1

I've heard the phrase "political quietude": staying quiet about massacres and despotism. It cannot be a good thing. But quiet is nice, or can feel dignified. Who talks about the tension in ethics and philosophy.

When is quietude a good thing, especially if talking about rebellion and refusal and so on.

3 Answers3

1

If there is nothing you can do about a situation, quietude is a coping strategy. Consider the serenity prayer. The word 'serenity', in some circumstances, could be a somewhat insensitive interpretation of quietude or equanimity. But nevertheless the phrase about having the "wisdom to know the difference" is a pithy line.

Note, however, in Buddhism, equanimity is calm detachment. Detached like a calm physician, unflustered, getting on with a life-saving surgery. This is the faux paradox of Buddhist detachment, in that detachment leads to equanimity (upekkha) which helps compassion (karuna), i.e. caring, and taking care of matters.

No one wants a flustered, emotionally overwrought surgeon operating on them; likewise politicians need to be able to be detached (via quietude) while they administer in intense situations. Probably applies in some cold, pragmatic calculus.

Chris Degnen
  • 4,780
  • 1
  • 14
  • 21
1

The philosophical discussion, is about quietism, often used as a synonym for passivity, and withdrawal from social issues including through practicing non-violence in the face of harms. Stoicism pictures it as a positive, in the face of what you cannot change - fighter pilot James Stockdale who was imprisoned and tortured during the Vietnam War is an interesting modern example. Boethius wrote an influential medieval work reconciling Christianity and Stoicism, called On The Consolations Of Philosophy. The problem comes down to what's captured by The Prayer For Serenity:

"God, grant me the serenity to accept the things I cannot change

the courage to change the things I can

and the wisdom to know the difference."

-attributed to Reinhold Niebuhr

Politically, 'staying quiet' about massacres and despotism is a bigger issue. The political mainstream in Japan ignore or even deny their nation's crimes in WW2, like the Rape of Nanjing. The politial mainstream in Turkey similarly deny the Armenian genocide. And the Russian government deny the Ukrainian Holodomor. This should be contrasted with Germany's acceptance of the Holocaust. The positions of other nations on these vary a lot, in line with their crimes, politics, or aims. Interestingly Qatar has a policy of talking to everyone, making them a broker between countries that refuse to have diplomatic relations.

When we look at whether to isolate or engage politically, we should also humbly hope to find the wisdom to know the difference.

CriglCragl
  • 19,444
  • 4
  • 23
  • 65
  • *Holodomor* is a politicized term - while the famine was real, it is not obvious that it was aimed specifically at Ukrainians as a nation (rather than the class enemies) or that it was not simply the result of mismanagement inherent in a centralized economy. Moreover, it was only one of [the several famines that befell the USSR between the revolution of 1917 and the war](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Droughts_and_famines_in_Russia_and_the_Soviet_Union) Also in [The black books of Communism](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Black_Book_of_Communism) – Roger Vadim Nov 23 '22 at 09:58
  • What I mean by my previous comment is that term *Holodomor* emphasizes the suffering of Ukrainians while *remaining quiet* about other victims of the same famine, as well as the communist-incurred famines in Russia itself - e.g., [the famine in the Volga region](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_famine_of_1921%E2%80%931922) – Roger Vadim Nov 23 '22 at 10:11
  • @RogerVadim: Just as for the Holocaust, there is indeed an elaborate system of denial, that Stalin committed genocide to subjugate Ukraine. I find it remarkable that people want to redeem Stalin like that, as I do Holocaust denial. Stalin used genocides systematically, unquestionably. The parallel to the Potato Famine, exporting food to quotas from a nation in famine, is striking. As I see it the moral duty of government is to save all citizens, & treating a governed region in crisis as suddenly the responsibility only of itself, is treating those citizens as more disposible - ie genocide – CriglCragl Nov 23 '22 at 15:14
  • Not clear what you are referring to when speaking about *denial* and *redeeming Stalin*. – Roger Vadim Nov 23 '22 at 16:09
0

I believe the first black American athletes that crossed the barrier into profession sports practiced a form of quietude by not discussing publically the racism they were experiencing. Instead they chose to let their excellence at their profession speak and it was successful.