Answering Three Common Objections to Nonviolence
1. "On a global level, no significant change can be brought about without military force." It's common belief, but the statement is not backed up by actual fact. Certainly there have been many situations solved by military force, typically at great cost and with long-term pain; but there have been few situations that couldn't have been solved in other ways. And history shows us many times when significant change was brought about without military force. Consider the work of Gandhi or MLK, or the ouster of the authoritarian Communist government of Poland, or any of the dozens of other examples from history.
2."'Some men just want to watch the world burn' and have no desire for peace; therefore force is necessary." This idea (expressed here in a quote from The Dark Knight) is an attractive explanation for the evil of the world, but in reality the vast majority of those in positions of power who are committing evil acts have specific ideologies and goals. Against these men nonviolence has often been effective -- even when they had no desire for peace! Consider, again, the many historical examples (The sorts of men who just want to watch the world burn do not have political power. They exist, but most are dealt with quickly by police and end up in prisons or asylums. Not even Hitler fits that description, and some of his plans were in fact stymied by nonviolent action.)
3. "Nonviolence may be nice for Christians, but as soon as you try to take this message outside your own religion wouldn’t it be viewed as meaningless?” Absolutely not. All major religions, and many nonreligious philosophical systems, have similar ideals of peace. Gandhi was not a Christian, and his movement is essentially the modern model for effective, pragmatic, practical nonviolence. Furthermore, pragmatic and very-effective methodologies of nonviolent action have been developed by secular scholars such as Gene Sharp, who wrote a book (From Dictatorship to Democracy) that assisted in the peaceful overthrow of multiple violent, authoritarian governments. Nonviolence is hardly just a Christian idea, and it has been an effective tactic for justice-seeking people of all faiths and of no faith at all.
Further Resources:
A few examples of successful nonviolent struggle
Common misconceptions about nonviolence (PDF file)
FAQ's answered by the International Fellowship of Reconciliation
FAQ's answered by the Albert Einstein Institution
(1 vote)
- Matt Shafer's blog
- Login or register to post comments
Comments
Great post on nonviolence
This is a great post answering some criticisms of nonviolence, Matt. There may be a documentary you may be interested in. In the library there is a DVD called Encounter Point (http://www.amazon.com/Encounter-Point-Ronit-Julia-Bacha/dp/B000R4SKEW/re...). It is about a group of Palestinian and Israeli families who lost family members to the conflict, yet meet together to talk and grieve and fight for nonviolent change in the Israeli/Palestinian conflict. I also learned of a Muslim who fought for nonviolence, Badshah Khan (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Khan_Abdul_Ghaffar_Khan). He is known as the nonviolent soldier of Islam and may be a good alternative role model for Muslims who are struggling with radical fundamentalists.
One reservation that I have with pacifism is that it works in countries where the media can be used to appeal to the conscience of a nation, but I wonder how it would work in places where there is media censorship. King's and Gandhi's nonviolent tactics were meant to create a reaction where the prevalent racism and injustice is brought out in the open to be witnessed by the cameras and the reporters, who could then report it to the public. In Hitler's Germany or in Stalin's Soviet Union, where the media was severely limited, would nonviolent tactics have worked as well with no newspapers or movie crews to publicize the injustices that nonviolent tactics expose? I don't have an answer.
I generally support nonviolent tactics. But I wonder if in order for nonviolence to be effective in bringing change to society, a free press is needed. My question, which I don't have an answer to, is does nonviolence and pacifism work in all conditions or does it work only in areas where a free press has access to publicize the injustices nonviolent tactics exposes?
Angelo