The Force of Nonviolence
by Laura Dunn and Becky Miller
The term “nonviolence” incorrectly suggests that to engage in nonviolence only requires abstention from violence. Mohandas Gandhi, one of the first leaders of a successful nonviolent movement in colonial India, didn’t even use the term “nonviolence”. Instead, Gandhi referred to his active, nonviolent style of protest as “satyagraha”. Satyagraha entailed principled civil disobedience against injustice and constructive action designed to strengthen community. Satyagraha was heavily based in action performed with the mindset of peaceful interaction. Nonviolence, with its origins in satyagraha, embodies more than just the absence of violence but the presence of principled action, and it is a powerful force to be used in achieving justice.
Nonviolent movements today should strive to include the characteristics of satyagraha and adapt their action to address current injustices. One very pertinent example of effective nonviolence occurred in South Africa in response to apartheid in the late 1980’s and early 1990’s. Black South Africans boycotted white-owned businesses, purchasing goods and trading only in neighborhood markets. This action was motivated by outrage at South African police brutality and unjust social and economic conditions. It was designed to force all South Africans to recognize the part they played in allowing injustice to continue. As a part of their boycott, community members voluntarily decided to make sure that enough goods were produced, in both quantity and variety, to meet the needs of their community, promoting a sort of constructive action. Their constructive action served to unify the community, resulting in virtually 100% participation by black South Africans. Black non-participation in the white-owned national economy immobilized South African business until whites were forced to negotiate. By combining principled non-participation with constructive action, black South Africans were able to harness the power of nonviolence to uproot injustice in their homeland. Modern day nonviolent movements involve more than just marching and wearing buttons; they are creative forces that actively promote justice.
Nonviolence holds a promise for its practitioners. Victories won through violence can only be retained through violence or the threat of violence. When violence is seen as the only means to implement change or to assume and maintain power, an endless cycle of violence must follow. Because nonviolent victories are won through popular support and participation and because they seek to implement justice, their legacy of peaceful means is reflected in their outcome. Even if external violence follows nonviolent movements, the successes of the immediate goals of the movement will be preserved. The hope for a larger peace exists, but it requires patient, sustained work on the part of practitioners of nonviolence. Nonviolent change usually occurs more slowly that change brought about by violence, but once attained, nonviolent change sustains itself in the long-term.
Some people believe that because nonviolent action exists without the threat of physical harm, it doesn’t have the same authority in the world as violence does. World War II-era Germany and the Nazi agenda are often pointed to as a situation in which nonviolent resistance to the Nazis would not have worked. This is, in fact, untrue. In the few times that nonviolent resistance was attempted, it proved an effective means of combating Hitler’s regime. In early 1943, male Jews married to non-Jews were rounded up in Berlin in one of the later mass deportations to concentration camps. The wives and mothers of these men converged on Rosenstrasse street to demand the release of their relatives. Surprisingly, the spontaneous demonstration proved effective, and the Nazis released all the men.
Historically, nonviolence has worked in a number of situations, including in situations in which nonviolent resistance was considered to be impossible or futile. The complex nature of nonviolence, which incorporates principled action, high community participation, and the ideal of achieving peace and justice, makes it a viable force and an practical alternative for the future. Albert Einstein once said, “I know not with what weapons World War III will be fought, but World War IV will be fought with sticks and stones.” In a paradoxical age in which wars can be fought with the goal of instilling democracy or combating terrorism, nonviolence seems to be the only means of achieving peaceful and just ends without simultaneously setting the framework for an endless cycle of future violence. The potential that nonviolence gives to the world is the hope for a peaceful and just future.
The term “nonviolence” incorrectly suggests that to engage in nonviolence only requires abstention from violence. Mohandas Gandhi, one of the first leaders of a successful nonviolent movement in colonial India, didn’t even use the term “nonviolence”. Instead, Gandhi referred to his active, nonviolent style of protest as “satyagraha”. Satyagraha entailed principled civil disobedience against injustice and constructive action designed to strengthen community. Satyagraha was heavily based in action performed with the mindset of peaceful interaction. Nonviolence, with its origins in satyagraha, embodies more than just the absence of violence but the presence of principled action, and it is a powerful force to be used in achieving justice.
Nonviolent movements today should strive to include the characteristics of satyagraha and adapt their action to address current injustices. One very pertinent example of effective nonviolence occurred in South Africa in response to apartheid in the late 1980’s and early 1990’s. Black South Africans boycotted white-owned businesses, purchasing goods and trading only in neighborhood markets. This action was motivated by outrage at South African police brutality and unjust social and economic conditions. It was designed to force all South Africans to recognize the part they played in allowing injustice to continue. As a part of their boycott, community members voluntarily decided to make sure that enough goods were produced, in both quantity and variety, to meet the needs of their community, promoting a sort of constructive action. Their constructive action served to unify the community, resulting in virtually 100% participation by black South Africans. Black non-participation in the white-owned national economy immobilized South African business until whites were forced to negotiate. By combining principled non-participation with constructive action, black South Africans were able to harness the power of nonviolence to uproot injustice in their homeland. Modern day nonviolent movements involve more than just marching and wearing buttons; they are creative forces that actively promote justice.
Nonviolence holds a promise for its practitioners. Victories won through violence can only be retained through violence or the threat of violence. When violence is seen as the only means to implement change or to assume and maintain power, an endless cycle of violence must follow. Because nonviolent victories are won through popular support and participation and because they seek to implement justice, their legacy of peaceful means is reflected in their outcome. Even if external violence follows nonviolent movements, the successes of the immediate goals of the movement will be preserved. The hope for a larger peace exists, but it requires patient, sustained work on the part of practitioners of nonviolence. Nonviolent change usually occurs more slowly that change brought about by violence, but once attained, nonviolent change sustains itself in the long-term.
Some people believe that because nonviolent action exists without the threat of physical harm, it doesn’t have the same authority in the world as violence does. World War II-era Germany and the Nazi agenda are often pointed to as a situation in which nonviolent resistance to the Nazis would not have worked. This is, in fact, untrue. In the few times that nonviolent resistance was attempted, it proved an effective means of combating Hitler’s regime. In early 1943, male Jews married to non-Jews were rounded up in Berlin in one of the later mass deportations to concentration camps. The wives and mothers of these men converged on Rosenstrasse street to demand the release of their relatives. Surprisingly, the spontaneous demonstration proved effective, and the Nazis released all the men.
Historically, nonviolence has worked in a number of situations, including in situations in which nonviolent resistance was considered to be impossible or futile. The complex nature of nonviolence, which incorporates principled action, high community participation, and the ideal of achieving peace and justice, makes it a viable force and an practical alternative for the future. Albert Einstein once said, “I know not with what weapons World War III will be fought, but World War IV will be fought with sticks and stones.” In a paradoxical age in which wars can be fought with the goal of instilling democracy or combating terrorism, nonviolence seems to be the only means of achieving peaceful and just ends without simultaneously setting the framework for an endless cycle of future violence. The potential that nonviolence gives to the world is the hope for a peaceful and just future.
posted by The Protest at 5/26/2005
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home