For this week's column, I will not focus on a particular nonviolent hero (or heroine) or a particular historical struggle which illustrates the practice of active nonviolence. Instead, I thought it useful to examine some of the different perspectives in contemporary nonviolence theory. In some cases, these could even be seen as rival concepts of nonviolence, but in the majority of cases it is possible to see them as opposing or divergent emphases or aspects that a fully-orbed theory of nonviolence would balance within itself. I can only sketch these differing aspects briefly, here, and I make no claim to completeness. There may well be other views by other theorists that would shed light from still other perspectives.

Passive nonresistance. The concept of nonviolence as an active form of struggle that deliberately refuses weapons or tactics that cause bodily injury or death to the opponent is a modern one. One can find instances of nonviolent resistance to evil and injustice throughout history. The earliest recorded example may be the civil disobedience and deception of the Egyptian pharoah by the Hebrew midwives Shiphrah and Puah (Ex. 1). Later, there are nonviolent mass actions as well. But these early efforts do not appear connected to any theory of nonviolence as an alternative means of struggle to violence and war. Many of the same figures who engaged in either solitary nonviolent witness or mass nonviolent direct action would at other times take up arms. Prior to the late 19th or early 20th C., the renunciation of violence was seen as a personal or communal calling, but not as a form of struggle. Indeed, influenced by traditional translations of Jesus' words in Matt. 5:39 as "resist not evil," most Christian pacifists called their refusal to harm or kill, "nonresistance." [It is worth noting that several contemporary biblical scholars have challenged this traditional translation in ways that I find persuasive. For reasons of Greek grammar I won't go into here, this verse is better translated along the lines of, "Do not resist by evil means," or "Do not resist evil violently."] This was especially true of many of the "historic peace churches" such as the Hutterites, Mennonites, Dunkers/Brethren, and, to a lesser extent, the Friends/Quakers. Again, this is at the conceptual or theoretical level. Many of these groups' members occassionally engaged in actions that today would be called active nonviolence or even (if unjust laws were broken) civil disobedience. But their emphasis was on the refusal to do harm, even to accept martyrdom rather than to kill or strike back. They did not see their peace witness as active struggle against injustice. So much was this concept and terminology missing that when U.S. abolitionists Adin Ballou, and William Lloyd Garrison in the U.S. and the writer Leo Tolstoy in Russia began forging more active concepts of nonviolence, they still called their views, "nonresistance."

About the middle of the 20th Century, some American Mennonite theologians were alarmed at the more active forms of nonviolence employed by Gandhians, Christian pacifists, the Fellowship of Reconciliation, and the mass Civil Rights and peace movements. To distance themselves from these other movements, people like Guy Hershberger retrieved the older term, "nonresistance," declared that to be "the Anabaptist view" and deliberately contrasted it with the terms "pacifism," and "nonviolence," both of which were seen as sub-Christian ethical stances. Other Mennonites, who had no desire to distance themselves from the movements he found so threatening, either disagreed with him directly and abandoned the term "nonresistance," or nuanced its definition so that it was clear that one was neither cooperating with evil nor failing to work for justice. Today, "nonresistance" is still a preferred term among many of the Church of the Brethren, and more Mennonites, but others use terms like "nonviolence," "nonretaliation," or even "pacifism" to describe their peace witness. Those involved in work with the Mennonite Central Committee, Christian Peacemaker Teams, or ecumenical groups like Witness for Peace, have definitely adopted concepts of nonviolent active struggle, whatever their preferred terminology.

Passive resistance. Again, one can find various forms of nonviolent struggle throughout history. The English Colonists in what is today the United States engaged in various forms of nonviolent resistance to the British long before the Revolutionary War. So successful were these actions that nine of the thirteen Colonies had achieved de facto independence by 1776. Had they understood and accepted the concept, U.S. independence from Britain might have been won without a bloody revolutionary war. As the concept of active struggle without arms or killing grew, the next term adopted was "passive resistance." To my knowledge, the first use of this term was by the English Free Churches, especially the Baptists, in the early 20th Century. They objected to government-sponsored teaching of Church of England doctrine in the public schools and practiced tax resistance to protest it. This was called the "passive resistance campaign," and resulted in the jailing of many Nonconformist (i.e., non-Anglican) ministers and laypersons and seizures of their property, until the law was repealed. A young Hindu lawyer in South Africa named Mohandas K. Gandhi watched this campaign with interest from afar as he began his own resistance movement against legal discrimination toward Indian immigrants to South Africa. Gandhi initially called his strategy, "passive resistance," although he was later to reject the term as not accurately describing the direct action engagement involved. Today, most nonviolent theorists see passive resistance as one component of a larger nonviolent strategy. In passive resistance, the practicioner withdraws all active cooperation with the oppressor. The classic example is going limp when arrested for civil disobedience, forcing police to drag you or carry you to jail. (Some followers of this strategy go further and refuse to speak when asked their name and other information by the arresting authorities.)

Gandhian Satyagraha. Gandhi eventually coined a new term, using old Sanskrit words for "truth" and "struggle." Satyagraha, literally "struggling for truth" or "adhering to the truth," has been variously translated as "truth force," or "soul force." Here is the modern concept of active nonviolence in full bloom. The theory is two-fold: The Satyagrahi or "truth warrior" (i.e., nonviolent activist) both withdraws cooperation with injustice and seeks by confrontive forms of nonviolent action to expose the truth of the unjust situation to the oppressor and the wider world. Ultimately, one hopes for the conversion of the oppressor. Many tactics are employed: strikes, walk-outs, stay-at-homes, ostracism of the enemy or collaborators (or deliberately fraternizing with them to win them over), nonpayment of some or all taxes, work slowdowns, establishing alternative institutions and refusing to recognize the oppressive ones, demonstrations, marches, sit-ins, etc. In all of this, the group must remain disciplined and nonviolent even in the face of repressive violence or provocation -- even if some of the Satyagrahis are injured or killed by the oppressors.

Out of the study of Gandhi's campaigns have come two rival emphases in contemporary nonviolence. One group, represented by such people as Joan Bondurant and Richard Gregg, have tried to remain true to Gandhis theories, which they see as the pure essence of nonviolence. They emphasize the spiritual dimensions of nonviolent struggle, and the attempt to win over the oppressors. Christian versions of this emphasis include Martin Luther King, Jr.'s recasting of Gandhian nonviolence into terms of Christian agape or love for enemies. King exhorted practicioners of "love force" not merely to refrain from outward violence or even to refrain from hatred of their opponents, but to strive to actively love them with the unbounded love of God. Dorothy Day, Thomas Merton, Daniel Berrigan, John Howard Yoder and other Christian pacifists have also stressed the controlling ethic of love in nonviolent direct action. In a different form the spiritual dimensions of nonviolence have also been emphasized by the Buddhist thinkers, Thich Nhat Hanh (nominated for the 1968 Nobel Peace Prize by Martin Luther King, Jr.) and the 14th Dalai Lama.

In stark contrast to this emphasis on the spiritual dimensions of nonviolence has been the school of thought which sees nonviolence primarily as a superior means of social and political struggle, a practical alternative to war or revolution. The leading symbol of this more pragmatist approach to nonviolence is the Quaker political scientist Gene Sharp. Sharp also studied Gandhi, but primarily in terms of political theory and strategy (as the title of his book, Gandhi as a Political Strategist shows). In his classic three-volume work, The Politics of Nonviolence, Sharp analyzed power and struggle from the perspective of nonviolence (rejecting completely such views as Mao's "Power flows from the barrel of a gun!"). He sees all government power, whether or not democratically elected, as based on the consent of the governed. If that consent is removed and stays removed, no amount violence or force can ensure the cooperation of the governed. Sharp also categorized, described, and gave historical examples of nearly 200 different methods of nonviolent action and, in his third volume, analyzed the dynamics of nonviolent campaigns. The Sharp school, which includes people such as Peter Achemann and Jack Duvall, notes that in most successful nonviolent mass movements, the majority of the people are not pacifists and do not engage in nonviolent struggle for either moral or religious reasons. Rather, either do not have the capabilities of mounting an armed struggle, or have tried an armed struggle and seen it fail. They are engaged in nonviolent struggle not to redeem the soul of the oppressor, but to topple him or her from power and to institute a form of government more to their liking. The African-American political philosopher, Greg Moses, who has studied King's political philosophy, also is part of this school of thought.

My own view of this debate is that both schools of thought are partly right. For the pacifist, Christian or otherwise, nonviolence is a way of life. Cut off the theological or spiritual underpinnings of nonviolence and it no longer makes sense to such persons, among whom I count myself. But in any mass movement, the majority of participants will not be convinced pacifists. They will engage in nonviolence as a strategy for change. But concentration on nonviolence as a pragmatic strategy of change alone fails to recognize how difficult it is for humans to remain nonviolent when provoked or attacked or when loved ones die in the struggle at the oppressor's hands. Deep spiritual roots are probably necessary for any social change movement to remain nonviolent over a long haul. Veterans of such movements can point to two major indications of the need for the spiritual dimensions of nonviolence: Negatively, there are the examples of the people who become psychologically damaged in a prolonged social struggle -- who manage to keep their outward actions nonviolent, but become consumed by a hatred that mirrors that of the oppressors. Positively, there is the example of the many people who begin by practicing nonviolence simply as a social change strategy, but who become grasped by the deeper dimensions of nonviolence during the struggle and adopt nonviolence as a way of life. Whether or not they become formally converted to any particular religion, such individuals begin to reflect the spirituality of nonviolence. But religious pacifists need also to learn from the concrete tactics and deep political analyses of the pragmatic school. Nonviolent movements are engaged in struggle, and mere loving feelings or a peaceful spirituality alone will not stop a system of injustice.

Psychological dimensions of nonviolence have been analyzed by people like Erik Erikson, Catholic theologian, James P. Hanigan, and others. By contrast with people like Franz Fanon who believe that oppressed persons need to use violence in gaining their liberation in order to be free from "psychological slavery," these thinkers point to the way that nonviolence empowers the practicioner with a stronger sense of self long before it succeeds in transforming a social ill. In armed struggle, only a minority of the people will do the fighting for others, but in nonviolent mass movements, people of all ages, physical conditions, educational levels, of every strata of society can actively engage in their own liberation. They begin to think free and walk free and, even if most of them don't succeed in actively loving or forgiving their enemies, their refusal to use violence makes a post-struggle reconciliation (and a consequent healthier and more stable society) easier to obtain. Both hatred and fearful subservience are very detrimental to the mental health of individuals or groups. Nonviolence can combat both of these conditions.

Finally, Just Peacemaking Theory, as developed by Glen Stassen, Duane K. Friesen, Ronald Stone, John Langan, Susan Thistlethwaite, Michelle Tooley, John Cartwright, Michael Dyson, Theodore Koontz and Gayle Gerber Koontz, Pat McCullough, Peter Paris, and myself, among others, places active nonviolence within a larger peacemaking and justice seeking framework. For such persons, some pacifists and others not, nonviolent direct action is an important just peacemaking practice, but needs to be complimented by other practices such as conflict resolution and mediation, promotion of democracy and human rights, fostering sustainable economic development, taking independent initiatives to reduce threats to the adversary, acknowledging one's own responsibility, seeking repentance and forgiveness, and encouraging grassroots peacemaking groups and voluntary associations. [For a full list of such practices, see Just Peacemaking: Ten Practices to Abolish War, ed. Glen H. Stassen (Pilgrim Press, 1998).]

Doubtless there are many other perspectives on nonviolence not mentioned here. However, I hope that this survey fleshes out a few of them. In calling every church to be a peace church, we need to explore together, congregation by congregation, denomination by denomination, the meaning of nonviolence and its relation to love, forgiveness, justice, and peacemaking. Not all individuals or churches will emphasize the same things or come to the same exact perspective. But all of us will be on the way to becoming more faithful disciples of Jesus if we wrestle with such matters together.

<< prev chapter (9) | next chapter (11) >>