Nonviolence Training

Dear Friends,

In South Sudan, the seeds of nonviolence are being sown and cultivated by the Organisation for Nonviolence and Development (ONAD), a War Resisters' International affiliate.

Despite changes of attitudes and behaviour of individuals and groups as a result of ONAD's nonviolence trainings, many people still believe armed struggle can bring the changes they hope to see. In South Sudan, society is highly militarized with some civilians owning weapons. While some have surrendered their guns to the government, disarmament of both minds and hearts are equally necessary if we are to avoid ongoing militarization of society.

 

By Brian Martin

Strikes, boycotts, sit-ins, fasts, mass rallies — these are familiar to many people. They are commonly called methods of nonviolent action. But what exactly does the expression “nonviolent action” refer to? Are there other expressions that would be better? And how well does nonviolent action work?

There are no definitive answers to these questions. A lot of people have opinions, but there are important differences and uncertainties, including among peace activists. Here, my aim is to provide a few perspectives to provide a basis for discussion. First I’ll look at how nonviolent action is defined, then at arguments for using it and at what makes it effective, and finally at different expressions. Through this, I’ll use “nonviolent action” as the provisional expression, acknowledging that others might prefer something different.

What is nonviolent action?

Over the years, I’ve found the easiest way to explain nonviolent action is by mentioning some of the most well-known methods, such as rallies, strikes and boycotts. A comprehensive listing of methods might serve as a type of definition, except for complications at the boundaries. So let’s look at the boundaries (see figure 1).

 

Figure 1. Diagram of the conceptual spaces of “conventional political action,” “nonviolent action” and “armed struggle” and their boundaries

One boundary is with violence, meaning physical violence such as beatings, torture and killing. Everyone agrees that using rifles and missiles to kill people is violence. But what about damaging physical objects, such as throwing rocks to break a shop window, burning a police vehicle or blowing up an empty building? Some would call this violence, whereas others believe it is not, saying violence must be against humans.

Some environmental activists use forms of sabotage such as destroying billboards, putting sand in the fuel tanks of bulldozers, and hammering spikes into trees, so that sawmill blades are damaged if the trees are logged. These types of action involve violence against objects but are designed to avoid hurting humans. Such actions are at the boundary between violent and nonviolent action.

What about using a hammer to dent a nosecone of a nuclear missile, a classic technique used by ploughshares activists, after which they turn themselves in to authorities? They have damaged an object — an object that itself is a powerful tool of violence. Many would call this a form of nonviolent action, despite the physical destruction involved.

What about a person who wipes a computer file containing a list of addresses of dissidents about to be arrested? This involves destroying something — the ordered patterns on a computer chip — but is hardly significant in a physical sense.

What about throwing small stones at a tank? It is using physical violence, but with little likelihood of hurting anyone.

It is possible to argue about these sorts of examples at length. Here, it is easiest to say they are at the boundary: people will disagree about whether they should be called violent or nonviolent.

Another important boundary is with conventional political action. Voting and electoral campaigning, in places where these are routine and encouraged by governments, are conventional. Nonviolent action, in contrast, goes beyond the conventional, being unusual, stronger or more confrontational. Without this boundary, someone could have a conversation about politics and say “that was nonviolent action: speaking is an action and there was no violence.”

One of the problems with this boundary is that it is not the same in all places and times. Gene Sharp, the foremost figure in the field, catalogued 198 methods of nonviolent action and said there were many more. Sharp’s focus was on major systems of domination, such as dictatorships or racial oppression. In these systems, even seemingly mild forms of action can be a serious threat to the rulers. In a dictatorship, passing out a leaflet can lead to arrest, beatings and imprisonment.

Many of the methods that Sharp called “protest and persuasion,” such as leafleting, petitioning and rallies, are risky in a dictatorship but are routine in places where civil liberties are respected. Most of the time, passing out a leaflet in Sweden or Japan is not likely to be much of a challenge to the system. The problem is that activists look at Sharp’s list of methods, see leafleting, petitioning and other such methods, and say “We’re undertaking nonviolent action.” The methods are taken out of context and treated as if they automatically are in the category “nonviolent action.” Sharp didn’t intend this but his catalogue of methods created a strong impression that the methods operate the same way everywhere.

It’s worth mentioning that using leaflets, petitions and the like, even when they are routine, can be useful and effective methods. The point here is that only in some places and times are they powerful, non-conventional means of action. In some places, strikes and boycotts are so accepted that even they might not qualify as nonviolent action.

Some people want to use the word “violence” in other contexts. For example, “emotional violence” refers to harm to others using verbal abuse, emotional manipulation and other techniques to influence their minds. “Structural violence” refers to systems of domination — such as economic exploitation via trade systems — that cause poverty, subordination, exclusion and other forms of injustice. My preference is to use “violence” to refer to physical violence. This is because when “violence” is used to refer to all sorts of things, it becomes a vague term that basically signals that something is bad: if you think it’s bad, call it violent. However, these other meanings are clear if the full expression is used, such as “emotional violence.” However, the word “violence” in such expressions seldom adds much meaning. Alternatives to “emotional violence” include emotional abuse and psychological manipulation. Alternatives to “structural violence” include exploitation, domination, oppression and injustice.

Nonviolent action is not the same as civil disobedience, which refers to actions that intentionally violate laws as a means of challenging the laws or some other injustice. However, nonviolent methods are not necessarily illegal: boycotts or banging pots and pans at a particular time may be perfectly legal and still be powerful methods of action. Civil disobedience is a specific type of nonviolent action, but there are other types too.

In summary, “nonviolent action” refers to certain types of social action. If we look at the entire array of things people can do, nonviolent action can be thought of as bounded on two sides by violence and conventional political action. It is worth mentioning that this is just one way to think about what is called nonviolent action. Some people prefer other ways of defining it.

So far, I’ve talked about “nonviolent action” rather than “nonviolence.” In the Gandhian tradition of principled action, “nonviolence” refers to an entire way of life based on an ethic of respect and compassion. “Nonviolent action,” in contrast, is more commonly used to refer to methods of action.

Why use nonviolent action?'

Nonviolent action is more forceful, disruptive or unorthodox than conventional political action, but not as forceful or destructive as violence. Nonviolent action can be thought of as being strong but not too strong.

Much of the discussion about whether to use nonviolent action assumes the main alternative is using violence, whether this means assaulting police or fighting in guerrilla forces. There are two main lines of argument in support of nonviolent action compared to violence. The first is that using violence is unethical; this is the Gandhian tradition, often called “principled nonviolence.” The second line of argument is that using violence is less effective than nonviolent action. Gene Sharp is the most prominent proponent of this view, which is often called “pragmatic nonviolence.”

Much of the debate over violent versus nonviolent action is bogged down in arguments about whether violence is justified. In the face of torture and massacres, it might be considered legitimate to use violence. But that is not the point. From the viewpoint of pragmatic nonviolence, the question should be whether violence is more effective than nonviolent action. Violence might be justified but be a poor strategic choice.

The same applies to using violence to defend against attack, for example when protesters fight back against police. It might be justified to hurt police in such circumstances, but just because it is justified doesn’t turn it into nonviolent action. Nor does it mean that defending by fighting back is necessarily more effective than other tactics.

Being nonviolent means not physically hurting the opponent, but nonviolent activists often are at risk of being hurt themselves. When the potential harm to activists is great, it may be worth considering less risky actions, to minimise harm and to enable more people to participate.

To say that violence is “too strong” is to say it can be counterproductive. It limits participation in the struggle, stimulates opponents to be more committed and unified, and fosters secrecy and authoritarianism.

Far less commonly discussed is why to use nonviolent action rather than conventional political action. The basic reason is that these methods simply don’t work, or don’t work well enough or quickly enough. Voting can bring about change, but sometimes voting systems are unfair or elections are rigged, or voters are coerced or manipulated by propaganda. Nonviolent action is a way to push for change in such situations.

As well as looking at reasons for using nonviolent action, it is helpful to identify the features of effective nonviolent action. Going on strike might seem like a good idea, but if it isn’t the right method or isn’t properly organised, it probably won’t work. Here are some features that have been cited as important for effectiveness.

Participation by many people. According to Erica Chenoweth and Maria Stephan, the more participants in anti-regime campaigns, the greater the chance of success. Participation by different sorts of people. When diverse groups — such as students, workers and small business owners, or people from different ethnic groups — participate in action, they are harder to marginalise. Diverse groups bring new ideas and networks into the struggle. Strategic choice and use of methods. It is important to choose the most appropriate methods of action and to use them well, and to innovate in response to the opponent’s tactics. Winning over neutrals and opponents. This is vital for success.

One other feature is vital: maintaining nonviolent discipline, which means not resorting to violence. This is built into the definition of nonviolent action but bears emphasising. Some campaigns fail when activists resort to violence, thereby discouraging participation and solidifying support for the opponent. Furthermore, using violence nearly always leads to greater suffering overall.

Why call it nonviolent action?

The concept I’ve been calling nonviolent action is easier to describe than to label. To say an action is “nonviolent” is to use a negative — not violent — to point to a positive, and thus is easily misinterpreted. Are there better terms? Some of the common alternatives are “passive resistance,” “satyagraha,” “civil resistance” and “people power.” Each one has advantages and disadvantages, some of which are listed in the table.

Table 1. Advantages and disadvantages of terms

Term

Usage

Advantages

Disadvantages

Passive resistance

prior to 1906, and by people unfamiliar with newer terms

• indicates lack of aggression • indicates opposition

• suggests passivity • suggests the opponent takes the initiative

satyagraha

Gandhi’s preferred term; little used outside Gandhian circles

• unfamiliar (so less easily misinterpreted) • specific

• unfamiliar • seen as foreign (except in India) • associated with pacifism

nonviolent action

standard expression in many academic and activist contexts

• standard expression • indicates absence of violence • indicate not passive

negative construction • easily misinterpreted • associations with pacifism

civil resistance

used by some academics and activists

• suggests action by civilians • suggests non-routine activity

• unfamiliar • not specific • suggests the opponent takes the initiative

people power

used in some media stories and by some academics and activists

• indicates popular participation • implies strength

• not specific • omits actions by individuals • associated with mass rallies

As suggested by the table, there is no ideal expression — and none that is used by everyone. This seems to be a big mess: different expressions, most of them misinterpreted, misunderstood or obscure. What is the solution? One response is to advocate for a particular term. Some academics prefer “civil resistance” because it avoids some of the conceptual baggage associated with “nonviolent action.”

However, there are always likely to be problems with the words, because “nonviolent action” is a contested domain. Advocates of armed struggle denigrate nonviolent action as weak and ineffective, whereas supporters of conventional politics portray it as a threat to the system. From both sides, nonviolent action is unwelcome and therefore painted in unfavourable ways. So if there was a descriptive term available for use by the wider public, before long it might also acquire undesirable connotations.

Think of the word “anarchism,” which refers to a political system without government, in which people collectively organise their own lives. Due to opposition from Marxists and mainstream politicians, the word is popularly and inaccurately used as a synonym for chaos, with anarchists portrayed as irrational bomb-throwers. This suggests that avoiding terms such as “nonviolent action” or using safer-sounding alternatives may not be effective, at least not for long.

On the other hand, sometimes a term of contempt — such as “queer” — can be reclaimed for positive uses. The idea is to embrace a term of derision and use it proudly, eventually making it seem normal and valued.

An intermediate position is to not worry about the range of different terms, and just use whatever communicates best to the audience involved. Sometimes no word need be used, because actions can be described more precisely, for example “vigil” or “occupation.”

Problems due to language

One of the traps of language is to assume that once a label is applied, then the label confers every characteristic on the thing labelled. This occurs when activists agree that something is “nonviolent” according to a definition, and assume it must be good, for example ethically acceptable or more effective than alternatives. Activists might say, “Breaking into the installation is nonviolent, because we’re only cutting wires and not hurting anyone.” That might be true, but it’s not enough.

Activists need to look at whether the action is likely to be effective. Just because it’s nonviolent action doesn’t make it effective. There might be other methods that are more effective, that enable greater participation, that win wider popular support or that undermine the commitment of opponents. Sometimes conventional political action is a better choice.

Activists need to continually examine actions in the light of their ethics and politics. Being nonviolent is not automatically ethical. Sometimes going on strike is too strong and sometimes it is for the wrong cause. The implication is to always consider ethics and politics, and think of short-term tactics in light of long-term goals, and act accordingly. Words can be useful, but shouldn’t become a substitute for thinking carefully about goals and how to achieve them.

Thanks to Christine Schweitzer and Tom Weber for valuable comments on a draft. Article based on webinar presentation at WRI's eCouncil:' https://vimeo.com/75400447

References

Chenoweth, Erica and Maria J. Stephan 2011. Why Civil Resistance Works: The Strategic Logic of Nonviolent Conflict. (New York: Columbia University Press). Sharp, Gene 1973. The Politics of Nonviolent Action (Boston: Porter Sargent).

Gathering Hosted by War Resisters' International and Ceasefire Campaign

Between the 26 – 30 July in Johannesburg, peacemakers from 12 countries in Africa met to share experiences, and birthed a new, continent-wide African Nonviolence and Peace-building Network. The delegates from over a dozen organizations pledged to intensify coordinated nonviolent resistance from the South to the North of Africa.

back to table of content

Name: Conflict line Time: Minimum 15 minutes Goal or purpose of the exercise:

To have an experience on how we deal with conflict or how we often think about violence as a solution to solve a problem. An exercise to begin to question our militaristic mindset and challenge ourselves to find nonviolent and win-win solutions.

How it's done/facilitator's notes:

The facilitator asks people to form two rows of an equal number of people facing one another. Then ask them to reach out to the person across from them to make sure they know who they will be relating to. Tell them that there is an invisible line between them. Ask the pairs to reach across the line, shake hands and hold. The only instruction is: ‘Get the other person over to your side.’ Then: ‘Now!’

Debriefing

what happened? What was the automatic response to the instruction and 'now!'?

NOTICE: many of us have a tendency to react with violence, to struggle with physical force, that suggest violence as the first, perhaps only, option.

Do we have militaristic mindset? Who 'won'? Did anyone talk about alternative solutions? Was there any pair where both won? How might that happen? How could they both follow the instructions?

Possible win-win solutions: the pairs exchange places or they go first to one side and then the other

What if pairs were men and women? Who would ‘win’ in such a set-up? In same-sex pairs, there is significant doubt in advance of who will ‘win’ if the option is physical force; in male-female set-up, less doubt, some degree of certainty as to who will win if force is the solution This is the situation in which you will likely find yourself; the ‘female’ up against the armed military or security ‘male’; violence is not a logical tool to use What solutions might be attempted?

Back to table of content

Gene Sharp researched and catalogued 198 methods of nonviolent action published in The Politics of Nonviolent Action, 1973. These methods are broken into three broad classifications: Protest and Persuasion, Noncooperation, and Nonviolent Intervention. These are further grouped into sections. The full list is available on this wiki page or at http://www.aeinstein.org.

 

1. Protests and Persuasion

Demonstrations – Many people expresses what they want by walking together in the street. –For example the demonstrations 15 February 2003, which was the biggest anti-war demonstration ever. There were demonstrations in more than 600 cities around the world. Just in London two million people demonstrated.

Protest lists – Signing your name on a list to express dissent with a certain politics, for instance a protest against Swedish weapons exports to the USA and UK during the Iraq war.

 

2. Non-cooperation

Boycott – To refuse to buy merchandise or a service to show dissatisfaction with the one selling it. For example the boycott of South African products during the apartheid regime. First individuals and organisations started to boycott South African merchandise and after a while entire countries boycotted South Africa

Strike – To refuse to work. For example during the first Intifada, the Palestinian resistance that started 1987, most Palestinians refused to work for Israelis. Israel lost a lot of money when they didn’t have access to cheap Palestinian labour and the economy stagnated.

Political non-cooperation – The refusal to do military service or to perform an extradition. War Resisters International is one of the organisations that supports those that want to refuse to do military service.

Refusal to cooperate – For example during the second world war Norwegian teachers refused to follow the Nazi curriculum for schools. They were sent to concentration camps because of their disobedience, but most of them were taken back when the Nazis understood that they wouldn’t give in.

 

3. Intervention

Blockades – To place your body in the way of something. For example Israelis and international solidarity activist that get in the way of Israeli bulldozers that are about to demolish Palestinian homes.

Preventive Presence – To protect endangered persons in conflict areas. For example peace observers in Mexico, Israel-Palestine or Colombia.

Plowshare Actions – To openly disarm weapon and to be willing to take your sentence. For example the disarming of Trident nuclear submarines in Scotland.

back to table of content

View version in print edition of the Handbook for Nonviolent Campaigns

A tool for analysing the progress of your movement

Silke Kreusel and Andreas Speck

Activists often feel disempowered, although their movement is doing well and on the road to success. Understanding the way a movement works and recognising its success therefore can empower movement activists and groups. The Movement Action Plan (MAP), developed in the 1980s by Bill Moyer, is a good tool for this, as it describes the eight stages of successful movements and the four roles activists have to play.

Strategic Assumptions

MAP is based on seven strategic assumptions:

1. Social movements have been proven to be powerful in the past, and hopefully they can be powerful in the future.

2. Social movements are at the centre of society. They are based on society's most progressive values: justice, freedom, democracy, civil rights. Although they oppose the state or the government, social movements are promoting a better society not working against it.

3. The real issue is “social justice” versus “vested interests”. The movement works for social justice and those in power represent vested interests.

4. The grand strategy is to promote participatory democracy. Lack of real democracy is a major source of injustice and social problems. In the fight for the movement's goal – the right to conscientious objection in Turkey, or stopping road construction in the UK – developing participatory democracy is key.

5. The target constituency is the ordinary citizen, who gives power to powerholders by consenting to them. The central issue in social movements is the struggle between the movement and powerholders to win the support of the majority of the people, who ultimately hold the power to preserve the status quo or create change.

6. Success is a long-term process, not an event. To achieve success, the movement needs to be successful in a long series of sub-goals.

7. Social movements must be nonviolent.

Eight stages of social movements

A movement begins without knowing it. In Stage I, business as usual, the main aim of movement groups is to get people thinking, to show that there is a problem.

The next step is to show the failure of established channels (Stage II). Using hearings, legal processes, participation in administrative proceedings, and so on, the movement has to prove that these institutions won't act for the people to solve the problem – that people will have to act themselves.

This leads to ripening conditions (Stage III) for the development of a social movement. People start to listen and form new groups, small civil disobedience actions start to dramatise the problem. The powerholders get a bit irritated, but mainly go on as usual.

If the movement does its homework well (organising new groups, networking and coalition-building) it can take off (Stage IV) after a trigger event. This might be organised by the movement – the occupation of the construction site at Wyhl, Germany, in 1974 triggered the German anti-nuclear movement – or something done by the powerholders. The trigger event leads to massive demonstrations, large campaigns of civil disobedience and extensive media coverage. Although the movement has won a lot of public sympathy the powerholders usually won't give up at this stage.

This often leads to a perception of failure (Stage V) by many activists. This is enhanced by decreasing participation in movement events and negative media coverage.

But at the same time the movement is winning over the majority (Stage VI). Until now, the movement has focused on protest; now it is important to offer solutions. Nearly three quarters of society agree that there is a need for change. It is now important to win the struggle over the kind of change to be made. The powerholders will try to cheat the movement, increase repression, play tricks (the German government now trying to send nuclear waste to Ahaus instead of Gorleben: see page 6). The movement must aim to stop the tricks and promote an alternative solution.

Actual success (Stage VII) is a long process and often difficult to recognise. The movement's task is not just to get its demands met, but to achieve a paradigm shift, a new way of thinking. Just to turn off all nuclear power plants without changing our view on energy only moves the problem from radioactivity to carbon dioxide (but is a success anyway). Just to get some women into the office doesn't change the structure of a patriarchal society.

After the movement wins – either by confrontational struggle or a long-term weakening of the powerholders – the movement needs to get its success implemented. Consolidation of success and moving over to other struggles (Stage VIII) is now the movement's task.

 

Four activist roles

Activists have many different tasks at the eight stages. They cannot all be done by one kind of person, and typically you can identify four main types of activist. All need to be present and work efficiently for the movement to succeed.

The rebel is the kind of activist many people identify with social movements. Through nonviolent direct actions and publicly saying “no”, rebels put the problem on the political agenda. But they can be ineffective by identifying themselves as the lonely voice on society's fringe and playing the militant radical. Rebels are important in Stages III and IV and after any trigger event, but they usually move over to other ripening movements in Stage VI or later.

Reformers are often badly valued in movements, but they are the ones who prove the failure of existing channels or promote alternative solutions. However, they often tend to believe in the institutions or propose reforms too small to consolidate the movement's success.

Citizens make sure the movement doesn't lose contact with its main constituency. They show that the movement acts at the centre of society (teachers, physicians, and farmers participating in the Gorleben protests), and protect it against repression. They can be very ineffective when they still believe in the powerholders' claim to serve public interests.

The change agent is the forth and somehow key role in any movement. They promote education and convince the majority of society, they organise grassroots networks and promote long-term strategies. They too can be ineffective by promoting utopian visions or advocating only a single approach. They also tend to ignore personal issues and needs of activists.

What's up now?

Social movements are complex phenomena: they don't follow the MAP like a road on the map. But trying to identify the stage of your movement and the kind of activists involved helps a lot in recognising success and in developing future. If you are lost on the track – check the MAP!

 

Originally printed in Peace News, No 2423, March 1998

Back to table of content

1) Facilitators should realise that it may take as long to prepare for as to actually present/facilitate the training. It is important that co-facilitators work together to build the agenda and are clear who is responsible for what and how they will work together.

2) Be realistic about the amount of time allotted for each section. Don't give in to the pressure to do the training quickly if it can't be done.

3) Start the training with introductions. Break the ice with introductory exercises. If the group members know each other well, ask a question so people learn something new about each other.

4) If trainers don't have enough information about people's experiences, use non-competitive ways to ask. Set a tone, explaining that the trainers need the information but that it is not an exercise in identifying who is 'better'.

5) Early in the training, have exercises that will encourage participation, such as a simple hassle line.

6) Balance activity in pairs or trios with activity in larger groups.

7) Mix discussion with moving exercises; provide regular breaks.

8) Keep track of time, and mark possible cuts if you get behind schedule. But don't cut the last items as they may be some of the most important, such as the scenario role play.

9) Always leave time for evaluation, and use different forms of evaluation. Write on wall charts 'what went well' (+) and 'what could have been better' (>). Ask a series of questions to solicit comments; use a go around or a brainstorm method. Written evaluation forms are very helpful for long trainings.

This is the newsletter for the international actioncamp War starts here in Luleå, Sweden, 22-29th of July 2011

Contents

1. Camping for Peace
2. Programme for the week
3. Working groups at the camp

1. Camping for Peace

The location for the camp site during War starts here is now booked. At the camp there will be plenty of room for tents, and for those who want a real bed to sleep in there are cottages and double rooms.

Press Release/Invitation 17 November 2010

Nonviolent Civil Disobedience Training in Lisbon

Place and hour: Praça do Rossio: Thursday 18 November : 16:00

Between 19 and 21 of November, NATO will meet to discuss it's future by approval of it's new strategic concept in Lisbon. Portuguese and European activists are preparing for non-violent actions against this summit.

back to table of content

The processes and techniques which can be found below show/ prove that even in large groups of hundreds and thousands of people, it is possible to make decisions in a democratic, horizontal, participative manner, without hierarchy, delegations, hierarchies or votes/ voting.

This fund gives grants of up to $3,000 for trainings that help people learn how to collectively use the theory and practice of nonviolent action to effectively carry out struggles for social justice. Projects must be located outside the United States or within Native nations in the United States.

Projects eligible for support include:

   those which build capacity and leadership among people engaged in nonviolent struggles; 

   those which prepare participants for specific nonviolent actions or campaigns; 

   those geared to 'training the trainers', in order to expand and multiply nonviolence training throughout a targeted community. 

For grant guidelines and more information, see the Website http://www.ajmuste.org or contact the A. J. Muste Institute at 339 Lafayette St., New York, NY 10012 or info@ajmuste.org.

'There is no way to peace—peace is the way'.

                      This was A. J. Muste’s simple statement of his convictions. 

A. J. Muste was a pacifist, anti-war activist and a leader of the labour and civil rights movements in the United States whose personal integrity won him a rare universal respect.

The A. J. Muste Memorial Institute was organised in 1974 to keep A. J.’s legacy alive through ongoing support of the nonviolent movement for social change.