Justifying Violence: Ideology, Morality, and State Power in Protest Movements and Counter-
Terrorism Efforts
Most perpetrators of violence are neither pathological nor self-interested but are
convinced that what they are doing is in the service of a higher moral good' (Fiske and Rai,
Virtuous Violence). This assertion by Steven Pinker challenges the common perception that
those who engage in violence are inherently immoral or acting solely out of self-interest. Instead,
it suggests that many perpetrators of violence believe their actions are justified by a higher moral
purpose. To examine this perspective, this essay will draw insights from two scholarly works that
explore the intersection of ideology, state power, and violence against marginalized groups: Lee
and Fu's cross-sectional attempt to understand internet usage by the people of South Korea and
Taiwan and protest politics, and Byler's historical review of Chinese state security's "war on
terror" and the subsequent exclusion of the Uyghurs. It is in these works that one finds important
suggestions concerning the ways the discursive construction of an ideology may serve to
naturalize violence perpetrated against the vulnerable and the ways state actors may justify
oppression through reference to 'the good'. Thus, thinking more critically about Pinker's
statement and employing it to better understand those cases, it is possible to critically examine
the interactions between morality on the one hand and ideology and violence on the other in
order to accomplish perceived higher moral purposes.
These two articles were chosen because they are the type of articles that show how state actors
and social movements can use violence in the name of the moral high ground. Lee and Fu (2019)
argue that the internet is an enabler of protest actions in both South Korea and Taiwan, which
explores the factors, such as ideological narratives, that can lead to protest and even violence.
This is especially the case with an article by Byler (2018) where the author looks at how the
Chinese state is able to justify certain forms of violence against the Uyghur people by
constructing it in terms of a 'war on terror'. Unfortunately, the understanding of the relationship
between morality, ideology, and violence cannot be comprehensive without look at these works
in line with Pinker's assertion.
Lee and Fu (2019) have analyzed the connection between internet use and protest politics to
showcase how internet platforms strengthen ideological discourses and enable organizations of
collective action, including violence. They elaborate examples of violence used by demonstrators
in South Korea and Taiwan, which can be violence against police, or property damage as part of
a larger socio-political protest. For instance, protests by the citizens against some labor reforms
in South Korea in 2016 involved throwing of objects and physical confrontation with the police
(Lee and Fu, 2019). While these acts of violence were criticized by many individuals, the
protesters considered them an acceptable end that was needed to be adopted in order to achieve
the worthy goal of protecting workers, which for the protesters was a supreme virtue.
Likewise, Lee and Fu (2019) talk about the Sunflower Student Movement which is a protest in
Taiwan that blockades the Legislative Yuan of Taiwan or the Taiwanese parliament to not agree
to a trade service agreement with China. While the occupation itself was not violent, some of the
activists later participated in to violent actions against the police force during demolition
exercises in an effort to disperse the occupation. The protesters justified their actions as a defense
of the Taiwanese sovereignty and democracy therefore portraying their fight as the fight of the
right against the wrong on the perception of the Chinese invasion (Lee and Fu, 2019).
In these cases, although the protesters might not have had a mentality that called for violence or
self-serving motives as key motivators, their actions were perceived to be driven by the belief
that the cause for their protest was justified and violence as a crucial tool towards achieving a
specific goal. They thought that they were part of a higher moral cause, whether it was for the
protection of worker's rights, for the preservation of democracy or for the sovereignty of their
nations.
The same can be said of Byler's (2018) ethnography of the state's counterterrorism efforts
targeting the Uyghur population in China, despite the research's sympathy with the state's point
of view. The official legalized Uyghur policy, witnessed by such measures as forced scanning of
individuals' biometrics, rounding up and detention of entire Uyghur families in internment
camps, and erasing their language and traditions from media and public spaces, is presented by
the Chinese government as its responsibility to maintain social order and counter terrorism. The
state has sought to depict the Uyghurs as a security menace, and in this context, counter-
terrorism has served as a rationale for violence against them and other rights abuses. Similarly,
referring to the Chinese government, Byler (2018) states that the approach adopted is that of
biopolitics, which encompasses the population as a threat to be eliminated and manipulated
under the pretext of fighting terrorism and other socio-political ills. This projection seeks to paint
the Uyghurs as a perverted reverse that needs to be tamed for the general wellbeing of society
and the country in question. This phase of control engenders and insists on the moral high
ground to detain the Uyghurs en masse in "re-education" camps where they are subjected to
forcible cultural assimilation, forced labor and other forms of exploitation (Byler, 2018).
As noted by Byler (2018), Chinese state has applied a biopolitical strategy that targets population
as potentially dangerous groups in need of regulation and control. The state constructed the
situation as one where the Uyghurs pose a threat to the society and hence needs to be controlled
in order to maintain the running of the society and unification of the nation. This rhetoric of
moral superiority has been used to justify the imprisonment of tens of thousands of Uyghur
Muslims in "re-education camps," where they are forced to renounce their Islamic beliefs and be
re-educated through force labor and other forms of brutality (Byler, 2018).
It is noteworthy though that the Chinese government in perpetrating crimes against the Uyghurs
is cloaked in a guise of fighting terrorism and maintaining social order as desirable ends. Thus,
the state has woven a discourse that portrays its violence against the Uyghur people as the only
appropriate and justified reaction to the real and imminent threat that the Uyghur individuals
pose.
These investigations show how the narratives of ideology can influence people's views regarding
morality, as well as justify the use of violence. As Lee and Fu (2019) state, protesters in south
Korea and Taiwan used violent means in the fight for what they believed to be justified, while
Byler (2018) explains how the Chinese state has enshrined the discourse of counter-terrorism to
paint its repression of Uyghurs as the moral action.
Pinker's argument that people who partake in violence have a mindset of righteousness achieves
a certain echelon of validation in these literatures. The protesters in South Korea and Taiwan, as
well as the Chinese state, have used violence mainly not because of their psychological disorders
or purely rational desire to gain instrumental power over their adversaries but because they
considered themselves to have moral right on their side and a mission to use force as a part of
ideological struggle. From defending workers, nation, or social order, these actors have
fashioned reasons that sustain violence as the right thing to do.
Yet, it is crucial to understand one crucial aspect here - the moral independence which motivates
a particular type of violent action can actually be misguided. Rather than presenting the violence
as fundamentally immoral, it is therefore important to understand how some actors can genuinely
perceive their conduct as a form of moral endeavor. In order to assess the legitimacy of their
assertions, the domestic human rights situations must be examined based on the following
respects of universally accepted human rights norms and ethical values.
For example, while the Chinese state proclaims it is making efforts to fight terrorism through
oppression of Uyghur Muslims, the systemic ethnic cleansing, forced signification, mass
arbitrary detention, and refusal of rights cannot be justified, no matter the political, social, or
cultural justification that people put forward. The state that the Uyghur region is a threat to
national security and counter-terrorism cannot offer any reasons to torture, forced labor,
separation of children from their parents (Byler, 2018). These actions are acts of ethnic
persecution and cultural genocide and infringe the sanctity of human life and other international
conventions that seek to protect the rights of minorities.
Similarly, even if protesters consider themselves to be justified due to the oppressiveness of their
cause, violence and the pain that it brings to innocent people has to considered in light of the
principles of non-violent protest and respect for human rights and dignity in any given society.
Although protesters in South Korea and Taiwan might have considered their actions to be actions
for moral reasons, the violence against police and property damaging is clearly unjustified as it
violates rights of other individuals. The reason being that civil disobedience and non-violent
resistance are far more effective as well as ethically justifiable strategies in the historical context.
Thus, the works discussed in this essay reveal aspects of morality, ideology and violence and
their rationalities. It is important to note that even when violence is perpetrated by those
perceived as heroes - the liberation fighters, anti-fascist protesters, those resisting oppression or a
perceived injustice - the template of violent action and the language that underlies them cannot
be left unexamined from ethical/moral standpoint. Instead, one has to reject the ideologies that
justify the use of violence and human rights' violations and embrace common rationality
accepting every individual's worth and the rights they are entitled to. These theoretical accounts
provide a basis for agreeing with Pinker about the fact that many violent subjects perform violent
acts out of the sense of moral duty, rather than pathologies or unadulterated self-interest, two
vignettes would illustrate: Lee and Fu (2019) explain how protesters committed violent acts as a
response of their perceived moral responsibility; Byler (2018) demonstrates how Chinese state
actors considered their violent actions as ethical pursuits.
Lee and Fu demonstrate how conflicted protest movements in South Korea and Taiwan are when
depicted through the ideological light of their respective nations (2019) and Byler shows how
China's 'war on terror' has lead the nation to justify violence against the Uyghur minority through
a narrative set on morality (2018). In the following analysis, it is relevant to comprehend that
what may seem moral or justified by certain action or perception is not necessarily moral or
ethically justified in the objective reality. Such claims can only be made when the reasoning
behind them is critically analyzed with reference to common-sense ethics, general ethical
principles, and basic principles of equal rights and justice. Thus, one can say that only through
the construction of subjectivities that actively participate in demystifying discourses of 'might is
right' and the regulation of the world through violent power, a more 'just' world that fosters the
desired universal values of respect for human dignity, non-violent existence, and the protection
of fundamental human rights becomes achievable.
