.
far more newsworthy than a simple group of hemp-wearing frisbie players singing a couple of protest songs, right McCarthy?
Hey man,
Hey man, don't broad bash graphic novels. Maus set the stage for the graphic novel medium to be used for conveying much deeper intellectual sentiment than simple mass market brain candy (not that most of it isn't just that - brain candy - but some of it is very insightful). Alan Moore [3] is quite astute.