Please Stop Demonizing Militancy

"The rifle has revealed itself, but the lion has not."

The phenomenon of militancy is shrouded in controversy and misconception. Upon closer examination, the context in which militancy generates and emerges reveals a complex web of factors that contribute to its presence. The erosion of traditional ways of life, the global imposition of Western cultural values, broad economic disparity, social marginalization, and disruption of social norms can and often do all play a role in shaping the dynamics that sustain militancy. Engaging in armed struggle, militants are not only fulfilling social obligations to protect their people and preserve their culture, but they are also self-asserting a reconstituted subjectivity, a militant individuality, actualizing their unlimited potential as creative individuals, becoming unmoored from the mires of resentment, through action.

The militant individual is often one who has experienced either a strict limitation or a total denial of their individual subjectivity. This suspension can stem from a variety of sources, including: traumatic experiences, societal expectations, cultural norms, political regimes, and many more. In some cases, the sense of self of the militant is forged in opposition to historical realities and other definitive constraints, some or all of which may be imposed upon them non-consensually. This leads to deep-seated resentment and desire for resistance. The experience of external restraint can also be internalized, with individuals being socialized to conform to certain societal norms and expectations. The pressure to adhere to these norms can be overwhelming, leading to feelings of suffocation, and a desperation for change. The desire of the militant for self-affirmation, self-expression—for autopoiesis—becomes a means of reclamation, a means of asserting their desires, existence, and individuality.

In some cases, the experience of limitation can be particularly acute, like in situations where certain groups or communities are extremely marginalized and repressed. The sense of self of militant individuals might also be shaped by things like the struggle for simple recognition, or a chance at prosperity, as they seek to challenge the dominant culture and societal structures that attempt to silence and erase their voices.

The desire of the militant individual for autopoiesis and free expression is often driven by an intense sense of urgency, as they recognize that time is never in their favor in life, and that any opportunity to assert individuality is likely to be fleeting. This sense of urgency can manifest in a variety of ways, from spontaneous outbursts, to acts of civil disobedience, and even to more focused and deadly forms of violence.

Ultimately, the desire of the individual for self-expression and autopoiesis is an all-too-human desire, one that cannot ever be completely silenced or suppressed, and by extension the same can be said about militancy. It is at the barest a cry for recognition, a demand for dignity, a command to be heard and seen as an individual with potentiality and subjectivity, no matter how different or unique.

The desire of the individual for autopoiesis and self-expression, especially through armed conflict, is not only part of the personal journey and development of the militant individual, but a fundamental requirement for the survival and cohesion of the larger group. In many traditional and tribal communities, armed struggle and conflict are seen as a necessary means of maintaining and ensuring the well-being of all individual members of the community. Armed struggle serves as a way to resolve disputes, redistribute resources, and reconstitute social bonds. In many societies (especially those originating prior to the era of modern, mechanized, total war), warfare is not simply a brutal and destructive act, but rather a crucial mechanism for maintaining social harmony and equilibrium. It allows for the release of tensions and pent-up energies, and provides opportunities for individuals to distinguish themselves through bravery, skill, speed, and cunning, with those who demonstrate exceptional prowess in battle earning the favor and admiration of other individuals within their community. At times, armed struggle also serves as a way to define (or usurp) social roles and hierarchies within certain communities, by community members. Armed struggle is a means of creating shared experiences and memories which often end up binding communities together and sometimes even defining communities and their trajectories. The collective trauma and suffering inflicted during conflict can create a sense of solidarity and mutual understanding among individual members of a community, as they come together to mourn their loses and rebuild their lives. In this way, armed struggle can also be a catalyst for social cohesion, rather than only a destructive force and cycle of retribution that simply tears communities apart.

The militant individual is not merely an aberrant or deviant figure, not a "villain", but rather an unextinguishable component of the human social fabric. The desire for autonomy and self-expression is not a personal whim, nor a simple act of spite, but instead, sometimes a necessary condition for the survival and flourishing of a people.