Reflections on Peace through Nonviolence

This is actually a paper I wrote for my Peace Paradigms class in response to our study of Nonviolence.  It is a bit lengthy, but I thought it would be a good way to share a little of what I'm thinking about with regard to my studies, while using something that is already written :-)

As a sidenote: I have gotten a few emails asking about Miami and my Monday video.  Blogs are coming, I promise!  So stay tuned...

I consider myself a pacifist.  I did not grow up questioning the legitimacy of war, but spent a significant portion of my undergraduate years grappling with the issues of war, peace, and justice in light of national interest, global interest, and my faith.  Though unanswered questions certainly remain and situations arise to which I do not have ready nonviolent solutions, I came to regard war and violence as unacceptable means by which to pursue one’s objectives—no matter how noble.  Like Ursula Franklin, I see violence as resourcelessness, and believe that when you start from the assumption that violence is unacceptable, a nonviolent solution will eventually be found.  In fact, I believe it is essential to start from the assumption that violence is not an option; otherwise, when faced with a seemingly insurmountable impasse in conflict, one might resort to violence before sufficient energy has been devoted to finding a creative solution.  Obviously, coming from this perspective, nonviolent movements are of particular interest to me as a method for resolving conflict.

The process of doing the readings and preparing a presentation on nonviolent resistance forced me to re-examine many of the questions I had grappled with before.  How viable is nonviolence in the face of what Gene Sharp calls the “hard cases” like genocide and brutal dictators?  Is it ever acceptable to use violence to end violence in these situations?  Is it true that, as Gandhi believed, it is better to act violently in the face of injustice than to not act at all?  Sharp contends that nonviolence is a realistic alternative to violence in these situations.  That, when injustice has occurred, nonviolent resistance is actually more appropriate than negotiation because brutal dictators do not deserve to “win” anything.  I agree, but it is still difficult for me to imagine how exactly nonviolent resistance could be effectively employed in a situation like the current one in Darfur or the genocide in Rwanda or the Holocaust.  When it is the intention of one group to destroy another group, would nonviolent response not just make it easier to accomplish that goal?  Is it possible that force or threats of force are the only ways to put an end to such unbridled violent destruction?  I certainly believe we have a responsibility to act early to prevent genocide and outbreaks of violence in response to injustice, but once the killing has begun, how do we stop it without resorting to more killing?

I do not have ready answers to these questions, but I want to believe Sharp is right and nonviolent action is a realistic alternative.  I appreciate his description of what he calls “political jiu-jitsu.”  When a group steps outside the box, outside the repetitive cycle of combating violence with more violence, it creates a special asymmetrical conflict dynamic.  Nonviolent response to violence reveals the power of nonviolence and the hidden weakness of violence.  I think it is possible we (and I do include myself in this “we”) are skeptical about the power of nonviolence because it is not often enough engaged, and therefore, the asymmetrical conflict dynamic is not often enough observed.  In the face of extreme violence, people understandably tend to resort to violence to protect themselves and others.  But if we took violence off the table as an option, if it were truly an unacceptable response even in the face of such extreme violence, I wonder what creative solutions humankind would develop.  I wonder if we would begin to see more widely the power of nonviolent resistance to throw the opponent off balance even in the “hard cases.” 

Nonviolent response to violence is also powerful in the way it affects observers.  Last weekend I attended a Skills Institute on nonviolent resistance to the Israeli occupation of the West Bank and Gaza strip.  We watched videos of Palestinian nonviolent resisters, and I was struck by the vast power differential I observed.  On one side, there were peaceful, unarmed Palestinian demonstrators; on the other side, Israeli Defense Forces in uniform with helmets and machine guns.  The contrast made the vast resources and power of the IDF look ridiculous and unnecessary.  I felt like as an Israeli, I would have been embarrassed by what appeared to be such unwarranted displays of strength against a powerless opponent.  The use of nonviolence on the part of Palestinians made it much easier to sympathize with the Palestinian cause.

In this way, nonviolence often succeeds in giving resisters a moral high ground, and is therefore more effective in garnering international support.  When a group uses violence to obtain its objectives, the resistance is much easier for outsiders to ignore, regardless of the justice of its cause.  In a fight of violence versus violence, the distinction between oppressed and oppressor is often unclear to the observer.  When violence is employed, it is more likely that injustices are perpetrated by both groups, making an outsider less willing to side with one over another.  However, nonviolent response creates a clearer distinction between the two adversaries.  When one group at least has the appearance of innocence, the international community is much more likely to lend its support.   

Martin Luther King, Jr. called his activism “creative extremism.”  I appreciate the fact that nonviolent resistance requires imagination and creativity.  Perhaps it can be argued that there are creative ways to perpetrate violence, but generally, I think there is very little imagination required in picking up a gun and shooting or throwing a punch.  However, when violence is not an option in achieving one’s goals, it is amazing how many other ingenious options emerge.  Gene Sharp lists 198 methods of nonviolence in his Appendix to There Are Realistic Alternatives.  198!  And as we discussed in class, there are people like Saul Alinksky who have thought much further outside the box than Sharp.  Boycotts, strikes, sit-ins, marches, chaining oneself to trees, mock funerals, refusal to pay taxes, dirty protests during which people refuse to bathe—the possibilities for nonviolent protest do seem to be endless.  It is incredible what creativity is unleashed in the human mind when there is a refusal to engage in violence.

Unfortunately, nonviolence, even in my own mind, often carries with it connotations of passivity and submission, from which it derives much of its criticism.  The readings, however, emphasized the concept of nonviolent action.  According to Gandhi and King, nonviolence is anything but inactive.  Passivity and submission in the face of injustice and oppression are absolutely unacceptable.  These perspectives helped me reframe nonviolent resistance in this active light, as a response that requires intense organization, energy, and preparation.  I was surprised to find that much of King’s Letter From Birmingham Jail is a response to criticisms that his demonstrations were too bold, too extreme.  A far cry from the criticisms I am used to hearing about nonviolence being too passive a response to injustice. 

I began to understand that nonviolent action is actually a form of coercion, a concept I had not previously considered.  While mediation and other conflict resolution methods seek to find mutually acceptable agreements, nonviolent action seeks generally to coerce the opponent to accept the activists’ demands.  There does not tend to be dialogue or discussion of emotions, perceptions, and underlying interests; restoration of relationship and reconciliation are not usually goals of nonviolent action.  Whereas the goal of a problem-solving workshop might be to develop a creative solution that addresses all parties’ interests, the goal of nonviolent resistance is generally to “win”; through either conversion, accommodation, coercion, or disintegration, nonviolent actors try to defeat their opponents. 

My realization of its coercive nature brought clarity to the difference in approach between nonviolent direct action and more cooperative methods like Interactive Conflict Resolution.  This served to reinforce my desire to be a practitioner of the latter.  While I fully support nonviolent resistance movements, highly respect nonviolent activists, and believe they are both invaluable and necessary to the pursuit of peace and justice, I am more interested in addressing root causes of conflict and seeking mutual understanding and reconciliation between parties, which is generally not the primary goal of nonviolent action.  Nonviolent movements are peaceful in that they refrain from physical violence, but they are still combative and position parties as adversaries.  I believe in their power and efficacy, but I prefer to focus professionally on methods that emphasize cooperation and collaboration between conflicting parties.

However, principled nonviolence—or nonviolence as a lifestyle or article of faith, not just a strategy of resistance—is still an essential component my personal philosophy of peace.  I believe, with Gandhi and King, that nonviolence goes beyond simply not doing harm to actually doing good, even to one’s enemy.  Like Catharine Marshall, I believe that nonviolence involves employing an attitude that respects the humanity in all, even the opponent.  For me, this is a principle I must cling to, regardless of its ultimate effectiveness in achieving specific objectives.

When a person claims to be non-violent, he is expected not to be angry with one who has injured him.  He will not wish him harm; he will wish him well; he will not swear at him; he will not cause him any physical hurt.  He will put up with all the injury to which he is subjected by the wrong-doer.  Thus non-violence is complete innocence.  Complete non-violence is complete absence of ill-will against all that lives.   Non-violence [of the strong] is therefore in its active form good will towards all life.  It is pure Love (Gandhi, 1936).