Peace and Nonviolence Discussion

Advocates of nonviolent action seriously question the statement “the ends justify the means,” when the means under consideration are violent means.  Those who are pacifists would say that violent means are never justified.  But you do not have to accept the moral argument of pacifism to advocate nonviolence.  Many who choose nonviolence are not necessarily pacifists, but choose nonviolence on pragmatic (rather than moral) grounds.

Those who advocate nonviolence might instead say:

• “The use of moral means ensures a moral end” (David Cortright).
• “One cannot achieve a just result with unjust means, a peaceful result with violent means” (Cortright).
• “If one takes care of the means, the end will take care of itself” (Gandhi).
• “Destructive means cannot bring about constructive ends because the end is pre-existent in the means” (Martin Luther King, Jr.).

The first two statements still look like moral statements, but they express a structural (almost mechanical) relationship between means and ends that itself is more pragmatic than moral.  The latter two statements show this structural relationship more clearly.

Many of the methods of nonviolent action display and hence bring into being the new and better (more just) structure of power that is in fact the end of nonviolent struggle.  The work of bringing people together to work nonviolently against oppression itself builds the cooperative relationships and shared power that are required in a just power structure.  And the actions often symbolize and dramatize what the new world will look like.

For example, Gandhi’s salt march showed an aspect of what Indian independence would look like:  the Indian people producing their own salt.  The clothing that most of the participants wore also symbolized and demonstrated independence, because it was clothing they made themselves (instead of clothing they bought from the British).  In the Civil Rights era, the lunch-counter sit-ins demonstrated an aspect of what racial equality would look like.  Black students and white students sat side by side at the counters, chatting with each other and studying together.  Their very action showed the world what racial harmony can look like.

These were symbolic and dramatic, but they were not fake.  They were the beginnings of bringing the new reality into being.  The students at the lunch counters really did enjoy each other’s company.  The clothing the Indian protesters wore was clothing they really did make.  The water they boiled really did leave a residue of salt that they could use without paying a tax on it first to the British.

These are vivid illustrations of the ends being inherent in the means.  In these cases, the means really did directly create the intended ends.

From this perspective, it is hard to see what violence actually accomplishes.

I mentioned this in one of our discussions:  Wars apparently are becoming more and more deadly for civilians. Of the deaths caused by each of the following wars, here are the percentages of those deaths being civilian deaths:

World War I: 14%
World War II: 67%
Wars of the 1980’s: 75%
Wars of the 1990’s: 90%

http://webarchive.afsc.org/youthmil/html/news/feb99/askus0299.htm

(The book those statistics are from is: WAR AND PUBLIC HEALTH, edited by Barry S. Levy and Victor Sidel, New York: Oxford University Press, 1997.)

I find Gene Sharp’s The Politics of Nonviolent Action very interesting!  Part One begins with an analysis of power.  Sharp talks about how power is given to leaders from the people (rather than emanating down from the leaders).  And power is given primarily through the people’s obedience.  An implication of this is that if power is oppressive, even that oppressive power is permitted by the people’s own complicity.

Sharp outlines the reasons why people obey.  Here they are (pp. 19-24):

1. Habit
2. Fear of sanctions
3. Moral obligation
4. Self-interest
5. Psychological identification with the ruler
6. Zones of indifference
7. Absence of self-confidence among subjects

Sharp points out that none of these factors alone is sufficient to explain obedience: they work together in various combinations to explain obedience in different situations.

In general, obedience helps keep society organized and functioning smoothly.  But when the ways that power plays out in society become problematic (unjust), it becomes important to question whether we wish to remain complicit.  It can be helpful to go back to the above listing as a way of becoming aware of the mechanisms of our complicity.  We can translate them into questions we can ask ourselves:

1. Am I cooperating with this unjust system just out of habit?
2. Am I cooperating with this unjust system because I am afraid?  What exactly am I afraid of?  What is the worst thing that could happen if I disobey?  Is the worst-case scenario the most likely scenario?  Is the most likely scenario really that bad (especially in comparison to the injustice currently being permitted by the unjust system)?
3. Do I have a continued moral obligation to obey in order to preserve order, or do I have a moral obligation to disobey unjust commands (civil disobedience)?
4. Am I personally benefiting from the unjust system?  If so, can I rest content with that, knowing the cost for others?  Or is it important for me to gain advantage while I can, in hopes that this can help me to address the problem more significantly in the future?
5. Am I in some ways identifying with the rulers:  giving them the benefit of the doubt; hoping to be in their place some day; etc.?  Am I obeying because of loyalty?  Is it okay to let that loyalty override my concerns about the unjust ways that the power is being played out?
6. Do I just not care so much about these matters, having other things going on in life that I want to focus my attention on, not wanting to take the risk of disobedience because of how it might disrupt my life too much, interfering with my ability to attend to the other things I wish to do?
7. Am I just not confident enough to think my concern matters, or that my disobedience would really make a difference?  What is the source of my lack of confidence?  Are these perceptions of myself grounded in reality?

I think this analysis can apply at various levels of life:  not only in relation to political power, but in how power is structured within the institutions we interact with in our daily lives (work, school, health care, etc.), and also even at the interpersonal level.

I tried to phrase the questions as honest, open questions (not leading questions suggesting one “right” answer) — because sometimes fear, moral concern for the orderliness of society, loyalty, or having different priorities may be fine.  Sometimes habit, self-interest, or not feeling ready are also justifiable reasons to refrain from withdrawing obedience.  If realistically we might not be able to make a significant difference, and we can tolerate the situation as it stands, and still channel our energies to other good purposes, is it okay to live with some complicity with injustice, sometimes?

We do live in a morally complex world.  These questions are not easy to answer.

Welcome to this site, set up for discussion of issues related to peace and nonviolence!  A group of faculty and staff at St. Lawrence University are participating in a Peace Studies Reading Group, and this group blog is set up as an opportunity for members of the discussion group to share further thoughts between our meetings.  Others are free to read and comment as well!  Happy discussing!