If you can persist in the face of repression, you communicate to your adversary that what they’re doing isn’t so much bad, which it probably is, as much as it is ineffective. Then you begin to drive a wedge between the liberals and conservatives in power. The liberals moan and complain, ”They’re making us look so bad, can’t we think of something to give them to get them to stop or at least slow down?” The conservatives respond, “No, no, no. If we’re more brutal, we can break them.” Nevertheless, IF you can persist in the face of repression, you push that wedge further and further between the factions of power. Here’s the key: the better the nonviolent discipline, the further the wedge will go for any given level of effort and sacrifice. The smoother the wedge, the further it goes. The rougher the wedge, the slower it proceeds. Explanation:What so many fellow nonviolence practitioners appear to ignore is that the power dynamic will not begin without eliciting repression. Remaining nonviolent is insufficient. Repression needs to at least begin to present itself. A common criticism of nonviolence by people who speak against nonviolence is that " Just being nice is insufficient to make change." By taking the position that eliciting repression is not required to initiate a power dynamic, you are copntributing to nonviolence being so unfairly charcterized as " just being nice." I'm glad there is an option for people willing to participate in civil disobedience to get arrested and avoid jailtime. It is an important step for people not ready to make a greater sacrifice. Sadly, just having your head counted as having participated is not enough for this power dynamic to begin.
This is a updated version of my earlier blogspot http://summaryofmoraljujitsu.blogspot.com/ Moral jujitsu is a concept I associate with Gene Sharp, but he told me on a telephone call that he credits Richard Gregg as the originator.
This is a updated version of my earlier blogspot http://summaryofmoraljujitsu.blogspot.com/ Moral jujitsu is a concept I associate with Gene Sharp, but he told me on a telephone call that he credits Richard Gregg as the originator.
ReplyDeleteit must be clear that there are limits that must not be exceeded. if the limit is exceeded, violence manifests itself. to always be a wedge with power, to be coherent and to be, patience
So I'm guessing you agree with these words: "Here’s the key: the better the nonviolent discipline, the further the wedge will go for any given level of effort and sacrifice. The smoother the wedge, the further it goes. The rougher the wedge, the slower it proceeds." Would you assert that the terrible Birmingham church bombing did not further the cause of civil rights?
DeleteI would phrase this a bit differently: that anyone serious about nonviolent social change should expect the possibility of repression and/or violence--but that being attacked by the power structure is not a requirement for achieving social change. Sometimes the power structure responds with violent repression (including those so-called civilized Brits, who were utterly brutal in India and elsewhere)...sometimes by ignoring you and allowing the organizing to reach critical mass and achieve some of the goals...and sometimes they simply try to marginalize you. Social change can happen under all of those conditions. But as we've seen in such examples as Tiannamen that even peaceful protest can be met by brutalism. Anyone who pretends there is no risk is ignoring history and ignoring nonviolence theory.
ReplyDeleteThanks so much for the opportunity to dialog. You seem to think my reference to repression refers to beating on protesters when I'm mainly talking about jail sentences. Most American practitioners of nonviolence consider they have succeeded when they risk arrest and avoid a sentence. Not sure if refusal to arrest or sentence those arrested should be considered ignoring you. i can imagine grassroots organing could grow a movement without using the power dynamic of nonviolence, but in the case of climate change, why would they want to ignore this dynamic, which they do ignore.
DeleteDefine violence? ...if you are talking damage to property then many wouldn't define that as violence.
ReplyDeleteThanks for the question. What I think is violence is less important than when the public as a whole and the adversary you are confronted with think. I certainly distinguish between property destruction and striking a human. I reference this issue in my phrase "The smoother the wedge, the further it goes. The rougher the wedge, the slower it proceeds" Thus looking at the person with disgust is not as bad as calling them an epithet, is not as bad as lunging at them and not touching them is not as bad as poudshing them where they are not hurt is not as bad as hurting them.
DeleteDilemma Action, is the central argument as far as I can see. Presenting authority with a situation where they must apply a disproportionate violent response (arrest and forced removal) that is going to be clearly perceived by the public as unfair brutality by the state in the face of non violence. It seems to anyone who reflects upon such behaviour as brutal repression for nothing more than "expressing an opinion". Property destruction or acts of vandalism provides the state with justification for brutality and violence which they have great capacity for, this will clearly result in a negative perception of the protest being made. Non violent protesters must at all times ensure they do not resist the state response but are seen to be willing to sacrifice for their opinion. These things "drive the wedge" of public support and internal conflict in politics.
ReplyDeleteWell put. I add that nowadays the authorities realize it is not in their interest to put people considered honorable in jail, which is why post and forfeit is weaker than serving time. Post and forfeit maybe all someone can do, so its better than nothing.
Delete@David Slesinger, it's beginning to sound as if you feel that ONLY NV actions that result in arrests and jail are meaningful. I strongly disagree with that premise--and so would Gandhi (the local textiles movement), MLK (Montgomery bus boycott), and the Hebrew midwives Shifra and Pu'ah, who may have invented nonviolent resistance 3000+ years ago. (I'm at least not aware of any earlier documentation of a nonviolent action against state power than the scene in the Old Testament where Pharaoh confronts them.) The majority of Gene Sharp's 198 NV tactics do not involve arrest.
ReplyDeleteI have been involved with hundreds of actions that provided meaningful protest and in some cases helped to change government policy that did not risk arrest.
Also, it's important to give people a ladder. You have to meet people where they are ready. Most new activists take tentative steps at the beginning. Over time, some of them move up that ladder. Serving any jail time of more than a weekend or so is pretty high up the ladder. Serving a sentence of months or years is almost all the way at the top (a little below martyrdom) and many of us never reach it. You have told me many times about your frustration that so few people are willing to do as you've done.
Unknown raises excellent points about property destruction. Destruction of private property is a mistake both morally and strategically, for the reasons Unknown cites and also for its effect of making enemies of those whom other NV tactics would turn into allies.
I am a rape survivor. I have also experienced the break-in and looting/ransacking of apartments I was living in. They feel remarkably similar; the difference is in degree. Both are a violation. So was the time I was visiting my college after finishing, staying at the Gay Center--and a rock wrapped in a Nazi hate message came through the window. It wasn't my property, but I felt just as violated.
I do make a distinction between property belonging to a single person (and that would include the merchandise inside a small store) and the use of property destruction aimed at the state or at e.g. military contractors--such as the actions of the Berrigans and their compadres in damaging draft records and nuclear missiles. WE should note that unlike looters, they got no personal gain, were really careful to avoid collateral damage to living creatures, and waited around to be arrested. They maintained the moral high ground even while destroying things. But this is extremely rare. Most instances of property violence are perceived as criminal or even terrorist by the public at large AND the power structure.
I'm glad to hear your challenges which of course are not nasty. Since we are friends, it is easier for me to see your comments as a contribution to the dialog, which I, of course, invite.
DeleteIn my much longer essay https://SatyagrahaAndPleadingAlternatives.blogspot.com I make clear that I agree with your ladder reference. I laud post and foirfeit for beginners and those with logistical complications( need to return to work). I lament that hardly anyone in the US sees value in jail sacrifice. A corollary of that is that no nonviolence prep in the US even mentions that Gandhi always pleaded guilty. ( Young XR activists in UK have recently assured me they have begun to mention this after my prodding) It means nothing that I call for pleading guilty. It should mean something that Gandhi ALWAYS pleaded guilty.
I consider the great value of the plowshares actions as their long jail sacrifices which touch hearts. They avoid such description preferring to focus on the design of the action and their theological arguments in court, which also are also worthy. They do get criticized for property descruction which you correctly put in perspective. No one I've ever heard of other than me asks them to accentuate their jail sacrifice to touch hearts.
It is quite unfortunate after my reference to "Here’s the key: the better the nonviolent discipline, the further the wedge will go for any given level of effort and sacrifice. The smoother the wedge, the further it goes. The rougher the wedge, the slower it proceeds," that you feel the need to take issue with property descruction. Where to I advocate property descruction?
This is a continued reply to my friend Shel. Because my reply was too long, I must put the remainder here.
DeleteI'm in dialog with Extinction Rebellion in the UK where they seem to think that if they are not provocative with actions like throwing paint they won't get a sentence. If that is true, then that implies dignified civil disobedience can never garner a sentence. It also implies something I've said for many years, that the authorities understand nonviolence better than so many protesters. The authorities clearly understand it is not in the interest of people in power to have people considered honorable in jail. Actually, I expect that if people repeat a dignified civil diosobedience enough times, they will get a nontrivial sentence.
With the advent of recent arctic methane release it is quite possible that it is too late to prevent the end of civilization. Thus, it is more crucial that ever that nonviolence be used in its most powerful form. In general, your comments are commensurate with those who take my advocacy of jail sacrifice as implying my taking a position that nothing other than jail sacrifice is worth doing. I find myself in a position where i have almost no allies who see value in jail sacrifice. Any discussion of jail sacrifice is largely suppressed among those who do civil disobedience by twisting a statement to the effect" Let's consider jail sacrifice" into " Nothing otrher than jail sacrifice is worthy of any consideration." Do you see how that is unfair?
It's not my attention to actually accuse you of saying that only big jail terms are meaningful. What I am saying is that if you read your responses from the headspace of someone who doesn't know you personally, it would be easy to draw that conclusion.
ReplyDeleteBTW, I've been pondering what an appropriate Gahndian response would be to the issue of the extremely unfair process that gave us supreme Court Justice Amy Coney Barrett. Something that gets us out of the you did this so I'm going to do worse to you mode (like adding several more justices) and into some kind of healing and moving forward. I also want to prevent the other side being retributive once they gain power again some years from now.