On Ends and Means

I have enjoyed reading War Child’s other blog posts: they are all well-researched, in-depth explorations of specific topics. Works like those are self-evidently important and directly applicable for activism.

 

This is not one of those blog posts.

 

Today, I would like to take a step back and offer a brief philosophical reflection on the relationship between our goals (ends) and our methods (means) through the work of the great Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King Junior. Before I can do that, however, I must preempt an objection: Philosophy is merely language games, concerned with abstractions over practical reality. One does not need to spend twenty years in an armchair contemplating the nature of morality to understand the visceral brokenness of our world, so what’s the point? What can philosophy do for justice; which cracks can philosophy mend?

 

For all its failings, I maintain that philosophy contains three treasures: it helps us better express our realities; it helps us consider old questions in new ways; and it helps us imagine new worlds. As I hope this post will model, these attributes are absolutely necessary for successful activism.

 

To quote King: “In the final analysis, the end is pre-existent in the mean.” [1] Our actions are a bridge between our present context and the future. The action itself determines where that bridge leads, which possible world we move towards. Our future thus echoes the nature of our actions. King’s example is revolutionary Marxism: if violent revolution is the method of creating a new order, then that new order will be foundationally and systemically violent [2]. Violent means produce violent ends: “all who draw the sword will die by the sword” (Matt 26:52) [3]. To King, there is no such thing as an end justifying a mean, for they are fundamentally inseparable; a house of love cannot be built from stones of hate.

 

Compare this to how we usually think about ends and means: ends are our desired goals, which we can bring about through many different approaches. If we tend towards the cynical, the determining factor of our choice of approach is practicality: what accomplishes the goal as quickly and efficiently as possible [4]. If we tend towards the moral, certain effective avenues are closed off due to their inherent immorality. The issue is not an inability to create change, but a perception that the end is not worth such extreme means. E.g. One could believe in the animal rights movement and that bombing factory farms would be an effective tactic, but still refrain from doing so because bombing would be immoral. In both the cynical and moral approaches, the mean is present and tactical while the end is futuristic and idealized. King, on the other hand, transcends the mean/end dichotomy.

 

King brings our ends out of the abstract future and into the embodied present. He is not merely saying that we must harmonize our means to the principles behind our ends, though that is also vitally important. Instead, he is making the stronger claim that no end exists outside of its means – this is no metaphor or moral claim, but a simple fact. There is no abstract goal out there that we can pull into reality. Every approach will construct and modify the endpoint.

 

Thus, we must not treat our ends as if they are real. As long as they exist in our intellect, our goals are not subject to the messiness of reality and so are foreign to their eventual realization. To create lasting change, we must give up the perfect vision in our mind and instead negotiate a new reality with others. If we do not, we will move ourselves into a mindset of friends and enemies, for and against, and make idols of our goals. Ironically, this mindset will prevent our eventual success; as long as our ends include non-coercive community, we must always criticize our ideals and open ourselves to the wisdom of others. Those who love their vision of the world more than the world itself destroy both [5].

 

The fact that our ends are not real does not mean we should adopt incrementalism nor a nihilistic “rage against the machine” mentality, change devoid of order. If our ends are pre-existent in our means, then effective means require clear ends. King worked his entire life to build his “blessed community,” a beautiful and well-theorized image. It was the culmination of many years of philosophical, theological, and sociological study; it was the culmination of years of activist organizing. To King, protesting was a skill that needed training. When planning protests, he actively trained his protestors to retain kingdom spirits, to hold onto the principles of non-violence even when beaten, arrested, or killed. King knew that if Black people responded to police brutality with violence, they would be massacred by the police and the press. Moreover, any change would rest on the perpetual conflict between Blacks and Whites. To bring about the blessed community, King knew the movement would need to adopt kingdom values: “The aftermath of nonviolence is the creation of the beloved community, while the aftermath of violence is tragic bitterness.” [6]

 

A few years ago, Dr. Samantha Nutt, founder of War Child, gave a brilliant talk in my hometown of Sudbury. Now, having grown in wisdom, I am even more impressed by her peace work. When politicians sign peace treaties, they think primarily of “bringing the boys home” – a laudable goal, to be sure! Yet what end is contained within that mean? If this is the final or primary mean, then I believe this creates a negative peace, removing a source of tension and violence. We declare this situation peace, but infrastructure is still broken, families are still mourning, and tensions are still high. We have managed the immediate disaster, but we remain irreconciled with our neighbour. Are we at peace? 

 

King would say no; this is “negative peace,” the “absence of tension” despite the continuation of deep suffering, and not “positive peace,” the “presence of justice.” [7] Through its means, War Child deftly models positive peace. Their focus on education and community building, their continued work long after the media looks away, and their commitment to long-term healing move us towards ends of lasting justice. War Child takes seriously the essence of King’s claim that “the end is pre-existent in the mean.” I wish our institutions would do the same.

 

Many thanks to Emily Walker, who nursed my mental health throughout the writing of this post.