nonviolence : an introduction

8/11/2019 Nonviolence : An Introduction

1/33

Contents

1. Introduction

2. Reasons for Nonviolence

3. Types of Nonviolence

4. What is Nonviolent Action?

T1. Types of Nonviolence

T2. The Major Dimensions5. Nonviolent Action in Australia

6. Are Means Separate from Ends?

7. Ideological Nonviolence

8. Structural Analysis -Understanding Hidden Violence

9. The Dynamics of Nonviolence

10. Nonviolence and Human Unity

11. Conclusion

A1. Further ReadingPrinter Friendly Version

Nonviolence: An Introduction

Thomas Weber and Robert J. Burrowes

1. Introduction

" People try nonviolence for a week, and when it'doesn't work' they go back to violence, whichhasn't worked for centuries. "

-Theodore Roszak

In recent years there has been a dramatic increase in thenumber of people around the world who have taken part innonviolent political action. It is clear, however, that there isconsiderable debate about the precise meaning of nonviolence. For some, nonviolent action is an expedienttechnique for dealing with conflict or bringing about socialchange; for others, nonviolence is a moral imperative or even a way of life.

Back to top2. Reasons for Nonviolence

At first glance, violence may appear to be a superior technique for resolving conflicts or achieving desired ends

because it has obvious and tangible strategies and weapons. Nonviolent techniques are often more difficult to visualiseand there is no shortage of moral and practical dilemmas

Nonviolence : An Introduction http://www.nonviolenceinternational.net/seasia/whatis/book.php

of 33 11/15/13 8:13 A


2/33

that sceptics are able to raise as impediments to takingnonviolence seriously.

Yet many reasons can be offered for the employment of nonviolence: it is a 'weapon' available to all, it is least likelyto alienate opponents and third parties, it breaks the cycle of violence and counter-violence. it leaves open the possibilityof conversion, it ensures that the media focus on the issue athand rather than some tangential act of violence and it is thesurest way of achieving public sympathy. Further, it is morelikely to produce a constructive rather than a destructiveoutcome, it is a method of conflict resolution that may aimto arrive at the truth of a given situation (rather than merevictory for one side) and it is the only method of strugglethat is consistent with the teachings of the major religions.

In addition there are reasons for the employment of

nonviolence that go beyond the conviction that is a useful,or even the only 'correct' method of conflict resolution.

Nonviolence can also he the basis for a way of life: it isconsistent with a belief in the underlying unity of humankind and it is the only method of action, interpersonalor political, that does not block that path to what has often

been called 'self-realisation'.

Back to top3. Types of Nonviolence

'Nonviolence' is an umbrella term for describing a range of methods for dealing with conflict which share the common

principle that physical violence, at least against other people, is not used. Gene Sharp, the best known writer onnonviolent action, has compiled the most comprehensivetypology of nonviolence; a summary is given in Table 1 .

While this typology illustrates the various approaches tononviolence, the criteria which underpin them are still notclear. These criteria may be identified by examining the twomajor dimensions of nonviolent action.

The first dimension (the tactical-strategic ) indicates thedepth of analysis, the ultimate aim and the operationaltime-frame which activists use. The second dimension (the

pragmatic-ideological ) indicates the nature of thecommitment to nonviolence and the approach to conflictwhich activists utilise: this includes the importance attached


of 33 11/15/13 8:13 A


3/33


4/33

probably the best recent example of the strategic-pragmaticcategory. And many of Gandhi's campaigns (including theSalt Satyagraha) were clearly in the strategic-ideologicalcategory.

The commitment of individual activists and the nature of particular campaigns can also be illustrated graphicallyaccording to the strength of their standing in relation to eachof the criteria identified on the matrix in Figure 1. Theymay be located in any quadrant on the matrix, near to or far from a particular axis, and at various distances from theorigin.

This article will now examine the use of tactical and pragmatic nonviolence and consider the importantrelationship between means and ends. We will then examinevarious Christian justifications for nonviolent action as well

as Gandhi's conception of it; these traditions provide muchof the theoretical basis for ideological (or creed-based)nonviolent activism. This article will then discuss thestructural analysis important to an understanding of thestrategic use of nonviolent action. It will conclude with anexamination of the dynamics of ideological nonviolence andan analysis of the most fundamental reason for adherence toit, that is, as the basis for a way of life.

Back to top3. What is Nonviolent Action?

Nonviolent action is a technique by which peoplewho reject passivity and submission, and who seestruggle as essential, can wage their conflict withoutviolence. Nonviolent action is not an attempt toavoid or ignore conflict. It is one response to theproblem of how to act effectively in politics,especially how to wield powers effectively.

(Sharp, 1973, p. 64)

It consists of acts of protest and persuasion, noncooperationand nonviolent intervention designed to undermine thesources of power of the opponent in order to bring aboutchange.

Nonviolent protest and persuasion is a class of methods


of 33 11/15/13 8:13 A


5/33

which are 'mainly symbolic acts of peaceful opposition or of attempted persuasion, extending beyond verbalexpressions'. These methods include marches, vigils,

pickets, the use of posters, street theatre, painting and protest meetings.

Noncooperation - the most common form of nonviolentaction - involves the deliberate withdrawal of cooperationwith the person, activity, institution or regime with whichthe activists have become engaged in conflict. Thesemethods include the provision of sanctuary (social); strikes,

boycotts and war tax resistance (economic) and boycotts of legislative bodies and elections (political). Politicalnoncooperation also includes acts of civil disobedience - the'deliberate, open and peaceful violation of particular laws,decrees, regulations ... and the like which are believed to beillegitimate for some reason'.

Nonviolent intervention is a class of methods involving thedisruption or destruction of established behaviour patterns,

policies, relationships or institutions which are consideredobjectionable, or the creation of new behaviour patterns,

policies, relationships or institutions which are preferred.The disruption class of methods includes nonviolentoccupations or blockades, fasting, seeking imprisonmentand overloading facilities (such as courts and prisons). Thecreation class of methods includes establishing alternative

political, economic and social institutions such asnon-hierarchical cooperatives, markets, ethical investmentgroups, alternative schools, energy exchange cooperativesas well as parallel media, communications and transportnetworks. This last class of methods is what the Gandhianliterature refers to as the constructive program. (Sharp,1973, pp. 109-445).

Back to topTable 1. Types of Nonviolence

Non-resistance

Non-resistants reject all physicalviolence on principle andconcentrate on maintaining their own integrity, e.g. the attitude of the Amish and Mennonite sectsof Christians.


of 33 11/15/13 8:13 A


6/33

Active Reconciliation

A Faith-based rejection of coercion and a belief in activegoodwill and reconciliation, for example as practiced byQuakers and other religiousactivist groups.

Moral Resistance

Moral resisters actively resistevil with peaceful and moralmeans such as education and

persuasion. This has been the basis of much of Western pacifism.

Selective NonviolenceThe refusal to participate in

particular wars or kinds of war,e.g. nuclear war.

Passive Resistance

Nonviolent tactics are employed because the means for aneffective violent campaign arelacking or are not likely tosucceed; e.g. most strikes,

boycotts and nationalnon-cooperation movements

belong to this category.

Peaceful Resistance

Peaceful resisters believe that

nonviolent methods are moreeffective; e.g. some of Gandhi'scampaigns fall into this category

because many of his followersdid not fully internalise what hetaught.

Nonviolent Direct Action

Practitioners may viewnonviolence as a moral principleor practical method. The objectis victory rather than conversion.

An example is provided by theGreenham Common actions.

Gandhian Nonviolence(Satyagraha)

Satyagraha aims to attain thetruth tnrough love and rightaction; it demands theelimination of violence from the


of 33 11/15/13 8:13 A


7/33

self and from the social, politicaland economic environment.Gandhi's Salt Satyagraha is aclassic example.

Nonviolent Revolution

Revolutionaries believe in the

need for basic individual andsocial change and regard themajor problems of existingsociety as structural, e.g. thecampaigns of Jayaprakash

Narayan and Vinoba Bhave inIndia.

(Sharp, 1971, pp. 29-54)

Back to topTable 2. The Major Dimensions

The Tactical-Strategic Dimension

CriterionTactical

NonviolenceStrategic

Nonviolence

Analysis of SocialFramework

Conservative Structural

Aim Reform Revolution

OperationalTimeframe

Short/MediumTerm

Long Term

The Pragmatic-Ideological Dimension

CriterionPragmatic

NonviolenceIdeological

Nonviolence

Nature of Commitment

Most Effective Ethically Best

Means and Ends Separate Indivisible

Approach toConflice

IncompatibleInterests

Shared Interests

Approach toOpponent

Competitive Cooperative


of 33 11/15/13 8:13 A


8/33

Back to top5. Nonviolent Action in Australia: Tactical AndPragmatic

When groups engage in political action, nonviolence is

often chosen as the means for securing the ends sought. It isseen as an effective means of coercing concessions from theopponent. Pragmatic nonviolence is more concerned withthe potential of individuals to realise their own power, inorder to alter power relationships. than with concerns aboutthe arrival at 'truth'. Nonviolent action may be chosen

because no other 'weapons' or levers of power are available,or because it is deemed to be the most effective means inthe circumstances, even if other weapons are available.

In Australia, as elsewhere, even minor disturbances at

demonstrations tend to become the focus of the attention of the news media, often to the exclusion of any meaningfuldiscussion about the original reasons for the protest.Therefore, it is argued, the surest way to garner publicsupport for the real issues is to remain nonviolent,especially in the face of State repression.

The Franklin River Campaign

The most notable campaign in recent years which utilisednonviolent action in the tactical-pragmatic sense was the

Franklin River campaign. The decision to conductnonviolent actions at various locations adjacent to the

proposed Gordon River dam site and in the major cities of Australia reflected the realisation by the (then) TasmanianWilderness Society that lobbying the Tasmanian andFederal Governments was not proving effective. It wasdecided to use various nonviolent actions, and most notablythe blockade on the Gordon River (of which the Franklin isa tributary), in order to raise awareness of the issue and to

put more pressure on the federal parliamentary parties in therunup to the federal election in 1983. In effect, nonviolentaction was seen as the most effective means of coercingconcessions from the Government.

In this campaign there were many different perspectives onthe meamng of nonviolent action (among activists located atthe base camps and up river) reflecting the usual diversityof views regarding such issues as secrecy and sabotage.


of 33 11/15/13 8:13 A


9/33

Despite these differences there was a broad understandingthat the purpose of the campaign was to pressure the

parliamentary parties to 'save the Frankin'. Campaigndirection and activist effort was focussed on this short-termgoal. Even so, it should be noted, some longer term issueswere raised by such factors as the emergent community

appreciation of wilderness, and, in the context of the blockade itself, the utility of mass arrest as a nonviolenttactic. In the end, the dam was stopped following theelection of a new government and a High Court decision.

Other Campaigns

Other campaigns, both before and after the Franklin, havealso utilised a tactical-pragmatic approach to nonviolentaction. The well known campaigns of recent years includethe anti-Vietnam war movement; the civil liberties struggle

in Queensland; the women's ANZAC Day actions; variousforest campaigns such as those to save the Daintree, theforests of New South Wales and East Gippsland; theuranium actions in South Australia and the NorthernTerritory; the Animal Liberation duck rescue teams; thecampaigns against the US bases (Pine Gap, North WestCape and Nurrungar); the 'Don't Celebrate 1988' campaignin the year of Australia's white bicentenary; the campaignsagainst visiting nuclear warships and various campaigns byworkers for improved conditions. In addition however, therehave been many nonviolent actions conducted throughoutAustralia's history by Kooris (Aborigines), women,workers, students and local community action groups. Ineach of these campaigns, the choice of nonviolent actionhas usually been a direct response to the failure of moreconventional means, such as lobbying.

Sabotage, Secrecy, and Relations with the Police

Some pragmatic exponents of nonviolent action consider itcounterproductive to be bound by particular principles; thisis most clearly evident in the divergent attitudes towards

sabotage, secrecy and relations with the police.

Some groups limit their nonviolence to other humans, believing that sabotage or the destruction of equipment is justifiable. This may be the case, for instance, when there isa great desire to bring an issue to public notice. At the

Nurrungar actions in 1989. for example, many activists


of 33 11/15/13 8:13 A


10/33

were willing to cut fences, some were willing to damage themain installation and some were willing to damage police

property.

Many activists argue that there is no time left to be overlyconcerned about principles in the battle to save what is leftof a ravaged environment. A practice known as'monkeywrenching' (deliberate acts of sabotage directedagainst machines and tools) has emerged as a response tothis belief. There is heated debate within nonviolencecircles about the legitimacy of this form of action. Thoseadhering to nonviolence out of ideological commitment ruleit out, while others may consider spiking trees, cutting

powerlines and damaging logging machinery as legitimate,as merely 'self-defence of the wild'. During the campaign tosave the South East Forests of New South Wales, someactivists deliberately damaged bulldozers and other logging

equipment particularly during those periods in 1989-1990when there were few activists available for 'forest actions'.

For many activists, secrecy is a valuable tool and they maydesign actions which rely on secrecy for success. During theFranklin campaign in 1982-1983, secrecy made it possiblefor activists to 'surprise' timber workers in relativelyinaccessible parts of the forest in order to delay their work.During the Daintree campaign in 1983-1984, some activistswere able to bury themselves neck-deep prior to the arrivalof workers and the police; this provided strong mediaimages and demonstrated high levels of commitment.

Other campaigns have renounced secrecy either wholly or in part. For the six months from 26 January to 20 July 1972Kooris defiantly maintained an Aboriginal Tent Embassy onthe lawn opposite Parliament House in Canberra. During thewomens actions at Pine Gap in November 1983. all

planning was done in large group meetings next to the base.During the mass actions in the South East Forests in 1989,most details were given to the police. And during the East

Gippsland National Estate forest campaign in early 1990,the police were fully informed. In these cases, actions weredesigned which did not rely on secrecy for their success andwhich put considerable emphasis on involving all activistsin decision making and, in the last case particularly, on

building relationships with individual police. This approachentails the belief that open defiance and a compellinginvitation to dialogue are neceesary components of any


0 of 33 11/15/13 8:13 A


11/33

solution to shared problems.

Many activists, however, are unconcerned about their relationship with the police; they simply regard them as theState's most immediate agents of repression. This view wasstrongly held by some activists at Nurrungar and at variousforest, uranium and nuclear warship actions conductedduring the past decade. For some activists, publicconfrontation with the police is an important part of theaction. At Nurrungar, this culminated in the use of armytroops against the activists, which, in turn, resulted in publicdisquiet and heavy media coverage of the army presence.

In contrast, other activists with a tactical committment tononviolence have deliberately cultivated their relationshipwith the police (for various reasons) and considered this to

be a valuable aspect of their campaign. The various Animal

Liberation duck rescue teams and the East Gippslandcampaign in 1990 are clear examples of this approach.

Back to top6. Are Means Separate from Ends?

Some political activists believe that the ends achieved will justify any means. They dismiss the nonviolence of thosewho place a strong emphasis on the purity of means asmerely 'symbolic' while defining their own actions as 'real'.In the words of Pelton, what they attempt to do is to"proclaim that all "means-and-end-moralists" are strangersto the world of action and are passive non-doers" (Pelton,1974, p. 252). Not only is this not the case, it also ignoressome of the important philosophical issues involved in anyconsideration of the relative importance of means to ends.


1 of 33 11/15/13 8:13 A


12/33

Some activists recognise that nonviolence may well proveto be the best means for achieving the ends sought. Otherssee nonviolence in certain contexts as simply a method of last resort. American social activist Saul Alinsky, has evengone so far as to claim the following:

If Gandhi had had weapons ... andthe people to use them this means

would not have been sounreservedly rejected as the

world would like to think ... Ifhe had had guns he might wellhave used them in an armedrevolution against the Bntish

which would have been in keeping with the traditions of

revolutions for freedom throughforce. Gandhi did not have theguns and if he had had the gunshe would not have had the peopleto use the guns.

(Alinsky, 1972, pp. 39, 38)

Alinsky sums up his dismissal of ideological nonviolence by noting that "Means and ends are so qualitativelyinterrelated that the true question has never been the

proverbial one, "Does the End justify the Means?" butalways has been "Does this particular end justify this

particular means?"" (Alinsky, 1972, p. 47).

But Alinsky overlooked the fact that the ends Gandhisought were far more ambitious than merely freeing Indiafrom British domination and potentially exchanging whiteexploiters for indigenous ones. Gandhi's aim was to bringabout a peaceful and just society, a new India and a newIndian.

nonviolence : an introduction

Documents