Violence in Advocacy

Violence in Advocacy: Desperate Times Call for Desperate Measures

 

“They make you that way, she sighed with resignation… you talk and talk and talk to them and they ignore you. But you pick up a crowbar and break the pictures of their children, and all of a sudden they listen real fast” (Viramontes 151).

Explore in more depth the scene in which Estrella threatens the nurse with the crowbar. Is Estrella’s utilization of violence necessary or justified in this scene? Pay particular attention to her assessment of herself both during and after the incident.

Additionally, we can also extend this discussion to the use of violent protest in civil rights movement. In our modern society with rigid, sociopolitical power structures, should extreme force ever be used to achieve just goals?

9 Comments

  1. While reading this book I was definitely questioning my own beliefs about what was right in this situation. On one end, I usually don’t condone the use of violence for any reason. Further, the doctor at the makeshift hospital didn’t do anything wrong, per se; she assessed Alejo’s sickness and charged them what she was supposed to (even giving them a discount). On the other hand, Estrella and her family desperately needed that nine dollars and seven cents (if I remember correctly) that they paid the doctor for her services. With a deadly ill friend in need of treatment and no money to get him to the treatment, Estrella wasn’t really left with any other options besides to let Alejo die. This reminds me of a philosophy unit, focused on morality, that we studied in Sophomore English. I forget what it was called, but I remember that we were discussing some philosopher’s idea that, basically, morality isn’t always cut and dry. The example I remember is that a man’s wife is dying from a disease and this one private company has an antidote, though ridiculously expensive. The question is whether or not the man is morally correct in stealing the antidote from the company to save her life. There are obvious parallels between that situation and this, and I do think that for both situations it is right to save the life, even if it means that one must steal. While it is unfortunate that Estrella had to take money from and seriously upset the doctor, she did what she had to to save her friend’s life and that, to me, justifies her use of violence. If Estrella had physically hurt the woman, my answer may have been different, but in this case I say that Estrella acted morally.

    Reply
  2. For me, the most difficult part of answering the question of justifying violence in desperate times comes when one considers what it would mean for the world to behave on the principle universally. I tend to like to look at morality from the standpoint of universal principles, because if there is to be a “right” and a “wrong”, that right or wrong should be a guiding truth no matter what complicated circumstances are to arise-mostly because most circumstances are, by nature, complicated. In this situation, Estrella stole a service from the nurse (with the threat of force) in order to do what she saw necessary to save the life of a dear friend. It is easy for me to think that in this one case, in these desperate circumstances, violence was justified and in the end was heroic. After all, these were good people who did everything they could within their control-even offering to fix the toilet or the poles-before resorting to unconventional and violent means. BUT. Imagine that another person did the same. Imagine every month someone stole a service from the clinic or threatened the staff, thinking themselves in desperate need, or every week or even every day. The clinic would quickly shut down (or implement new rules that made care harder to receive, such as showing ID before treatment or such measures) and there would be even less agency and healthcare for the piscadores. Estrella’s actions would have consequences for not just the scared nurse and her rich children who had to wait to be picked up from school, but for the whole community in the long run. That’s not to say that I believe we should sit idly by and let innocent people die, but I do believe that there will always be a better way than chaos. If we justify it even one time, I have to believe we’re justifying a principle of violence that will in the end only end in mass unrest with little problem solving. My counter to Estrella’s means of saving Alejo’s life would be to look to the community for immediate help instead of resorting to violence. Estrella could have asked the nurse for a ride in to town, asked the store owner for a loan, inquired to other piscadores for charity, hitch-hiked, or any number of nonviolent options. Looking at the bigger picture again, people resorting to violence for social change are, I believe, making a dark situation dimmer. Waving a bat at a problem will, whether right or wrong, have repercussions not just for the person facing the crowbar, but also for the one wielding it and everyone in between.

    Reply
  3. While reading this book, particularly this portion, I was beginning to question what is morally “right” and “wrong”. This idea of justification is complicated, considering that one could look at this situation and immediately come to the conclusion that Estrella’s actions were simply violent and unjustified, I began to look at the complications of the situation. The nurse at the clinic did nothing lawfully wrong, she took money for services that she provided for Alejo. However, one could look at the situation and believe that the nurse was morally wrong because of the desperation that Estrella and her family had. While Estrella is holding the crowbar and threatening the nurse, it does exemplify the influence of desperation in terms of someone who simply has “no other choice”. Estrella has justified this act of violence in her mind by almost forcing herself to believe that this money is the only way to save Alejo’s life. She even examines her actions during the attack by claiming, “She did not feel like herself holding the money. She felt like two Estrellas” (150). Her actions did work in the end, but were even questioned by the person she was trying to help: Alejo. She even gets increasingly frustrated with him “Alejo did not seem to understand her sarcasm. He didn’t seem to understand anything” (152). This addresses the idea of post-conventional morality (a part of Kohlberg’s Theory of Moral Development) where one may do what is viewed as conventionally wrong such as breaking the law or inciting violence to benefit someone other than themselves. Personally, I believe that what Estrella did was morally correct. My opinion could have shifted if she had physically hurt the nurse or they didn’t make it to the hospital on time. However, I do find it really interesting when Alejo says to Estrella “Can’t you see, they want us to act like that” (153). It’s almost as if Alejo is not appreciative of what Estrella did for him because he knows the consequences that could potentially follow. This situation is relatively simple in comparison to the complex moral conflicts faced in society, such as violent protests. I don’t have any experience with violent protests (other than what I have learned in history classes). It is difficult to say you are morally correct when you are physically hurting someone else for “the greater good” or “the benefit of others”. It is very difficult to measure how much morality should be involved in making serious decisions.

    Reply
  4. After reading “Under the Feet of Jesus,” this scene stuck out to me the most. Because this book came from such a different story than my own, it was hard for me to relate to these characters fully. Being a teen girl I could definitely relate to Estrella’s feelings and thoughts at different points throughout the story, but it was hard for me to put myself in her shoes while reading – until this scene. Whenever I have gotten in trouble in the past I immediately feel as though I have lost all control over my life. The blood rushes to my head, my stomach turns and I know there is nothing I can say or do to change what has happened. It is the worst. Of course all of my troubles are a lot less dramatic than the one in this book; however, I started to relate to Estrella after this scene. That feeling of hopelessness can be put into many different scenarios. When Estrella “tried to make her mind work, tried to imagine them back on the road with an empty gas tank and wallet and Alejo too sick to talk,” I recognized the feelings she had. This scene deepened my understanding of all the hardships these migrant families have to go through. Sometimes they are so hopeless, that violence seems to be the only way to survive. I believe this scene perfectly captures the idea that we will do anything for the people we love, and that sometimes love and keeping our loved ones safe can blind us from making the right decisions. In my opinion there is nothing morally wrong about keeping the people you love safe; however, a lot of the time this will cause people to act irrationally. Keeping the people she cares about safe and alive takes precedence over anything for Estrella. Although this doesn’t justify her actions, sometimes the only way to be heard is to do something drastic.

    Reply
  5. Even during desperate times, violence action is not an appropriate use of advocacy. To be clear, nonviolent civil disobedience is not the same as refusing to act. However, history shows that the nonviolence approach is perhaps the most successful strategy for longer lasting peace and equal rights. Take this segment from “The Great Debaters” (2007), in which three students from the all African-American school, Wiley College, debate against Harvard students over the subject of morality in civil disobedience: “Gandhi and his followers responded not with violence, but with an organized campaign of noncooperation. Government buildings were occupied. Streets were blocked with people who refused to rise, even when beaten by police. Gandhi was arrested. But the British were soon forced to release him. He called it a ‘moral victory’” (2007). Gandhi’s use of peaceful protest without violence ultimately gained India long-lasting independence from Britain. Consequently, Ghandi was remembered as a force of good, and a hero for world peace and human rights. His actions later inspired MLK Jr. to advocate for racial equality in the 60’s, successfully I might add. While this approach was certainly longer than, say, Malcom X’s more aggressive approach, it lead to more permanent resolution and overall support for the movement. Yes, people listen quickly when those oppressed rise up with crowbars, but they also call the police and hold tighter to their preconceived judgements that no good can come from equal rights. As Alejo told Estrella after the chaos in the nurse’s office, “don’t make it so easy for them…. They want us to act like that” (152,153). Change happens first in people’s minds before said change can affect countries or laws. However, due to Estrella’s threat, the nurse’s impression of young migrant workers–perhaps her only therefore her strongest held impression– may be that they are brutal, chaotic foreigners, rather than desperate and hardworking families trying to begin a new, better life in spite of backbreaking circumstances. Further, this approach resulted in regret and stress not only for Alejo, but for Petra and Perfecto as well (160-164). It was successful in that Estrella was given back the money, but it was a moral loss–not a victory. In essence, it takes days, months, even years to progress forward a few feet, but only a single moment to be set back miles.

    Reply
  6. In the culturally comparative novel “Under The Feet of Jesus” the author Helena Maria Viramontes’ main character Estrella presents the moral question of if extreme force should be used to achieve just goals. This question is presented in chapter four when Estrella’s family brings Alejo to the hospital. At the hospital, we meet a nurse whose characters life is most similar to readers, while Estrella and her family’s life greatly contrast. This allows us as readers to sympathize with both characters and better understand the situation.
    The moral dilemma this scene presents is that neither of the characters was doing what they had been raised to believe was wrong. It was the characters contrasting lifestyles and therefore beliefs about each other that caused the incident. The nurse, although being very kind, unconsciously placed a certain exception about the families abilities and actions the second she saw them, which therefore influenced her actions towards them. This can be seen when she allowed them to pay $9.07 for the visitation instead of the full $15. The nurses thought to be kind gesture impacted what Estrella and her families believed about themselves. The nurse said she wasn’t charging them the whole $15 because she “knows times are hard these days,” (Viramontes 144), this simple yet judgmental action made Estrella and her family feel even more shamed for their appearance and financial state than they previously did. The families beliefs about themselves are what caused Estrella’s outrage towards the nurse, although her actions only reinforced the nurse’s beliefs about her and her family. This is what Alejo meant when he told Estrella “Don’t make it easy for them. […] Can’t you see, they want us to act like that?” (Viramontes 152-153). Estrella’s journey shows us that violent actions should not be used to achieve just goals because it only reinforces stereotypical beliefs, leading further from a solution.

    Reply
  7. When Estrella picks up the crowbar, the first thought I had was “please don’t hurt the nurse” and then I kept reading. I felt confused when she didn’t ask for more money and yet relieved. Getting a glimpse into these people’s lives made me sympathize with her situation and helped justify her actions in my eyes. I thought that as long as she didn’t hurt anyone that maybe it was justified when she was protecting a loved one. I took a step back and looked at it from the nurse’s point of view and just saw it as an irrational act of a desperate person. It invoked no sympathy from me. It is hypocritical of me to say that I think that these migrant workers, who are being used like replaceable, cheap tools that don’t require care, should take the high road and keep their morality while suffering. I am pretty sure that if I were in Estrella’s shoes I would do the same thing. I realize that it would negatively affect me because of the loss in my morality but I would do anything for my family. Despite my immediate solution to anyone that has hurt someone I love is violence, I don’t believe that it is a solution. Violence only leads to more violence until it finally harms someone strong enough to resist and end the cycle. I also feel that I cannot entirely judge Estrella because I have not lived the same life. I realize that this book is intended to give us a glimpse but that is all it is, a glimpse. We have no way of completely comprehending the situation and I feel that it is not my place to judge but rather learn and pass along.

    Reply
  8. To answer the first part of the question, which considers if Estrella’s threat of violence was justified or not, I believe that Estrella’s actions towards the nurse were actually more moral than if she otherwise wouldn’t have acted at all. The bottom line is, Estrella didn’t know whether or not Alejo would survive if she didn’t get him to the hospital, which was about twenty miles away. In order to pay the fees for the clinic, Estrella’s family wouldn’t have any money to fill the car’s empty tank to make it to the hospital. Estrella states, “They had no money except for what Perfecto relinquished to pay for what the mother said they already knew” (147). Therefore, Estrella was forced to make the choice of threatening violence and stealing, or possibly letting her friend die. I usually don’t advocate for violence, but if I was placed in Estrella’s position, I would choose a little bit of violence over the possible death of a loved one.

    However, when the discussion is extended towards violent protests in civil rights movements, I agree with Cheryl’s point above arguing that these types of protests are usually ineffective, and they don’t promote peace in the long run. Therefore, there would be no moral reason to use violence in civil rights protests. Violent protests only lead to a continuous cycle of retaliation and revenge. One example of this is the circle of violence is the ongoing violence between Muslims and Hindus throughout India. This problem possibly first occurred in the 8th century when muslim conquerors attacked both Hindu and Buddhist temples in modern day Pakistan. These conquerors destroyed temples and monasteries, assaulted and plundered Hindu towns for wealth, and killed/enslaved Hindu people. Muslim rulers continued to persecute Hindu believers because, well, they weren’t muslim. This constant violence leaves people in seek of revenge. In retaliation for decades of persecution, some radical Hindus began to form political nationalist groups in order to drive Muslims out of India, one example being a group called Hindutva. For example, In Meerut in 1982, some Hindus, persuaded by the Hindutva movement, built a Hindu mosque where a muslim was designated to be. This invoked Muslims to riot, which then lead to the slaughter of over 150 Muslims in response to the riots. India’s modern hostility is not one-sided, either. In March of 2006, several bombings occurred in Varanasi, at a holy Hindu temple and a train station, resulting in 28 dead and over 100 injured. These are just two examples of a decades-long conflict. Therefore, violence in response to civil rights has been shown to be ineffective, and only promotes more violence in the long run. In Estrella’s case, her violence was justified because of the drastic consequences her inaction might cause, but violence in a political sense is almost never justified, and typically only creates more violence.

    Reply
  9. I think it’s important to clarify that although Estrella broke some things and scared the nurse, she didn’t hurt anyone. For me, that distinction means the difference between justifiable and unjustifiable. I can imagine Estrella’s frustration easily because I found myself annoyed with the nurse for being incapable or unwilling to understand the family’s situation. For Estrella, it would not be simply annoyance, but panic and anger. Those few dollars are almost nothing to the clinic, but they may mean the difference between life and death for Alejo. I personally see Estrella’s actions as entirely justifiable, although not perhaps the most lawful.

    The broader issue of violent protests is one that lies close to home for me. My younger brother is showing significant interest in groups like antifa, and I am concerned for his future safety. In general, I do not approve of violence, but I recognize that in certain situations it may be the only thing that can have an impact on an oppressive system. Before resorting to violence, some questions that are important to consider are: Will this violence have an immediate positive effect? Will this violence have a long-term positive effect? Does this violence align with my personal morals? What are the potential consequences of this violence, and am I okay with those?. There are definitely more questions as well. The violence of groups like antifa does not have a net-positive effect, even if the intention is good.

    Estrella’s use of force is justified according to my standards, but everyone needs to make a decision about violence for themselves. Although it can be a useful tool when used responsibly, it has more potential for harm than other methods of communication and protest.

    Reply

Submit a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *