The famous photograph of the monk is shocking. It was like nothing people had seen before. Quang Duc sits peacefully in the meditative lotus position as the flames engulf him. The image is so perplexing, so contrary to ideas of self-preservation that the audience has to stop and ask questions about what is happening.
and this
The self-immolation was a powerful act of psychological warfare. By being willing to make the ultimate sacrifice for his people, Quang Duc showed the strength and immovable will of the Buddhist community. A foe that isn’t afraid of a painful death cannot be bullied and cajoled into submission.
I read a couple other articles on the history of self immolation. There was a new yorker article that did a good job on being scepitcal of the practice. Was suprised to find out that there are a lot more cases of it that I expected. Then again, the handful of cases where it had the intended effect were so successful that it makes sense that others would do the same hoping to get the same reaction (the Tibetan monks, the Arab Spring, etc)
But it definitely seems fair to say it doesn’t pack the punch it used to. Which might be good reason to choose other actions.
the handful of cases where it had the intended effect were so successful that it makes sense that others would do the same hoping to get the same reaction (the Tibetan monks, the Arab Spring, etc)
There’s no way to objectively determine if self immolation is “effective”. Take Tibet, yes it’s a famous photograph, but did it free Tibet? Was the monks goal to become a famous image, or was it to end the cultural genocide?
What about the Arab spring? Was that man’s goal to kick off a movement that would eventually destabilize the entire region, leading to more autocratic governments securing power?
Is self immolation a powerful act? Yes, but power without direction is meaningless. Real change requires collective action, not independent acts of “psychological warfare”.
https://historynewsnetwork.org/article/180606
There are a few line in this I really like
and this
I read a couple other articles on the history of self immolation. There was a new yorker article that did a good job on being scepitcal of the practice. Was suprised to find out that there are a lot more cases of it that I expected. Then again, the handful of cases where it had the intended effect were so successful that it makes sense that others would do the same hoping to get the same reaction (the Tibetan monks, the Arab Spring, etc)
But it definitely seems fair to say it doesn’t pack the punch it used to. Which might be good reason to choose other actions.
There’s no way to objectively determine if self immolation is “effective”. Take Tibet, yes it’s a famous photograph, but did it free Tibet? Was the monks goal to become a famous image, or was it to end the cultural genocide?
What about the Arab spring? Was that man’s goal to kick off a movement that would eventually destabilize the entire region, leading to more autocratic governments securing power?
Is self immolation a powerful act? Yes, but power without direction is meaningless. Real change requires collective action, not independent acts of “psychological warfare”.