The quotation which follows is from Ignazio Silone’s novel, _Bread and
Wine_, which was a moving exposition of life under Fascism in Italy. The
conversation between a young woman and an anti-Fascist priest takes place
in a small Italian town at the end of the invasion of Ethiopia by Italy.
During the night, anti-war and anti-Fascist slogans had been written on
walls and steps in the town.
Bianchina told Don Paolo she couldn’t understand why there was
such a lot of fuss about a few inscriptions on the wall.
Don Paolo was surprised, too. He tried to explain it.
“The Land of Propaganda is built on unanimity,” he said. “If
one man says, ‘No,’ the spell is broken and public order is
endangered. The rebel voice must be stifled.”
“Even if the voice is that of a poor, solitary sick man?”
“Even then.”
“Even if it belongs to a peaceful man who thinks in his own
way, but does nothing evil apart from that?”
“Even then.”
These thoughts served to sadden the girl, but gave the man new
heart. He felt ashamed of his previous discouragement.
“In the Land of Propaganda,” he said, “a man, any man, any
little man who goes on thinking with his own head, imperils
public order. Tons of printed paper repeat the government
slogans; thousands of loud-speakers, hundreds of thousands of
manifestoes and leaflets, legions of orators in the squares
and at the crossroads, thousands of priests from the pulpit
repeat these slogans ad nauseam, to the point of collective
stupefaction. But it is enough for one little man to say ‘No!’
in his neighbor’s ear, or write ‘No!’ on the wall at night, and
public order is endangered.”
The girl was terrified, but the man was happy again.
“And if they catch him and kill him?” the girl asked.
“Killing a man who says ‘No!’ is a risky business,” the priest
replied, “because even a corpse can go on whispering ‘No! No!
No!’ with a persistence and obstinacy that only certain corpses
are capable of. And how can you silence a corpse?”
* * * * *
A book which the French writer, Georges Bernanos, wrote in Brazil—to
which he had exiled himself because he would not remain in France under
Nazi occupation—has just been published in this country. It is entitled
_Tradition of Freedom_ and is a hymn to freedom, an impassioned warning
against obedience and conformity, especially obedience to the modern
State engaged in mechanized, total war.
In the closing pages of this work, Bernanos writes:
I have thought for a long time now that if, some day, the
increasing efficiency of the technique of destruction finally
causes our species to disappear from the earth, it will not
be cruelty that will be responsible for our extinction and
still less, of course, the indignation that cruelty awakens
and the reprisals and vengeance that it brings upon itself ...
but the docility, the lack of responsibility of the modern
man, his base subservient acceptance of every common decree.
The horrors which we have seen, the still greater horrors we
shall presently see, are not signs that rebels, insubordinate,
untameable men, are increasing in number throughout the world,
but rather that there is a constant increase, a stupendously
rapid increase, in the number of obedient, docile men.
It seems to me that this is a true and timely warning. It might serve as
a text for a general appeal to American youth to adopt and practice the
great and urgent virtues of Holy Disobedience, non-conformity, resistance
toward Conscription, Regimentation and War. For the present I want to
use Bernanos’ words as an introduction to some observations on the
discussion regarding the absolute and relative role of these “virtues”
which goes on chiefly among pacifists, members of the Historic Peace
Churches and other such groups. I think it will be readily apparent,
however, that the principles set forth have a wider bearing and merit
consideration by all who are concerned about the maintenance of freedom
in our time and the abolition of war.
Most believers in democracy and all pacifists begin, of course, with
an area of agreement as to the moral necessity, the validity and the
possible social value of No-saying or Holy Disobedience. Pacifists
and/or conscientious objectors all draw the line at engaging in military
combat and most of us indeed at any kind of service in the armed forces.
But immediately thereupon questions arise as to whether we should not
emphasize “positive and constructive service” rather than the “negative”
of refusal to fight or to register; or questions about the relative
importance of “resistance” and “reconciliation,” and so on. It is to
this discussion that I wish to attempt a contribution. It may be that it
will be most useful both to young men of draft age and to other readers
if we concentrate largely on the quite concrete problem of whether the
former should register, conform to other requirements of the Selective
Service Act which apply to conscientious objectors and accept or submit
to the alternative service required of them under the law as amended
in June, 1951; or whether they shall refuse to register, or if they do
register or are “automatically” registered by the authorities, shall
refuse to conform at the next stage; and in any event refuse to render
any alternative service under conscription. We deal, in other words,
with the question whether young men who are eligible for it shall accept
the IV-E classification or take the more “absolutist,” non-registrant
position. (For present purposes, consideration of the I-A-O position,
the designation used for draftees who are willing to accept service in
the armed forces provided this is non-combatant in character, may be
omitted. The IV-E classification is the designation used for persons who
are on grounds of religious training and belief opposed to participation
in any war. Those who are given this classification are required to
render alternative service, outside the armed forces and under civilian
auspices, and designed to serve “the health, safety and interest of the
United States.”)
Two preliminary observations are probably necessary in order to avoid
misunderstanding. In the first place, in every social movement there are
varied trends or emphases, and methods of working. Those who hold to
one approach are likely to be very critical of those who take another.
Disagreements among those within the same movement may be more intense or
even bitter than with those on the outside. I suppose it can hardly be
denied that every movement has in it individuals whose contribution is
negative, and that such individuals do not all come from within one wing
of the movement. Objective evaluation also leads to the view that the
cause is forwarded by various methods and through the agency of diverse
individuals and groups. But this does not mean that discussion within the
movement of trends and methods of work is not useful and essential. Even
if it were true that each of several strategies was _equally_ valid and
useful, it would still be necessary that each be clearly and vigorously
presented and implemented in order that the movement might develop its
maximum impact.
Secondly, in what I shall have to say I am not passing moral judgment on
individual draftees. But from the fact that a pacifist minister should
not pass moral condemnation on the young man in his congregation who
in obedience to his conscience enlists or submits to conscription, we
do not deduce that this minister should abandon his pacifism or cease
to witness to it. Similarly, the fact that in the pacifist movement we
support various types of COs in following the lead of conscience does
not rule out discussion as to the validity and usefulness of various
strategies. It is one thing for a young and immature draftee to follow
a course which amounts to “making the best of a bad business” and for
others to give him sympathetic understanding and help. It is a very
different thing for pacifist organizations or churches to advocate such a
course or to rationalize it into something other than it really is.
As some of the readers of this statement are likely to be aware, the
writer has advocated the non-registrant position. The majority in the
pacifist movement probably believe that it is preferable for COs to
accept or submit to the alternative civilian service which was required
under the World War II Selective Service Act and is now again required
under “peacetime conscription.”
The varied considerations and arguments which currently enter into the
discussion of this choice confronting the youth of draft age tend, as I
see it, to fall into three categories, though there is a good deal of
overlapping. One set of considerations may be said to center largely
around the idea of Christian or human “vocation”; a second set has to
do with the problem of “the immature 18-year-old”; the third with the
relation of the pacifist and citizens generally to military conscription
and the modern Power-State.
The argument for accepting alternative service, under the first category,
has been stated somewhat as follows:
God calls us to love and serve our fellowmen. This is for
Christians and other pacifists a matter of vocation. If, then,
the government in war time, or under peace time conscription,
requires some service of mercy or construction from us, which
is not obviously and directly a part of war-making, we will
raise no objection to undertaking such work. We may even
seek, and shall certainly be grateful for the opportunity to
demonstrate our desire to be good citizens and helpful members
of society, and to show a reconciling spirit.
This question of the meaning and implications of Christian or human
vocation in the context of military conscription clearly needs careful
analysis.