18,99 €
Mehr erfahren.
- Herausgeber: John Wiley & Sons
- Kategorie: Geisteswissenschaft
- Sprache: Englisch
The use of nonviolent action is on the rise. From the Occupy Movement to the Arab Spring and mass protests on the streets of Brazil, activists across the world are increasingly using unarmed tactics to challenge oppressive, corrupt and unjust systems. But what exactly do we mean by nonviolence? How is it deployed and to what effect? Do nonviolent campaigns with political motivations differ from those driven by primarily economic concerns? What are the limits and opportunities for activists engaging in nonviolent action today? Is the growing number of nonviolence protests indicative of a new type of twenty-first century struggle or is it simply a passing trend? Understanding Nonviolence: Contours and Contexts is the first book to offer a comprehensive introduction to nonviolence in theory and practice. Combining insightful analysis of key theoretical debates with fresh perspectives on contemporary and historical case studies, it explores the varied approaches, aims, and trajectories of nonviolent campaigns from Gandhi to the present day. With cutting-edge contributions from leading scholars and practitioners in the field, this accessible and lively book will be essential reading for activists, students and teachers of contentious politics, international security, and peace and conflict studies.
Sie lesen das E-Book in den Legimi-Apps auf:
Seitenzahl: 491
Veröffentlichungsjahr: 2015
Ähnliche
CONTENTS
Cover
Title Page
Copyright
Contributors
Acknowledgements
Part I Foundations
1 Introduction: Maia Carter Hallward and Julie M. Norman
Challenges in defining nonviolence
Why nonviolence?
Outline of the book
Suggestions for further reading and research
Notes
2 Understanding Nonviolence: Maia Carter Hallward and Julie M. Norman
History of nonviolence
Debates in the field
Measuring “success”
New frontiers in studying nonviolence
Questions for discussion
Suggestions for further reading and research
Notes
Part II Contours
3 Spiritual and Religious Approaches to Nonviolence: Mohammed Abu-Nimer
Common assumptions regarding principled nonviolence
Religion and nonviolence
Principled and pragmatic approaches
Dynamics of principled nonviolence
Religion and nonviolent resistance in the 2011 Arab uprisings
Arab nonviolent movements are not based on a “principled approach”
Conclusion
Questions for discussion
Suggestions for further reading and research
Notes
4 Tactical and Strategic Approaches to Nonviolence: Howard Clark
Pragmatism and principle
Pragmatism: Beneath the radar
Chile
Kosovo
Dealing with violence
Conclusion: movements that learn
Questions for discussion
Suggestions for further reading and research
Notes
5 Questions of Strategy: Stephen Zunes
Anti-imperialist struggles
Strategies, tactics, and dynamics of strategic nonviolent resistance
South Africa and the struggle against apartheid
Western Sahara and the struggle for self-determination
Strengths and limitations of nonviolence
Conclusion
Questions for discussion
Suggestions for further reading and research
Notes
6 New Media and Advocacy: Srdja Popovic and Marcella Alvarez
Foundation: how the rules of communication changed
Winning the crowd: the online logistics of nonviolent revolution
Keeping the core: the bonds technology cannot replace
“We speak for ourselves!”: the new power of public scrutiny
Web trappers and great firewalls: how the autocrats adapted
… And knowledge for all: self-teaching revolution
Clicktivism: the dangers of online activism
Media of our time: new means to the same ends
Questions for discussion
Suggestions for further reading and research
Notes
Part III Contexts
7 Civil Rights and Domestic Policy: Amanda D. Clark and Patrick G. Coy
Background
Actors and forms of power
The stages of nonviolent conflict
Outcomes
Conclusion
Questions for discussion
Suggestions for further reading and research
Notes
8 Revolutions and Democratic Transitions: Maciej J. Bartkowski
Structure-centered accounts of revolutions
Agency of popular revolutions
Why people choose nonviolent means to wage their revolutions
Effectiveness and success of revolutions propelled by civil resistance
How nonviolent struggles for recognition are won
Civil resistance in democratic transitions
Conclusion
Questions for discussion
Suggestions for further reading and research
Notes
9 Rural Movements and Economic Policy: Kurt Schock
Labor: The United Farm Workers movement
Land: The Landless Rural Workers Movement (MST)
Economic policy: the Assembly of the Poor
Conclusion
Questions for discussion
Suggestions for further reading and research
Notes
10 Transnational Movements and Global Civil Society: Peter (Jay) Smith
The rise of transnational movements, digital technologies and the network organization
Nonviolence and prefigurative politics
Violence versus nonviolence: the early years of the GJM
Seattle as a transnational event
The development of the WSF
La Via Campesina: transnational participation in the GSM
Successes and challenges of the Global Justice Movement
Conclusion
Questions for discussion
Suggestions for further reading and research
Notes
11 Future Directions: Julie M. Norman and Maia Carter Hallward
Approaches, tactics, and trends
Applications, issues, and trajectories
Insights
Looking ahead
Notes
References and Bibliography
Index
End User License Agreement
Tables
1.1 The boundaries of nonviolent action and conventional politics
2.1 Examples and types of nonviolent action and conventional politics
Figures
6.1 Otpor! printed pamphlet distributed in Belgrade, Serbia, 2000
7.1 Nashville student sit-in movement timeline
7.2 The pillars of support of the Nashville nonviolent movement
7.3 Curle’s conflict progression model
Boxes
2.1 Defining success in the Egyptian revolution
3.1 The Syrian Gandhi
4.1 Context specificity
4.2 Laying the foundations: Gandhi’s campaigns of “constructive work”
5.1 The Black Consciousness movement and the question of violence
5.2 Occupying a piece of desert
6.1 Bosnia’s #JMBG movement
6.2 Fundraising through social media
7.1 Self-discipline in the Nashville sit-ins
8.1 Basque cooperatives as alternative institutions
8.2 Actions to highlight absurdities
9.1 Land occupation
10.1 The Zapatista movement and transnational organizing
10.2 Liberation theology
Guide
Cover
Contents
Begin Reading
Print Page Numbers
viii
ix
x
xi
xii
1
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
37
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
123
124
125
126
127
128
129
130
131
132
133
134
135
136
137
138
139
140
141
142
143
144
145
146
147
148
149
150
151
152
153
154
155
156
157
158
159
160
161
162
163
164
165
166
167
168
169
170
171
172
173
174
175
176
177
178
179
180
181
182
183
184
185
186
187
188
189
190
191
192
193
194
195
196
197
198
199
200
201
202
203
204
205
206
207
208
209
210
211
212
213
222
223
224
225
226
227
228
229
230
231
232
233
234
235
236
237
238
239
240
241
242
243
244
245
246
247
248
249
250
251
252
Understanding Nonviolence:
Contours and Contexts
MAIA CARTER HALLWARD AND JULIE M. NORMAN
polity
Copyright © Maia Carter Hallward and Julie Norman 2015
The right of Maia Carter Hallward and Julie Norman to be identified as Authors of this Work has been asserted in accordance with the UK Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988.
First published in 2015 by Polity Press
Polity Press65 Bridge StreetCambridge CB2 1UR, UK
Polity Press350 Main StreetMalden, MA 02148, USA
All rights reserved. Except for the quotation of short passages for the purpose of criticism and review, no part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted, in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording or otherwise, without the prior permission of the publisher.
ISBN-13: 978-1-5095-0281-3
A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library.
Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data
Understanding nonviolence : contours and contexts / [edited by] Maia Carter Hallward, Julie Norman.
pages cm
Includes bibliographical references and index.
ISBN 978-0-7456-8016-3 (hardback : alk. paper) – ISBN 978-0-7456-8017-0 (pbk. : alk. paper) 1. Nonviolence. 2. Social movements. I. Hallward, Maia Carter, 1976- II. Norman, Julie M.
HM1281.U53 2014
303.6’1–dc23
2014017345
The publisher has used its best endeavours to ensure that the URLs for external websites referred to in this book are correct and active at the time of going to press. However, the publisher has no responsibility for the websites and can make no guarantee that a site will remain live or that the content is or will remain appropriate.
Every effort has been made to trace all copyright holders, but if any have been inadvertently overlooked the publisher will be pleased to include any necessary credits in any subsequent reprint or edition.
For further information on Polity, visit our website: politybooks.com
Contributors
Mohammed Abu-Nimer is an Associate Professor of International Peace and Conflict Resolution at the School of International Service, American University. He is the director of the Center for Peacebuilding and Development. Dr Abu-Nimer has worked for over a decade on Arab–Israeli dialogue and peacebuilding efforts, the application of conflict resolution models in Muslim communities, inter-religious conflict resolution training, interfaith dialogue, and evaluation of conflict resolution programs. He has conducted numerous evaluations of peacebuilding projects, including, most recently, an assessment report on Islamic education in Niger and Chad. Dr Abu-Nimer is the co-founder and co-editor of the Journal of Peacebuilding and Development. He holds a PhD in conflict analysis and resolution from George Mason University.
Marcella Alvarez is Program Officer at the Centre for Applied Nonviolent Action and Strategies. She is the co-author of Making Oppression Backfire and helps to organize workshops with nonviolent resistance activists as well as working on CANVAS’s academic program and publications. She lives in Belgrade, Serbia.
Maciej J. Bartkowski, PhD, is an Adjunct Professor at Johns Hopkins University, Krieger School, where he teaches strategic nonviolent resistance. He has taught seminars and spoken about strategic nonviolent conflict, movement mobilization, and civil resistance at various academic institutions and policy forums around the world. He has recently completed an edited volume, Recovering Nonviolent History: Civil Resistance in Liberation Struggles (www.recoveringnonviolenthistory.org), published by Lynne Rienner in 2013.
Amanda D. Clark is a PhD student at Kent State University studying transnational comparative politics and policy. Her research interests include foreign policy, intelligence, and security.
Howard Clark was the coordinator of War Resisters’ International from 1985 to 1997 and the chairperson from 2008 until his death in 2013. His publications include, with Véronique Dudouet, Nonviolent Civic Action in Support of Human Rights and Democratisation (European Parliament Human Rights Sub-Committee, 2009); with Javier Gárate and Joanne Sheehan, Handbook for Nonviolent Campaigns (War Resisters’ International, 2009), and with April Carter and Michael Randle, Guide to Civil Resistance: People Power and Protest since 1945 (Merlin Press, 2013).
Patrick G. Coy is Professor and Director of the Center for Applied Conflict Management at Kent State University. He has edited or coauthored over a dozen books and thirty journal articles and book chapters. Recent publications have focused on international nonviolent accompaniment, the development of the field of peace and conflict studies, and the US peace movement, among them Contesting Patriotism: Culture, Power and Strategy in the Peace Movement (Rowman & Littlefield, 2009).
Maia Carter Hallward is Associate Professor of Middle East Politics and jointly appointed with the PhD program in International Conflict Management at Kennesaw State University. She is the author of Struggling for a Just Peace: Israeli and Palestinian Activism in the Second Intifada (University Press of Florida, 2011) and Transnational Activism and the Israeli–Palestinian Conflict (Palgrave Macmillan, 2013). She also serves as associate editor of the Journal of Peacebuilding and Development.
Julie M. Norman is a Lecturer in Political Science at McGill University in Montreal, Canada. She is the author of Civil Resistance: The Second Palestinian Intifada (Routledge, 2010) and co-editor (with Maia Carter Hallward) of Nonviolent Resistance in the Second Intifada: Activism and Advocacy (Palgrave Macmillan, 2011). She has published on non-traditional forms of resistance, including media activism, legal advocacy, and prisoners’ movements. She has a PhD in international relations from American University in Washington, DC.
Srdja Popovic is an experienced political party and nonviolent movement leader with excellent skills in leadership, targeted communications, motivation, and peer-to-peer mentoring. As a founding member of the Otpor! resistance movement credited with the downfall of Yugoslav President Slobodan Milošević and a proactive member of Serbia’s Democratic Party, his expertise unites both partisan and NGO sector skills and knowledge. Popovic has been active in Serbia’s democratic movement since 1992 and has served as an environmental advisor to both the prime minister and deputy prime minister of Serbia (2000–3). Since 2003 he has been the executive director of the Centre for Applied Nonviolent Action and Strategies (CANVAS), an international network of trainers and consultants from Serbia, Georgia, South Africa, Ukraine, Lebanon and the Philippines engaged in the transfer of knowledge concerning nonviolent democratic change around the world. He lives in Belgrade, Serbia, with his wife Masha.
Peter (Jay) Smith, PhD, is Professor of Political Science at Athabasca University, Alberta, Canada. He has published articles recently on new communications technologies, globalization, trade politics, transnational networks, democracy, citizenship, and copyright in the Journal of World-Systems Theory, the Journal of Information Technology & Politics, Information, Communication and Society, and Globalizations. He is also a contributor to Handbook on World Social Forum Activism (Paradigm, 2011), edited by Jackie Smith, Scott Byrd, Ellen Reese, and Elizabeth Smythe.
Kurt Schock is Associate Professor of Sociology and Global Affairs and Director of the International Institute for Peace at Rutgers University, Newark. His book Unarmed Insurrections: People Power Movements in Nondemocracies (University of Minnesota Press, 2005) received the Best Book of the Year Award from the Comparative Democratization section of the American Political Science Association. His books Civil Resistance Today and Comparative Perspectives on Civil Resistance are forthcoming, respectively, with Polity and the University of Minnesota Press.
Stephen Zunes is Professor of Politics and International Studies at the University of San Francisco, where he serves as coordinator of the program in Middle Eastern Studies. He serves as a senior policy analyst for the Foreign Policy in Focus project of the Institute for Policy Studies and is an associate editor of Peace Review, a contributing editor of Tikkun, and co-chair of the academic advisory committee for the International Center on Nonviolent Conflict. Zunes is the author of scores of articles for scholarly and general readership on Middle Eastern politics, US foreign policy, international terrorism, nuclear nonproliferation, strategic nonviolent action, and human rights. He is the principal editor of Nonviolent Social Movements (Blackwell, 1999), the author of Tinderbox: US Middle East Policy and the Roots of Terrorism(Common Courage Press, 2003), and co-author (with Jacob Mundy) of Western Sahara: War, Nationalism and Conflict Irresolution (Syracuse University Press, 2010).
Acknowledgments
Thank you to all the authors who contributed chapters to this volume. Your expertise as scholars and practitioners provides the core of this book, and the project is a reflection of your experiences and insights. We especially wish to acknowledge Howard Clark, whose passing we mourn but whose lifelong contributions to the practice and study of nonviolence we celebrate.
Many other individuals also contributed to making this book possible. The authors are especially grateful to Amanda Guidero, Laura Johnston, and Amanda Woomer at Kennesaw State University for their invaluable assistance.
We are grateful to Louise Knight at Polity Press for her vision, enthusiasm, and guidance, to Pascal Porcheron for his assistance throughout the project, and to Clare Ansell, Caroline Richmond and Jane Robertson for their work during the publication process. We also thank the reviewers of the proposal and the manuscript who offered helpful comments, particularly Brian Martin, who provided extensive detailed feedback that was incredibly useful in the revision process.
We recognize that this book would not be possible without the contributions of the many activists around the world who are either subjects of the research or whose stories inspired us and others to pursue the study of nonviolent movements and unarmed resistance.
PART IFoundations
CHAPTER 1Introduction
Maia Carter Hallward and Julie M. Norman
Sometimes it only takes the initiative of one individual to start a mass movement that calls into question a government’s actions and draws international attention. Erdem Gündüz, also known as the Standing Man, is one such individual. His silent protest of Turkish repression of media and civilian freedom during the Gezi Park protests in 2013 inspired countless others to join him. On the evening of June 17, 2013, after the Turkish government issued a ban on demonstrating, Gündüz stood motionless for six hours in Istanbul’s Taksim Square, looking toward the Ataturk Cultural Center. He did not move, despite harassment from police and passersby. Throughout the night, hundreds of others joined Gündüz, first in Istanbul, then throughout Turkey and beyond, in his silent protest against the Turkish government. As Mert Uzun Mehmet, one of the protesters in Taksim Square, said, “If they attack when we are united and throwing slogans, then we’re going to try to do nothing” (as cited in Birnbaum 2013).
Early in the morning the following day, in Taksim Square, Turkish police arrived and arrested the silent protesters without the earlier tactics of tear gas and water cannons, but under the spotlight of international media. What began as a local issue – to protect development of green spaces in Istanbul – erupted into an international spectacle. The United Nations, the European Union, groups such as Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International, and countries such as Germany (which awarded Gündüz with its M100 Media Award for making his mark on Europe and working for democracy and human rights (Gaydazhleva 2013)), condemned the harsh tactics of police against protesters and demanded de-escalation and dialogue (McElroy 2013).
Interest in nonviolence, both scholarly and popular, has surged in recent years, sparked largely by the protests and demonstrations that characterized the early revolutions of the “Arab Spring,” the global mobilization of urban activists in the Occupy Wall Street movement, and the increasing use of social media, new technology, and transnational networks to amplify the visibility of nonviolent campaigns. At the same time as large-scale employment of nonviolent action is more evident in the Western media, new research is revealing important historical trends regarding the outcomes of civil resistance movements on processes of political change (Bartkowski 2013b; Chenoweth and Stephan 2011; Schock 2014; Global Nonviolent Action Database). The concept of nonviolence that forms the theoretical foundation for these manifestations of “people power” is thus emerging as an area of primary importance for students, scholars, practitioners, and policymakers. No longer relegated as a sub-field of peace studies, nonviolence is now a core concept for those engaged in the fields of political science, international relations, public policy, and social change.
Yet, how do we understand, define, and study nonviolence? What are its philosophical and historical origins? What tactics and strategies are involved in nonviolent movements, and how do they function differently in diverse contexts? What limitations are there to nonviolent approaches, and how are the dynamics of nonviolent campaigns shifting? To date, there has been no comprehensive text that addresses these questions. Understanding Nonviolence: Contours and Contexts is designed as a core textbook to provide a nuanced overview of the field of nonviolence studies, drawing from the expertise of key scholars working on these issues. By providing an overview of the history and basic concepts of nonviolence, as well as highlighting key challenges facing scholars and practitioners, this book strives to engage students in critical debates surrounding the study and execution of nonviolent campaigns.
Challenges in defining nonviolence
Although the study of nonviolence has expanded considerably in recent years, the challenge of defining nonviolence and nonviolent movements is inherently contentious. As evidenced in the language used in this chapter and throughout the book, even the terminology used to discuss nonviolence – nonviolent action, civil resistance, unarmed insurrections, popular resistance, nonviolent revolutions – varies across the field. This challenge stems in part from the fact that the term “nonviolence” frames the concept in opposition to violence, giving it a negative orientation that says what it is not rather than what it is. The term also contributes to misconceptions surrounding what constitutes nonviolence, given that, although activists engaging in nonviolent action refrain from the use of physical violence, their opponents (such as the police or army) often do use physical violence to contain or quell the activists. Consequently, the media often frames such encounters as “violent confrontations between protesters and police” despite the fact that only one side (i.e., the police) employed violence. Furthermore, the fact that scholars and activists come to the study and practice of nonviolence from a wide range of disciplines and experiences contributes to the challenge of identifying concrete terms or definitions. The (false) assumption by many in the general public that one must be ethically committed to nonviolence and completely reject violence in order to engage in nonviolent action also gives rise to confusion over the scope of nonviolence, since activists engage in nonviolent action for a mix of “principled” and “pragmatic” reasons. As we aim to show in this book, however, rather than being a limitation, the diversity of approaches to nonviolence allows for it to be implemented and examined in various contours and contexts. Each chapter offers a slightly different interpretation and application of nonviolence, and we challenge students to think critically about how and when the term “nonviolence” is best employed.
Diverse definitions notwithstanding, the following definitions best reflect our understandings of nonviolence in undertaking this book. First, our approach is articulated by Kurt Schock in Unarmed Insurrections (2005, p. 6):
Nonviolent action is nonviolent – it does not involve physical violence or the threat of physical violence against human beings – and it is active – it involves activity in the collective pursuit of social or political objectives. More specifically, nonviolent action involves an active process of bringing political, economic, social, emotional, or moral pressure to bear in the wielding of power in contentious interactions between collective actors. Nonviolent action is noninstitutional, that is, it operates outside the bounds of institutionalized political channels, and it is indeterminate, that is, the procedures for determining the outcome of the conflict are not specified in advance.
Similarly, Nepstad (2011b, p. xvii) defines nonviolence as “a civilian-based form of struggle that employs social, economic, and political forms of power without resorting to violence or the threat of violence.” Adam Roberts (2009, p. 2) defines the concept in the language of “civil resistance” – a term used instead of, or in addition to, “nonviolence” in several chapters in this book:
Civil resistance is a type of political action that relies on the use of non-violent methods … It involves a range of widespread and sustained activities that challenge a particular power, force, policy, or regime – hence the term “resistance”. The adjective “civil” in this context denotes that which pertains to a citizen or society, implying that movements’ goals are “civil” in the sense of being widely shared in a society; and it denotes that the action concerned is non-military or non-violent in character.
Table 1.1 The boundaries of nonviolent action and conventional politics
The definitions above resonate with us because they emphasize the constructive nature of nonviolence, which seeks to create a new social structure or new patterns of relationships rather than simply destroying the existing ones (Mattaini 2003). For example, Zunes and Kurtz (1999, p. 314) note that “the creation of alternative structures provides both a moral and a practical underpinning for efforts at bringing about fundamental social change.”
Occasionally one hears the out-of-date “passive resistance” used to characterize nonviolent movements. This inaccurate portrayal was dismissed by Gandhi almost a century ago, for “nonviolence implies much more than an ‘act of abstaining’ and encompasses a positive, action component that is directed toward the reduction of social injustice and the building of cultures of peace” (Mayton 2001, p. 143). The (mis)representation of nonviolent action as “passive” or as “pacifist” contributes to several of the most common critiques of nonviolent action. Some, for example, argue that appeals for nonviolence, when equated with pacifism, call on aggrieved parties to relinquish their right to (armed) resistance while making no such demand of those in power (Bartkowski 2013b; Gelderloos 2007). At the same time, others dismiss nonviolent action if there is not a clear and overt ethical rejection of arms on the part of all involved activists. However, practitioners of nonviolent action are not necessarily, or even usually, pacifists. In fact, George Lakey, founder of the Global Nonviolent Action Database housed at Swarthmore College,1 has said: “most pacifists do not practice nonviolent resistance, and most people who do practice nonviolent resistance are not pacifists” (cited in Schock 2005, p. 11).
Hannah Arendt also noted the irony of calling nonviolence “passive resistance” given that “it is one of the most active and efficient ways of action ever devised, because it cannot be countered by fighting” (cited in Bharadwaj 1998, p. 79). In fact, the strength of nonviolent opposition may be so powerful that opponents feel as if violence had been done to them. As Deming (1971, p. 205) notes, nonviolent activists also use a form of force, not only moral appeal. She says, “if nonviolent action is as bold as it must be in any real battle for change, some at least of those resisting the change are bound to feel that injury has been done to them. For they feel it is injury to be shaken out of the accustomed pattern of their lives.”
In using unarmed tactics in this way, nonviolence is distinct from forgiveness, reconciliation, dialogue, or normalization. Likewise, nonviolent action refers to nonconventional politics outside the normal realm of political activity (Martin 2009a) and is distinct from electoral processes and normal democratic procedures. As Schock notes, “nonviolent action is a means for prosecuting conflict and should be distinguished from means of conflict resolution” (Schock 2005, p. 8). Furthermore, nonviolent action is distinct from the “unviolent” techniques of conflict management, third-party mediation, or negotiation. Likewise, although voting and lobbying do not involve physical violence, they occur through institutionalized channels and thus are not considered nonviolent actions per se (Schock 2005; McCarthy and Kruegler 1993).
The chapters in the “Contours” section of this book explore the diversity of strategies and tactics employed by nonviolent movements. While specific actions differ, the active, contentious nature of nonviolent activism is evident in the various approaches and case studies.
Why nonviolence?
Why do movements opt for unarmed methods of struggle? What do they hope to achieve? Again, while the goals and objectives of movements vary by context, nonviolence is rooted largely in redistributing power, with most nonviolent strategies aiming to “depriv[e] the power-holders of the deepest sources of their power, outflanking their more visible coercive instruments” (Ash 2009, p. 375). Conceptualizing power as “diffuse or heterogeneous, rather than monolithic or homogeneous … [and as] relational rather than self-generated,” nonviolent movements seek to question the obedience and consent of ordinary people as a way of initiating socio-political and economic change (Atack 2006, p. 89).
Once that power is leveraged, however, scholars distinguish between “revolutionary” nonviolence, which seeks to fundamentally change social structures and patterns of relations that cause and sustain conflict, and “reformist” nonviolence, which seeks to change leaders or policies (Schock 2005; Spence and McLeod 2002). Still others focus on the role of nonviolence in seeking to eliminate broader structures of violence rather than simply to end particular wars, promoting justice in combination with peace and functioning as an “enduring and constant” form of social movement (Wehr 1995, p. 83). As Gandhi noted, “a nonviolent revolution is not just a program of seizure of power. It is a program of transformation of relationships, ending in a peaceful transfer of power” (cited in Merton 1965, p. 28).
One of the arguments in favor of strategic nonviolence is that, for parties who are traditionally weak in terms of access to conventional symbols of hard power, it provides a mechanism for achieving greater parity in the struggle for freedom from oppression. It also allows for more broad-based participation, with individuals from all backgrounds able to engage in nonviolent movements by removing their consent from the regime (Bharadwaj 1998, p. 79).
In addition to its mobilizing capacity, nonviolent resistance has been demonstrably more effective than armed struggle at achieving goals related to regime change or secession, or against foreign occupation (Chenoweth and Stephan 2011). Even though most scholars and practitioners recognize the likelihood of suffering at the hands of opponents who do not share the commitment to nonviolent methods, they note that causing suffering often backfires against repressive regimes over time (Nepstad 2011b; Chenoweth and Stephan 2011). Furthermore, armed struggles – in part on account of the hierarchical style of military campaigns – are more likely to turn into authoritarian regimes as compared to nonviolent campaigns, which are more horizontal, grassroots, and cross-sectoral in nature (Bartkowski 2013a, p. 351). Indeed, because nonviolent action is generally participatory in nature, it is hard to use the techniques of nonviolence to build systems of oppression (Martin 2009a). In sum, democratic, nonviolent means are more likely to result in more democratic ends (Summy 1993; Martin 2009a).
On a more individual level, many choose nonviolent resistance because it is consistent with their worldview and ideology (Smithey 2013, p. 43). While not all may adhere to a Gandhian level of nonviolent discipline and commitment – and Gandhi himself approved of some use of arms in certain circumstances (Losurdo 2010, p. 96) – there are many who choose nonviolent struggle because it is in accord with their beliefs regarding the sanctity of life. Members of the historic peace churches, such as Quakers, Mennonites, and Brethren, as well as activists engaged in both secular and religiously affiliated work, exercise their beliefs when they stand against militarism or seek to confront injustices through nonviolent means. A commitment to unarmed resistance is usually easier to obtain from social groups demanding enhanced rights, as the means are consistent with their desired ends. For example, students campaigning for increased rights, or minorities seeking recognition, may see armed struggle as inconsistent with their arguments for why they deserve those rights. Similarly, the tenets of nonviolence are often more compatible with the self-defined identities of groups engaged in social justice campaigns than are those of armed struggle. The Martin Luther King, Jr. Center for Nonviolent Social Change, for example, cites six principles of nonviolence, among them a call to “attack forces of evil, not persons doing evil,” to “accept suffering without retaliation for the sake of the cause to achieve the goal,” and a belief that “the universe is on the side of justice.”2
Nevertheless, the decision to practice nonviolence may be controversial. Critics suggest that nonviolence is encouraged by those benefiting from the continued state monopoly on violence, and that the relative success of nonviolent movements is due at least in part to the established power structures preference for dealing with nonviolent leaders, such as Martin Luther King, Jr., over more militant ones. Frantz Fanon, for example, argued that nonviolence serves the interests of imperial powers and that violence was a legitimate tactic in revolutionary struggles (Coy 2013; Gelderloos 2007). Furthermore, since there is no screening for who can use nonviolent methods, there may be cases in which the state adopts unarmed means to support systems of violence. However, precisely because of the broader structural dimensions of power and violence, not all “unarmed” actions may qualify as “nonviolence.” Nonviolent action also may not be the best method in a given situation; at times dialogue is called for as a preliminary step, or perhaps community organizing is needed to lay the groundwork for social change before engaging in nonviolent action (Martin 2009a).
The case studies included in this textbook provide a number of reasons as to why individuals and groups opt for nonviolent resistance and illustrate how they make use of nonviolent resistance in the course of their struggles. As the chapters in the “Contexts” section of this book illustrate, nonviolent movements embrace a variety of goals and objectives and achieve different outcomes; however, all engage in some way in the transformation of existing power relations.
Outline of the book
This book is divided into three parts, with the first aimed at introductory and core background material for the study of nonviolence (chapters 1 and 2), the second aimed at fundamental frameworks and cross-cutting themes in the study of nonviolence (chapters 3–6), and the third focusing on different contexts for the study of nonviolence (chapters 7–10). We hope that this will provide a general understanding of the theory and practice of nonviolence before exploring how nonviolent struggles emerge and play out in different socio-political and geographic contexts. We intend this book to demonstrate the interplay between theory and practice as well as the multifaceted and diverse approaches to the study and exercise of nonviolence.
After the overview and history offered in the first part of the book, the second part looks at the “contours” of nonviolence, general themes and approaches that guide and shape nonviolent struggles of all types. Chapter 3, “Spiritual and Religious Approaches to Nonviolence,” by Mohammed Abu-Nimer, examines the influence of morality, philosophy, and spirituality, looking at arguments that nonviolence does not separate the ends from the means, and therefore provides activists with the moral high ground and a deeper sense of commitment to the cause and willingness to suffer in the face of repressive countermeasures, even as he argues that religious leaders often refrain from using moral arguments in their nonviolent campaigns, partly from strategic considerations. Using the case study of the Arab uprising in Egypt, Abu-Nimer challenges common assumptions not only about principled nonviolence but also about the possibility of nonviolence in the Arab world. Chapter 4, “Tactical and Strategic Approaches to Nonviolence,” by Howard Clark, explores the strategic, logical rationale for pursuing nonviolence, without necessarily any ethical or moral justification. The chapter focuses on the cases of Kosovo and Chile to illustrate the dynamics and challenges of a pragmatically oriented nonviolent struggle and raises questions regarding situations in which nonviolent campaigns may be more or less successful, such as where the oppressive regime does not rely on the people for support or legitimacy, as well as exploring the importance of local context in devising an appropriate strategy.
Chapter 5, “Questions of Strategy,” by Stephen Zunes, examines how those involved in two anti-colonial struggles – the movement for independence in Western Sahara and the anti-apartheid movement in South Africa – shifted to primarily nonviolent strategies after initially relying on tactics of guerrilla warfare. It discusses the strategic reasons for a movement to engage in nonviolent resistance even if it never relinquishes the right to armed resistance, as well as general strategies and tactics that activists have used successfully. The chapter looks at challenges facing nonviolent activists, including the tendency of industrialized countries in the Global North to provide arms and other support to authoritarian regimes. The final chapter in Part II, “New Media and Advocacy,” by Srdja Popovic and Marcella Alvarez, engages in a critical discussion of how social media and technological tools such as Facebook, Twitter, and other digital platforms contribute to nonviolent campaigns. In addition to the role of new media and technology in organizing campaigns and spreading the word afield, the chapter discusses the limits of technology, notably how states and other targets of nonviolence can shut down servers or use technology to gather intelligence on activists.
Part III explores four different contexts in which nonviolent action has been used to enact various levels of socio-political and economic change. Chapter 7, “Civil Rights and Domestic Policy,” by Patrick Coy and Amanda Clark, provides an in-depth case study of the student-led sit-in movement in Nashville, Tennessee, during the American civil rights struggle, using the framework of Adam Curle’s conflict progression matrix. Applying the pillars of support model to the movement itself, they illustrate how disadvantaged communities within a state practice nonviolence to improve their civil and social rights within their local or national context. Chapter 8, “Revolutions and Democratic Transitions,” by Maciej J. Bartkowski, focuses on nonviolent movements aimed at overthrowing rather than reforming political systems. Drawing on research by Chenoweth and Stephan that challenges the commonly held assumption that violence is a more effective way of challenging a ruthless state adversary, and disproving the notion that nonviolent resistance can work only in democratic contexts, this chapter discusses the role of nonviolent strategies in struggles against non-democratic regimes, for independence, and in challenging political oppression. It explores the role of the two-level game in spreading the nonviolent battlefield and increasing support for activists’ goals, and argues that nonviolent methods are more likely to contribute to successful democratic transitions than strategies of armed resistance.
Chapters 9 and 10 shift away from the traditional emphasis on “pro-democracy movements” to more of an economic focus, exploring movements working for social justice and against structural violence. Chapter 9, “Rural Movements and Economic Policy,” by Kurt Schock, compares three cases in which rural peasants or workers have mobilized nonviolently to address land issues, labor rights, and economic policies that adversely affect them. Exploring the Landless Rural Workers Movement in Brazil, the United Farm Workers in California, and the Assembly of the Poor in Thailand, the chapter gives voice to the rural peasants and farmers whose struggles are often neglected in the urban bias of much of the media and social science scholarship on nonviolent movements. Chapter 10, “Transnational Movements and Global Civil Society,” by Peter (Jay) Smith, analyzes the transnational dimensions of nonviolent campaigns as activism increasingly spans international borders. Using the case studies of the World Social Forum and La Via Campesina, one of the world’s largest transnational networks, the chapter points out that, while the global justice movement advocates for nonviolence, it does not clearly define it, nor can it enforce it across a diverse range of countries, issues, and actors. Using the concept of prefigurative politics to examine the connection between the practices of groups involved in the global justice movement and the aims they seek to achieve, the chapter discusses the challenges of maintaining cohesion across a loose network of horizontally organized activist groups with various degrees of commitment to nonviolence.
The concluding chapter of the book, “Future Directions,” highlights common themes across the case studies, including the relationship between structure and agency and the continuums of violence–nonviolence and principled–pragmatic approaches. The conclusion also reflects on current challenges in the field and explores new areas of study, among them the role of new media and the use of humor and small acts of resistance. In closing, it raises questions and poses suggestions for concerned citizens, students, and researchers seeking to engage in the field as either scholars or activists committed to social change.
Suggestions for further reading and research
Centre for Applied Nonviolent Action and Strategies (CANVAS), www.canvasopedia.org.
International Center on Nonviolent Conflict, Movements and Campaigns, http://nonviolent-conflict.org/index.php/movements-and-campaigns/movements-and-campaigns-summaries.
The King Center, The King Philosophy, www.thekingcenter.org/king-philosophy#sub2. Global Nonviolent Action Database, http://nvdatabase.swarthmore.edu/. Waging Nonviolence, http://wagingnonviolence.org.
Notes
1.
To browse cases and search methods of hundreds of cases where nonviolent action was used, see
http://nvdatabase.swarthmore.edu/
(accessed June 27, 2013).
2.
To see the complete listing of the principles, as well as their definition, see
http://www.thekingcenter.org/king-philosophy#sub2
(accessed August 1, 2013).
CHAPTER 2Understanding Nonviolence
Maia Carter Hallward and Julie M. Norman
Individuals and groups have practiced nonviolent resistance throughout history by engaging in acts of omission or commission against oppressive authorities, and documentation of civil resistance goes back as far as the early Roman Republic (Howes 2014). In this chapter, however, we focus our discussion on the historical development of nonviolence as both a field of study and a form of resistance from the early twentieth century to the present. While many contemporary practitioners of nonviolent resistance have drawn from older philosophies and texts, both religious and secular, we are concerned most with how recent theories and applications have informed each other over the past century, leading to the emergence of nonviolence as a distinct area of inquiry.
History of nonviolence
Much of the twentieth-century interest in nonviolence was inspired by Gandhi’s campaign to resist British rule over India and to build a nonviolent society. Gandhi was influenced by secular writers such as Henry David Thoreau (“On Civil Disobedience”) and Leo Tolstoy (“Notes for Soldiers”) (Carter 2009; Cortwright 2006, p. 14), as well as by his study of the Hungarian nonviolent struggle of the 1850s and 1860s and the 1905 Russian Revolution (Bartkowski 2013a, p. 347). After studying in London and engaging in nonviolent resistance in South Africa, Gandhi returned to India in 1915 and became the leader of the Indian National Congress in 1921. Designating his method of nonviolent resistance satyagraha, often translated as “truth force,”1 he called for his followers to pursue ahimsa, a form of deep universal love (Cortwright 2006, p. 16). Gandhi’s nonviolence was rooted in a belief of the primacy of means, which necessitated the exercise of nonviolence. While he considered civil resistance to be a form of nonviolent warfare, he held firm that activists should seek truth and remember that “the goal is not defeating the adversary but achieving understanding and political accommodation” (ibid., p. 19). Gandhi encouraged the masses that he mobilized to stop their use of British goods, and he advocated civil disobedience, recognizing that the British imprisonment of thousands of protesters actually posed a challenge to the regime while increasing publicity for the movement. In the famous Salt March of 1930, Gandhi mobilized tens of thousands of Indians to march to the sea in defiance of the British monopoly and tax (although he has been criticized by some for calling off protests too early in exchange for meager promises from the British) (ibid., p. 25; Roberts 2009, p. 7; Weber 2000).
The scholarly study of nonviolence began during the same time as Gandhi’s early campaigns, coinciding with the demonstrations, protests, and strikes of the American labor movement. Clarence Case’s Non-Violent Coercion: A Study in the Methods of Social Pressure (1923) provided one of the first systematic analyses of the sociological dynamics of civil resistance (Carter 2009), while Richard Gregg’s The Power of Nonviolence (1934) brought further scholarly attention to nonviolence as employed by Gandhi. In the field of theology, Reinhold Niebuhr, whose views on nonviolence and politics would later influence Martin Luther King, Jr., was one of the first theologians to take serious note of Gandhi’s work.
By the mid-twentieth century, the American civil rights movement helped further spread awareness about the power of nonviolent action while also illustrating some of the key debates regarding its efficacy for effecting social change. According to Cortwright (2006, p. 55), Martin Luther King, Jr., “was the person who more than any other brought to life Gandhi’s ideas and methods and developed nonviolent action as an effective instrument of political change.”2 At the same time, grassroots organizing by student groups, churches, and civic associations reflected the importance of local mobilizing efforts in sustained nonviolent movements. From the Montgomery bus boycott in 1955 to the March on Washington in 1963, and from the Freedom Rides to the demonstrations in Birmingham, the civil rights movement reflected both moral-religious and strategic approaches to nonviolence, serving as an inspiration and model for other rights campaigns while also informing a new wave of scholarship on civil resistance and nonviolence in both principled and pragmatic contexts. Although some popular accounts of the start of civil rights movement suggest it began “spontaneously” when Rosa Parks refused to give up her seat on the bus, Parks’s action was strategically calculated and the result of much careful planning on the part of civil rights leaders. In contrast, many of the large-scale protests that characterized the 2011 Arab uprisings were more characteristic of spontaneous nonviolent action.3
Also in the 1960s, Cesar Chavez drew on the work of Gandhi and King in his struggle against the conditions facing Mexican and Filipino farmworkers in the US (Cortwright 2006), as discussed further in chapter 9. Outside the US, popular movements in Ghana, Malawi, and Zambia drew primarily on nonviolent methods in their struggle for independence from colonial powers, while others in Mozambique used methods of nonviolent resistance alongside armed struggles (Carter 2009; Momba and Gadsden 2013). Likewise, the African National Congress (ANC) in South Africa relied primarily on nonviolent tactics in its decades-long struggle against the apartheid regime, although the movement also employed some violent actions (Schock 2005), as discussed in chapter 5. The citizens of many Latin American countries, including Guatemala and El Salvador in 1944, used nonviolent resistance to topple dictators in the first half of the twentieth century (Parkman 1990). Elsewhere, citizens in Czechoslovakia engaged in nonviolent resistance against the invasion of the Soviet Union and other Warsaw Pact countries during the 1968 Prague Spring, while strikes in Poland in 1970–1 forced a change of government policy to increase food prices and also served as a source of inspiration for mass strikes in the 1980s (Carter 2009, pp. 30–1), as discussed in chapter 8.
The utilization of nonviolent methods in the 1960s inspired further interest in the analysis and theory of civil resistance, with Gene Sharp’s seminal trilogy The Politics of Nonviolent Action (1973) remaining a key resource for nonviolent activists and researchers. Recognizing that power is central to the analysis and conduct of nonviolent resistance, Sharp based his analysis on the consent theory of power,4 which assumes that power is dispersed (also sometimes called “pluralistic”), rather than monolithic, and distributed throughout society. It assumes that rulers depend on the governed for their power and that, when the governed withdraw their consent (either their active consent or their passive acceptance of the regime’s legitimacy through following laws and complying with expectations), the regime loses its power and ability to rule, particularly when the military, police, and other functionaries of the state likewise withdraw their loyalty (Sharp 1973; Atack 2006). Sharp reframed Richard Gregg’s concept of “moral jiu-jitsu” into “political jiu-jitsu,” indicating how repression can backfire when nonviolent movements use regime crackdowns to their advantage in garnering broader support (Carter 2009, p. 31). Focusing on the strategy of nonviolent action, Sharp’s work examines the politics, methods, and dynamics of nonviolent action and describes almost 200 methods, which he classifies into the categories of symbolic protest and persuasion, non-cooperation, and nonviolent intervention (Sharp 1973). The first category includes largely symbolic acts, such as public speeches, petitions, leafleting, picketing, displays of symbols, prayer services, vigils, marches, teach-ins, and walk-outs, all tactics used broadly by social movements. The second category, non-cooperation, may be legal or illegal and requires deliberately withdrawing cooperation from normal social, economic, or political activities that contribute to structures of social, political, or economic violence. Among these tactics are engaging in a wide range of social, economic, or political boycotts, striking, staying at home, participating in a rent strike, refusing to pay fees, refusing to accept appointed officials, and civil disobedience of “illegitimate” laws (Sharp 2005, p. 61). The third category, nonviolent intervention, is more disruptive and can be used offensively or defensively; in either case, these tactics are harder to sustain and likely to bring a harsher response from authorities. Intervention tactics include fasting, sit-ins, nonviolent raids, nonviolent interjection of one’s body between a person and his or her objective, guerrilla theater, establishing alternative social institutions, civil disobedience of “neutral” laws, defiance of blockades, and nonviolent land seizure (Sharp 2005, pp. 62–4).
Sharp’s idea of pluralistic power was reflected in the nonviolent movements of the 1980s and 1990s, which, because of the popular, consent-oriented nature of the uprisings, commentators called “people power” revolutions.5 Popular resistance in the Philippines, joined by religious groups and the military, helped overthrow the Marcos regime in 1986, and in 1987 Palestinians used nonviolent methods during the first intifada to try to “shake off” the Israeli occupation. The Solidarity strikes in Poland, the “Velvet Revolution” in Czechoslovakia, and the fall of the Berlin Wall in East Germany resulted from citizen-based resistance (Carter 2009; Nepstad 2011b). Nonviolent organizing in Chile by labor unions, universities, and churches forced military dictator General Augusto Pinochet to step down from the presidency in 1988 (Kurtz 2009).
The dawn of the twenty-first century brought a new wave of nonviolent revolutions in the former Soviet Union – the so-called color revolutions – including the Orange Revolution in Ukraine and the Rose Revolution in Georgia, which were inspired in part by the nonviolent overthrow of Slobodan Milošević in Serbia in 2000, organized by the Serbian student group Otpor!. Nonviolent movements were not always successful in bringing about democracy or transforming unequal societies even when they were able to oust authoritarian rulers, as evident in the 2005 Cedar Revolution in Lebanon or in the 2006 civil resistance movement in Nepal (Carter 2009). In December 2010 a wave of uprisings spread throughout much of the Middle East when a young street vendor in Tunisia set himself on fire in protest to worsening socio-economic conditions and government corruption. The initial demonstrations that followed in Tunisia and Egypt were largely nonviolent and succeeded in ousting authoritarian rulers, even if the transition to democracy remains as yet elusive. Unarmed demonstrations elsewhere in the region, including Yemen, Syria, and Bahrain, began nonviolently, although some were brutally suppressed; the civil war in Syria continues at the time of writing.
Table 2.1 Examples and types of nonviolent action and conventional politics
Example of nonviolent action
Type of NV activity (Sharp 1973)
American Studies Association (ASA) statement aligning itself with the cultural boycott of Israeli academic institutions as a result of Israel’s ongoing occupation of the Palestinian territories
Signed public statement (protest and persuasion)
Setting up stuffed animals and other toys with signs protesting governmental leaders in Russia
Humorous skits and pranks (protest and persuasion)
American Friends Service Committee (AFSC’s) Eyes Wide Open exhibit of boots commemorating and visually documenting US war deaths in Iraq
Demonstrative funerals (protest and persuasion)
US consumer boycott of grapes as a result of the harsh treatment of California grape companies toward migrant workers
Consumer boycott (economic non-cooperation)
Members of the Nigerian National Union of Electricity Employees (NUEE) strikes over the flagrant abuse of human and trade union rights in the power sector
Industry strike (economic non-cooperation)
In Albania in 1996 the socialist party boycotted elections as a result of allegations of electoral fraud; new elections were later held under international supervision
Boycott of elections (political non-cooperation)
Teams of black and white students sit in at segregated lunch counters throughout the Southern United States during the civil rights movement to challenge such discriminatory policies
Sit-in (nonviolent physical intervention)
Landless workers in Brazil organize as part of the Landless Workers Movement (MST) to occupy tracts of land that are otherwise lying fallow in the face of severe socio-economic inequality
Nonviolent land seizure (nonviolent economic intervention)
The Free Gaza movement and the Freedom Flotilla sail to the Gaza Strip with ships loaded with humanitarian aid in defiance of Israel’s blockade
Defiance of blockades (nonviolent intervention)
The scholarly study of nonviolence has continued to develop in recent years, with texts such as Strategic Nonviolent Conflict (1994), by Peter Ackerman and Christopher Kruegler; Nonviolent Social Movements (1999), edited by Stephen Zunes, Lester Kurtz, and Sarah Beth Asher; Unarmed Insurrections (2005), by Kurt Schock; Civil Resistance and Power Politics (2009), edited by Adam Roberts and Timothy Garton Ash; and Nonviolent Revolutions (2011), by Sharon Erickson Nepstad, helping establish a distinct field for nonviolence studies. Erica Chenoweth and Maria Stephan’s groundbreaking 2011 study of 323 resistance campaigns between 1900 and 2006, Why Civil Resistance Works, which demonstrated quantitatively that nonviolent campaigns are more than twice as likely as violent campaigns to achieve some or all of their objectives, further helped position the study of nonviolence increasingly in the academic mainstream.6
Debates in the field
As with all fields of research, there are a number of debates among those studying (and practicing) nonviolence. These debates are perhaps further amplified by the fairly recent emergence of nonviolence as an area of study, as well as the interdisciplinary nature of the field, which includes aspects of sociology (especially social movement studies), political science, psychology, and anthropology.
“Principled” vs. “pragmatic” nonviolence
One of the major areas of debate in nonviolence studies is in how scholars identify actors’ orientation toward “principle” or “pragmatism.” While the motivations of each are neither entirely principled nor entirely pragmatic, the scholarship has tended to treat these two approaches to nonviolent action as distinct categories. For example, Schock (2005, p. xvii) argues that “a distinction can be made between nonviolent action as a method of struggle and nonviolent action as a lifestyle,” and Stiehm (1968, p. 24) suggests that the two approaches “are different in their motivations, their assumptions, and their implications. As a result, they are in some ways incompatible,” even though both traditions “are similar in their disavowal of violence, in many of their choices of action techniques, in their capacity to inspire martyrdom, in their goals chosen for action, and in their rhetoric.”
Those who take a pragmatic approach employ nonviolent methods for strategic purposes. Roberts (2009, p. 3) affirms that the selection of nonviolent methods is often “related to the context rather than to any absolute ethical principle: [the methods] may spring from a society’s traditions of political action, from its experience of war and violence, from legal considerations, from a desire to expose the adversary’s violence as unprovoked, or from calculations that civil resistance would be more likely than violent means to achieve success.” In this way, nonviolence is a strategy rather than a lifestyle or a religious belief. Galtung (1965, p. 230), for example, specifies that nonviolence is a “style of action” rather than a mindset, and should be limited to “patterns of behavior observable by others.” Likewise, Sharp differentiated the techniques of nonviolence from any set belief system, suggesting that the action and strategy were what made a movement nonviolent, and not the beliefs or values of those engaging in the action (Weber 2003, p. 255). Schock (2003, p. 709) contends that, “while some major proponents of nonviolent action have been morally committed to nonviolence, nonviolent action per se does not require proponents or activists to be morally committed to nonviolence, or hold any sort of ideological, religious, or metaphysical beliefs.”
Those who take a principled approach to nonviolence tend to see it as “more than a method of social action. It is a philosophy of life, a radically different way of being and doing” (Cortwright 2006, p. 2). Oppenheimer (1965, pp. 124–5), for example, emphasizes that nonviolence involves not only one’s outlook on life but also communication and understanding, a willingness to suffer when one withdraws from a coercive system, respect for each individual, and expressing love and understanding. Those who affirm that “nonviolence is a holistic rather than dualistic philosophy … regard means as important as ends, arguing that violent means dehumanize and set up an unresolvable discord of inconsistency between objectives and methods” (Branagan 2003, p. 51).
Some advocates of principled nonviolence have argued that, “as long as nonviolence is embraced on pragmatic grounds and, not truth or morality, but success and power … are made the criteria of its efficacy, it prepares itself for self-defeat” (Bharadwaj 1998, p. 79). However, many scholars have noted that most contemporary nonviolent resistance campaigns have been conducted strategically and pragmatically, and that “the claim that a general belief in nonviolence is a necessary foundation of campaigns of civil resistance has sometimes morphed into the narrow conclusion that any setbacks are due to a lack of principled commitment rather than to other causes” (Roberts 2009, p. 8).
Indeed, many proponents of nonviolence, including both King and Gandhi, used both strategy and principle in adopting nonviolence (Raab 2006), and Satha-Anand (2002) argues that what Bharadwaj (1998, p. 79) calls the “irreconcilable differences” between principled and pragmatic nonviolence are actually not so irreconcilable. Satha-Anand (2002, p. 9) asserts that, “while ethical imperatives are not present for the pragmatic strategists, the theoretical, pragmatic imperative requires that he or she must be committed to nonviolence or risk becoming just another ordinary pragmatic strategist and not a nonviolent one.” Although the pragmatic approach to nonviolence may emphasize strategy and effectiveness over values and principles, those deemed “principled” nonviolent activists are often falsely equated with pacifists or religious believers, when many of them simply see their nonviolent activism as stemming from a certain values orientation or believe that social change will be more effective and lasting if the means and ends are consistent (Coy 2013, p. 258). For example, Smith (1976, p. 120) suggests that “the use of ethical means may have social contagion effects and may result in outcomes of greater reward and may have definite cognitive changes of a dissonance reducing nature.”
Indeed, while the distinction between pragmatic and principled approaches may be analytically useful in some circumstances, in practice, the dividing line between “principled” and “pragmatic” is not always so clear. Faith traditions have provided language and moral justification for nonviolence; according to Cortwright (2006, p. 13), nonviolence is a core tenet of nearly all major religions – Buddhism, Taoism, Hinduism, Islam, Judaism, and Christianity – complementing calls for peacebuilding and social justice.7 Religious leaders have also been strategic in their use of religious spaces – which often remain available for organizing and protest when other public spaces are closed by authoritarian regimes, as in the cases of East Germany under communism and Kenya under Moi (Nepstad 2011b). Zunes and Kurtz (1999, p. 304) argue that
even the most exclusively nonviolent of these movements do not necessarily subscribe to the Gandhian ethic, which implies the goal of converting an opponent through moral appeal; nonviolence can also assume a coercive component. In many cases the core of the movement is a handful of people acting on moral or religious principles who initiate the struggle or sustain it between mass mobilizations that necessarily involve people who are using nonviolence for its efficacy more than its ethics.
Deming (1971, p. 207) notes that the power of nonviolence comes through the combination of “two pressures – the pressure of our
