Symposium 2000

A Comparison of Practical and Principled Nonviolent Action Theories

Jonathan Horst
Sophomore
Goshen College 2000


Introduction

The phrase "nonviolent action" brings to mind a wide variety of sometimes conflicting images. The image of a Chinese student at Tiananmen Square standing in the way of a tank was portrayed around the world, along with the stories of those who were shot and run over by those tanks. Indian participants pressed forward undauntedly in columns and then in groups to the salt depot at Dharasana while being beaten back with clubs by police forces who were infuriated by the nonresistance of the people. Individual Danes sneaked onto the Nazi occupied airfields at night to sabotage their own planes to prevent them from being used against the Allies and the Danish people. Polish workers during the Solidarity movement refused to vote even though it was illegal and succeeded in preventing the election of unwanted single ticket politicians. Though widely varied, these images all accurately represent nonviolent social change movements of the last century.

Two theories have dominated the recorded history of the nonviolent social change movement as motivation for keeping the movements nonviolent: pragmatism and principle. A pragmatic approach has led to what is called practical nonviolent action--action based either on the lack of violent options or on the direct efficiency of nonviolence. Action based on a theory of moral, ethical, or religious principles is known as principled nonviolent action. Both theories have motivated successful campaigns and both have spawned actions in which the goals of the movement were not accomplished. A number of authors in recent years have carefully examined and articulated both theories along with the case studies of movements that were based on them.

Most movements are also not entirely principled or practical, although groups within the movement may adhere strictly to one theory or the other. Sometimes the leadership is split between the two theories as in the civil rights movement in the USA and the student movement at Tiananmen Square (Schell 249). The resultant tension may split the group weakening the movement so leaders and organizers learn to overlook their personal beliefs, or those of the smaller group that they represent, for the sake of the larger movement. Because the two theories allow differing methods, sometimes mutually exclusive, tension may result even though the underlying goal of human rights for the repressed is the same.

Though both seek to end repression, their mechanisms of change are different (Ackerman 49). Practical nonviolence allows any of the four mechanisms of change: conversion, accommodation, coercion and disintegration. These options allow for any change, from the winning over of the opponent to the complete stripping of the opponent's power, whatever must be done to give the power of the haves to the have-nots. Principled nonviolence requires that the opponent be converted to the protagonist's side through a process of reconciliation, thus limiting the variety of actions that can be done and tactics that can be used. The former is concerned only with helping the repressed and the latter seeks equality and justice for all.

Pragmatic Nonviolence Theory

Practical nonviolence "is for those who want to change the world from what it is to what they believe it should be," says Alinsky to start his book, Rules for Radicals, in which he explains the theory and practice of practical nonviolence (Alinsky 3). Those who chose to work for social change nonviolently from a pragmatic standpoint have typically chosen nonviolence for one of two reasons: lack of available weapons for fighting, or the feeling that there will be a higher chance of success through nonviolence. For those with no power, there is not always the luxury of acting as one's conscience demands and the good of humanity should always be above one's own sense of moral purity (Alinsky 25).

Most practical nonviolence theories are based on the idea that power comes from the consent of the people being ruled. When people cease to obey, the government loses its power and cannot function effectively (Sharp 4,84). But disobedience comes at a high cost, especially to persons who are working for change individually. It is the job of organizers to persuade masses of people, even if still the minority, to withdraw their cooperation from the government. The people must take power from the government, or the privileged, and redistribute it to themselves to seek equality, equal opportunities, full employment, health benefits, or whatever injustice the people are seeking to right (Alinsky 3).

Practical nonviolence is completely goal oriented. It does not require that its followers use any specific tactics, or rather, it does not limit any tactics from being used, for conversion of the opponent to one's own side is not the only acceptable mechanism of change as it is with principled nonviolence (Sharp 68). From a pragmatic viewpoint, the biggest evil is not the use of any specific type of means, but rather the refusal to use any means when confronted with injustice (Alinsky 26).

Practical nonviolence does not require nonviolent methods to be the only tactics used by the movement, only when it is the most expedient means to accomplishing the movement's goals. Many movements combine violent and nonviolent methods with decision of which to use being depending on the individual action. Within an action that is planned as nonviolent, strict nonviolent discipline is upheld to show the repressive nature of the opponent to the masses or to prevent massive bloodshed.

Practical nonviolence is warfare...warfare without weapons...aimed at maximizing the benefits of the people while preventing the violent military repression that usually follows violent liberation or justice movements.

The Practice of Pragmatic Nonviolence

Practical nonviolence, like warfare, can have a science behind the strategies and tactics that the movement chooses to use. Ackerman and Kruegler, in their book Strategic Nonviolent Conflict, outline the numerous strategies that movements can access and the tactics that have been used or are worth considering (Ackerman 23). They argue that there is no reason that social change movements should not be as carefully planned as warfare, but with this comes the awareness that within each action the leaders must be trained to think quickly to react in the best manner to unforeseen circumstances.

There are three levels of practical nonviolent social change actions. The first is protest and is an attempt to reason with the opponent or to cause them to use react in such a way that their strength can be used against them to convince society that the protagonist group is right. Ridicule is one of the most effective means of drawing such a reaction which is termed political jujitsu. The second level is non cooperation which means withdrawing support from the government to limit its power or prevent it from working smoothly. The third level is intervention--taking direct action to impede the means by which injustice is being inflicted on the people (Ackerman 6). The first level is often not strong enough to cause the desired change because the group with power has no reason to give their power away, except for moral reasons which are rarely acted upon.

Though most issues or organizations have positive and negative aspects, it is necessary for a movement that the issue be polarized to spur people to action (Alinsky 78). The majority of support that could be gotten from those within the status quo, the middle class who profess ideals of justice and equality, will not take opposition to something that they view as capable of being reformed (Alinsky 20). Once the issue is polarized, an individual target is chosen to be attacked first, either a person, group or institution (Alinsky 131). A common enemy unifies the movement and gives a concrete entity on which to focus the movement's efforts. These are all done for expediency, even though these actions may harm the person or institution who has been chosen for vilification.

A successful movement will often first develop concrete objectives, the goals toward which it is working. These goals may be a long or short term, and if reached or approached are often supplanted by a more lofty goal. Next the movement will develop organizational strength, cultivate outside assistance and a network of available resources (Ackerman 7,23). These are necessary before large scale actions can be organized; the movement must be able to organize an action, get the word out, and create a large base of people that will attend or be supportive.

According to Alinsky, practical nonviolence is often responsible for one revolution which some time later is followed by another as the new people in power begin to abuse it or they stop pushing for change to benefit others that are still repressed must revolt to secure their own liberties (Alinsky 18, 22).

Pragmatic Nonviolence Case Study: Danish Resistance to the Nazis, W.W.II

The Danish resistance to the Nazi invasion in W.W.II included both violent and nonviolent means and the nonviolent aspects were done based on a pragmatic decision of what would have the highest chance of success (Roberts 154). They approached the invasion with three goals: the continued material welfare of the people, Danish sovereignty, and the cultural and social survival of Denmark (Ackerman 217). The first step to accomplishing these goals was the original surrender of the country which prevented collateral damage and later Prime Minister Savenius's method of negotiations.

To increase the effect of the negotiations, the Danes circulated a bulletin listing ten commandments that citizens should follow during the Nazi occupation which recommended noncooperation and nonviolent monkey wrenching where possible (Ackerman 220). They refused to obey orders in the manner that the German's intended, even when officially complying, as in the case of incarcerating leaders of the DKP--the Danish Communist Party--which protected them from punishment by the Nazis instead of leading to their death (Ackerman 222). The workers also proceeded to strike, scuttle or steer ships to Norway, and derail supply trains returning to Germany to slow the production and transportation of war materials to the German army. This led to consternation among the German commanders in charge of Denmark on how to rule and maintain a steady supply of resources out of the country. High ranking officials in the remaining Danish government were able to quibble about the effects of martial law and prevented some harm through negotiation although they had no real power (Ackerman 228).

Though there was occasional violent repression after certain actions, especially the more violent actions of sabotage or individual assaults, less than 5000 Danes were killed (Ackerman 240). Denmark did lose its long held stance of neutrality though.

Principled Nonviolence Theory

Whereas practical nonviolence is focused on the achievement of goals, principled nonviolence theory maintains that the ultimate goal of all social change is to bring reconciliation between the opponents to promote justice. Conversion is the only acceptable mechanism of change and the process of change--building relationships with the opponent--is as fundamentally important as the final goal. Many of the famous adherents to principled nonviolence have been influenced by religion and framed their arguments in terms of truth or agape love. Both sets of language place the highest value on the relationships between persons and the need for reconciliation in order to know God.

Principled nonviolence seeks justice with the condition that injustice cannot be committed toward the opponent in the process. The goal is to bring justice without perpetuating the cycle of revolution and inevitable counterrevolution that Alinsky believed is inherent in change (Alinsky 18). Because all relationships are, by nature, a process, the means and ends are intimately connected and sometimes the same thing (Lightning xii, 8; Gandhi 10). The high regard for the welfare of the opponents and the desire for their conversion leads to the necessity of self-suffering as the tool of change. The movement cannot vilify the opponent nor commit violence of any form--be it in thought, speech, or deed (Gandhi 14, 56).

Gandhi's adherence to nonviolence was due to his belief that no person knows complete truth and so cannot punish or inflict harm (Gandhi 3). A group must seek their advancement by showing the opponent the injustice of the current system and revealing the mutual humanity of both groups. Martin Luther King Jr.'s theory of nonviolence was based on Jesus Christ's command to love one's enemy, seeking what is in both parties best interest--that is, reconciliation between the two. The differing religious bases for these two leaders led to the same conclusion; a movement must maintain nonviolent discipline to not violate the personhood of the opponents to break the cycle of revolt and repression. Principled nonviolence "believes in the possibility of every person, however depraved, being reformed under humane and skilled treatment" (King 233).

The Practice of Principled Nonviolence

Like practical nonviolence, leaders of principled movements often formulate overall goals and emphasize the use of planned strategies and tactics to benefit the movement. Unlike practical movements, these meetings to discuss strategy and tactics do not just focus on what will most expediently accomplish the goals, but are faced with the more difficult task of organizing actions that will make a point and encourage both change and negotiations or discussion between the sides.

The focus on truth and love necessitate that the movement first learns the facts about the issue as well as possible, as well as learning the opponents view of the situation. Next, the group proceeds with dialogue and negotiations in an attempt to bring reconciliation. If this does not produce results, the group then goes through a process of self-purification. Without this step actions may turn violent or lead to the implementation of biased and manipulative strategies (Lightning 8). Following this purification, the participants are ready to involve themselves in noncooperation with the unjust deeds of the system, but this is the last resort of the movement (Gandhi iv, 4). Once the action has been done the process is continued at the third step as negotiations and dialogue are resumed between the two groups. One of the main goals of each action is to create dialogue, as well as to protect those who are being repressed. Action and dialogue are repeated as long as necessary in order to accomplish change. None of the actions are done secretly to preserve truth and increase trust between the two opposing sides (Gandhi 358).

Even though a common enemy brings unity to a movement, vilification is not acceptable because it is violent to the opponent. A true characterization of the opponent's actions can be presented if it is made clear that the person is not a "bad person" and that the movement is not against this individual or group but against the repression being done (Gandhi 84). A second characteristic of principled movements is that the participants willingly accept the full consequences of their disobedience without attempts to avoid them...they may even push for the maximum punishment the law allows which can lead to a greater public outcry against the injustice (Gandhi 4, 62).

Principled Nonviolence Case Study: Solidarity in Poland

The ultimate goal of the resistance movement in Poland, later known as Solidarity, was for Polish self government ending communist rule. Preliminary goals toward reaching self government were free trade unions, work reforms, and civil rights (Powers 482). Solidarity was centered in the major industrial centers and in the churches and sought to maintain Polish identity--a combination of Polish traditions and Christian morality (Walesa 306).

The main weapon of the Solidarity movement was a highly organized system by which individual strikes could be coordinated into a general strike by workers across the country. A general strike could bring the country's industrial operations to a halt but carried with it the threat of Soviet invasion (Powers 484). Popular leader Lech Walesa was known for his rousing speeches in which he never used offensive language against the opponent and even his harshest remarks came across as respectful of each person's humanity (Walesa 126).

Because the country was "self ruled" by the communist party, Solidarity sought first to reform the government and only later created a parallel government (Walesa 146). Voting was also required in Poland and candidates had to receive the vote of over fifty percent of the population to be elected. During an election in the late 1980s the refusal of citizens to vote led to some government seats being empty. When all television stations were removed from the airwaves except the one owned by the state that played propaganda, the citizens turned the TVs to the empty streets and let them blare to streets empty of people, due to a curfew, except for police (Powers 485).

Though many thought the Solidarity movement was a failure, after a time of dormancy it resurfaced and many of the goals are now fulfilled. "The Polish movement has been defeated and destroyed" wrote Touraine in 1982 after Solidarity faded (Touraine 195). This shows the contrast between the patience of principled nonviolence and the results orientation of practical nonviolence.

A Practical Critique of Principled Nonviolence: Saul Alinsky

The most stinging critique of principled nonviolence may be that those who say "I agree with your ends but not your means" tend to be middle class persons who stalemate change movements by their implicit adherence to the status quo (Alinsky 20). He also argues that most leaders use morality to cover their naked self interest, such as when Gandhi implied in the fourth part of his Declaration of Independence that the Indians would have used violence if the people had been trained and weapons were accessible (Alinsky 39, 43). Alinsky's basic view was that the whole system was so corrupt that any means of accomplishing the empowerment of the people were good. Because people tend believe that their beliefs are right, enemies are always dubbed immoral and the notion of reconciliation is that those who have or get power force the others to accept it (Alinsky 13). The concept of loving the enemy is also seen as "helping the evil-doer continue doing evil or tolerating it by passive acquiescence," something Gandhi denied (Gandhi 161).

A Principled Critique of Practical Nonviolence

Principled leaders claim that the means and end of a movement must be in harmony in order for the desired change to occur without negative repercussions in the future. Though practical nonviolence does lead to a desired goal that is more egalitarian than the previous state of matters, many of its methods lead to violence against individuals or groups which is inconsistent with the pursuit of justice because violence can only suppress evil, not overcome it (Gandhi 3, iv). Though Alinsky states that there is a natural cycle or revolution and counterrevolution, principled nonviolence asserts that this cycle can be broken by self-suffering love for others (Alinsky 18; Lightning 14). Practical nonviolent movements can also become self focused and the movement continues only so long as those involved feel repressed. When their goals have been accomplished, another group must organize to get their own freedoms (Alinsky 22).

Practical and Principled Nonviolence meet: Tiananmen Square

The leadership of the student movement at Tiananmen Square was split between practical and principled nonviolence and differing actions had different effects within the movement (Schell 249). Many are familiar with the massacre that occurred on June 3-4 1984 at the square and there are many theories why this occurred. Some say that the students were pressing their issue to far and overestimated their power, others that the leadership was inexperienced and disorganized, and others say that they underestimated the sheer brutality of the government under Mao (Powers 526).

The first gathering was to mourn the death of Hu Yaubang, a reform minded leader in the communist party. The students, and later intellectuals and artists, had a hunger strike at the square and there were many mass demonstrations. The first time that the Peoples Liberation Army came to evict the students from the square almost two million civilians flooded the streets to prevent them from reaching the square (Powers 525). A few days later they returned and when they met with students the disorganized leadership failed to maintain strict nonviolence and many students were beaten and others retaliated with violence (June 8). Some of the demonstrators did maintain nonviolent discipline and protected the beaten army men (TS 86b).

Some feel that the criticism of Deng Xiaoping on public television by one of the leaders, while opening the eyes of the public to the fallibility of the leadership, also served to strengthen the resolve of the government to put down the student movement (Powers 524). The resolve of the government was shown by their use of tanks to scare the demonstrators even though it was not until later that they were used (TS 69).

Some feel that this movement was a failure because their goals were not met and the government is still considered repressive towards human rights. But the situation did expose the brutality of Deng and led to a worldwide outcry (Powers 526). It still remains to be seen what will be the final result of this action that shocked the world.

Conclusion

Both practical and principled nonviolent action movements are effective methods of social change and have many adherents. What practical nonviolence lacks in moral principles it makes up for in direct results. Principled nonviolence asserts that though its short term results may seem minimal, the long-term results will be a society that is more just towards all of its inhabitants, something that practical nonviolence does not necessarily promote or even assume to be the case.
Movements of both types can benefit from strategic planning of what actions will be done and how the desired goals will be reached. As with warfare, trained leaders that can react to individual situations with calmness and a knowledge of what to do are essential because each situation has the potential for unforeseen circumstances. There may never be a clear cut answer as to which type of movement is more beneficial, or more effective, but with the rise of nuclear weapons, nonviolent resistance is almost mandated for the sake of survival of life on the planet.

Works Cited.

Ackerman, Peter and Christopher Kruegler. Strategic Nonviolent Conflict: The Dynamics of People Power in the Twentieth Century. Westport, CT: Praeger Publishers, 1994.

Alinsky, Saul. Rules for Radicals: A Practical Primer for Realistic Radicals. New York: Vintage Books, 1971.

Pei chuang. June 4. Fayetteville: University of Arkansas Press, 1989.

Douglas, James. Lightning East to West: Jesus, Gandhi, and the nuclear age. New York: Crossroad, 1983.


Gandhi, Mahatma K. Satyagraha. Ahmedabad: Navajivan Publishing House 1958.

King, Mary. Mahatma Gandhi and Martin Luther King Jr: The Power of Nonviolent Action. Paris: UNESCO Publishing, 1999.
Powers, . Protest, Power and Change.

Roberts, Adam. Civilian Resistance as National Defense.

Schell, Orville. "Children of Tiananmen." Rolling Stone. December 14-28, 1989: 185-8+.

Sharp, Gene. The Politics of Nonviolent Action volume 1. Boston: P. Sargen, 1973.

Touraine, Alain. Solidarity: The Analysis of a Social Movement. New York: Cambridge University Press, 1983.

Walesa, Lech. A Way of Hope. New York: H. Holt, 1987.

Yi, Mu. Crisis at Tiananmen: Reform and Reality in Modern China. San Francisco, CA: China Books & Periodicals, c1989