False Optimism in Liberal Theology and Hyper-Globalism

"...Niebuhr's great contribution to theology is that he has refuted the false optimism characteristic of a great segment of the Protestant liberalism."- MLKJ

The above quote in The Autobiography of Martin Luther King, Jr. is applicable far beyond the context of a 1950's seminarian's studies. It resonates for me today on personal, and societal levels, intellectually, emotionally and spiritually. I have fallen victim to such false optimism. We experience its secular successor in forms of rationalization for our society's actions. Contemplative awareness at different levels of mental activity is more complete, mature and effective when we engage in it with realistic acceptance and equanimity.

King refers to "false optimism" in the context of his personal path to non-violent resistance as a way of characterizing the view of positive social change of which Niebuhr disabused him. King goes on to explain "the pacifist would have a greater appeal if he did not claim to be free from the moral dilemmas that the Christian non-pacifist confronts." Pacifism, Dude, is not something to hide behind. Pacifism that puts its faith in a natural benignity of mankind, that believes the course of human events will right itself merely by our efforts to avoid evil, that adheres solely to the definition which makes it synonymous with passivity may provides little more than a comforting self-righteousness for its adherents.

In order to effectively work for social change, non-violent activists must critically engage the same moral dilemmas that face those who see violence as an acceptable path. I have accepted the doctrine of non-violence with little critical thought and continue to make arguments based on relatively unexamined beliefs. Having faith in non-violence does not mean blind acceptance of it as a method but an on-going and in-depth consideration and contemplation of its merits, weaknesses, applicability and dynamicism.

We as a society, like every epoch, have constructed elaborate rationalizations for our collective injustices. When Thomas Friedman was pied at Brown this spring, the protesters were attempting to shed light on Friedman's complicity with hyper-globalism's false optimism. Although I disagree with the method of humiliation and disrespect that the protesters used, they brought attention to Friedman's role as a false optimist. In the context of our current global environmental, economic and moral crises, standing up to advocate continued participation in the structures of militaristic, technology-worshipping globalism the way Friedman has is as bad as giving in to negative, cynical, hopeless despair. Friedman is not as uncritical of global capitalism as he could be, and has put forward good ideas, like the $4/gal minimum gas price to encourage fuel conservation. But if he carried his insights farther and engaged them more fearlessly, he would transcend false optimism and write from a position acknowledging the realistic need for broader change. There is still time.

What does this have to do with pacifism? I found myself picking on Friedman because no examples come to mind on the national scene of pacifism being advocated in the mainstream. In our attempts as a society to weed out naivety and uncritical pacifism, we have removed all mention of non-violence as a societal strategy from public discourse. So while non-violent individuals and communities must continually participate in self-examination, we must not allow that vital engagement to prevent a greater dissemination of pacifist ideals.