Aaron Bushnell’s self-immolation as an act of protest against Israel has many dimensions. Firstly, it was a protest against the growing horrors of the Israeli military attacks against Palestinians. Secondly, he felt responsible for the attacks as he was an active member of the United States Air Force. So this act was not merely one of protest but also an expression of complicity in an unethical act. Thirdly, his act was not merely a protest (such as shouting slogans) but a protest that demanded a price of himself. While it can be classified as suicide, the implicit morality behind that action elevates it to something more.
As is well-known, self-immolation as a protest is not a new phenomenon. Over history, there have been many instances of such acts. In the context of modern wars, the act of self-immolation by a Buddhist monk during the Vietnam War catalysed massive protests. Buddhist monks have continued this form of protest against the Chinese oppression in Tibet. A similar act is often cited as the catalyst for the Arab Spring. In India, there is a long history of self-immolation that ranges from protests against unjust political acts to suicides by farmers. There are three aspects to this action. First is the act of voluntarily killing oneself, second is the mode of killing oneself, and third is the expression of protest.
In the majority of cases, suicides are related to tangible problems of the individual such as a farmer’s debt or unrequited love. This is not the case when the motivating action behind suicide is protest. In this case, it is about performing an act on behalf, and for the benefit, of others. There are many who find something heroic about this act of sacrificing oneself for the sake of others. Martyrdom is often of this kind. Soldiers sacrifice themselves, although under orders when they fight a war to protect a nation.
But there is one important difference between soldiers who die in war and persons who immolate themselves in protest against a war. This lies in the idea of autonomy, the independent decision behind the act. In the case of soldiers who die while on duty, their death is not due to their autonomous decision but is only a consequence of the orders of their higher-ups. There are two elements of autonomy in self-immolation: The decision to kill oneself and choosing to be in extreme pain while doing so. Modern societies, which have come to privilege autonomy over many other aspects of being human, do not know how to deal equanimously with death and pain. That is why the idea of killing oneself is so troubling in our societies today since suicide exhibits the limited point of autonomy.
Modern societies go to great lengths to protect this particular idea of the individual as one who is defined by her autonomy. Our justice system, as well as major theories in ethics, are built on this value. However, we should remember that this view of an individual is a particular one associated with the modern era. For example, in India, an individual’s autonomy is always regulated by ties to the family, and by the community to which they belong.
The focus on framing the concept of the individual entirely through the idea of choice and rights has led our justice system to overemphasise concerns with individual crime and punishment. An influential reason for this is the inability to understand society as more than its individual members. Such a limited view poses serious challenges to the possibility of social justice.
Paradoxically, while autonomy is valorised as the essential character of an individual, nobody has complete autonomy. Autonomy is always limited and in most cases has to be granted by others. What is allowed in the name of autonomy is only that which is tacitly allowed by those in power. The choice is disguised as autonomy, but it is not.
There is never a totally free choice but only the feeling of choice between a small set of possibilities. A mall seems to be a paradise of choice but others carefully choose all those choices. Such consumerist choice is not the definition of autonomy although most often we tend to this reduction.
Bushnell’s act of immolating himself to protest what is happening in Gaza is a choice, but is not the same as consumerist choice. It is truly an expression of his autonomy since the act of killing oneself is the final frontier of autonomous action. This act is not a consumerist choice for one’s gratification. This act highlights the fact that while he died out of choice, the civilians in Palestine are dying out of no choice of theirs.
The act of self-immolation also has an important element of “showing”. It shows the process of dying painfully. It is not about the state of death as much as it is about the process of dying. We cannot experience death but can experience the act of dying. Self-immolation’s significance lies in the hope that when the living sees the painful process of voluntarily dying, it will trigger moral consciousness within the viewer. Self-immolation as protest can be seen as a desperate act to awaken the moral conscience of the people.
Thus, achieving death is not the ultimate end of the act of self-immolation. It is only a means to provoke the question: How much pain are we willing to endure to protest against what is wrong? It is a question that asks us how we should live in the midst of so many injustices to others around us. It is a question of what our response should be when we recognise that we are complicit in being part of systems that are unjust and unethical wherever we live. The self-immolator pain is a way to provoke us to embrace what pain we can in the task of becoming a moral individual.
Sundar Sarukkai is the founder of Barefoot Philosophers and author of the novel, Following a Prayer. The views expressed are personal
Making sense of Aaron Bushnell’s immolation
6
0
10.03.2024
Aaron Bushnell’s self-immolation as an act of protest against Israel has many dimensions. Firstly, it was a protest against the growing horrors of the Israeli military attacks against Palestinians. Secondly, he felt responsible for the attacks as he was an active member of the United States Air Force. So this act was not merely one of protest but also an expression of complicity in an unethical act. Thirdly, his act was not merely a protest (such as shouting slogans) but a protest that demanded a price of himself. While it can be classified as suicide, the implicit morality behind that action elevates it to something more.
As is well-known, self-immolation as a protest is not a new phenomenon. Over history, there have been many instances of such acts. In the context of modern wars, the act of self-immolation by a Buddhist monk during the Vietnam War catalysed massive protests. Buddhist monks have continued this form of protest against the Chinese oppression in Tibet. A similar act is often cited as the catalyst for the Arab Spring. In India, there is a long history of self-immolation that ranges from protests against unjust political acts to suicides by farmers. There are three aspects to this action. First is the act of voluntarily killing oneself, second is the mode of killing oneself, and third is the expression of protest.
In the majority of cases, suicides are related to tangible problems of the individual such as a farmer’s debt........
© hindustantimes
visit website
login
who are we?
contact us
qosheapp
Toi Staff
Gideon Levy
Belen Fernandez
Rami G Khouri
Mort Laitner
Rachel Marsden
Bradley Blankenship
Tarik Cyril Amar
Michael Kwet
