Nonviolence: An Overview
Diah Kusumaningrum
Definitions and Schools
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” (Weber and Burrowes1991: 1). There are two main ‘schools’ of nonviolence: the ideological and the pragmatic. The ideological school believes that nonviolent actions are based on ethical reasons and the belief in the unity of means and ends. Meanwhile, the pragmatic school sees that nonviolent actions are conducted upon the belief that they are the most effective method available in the circumstances.
From an ideological perspective, the goal of nonviolence is to embrace the opponent as a partner in the struggle to satisfy the needs of all. Here, the key is the “capacity to treat the causes of violence and offer a direction to human development” (Bruyn 1979: 14-15). Meanwhile, from a pragmatic perspective, the goal of nonviolence is to defeat the opponent (Weber and Burrowes 1991: 2). Therefore, it focuses on utilising techniques to win the conflict (Bruyn 1979: 14-15).
Those who see nonviolence from an ideological standpoint tend to wage conflict in more positive modes, aimed at achieving mutually acceptable solutions (Boserup and Mack 1974: 21-22). For them, trust, truthfulness, and openness play an important role. They believe that the opponents will be accessible to reason and moral appeals if fear, misunderstanding, prejudice, and mistrust are removed. On the other hand, those from a more pragmatic standpoint are more familiar with negative ways of waging conflict. They tend to see conflict as a win-lose struggle, where “the moral or human qualities of the opponent play a secondary role only” (Boserup and Mack 1974: 21).
Amongst the exponents of ideological nonviolence are Mohandas Karamchad Gandhi and Martin Luther King, Jr. The Gandhian concept of ‘nonviolence’gives emphasis on seeking for truth, building positive relationships, and developing just structures – sometimes involving self-suppression and suffering. The term satyagraha, which in many literatures is simply translated as nonviolent action, actually means an ongoing and persistent search for truth and a determination to achieve truth. Here, the exclusion of violence is based on the notion that no one is capable of knowing the absolute truth (Gandhi, cited in Burrowes 1996: 107-108).
Gene Sharp, Peter Ackerman, and Christopher Kruegler are among those who approach nonviolence from a pragmatic lens. For them, the key element of nonviolence is not in its righteousness – it depends more on its ability to refrain the opponent from exercising maximum power or control. As mentioned bySharp (1970: 29), nonviolent action is about “deny(-ing) the enemy the human assistance and cooperation which are necessary if he is to exercise control over the population”. He pointed out that “in many cases, the people using these nonviolent methods have believed violence to be perfectly justified in moral or religious terms” (Sharp 2005: 19).
Accordingly, Ackerman and Kruegler (1994: 4) pointed out that “most of the known cases of nonviolent struggle have been motivated by the need to defeat a particular opponent with the most effective and least costly means at hand, rather than a principled commitment to the avoidance of bloodshed as an end in itself”. They acknowledged that there are activists of nonviolence who seek for win-win solution and endure self-suffering. Nonetheless, this type of activists should be seen as the exception, not the rule (Ackerman and Kruegler 1994: 14).
Moving from the binary model above, which sees nonviolence as either ideological or pragmatic, Weber and Burrowes developed a framework which incorporates a ‘tactical-strategic dimension’ into the existing ‘ideological-pragmatic dimension’. As indicated earlier, the ideological-pragmatic dimension shows the nature of commitment to nonviolence and the approach to conflict which the activists utilise, including the relationship between means and ends. On the other hand, the tactical-strategic dimension focuses on the depth of analysis, ultimate aim, and operational time-frame which activists use (Weber and Burrowes 1991: 1).
Tacticalnonviolent actions are conducted through short to medium term campaigns to achieve certain goals within an existing social framework. Meanwhile, strategicnonviolent actions are based on a structural analysis of social relationships and are concerned with the fundamental transformation of the society. While tactical nonviolent actions seek reform, strategic nonviolent actions speak about long-term revolutionary strategy (Weber and Burrowes 1991: 2).
Tactical / Ideological / StrategicPragmatic
By combining the two dimensions, four approaches to nonviolence can be identified: ‘ideological-strategic’, ‘ideological-tactical’, ‘pragmatic-strategic’, and ‘pragmatic-tactical’. In a later publication, Burrowes (1996: 99-101) used the terms ‘reformist’ and ‘revolutionary’ to replace ‘tactical’ and ‘strategic’, as well as the terms ‘principled’ and pragmatic’ to replace ‘ideological’ and pragmatic’.
Anders Boserup and Andrew Mack (1974: 13) mentioned that the above perspectives“are by no means contradictory – they rather complement one another – but they lead to quite different emphasis”. The acceptance that nonviolence can be pragmatic allows researchers dissertation to look at applied strategies and tactics – instead of merely glorifying the inherent remedies of nonviolence – as key factors for success. Meanwhile, by recognising the ethical drives for nonviolence, it becomes easier for researchers to understand the degree of commitment – which sometimes includes suffering – dedicated by the exponents of nonviolent actions. In addition, it allows researchers to get a better picture on how religious and cultural motives play into nonviolence.
How Nonviolence Works
A simple way to describe how nonviolence work is to see it as a jiu-jitsu: when used against opponents who are able and willing to use violent measures, it rebounds the violence against its perpetrator. As the violence bounces back to the perpetrator, change becomes possible.
The ideological school believes that nonviolence works as a moral jiu-jitsu: when faced with fearless, calm, steady, and nonviolent reactions, violence itself helps to overthrow its user. The exponent of nonviolent action is superior to the attacker in at least three ways (Gregg 1935: 26). Firstly, this person has taken a moral initiative, one which the opponent is not trained to respond to. Secondly, this person knows what is really happening in such struggle and how to control the process. Thirdly, this person’s self-control conserves his or her energy, while the opponent is exhausted by prolonged anger. Thus, the opponent loses moral balance and starts questioning the appropriateness of his or her conduct.
Meanwhile, the pragmatic school sees nonviolence as a politicaljiu-jitsu, aiming at throwing an opponent off balance politically, allowing the repression to rebound against the perpetrator’s position and weakening his or her power. As mentioned by Sharp (1973: 109-113), “an extensive, determined and skilful application of nonviolent action” against “opponents who are able and willing to use violent means” will “disturb or frustrate the effective utilisation” of the opponents’ forces, alienate the general population from the opponent, as well as increase sympathy and support for the nonviolent action. More specifically, he identified three groups that can be affected by such political jiu-jitsu:
“(1) the general grievance group and the usually smaller group of nonviolent resisters; (2) the opponents’ usual supporters, on various levels, including among the general population, the opponents’ functionaries, administrators, and enforcement agents, and at times even the top echelons of officials; (3) uncommitted third parties, whether on the local or world level” (Sharp 2005: 407).
After throwing the opponent off balance, either morally or politically, a successful nonviolent action brings about change through one of the following mechanisms: (1) coercion, (2) conversion, or (3) persuasion (Lakey 1962: 18-38).
Coercion is “taking away from the opponent either his ability to maintain the status quo or his ability to effect social change” (Lakey 1962: 19). The effectiveness of this mechanism depends on (a) how dependent the opponent is to the nonviolent exponent, and (b) the relation between the opponent and a third party (Lakey 1962: 19).
Conversion means that the opponent “comes around to a new point of view which embraces the ends of the nonviolent actor” (Lakey 1962: 20). While “coercive nonviolence undermines the opponent’s ability to resist the demands of the nonviolent actor, nonviolent conversion removes the opponent’s reason for resisting” (Lakey 1962: 21).
Persuasion refers to a condition where the opponent is not converted, but “accepts a new image of the nonviolent actor, an image which discourages the use of violence against him” (Lakey 1962: 21). It works when a nonviolent exponent manages to convince others that they are not appropriate targets for violent repression (Lakey 1962: 22). Being able to project a self-image as a ‘nuisance’, and not as a ‘threat’, a nonviolent exponent is close to a resolution of the conflict (Lakey 1962: 23).
It is reasonable to conclude that conversion is closer to the ideological school, and that coercion is closer to the pragmatic school. Through conversion, exponents of ideological nonviolence embrace the opponents as partners in the struggle. Meanwhile, through coercion, exponents of pragmatic nonviolence restrain their opponents from exercising maximum power, without bothering that much about whether or not their opponents convert to their principles.
The above mechanisms were adopted and slightly modified by Sharp (1973: 705-776) into (1) coercion, (2) conversion, and (3) accommodation (Randle 2002: 79). In a later publication, Sharp (cited in Randle 2002: 79-80) introduced another mechanism, labelled as ‘disintegration’, which refers to “a situation where the opponent’s power structure collapses altogether under the pressure of civil resistance”.
To get a better picture on how nonviolence works, it might be useful to look at a classic example from the people’s power movement in the Philippines. When military tanks tried to move towards the crowds of protesters, a couple of nuns approached and kneeled before the tanks, taking a praying position. This deterred the tanks from moving forward. On the one hand, the nuns’ action worked as a moral jiu-jitsu, as it made the soldiers question themselves about the appropriateness of crushing the nuns with tanks, and, about whether or not they have the heart to kill the nuns. On the other hand, the nuns’ action also worked as a political jiu-jitsu, as the regime would immediately lose support from its people should the military go on attacking the protesters with their tanks.
The people’s power movement brought social change through coercion, conversion, persuasion, and distintegration: it coerced Marcos from exercising maximum power and forced him to flee from the country; it converted a number of soldiers, who then left the army and joined the protesters; it persuaded a number of political and military leaders to see that the anti-Marcos protesters were not appropriate targets for violent repression, although these leaders still regarded the movement as illegal; and it disintegrated the structures that previously underpinned Marcos’ regime: the military, the bureaucrats, the rich, and the Catholic church.
What can be taken from the above elaboration is that theoretical classifications (i.e. between ideological and pragmatic schools, or between moral and political jiu-jitsu) should not be used in terms of ‘the good and the bad, the better and the worse’. To a certain extent, these frameworks can be used together to bring a more holistic comprehension on the issue.
Methods of Nonviolent Actions
A number of research has been done to identify and classify the methods used in nonviolent actions. Among the most well known classification is that of Sharp’s, where he listed 198 methods to wage conflict non-violently. These methods were classified under three main headings: (1) protest and persuasion, (2) noncooperation, and (3) intervention.
Nonviolent protest and persuasion refers to “methods which are mainly symbolic acts of peaceful opposition or of attempted persuasion, extending beyond verbal expressions but stopping short of noncooperation or nonviolent intervention” (Sharp 1973:117). These include public speeches, petitions, display of banners and posters, marches, and vigils.
Nonviolent noncooperation methods are characterised with the actionists’ deliberate withdrawal – reduction or cessation – of the usual forms and degree of cooperation, withholding of new forms of assistance, or both. Thus, these methods, which include strikes, boycotts, and embargos, focus on slowing or halting of normal operation (Sharp 1973: 183).
Meanwhile, nonviolent intervention encompasses actions that are designed to “disrupt or even destroy established behaviour patterns, policies, relationships, or institutions which are seen as objectionable; or … establish new behaviour patterns, policies, relationships, or institutions which are preferred” (Sharp 1973: 357). Methods that fall under this heading are such as hunger strike, sit-in, nonviolent obstruction, seizure of assets, and nonviolent land seizure.
Another classification is presented by Boserup and Mack (1974: 37-38), who grouped nonviolent actions into: (1) symbolic actions, (2) denial activities, and (3) undermining activities. Symbolic activities are those aimed at providing the psychological basis for the resistance, giving emphasis on (a) demonstrating the unity and strength of the resistance, both to its exponents and opponents, and (b) delimiting the resistance group, and therefore forcing other parties to take a stand, either for or against (Boserup and Mack 1974: 38-40). Denial activities are those aiming on preventing the opponent from achieving his or her initial objectives, conducted through (a) physical obstruction and sabotage, and/or (b) non cooperation (Boserup and Mack 1974: 40-47). Meanwhile, undermining activities aim at undermining the opponent’s ability to continue the fight – splitting and weakening the opponent. They focus on (a) seeking for the opponent’s conversion, (b) appealing to the opponent’s conscience, (c) splitting the opponent’s home front, and/or (d) mobilising international support (Boserup and Mack 1974: 47-54).