Nonviolence

This is the seventh installment in a multi-part series. Browse the Protective Use of Force index to read more. via Deep Green Resistance UK Lierre Keith, author of Deep Green Resistance, has very clear views on using nonviolent direct action. These views have been strongly influenced by Gene Sharp’s work. She states that the first question activists must answer is whether the political system they seek to change needs to be adjusted inside a basically sound institutional framework, or whether it requires more fundamental change. If the political system requires fundamental change, such change cannot be achieved by compromise or persuasion; it necessitates some kind of struggle that inherently involves conflict. Those who believe such institutions to be sound will “keep banging their head[s] against these institutions but the institutions will not yield to their fundamental principles." Keith points out that neither engagement in a struggle nor the use of force necessitates violence. At this stage the question of whether to use force or nonviolent tactics is premature; decisions about tactics come later. ...

This is the sixth installment in a multi-part series. Browse the Protective Use of Force index to read more. via Deep Green Resistance UK Gene Sharp is perhaps the most important modern advocate of nonviolence. In his 1973 three-volume book Politics of Nonviolent Action, he describes the theory behind the power of nonviolence, the categories of nonviolent actions, nonviolence strategy and organisation, and problems nonviolent campaigns and movements will need to overcome. The focus of his work is to encourage populations in countries with dictators to use nonviolent strategies and tactics to transition them into democracies. He also wrote From Dictatorship to Democracy , a condensed version of his earlier book that specifically focuses on overthrowing dictators through nonviolent methods.Sharp argues that the sources of political power depend on the obedience of subjects; people obey because of habit, fear of sanctions, moral obligation, self-interest, psychological identification with the ruler, and absence of self-confidence. He contends that those in power rule by the consent of the people and that this consent can be withdrawn. Yet he notes that as power is controlled by a small number of people, systems and institutions of power are hard to change.In Sharp’s model, nonviolent action is designed to be employed against opponents who use violent tactics, by creating a “special, asymmetric, conflict situation, in which the two groups rely on contrasting techniques of struggle, or ‘weapons systems’—one on violent action, the other on nonviolent action.” He believes that state repression is designed to be used against violent resistance, and so will have different results against nonviolent resistance. Sharp describes that it would be hard for the state to justify brutal repression against a nonviolent movement, so the repression will be more limited. He believes that the state may be concerned that overreacting will cause it to lose support, so it would prefer that the rebels use violence or force.Sharp proposes a method called “Political Jui-Jitsu” to deal with violent repression. If nonviolent resisters maintain their nonviolence, then the state’s repression can be exposed in the worst possible light. According to Sharp, this will cause a shift in public opinion and power relationships in a way that favours the nonviolent resisters. If and when the state overreacts, this can cause sections of the population who were sitting on the sidelines to start supporting the protesters.This theoretical advantage of nonviolence, however, assumes the repression is not too harsh to destroy the resistance movement, and that nonviolent resisters have the support of the majority of the population. Sharp does concede that if nonviolent actionists are few in number and lack the support of majority opinion then they may be vulnerable. His model also assumes that the state will use violence brutal enough, and that this violence will be publicised enough, to motivate a change in public sentiment.In his writings, Sharp stresses the importance of strategy and tactics when planning a nonviolent campaign. According to this analysis, [1] key elements of successful nonviolent resistance movements include: ...

This is the fifth installment in a multi-part series. Browse the Protective Use of Force index to read more. via Deep Green Resistance UK Gene Sharp, founder of the Albert Einstein Institution, a non-profit dedicated to the study of nonviolent action, defines nonviolence as “the belief that the exercise of power depends on the consent of the ruled who, by withdrawing that consent, can control and even destroy the power of their opponent. In other words, nonviolent action is a technique used to control, combat and destroy the opponent’s power by nonviolent means of wielding power.” [1]Nonviolence can be described as principled or pragmatic, reformist or revolutionary. Robert J. Burrowes describes how revolutionary nonviolence aims to cause significant, long term change and works towards a peaceful, egalitarian and sustainable society. [2] The Gandhian form of principled, revolutionary nonviolence is sometimes referred to as orthodox nonviolence. [3] Nonviolence can also be categorised as actions either of concentration or dispersal. Actions of concentration involve people coming together for marches and protests. Actions of dispersal would be boycotts and stay-at-home strikes, or other distributed action. [4]In Strategic Nonviolent Conflict: The Dynamics of People Power in the Twentieth Century, Peter Ackerman and Christopher Kruegler differentiate between nonviolent sanctions and principled nonviolence, pacifism, or satayagraha. Sanctions are the use of methods to bring pressure to bear against opponents by mobilizing social, economic and political power without causing direct physical injury to the opponents. Some nonviolence advocates argue that nonviolence and pacifism get confused, when they are in fact very different. [5] Principled nonviolence is synonymous with pacifism or Gandhi’s satayagraha or “truth force.” In Pacifism as Pathology, Ward Churchill describes pacifism as promising “that the harsh realities of state power can be transcended via good feelings and purity of purpose rather than by self-defense and resort to combat.” [6] Churchill argues that proponents of requisite nonviolence believe that nonviolent resisters must not inflict violence on others but may expect to experience violence directed against them. [7]Peter Gelderloos describes how nonviolent activists seem to prefer one term or another—“pacifism” or “nonviolence”—some making a distinction between the two; he also notes that these distinctions are often inconsistent. Nonetheless, pacifists and nonviolent activists tend to work together with little concern for their chosen identity or ideological label. Gelderloos defines pacifism/nonviolence as a way of life or a method of social activism that avoids, transforms, or excludes violence while attempting to change society to create a more peaceful and free world. [8]Gelderloos also takes issue with pacifists or nonviolent activists who distinguish themselves as revolutionary or non-revolutionary. He maintains that both groups work together, attend the same protests and generally use the same tactics. It is their shared vision of nonviolence, Gelderloos argues, and not a shared commitment to revolutionary goals, that primarily informs with whom they work. [9]Bowser identifies pacifists as holding two unifying beliefs: beliefs in anti-war and anti-oppressive violence. He uses the term “pacifism ” to mean ineffective, disengaging non-resistance and the term “active nonviolence” to describe offensive, creative action, where those practicing it put themselves in physical danger and engage in direct action, property destruction, and civil disobedience. [10]“Civil disobedience” is a term coined by Henry Thoreau in 1849 in his essay of the same name. He describes civil disobedience as willful disobedience of laws considered unjust or hypocritical. Sharp defines civil disobedience as a “a deliberate, open and peaceful violation of particular laws decrees, regulations, ordinances, military or police instructions, and the like which are believed to be illegitimate for some reason,” adding that “civil disobedience is regarded as a synthesis of civility and disobedience, that is, it is disobedience carried out in nonviolent, civil behavior.” [11]Lierre Keith, one of the founders of Deep Green Resistance, considers nonviolent direct action to be the most elegant political technique that has been used successfully over the last fifty years around the world. She describes how unlikely it is to shift the stance of those who have a profound moral attachment to true pacifism. She also maintains that those who support direct action using force or militant tactics need the support of nonviolent activists. She emphasizes that it is not helpful to get into conflict with these activists and that it is better to thoughtfully engage and disagree. ...

This is the second installment in a multi-part series. Browse the Protective Use of Force index to read more. via Deep Green Resistance UK Before looking at nonviolence, it’s important to define what violence is, as it is often understood in varied and misleading terms. The aim of the next three posts on violence is to move away from the binary thinking of violence versus nonviolence and to appreciate the complexity of this topic.In Endgame I: The Problem with Civilization, [1] Derrick Jensen maintains that many words and contexts are needed to approach a more complex understanding of what violence means and entails. He lists the following categories of violence in a discussion meant to provoke readers into (re)considering what forms of violence they oppose: ...

This is the first installment in a multi-part series. Browse the Protective Use of Force index to read more. Via Deep Green Resistance UK 2016 is predicted to be the hottest year since records began and environmental devastation is increasing. With so little time left and the whole world at stake, are the radical changes to halt climate change and ecocide being made? The simple answer is no, based on species extinction and the continuing global extraction and burning of fossil fuels. ...

By Lexy Garza and Rachel / Deep Green Resistance Humans are storytelling creatures, and our current strategy as a movement is a story, with a beginning, middle, and end. We need to ask whether that story matches up with reality, and with the way social change has happened throughout history. So here’s the story as it stands: By raising awareness about the issues, we will create a shift in consciousness. A shift in consciousness will spark a mass movement. A mass movement can successfully end the murder of the planet by using exclusively pacifist tactics. We all know this narrative, we hear it referenced all the time, and it resonates with a lot of people, but we need to examine it with a critical eye along with the historical narratives that are used to back it up. There are truths behind these ideas, but there is also the omission of truth, and we can decipher the interests of the historian by reading between the lines. Let’s take each piece of this narrative in turn to try and find out what’s been omitted and those interests that omission may be concealing. ...

By now we should all be familiar with what’s at stake. The horrific statistics—200 species driven extinct daily, every child born with hundreds of toxic chemicals already in their bodies, every living system on the planet in decline—haunt us as we go about our work in a world that refuses to hear, listen, or act on them. After decades of traditional organizing and activist work, we’re beginning to come to terms with the need for a dramatic shift in strategy and tactics, and indeed in how we conceptualize the task before us. ...