MDMD Dixon's act of nonviolence

[Doug Millison]

Good points, Dave.

I agree that Dixon is finally pushed over the edge to the point of feeling
and expressing anger and outrage at the injustice done to the slaves in his
presence. But it's worth pointing out that, in terms of today's discourse
on nonviolence, Dixon's act  -- the verbal confrontation and pulled punch
-- would probably not be considered violent.  Nonviolence is not
non-confrontational, not passive.  Using words to challenge injustice is
not considered violent. Using one's body to stop a violent act is not
considered violent, as long as the action is taken without injuring or
harming the perpetrator, such as the case of the anti-war protester who
stopped a munitions train here in our neck of the woods some years ago by
sitting on the tracks and letting the train run him over (he lost both
legs).  I know that you're aware of a rather nuanced discussion out there
about what does constitute nonviolence and how best to use nonviolent
tactics and strategies for social justice, it's not always easy to draw the
line, but there is quite a range of actions protesters can take that are
not considered violent (see
http://www.nonviolenceworks.net/NVWSite.htm/about.htm/Methods.htm:  "There
are 198 methods that Professor Gene Sharp outlined in his book, The Methods
of Nonviolent Action. With so many "weapons" to choose from, we have as
much or more flexibility than we do when we use the military. The key to
effective use is forethought and strategic use. "  The list includes
methods that fall under several categories: "Nonviolent Protest &
Persuasion | Social Noncooperation
Economic Noncooperation: Economic Boycotts | The Strike
Political Noncooperation | Nonviolent Intervention").

Keith is right, Dixon is not Gandhi, but when the rubber meets the road, he
shows his essential nonviolent nature and sticks to his pacifist roots. In
the terms of the current discourse on nonviolence, the salient feature of
Dixon's encounter with the slave driver is that while he feels the urge to
kill the slave driver, Dixon manages to suppress it; he prevents further
harm to the slaves by keeping the slave driver's whip and lets the slaves
escape, and stops the cycle of violence by letting the slave driver go free
instead of thrashing him with the whip.  It's not a complete solution based
on nonviolent principles, of course; it does not take place in the context
of a broader nonviolent campaign for social justice (such as was the case
in the mass movement that led to the end of apartheid in South Africa, for
example, or the civil rights campaign of the 1950s and 60s in the US, or
the anti-war campaign against the US aggression in Vietnam in the 60s and
70s); Dixon does not go on to engage the slave driver in a process of
discussion, reconciliation, search for solutions that would help the slave
driver avoid violence in the future, etc. , all of which would be
considered necessary in a full-blown nonviolent campaign today (much
discussion along these lines out there among anti-WTO and World Bank
protesters, in addition to people who organize to stop the current war in
Afghanistan; South Africa is still working through its process of
reconciliation following the nonviolent campaign to end apartheid).

But, Pynchon clearly creates a Dixon who, in the heat of anger, consults
his conscience and suppresses his urge to kill and, in this specific and
localized circumstance, stops the cycle of violence.   This much, at least,
is unambiguous in Pynchon's text.

It's even more telling, in my opinion, that, after Pynchon shows us Dixon
avoiding a duel with a fellow white man on p 397 (using his Quaker pacifism
as the reason) even as he appears to be blind to slavery on this trip to
Virginia (p. 398),  Pynchon goes on to move Dixon through an arc of
character development in which, finally, Dixon can no longer ignore the
injustice of slavery and who acts -- nonviolently -- to help a particular
group of slaves some 300 pages later.

-Doug

P.S.   re Nixon as Quaker, it's interesting I think that Philip Roth uses
the name Dixon for his portrayal of the historical Nixon in his novel, _Our
Gang_.


At 9:25 AM -0800 3/8/02, Dave Monroe wrote:
>And, as I've said, in perhaps even FEWER words for
>once, Dixon, in the end, is apperently, fianlly,
>understandably, pushed over the edge.  The text allows
>for some equivocation on the physical (physiological,
>mechanical) end of events, but Dixon's rhetorical
>aggression, violence, even, is unmistakable.
>Historiaclly, or, at least, folklorically, however,
>the matter is rather more straightforward.  But,
>again, the text's divergence from that (hi)story(?)
>is, indeed, noteworthy.  S'allright?  S'allright ...
>