Violence & Exploitation, HuMan, hmm
Exploit: (per Merriam Webster): 1: to make productive use of : UTILIZE 2: to make use of meanly or unfairly for one's own advantage
I think if we intend to convey meaning #1 above we simply say utilize or make use of. When we use exploit (exploitation) in today’s age, it conjures up the greedy, solely self-serving, at the expense of others, ABuse of something or someone. (I intend to convey “things” as inanimate, and “ones” as animate/living).
Violent: (per Merriam Webster): 1 a (1): marked by the use of usually harmful or destructive physical force (2): showing or including violence, b: extremely powerful or forceful and capable of causing damage 2: caused by physical force or violence : not natural 3a: emotionally agitated to the point of using harmful physical force b: prone to commit acts of violence 4a: notably forceful, furious, or vehement b: EXTREME, INTENSE
This one isn’t as clear for me as I think Nature can indeed be violent, especially in terms of meteorology, so definition #2 is a bit non-sensical with its reference to “not natural”. Now, “committing acts of violence” is specifically human, (in my opinion - which most of this post obviously is).
Humans are the only creatures I’ve learned that are exploitative (especially sexually and industrially - unpaid labor, un-replenished minerals etc.) and constantly committing acts of violence. What’s up with that?!
I have referenced in other musings the Native American proverb (paraphrased here) where the grandson confides to his elder that he feels the “good and bad wolves” battling inside him. He is conflicted and apprehensive about which wolf will win, so he asks his grandfather this question. The elder’s reply: “The one who wins is the one you feed”. AKA “What you nourish will flourish”.
This also brings to mind the language framework of ‘Both-And’ versus ‘Either-Or’. The tension of opposites existing simultaneously and the practice of holding space for both. I’ve tried to find a metaphor that I can use for this and a coin has been the most useful so far. A coin always has two sides, it cannot exist without both, and American humans (probably all humans, that know the concept of coins anyway) refer to the sides as heads and tails (opposites). Maybe the sides could represent benevolence and malevolence and I’ve been thinking that a goal may be to acknowledge the inextricable connection of both sides and when lucky, balance on the edge?
This morning it dawned on me that the Native American proverb had only one flaw - wolves are not good and bad, they’re natural creatures, full stop. Nature is not benevolent or malevolent, she is fragile and powerful, gentle and fearsome, light and dark, and most of all she is full-spectrum colorful. Humans are the only animals who recognize and exhibit benevolence and malevolence. We are obsessed with quantifying and qualifying that which we observe. Accordingly, the coin is a better metaphor. Without human tribes, packs, societies, and cultures - coins don’t exist, and maybe neither would “good and evil”? Lastly, I’m aware that for human animals language is powerful, and I wonder, which came first the words or the actions? Hmmmm.
