|
[Go back
to main page]
The following is intended as background reading, though
it can be worked through and different people's opinions and feelings
explored. Possible exercises following looking at this sheet include going
around in a circle asking everyone in turn to finish the sentence "Nonviolence
is..." Better still, individuals can be allowed time to work out
their own definition, possibly as 'home work' before another meeting or
session if it is a series; they could be asked to take this information
home as a handout sheet, read and reflect on it, and come back with their
own definition the next time.
There is a difficulty in projecting a positive image for
a word containing a negative - nonviolence. But it may be helpful to think
of the analogy with 'horseless carriage' - we may first describe something
by what it's not, thus what we might now call simply a 'car' was first
known as a 'horseless carriage'. One possibility here is the use of 'nonviolence'
without a hyphen as based in principle, and 'non-violence' with a hyphen
as pragmatically-based - but this only works in written English since
as spoken they are identical. There is an inadequacy of language here
and there is the need for different cultures and languages to develop
terms which are indigenous or fit in well and incorporate the best of
nonviolence.
'Peace' is used by so many sides in so many conflicts that
it is a term which has often lost its meaning; everyone claims to be doing
what they are doing 'for peace'. However there are concepts associated
with peace in other languages, for examples 'shalom' (Hebrew), 'salam'
(Arabic), and 'síocháin' (Irish) which can carry more positive
and possibly even visionary implications of what might be involved and
may not simply imply the retention of the status quo by everyone stopping
physical violence.
This notwithstanding, let us start with the dictionary definition
of 'violence'; "Quality of being violent; violent conduct or treatment,
outrage, injury......(law) unlawful exercise of physical force, intimidation
by exhibition of this." (Concise Oxford Dictionary) However a better
definition of violence would be person centred; "A physical of mental
attack or affront to an individual or group". The Quaker Peace Action
Caravan in Britain "defined violence as anything which damages, degrades
or destroys human beings".
Here we also come up with the term 'structural violence',
i.e. violence imposed on people by unjust and inhuman structures; but
other terms such as 'economic injustice' may be more accurate and helpful
than 'structural violence' which is a very broad statement. Working our
way on from these definitions of violence we can come towards a tentative
definition of 'non'violence; "The absence of violence and the creative
use, and resolution, of conflict." Note that this is more a definition
of nonviolence as process rather than a state of being, since describing
a situation the absence of violence is likely to be relative..
'Conflict' is often seen as a negative state of affairs,
and yet without 'conflict' there would be no progress in the world since
change comes through the 'conflict' between progressive, conservative
and other ideas and their supporters. 'Conflict' can simply be termed
"A process of decision making involving different parties in dispute
with each other." Obviously some conflicts can be more productive
than others and conflict can be entirely negative.
Adolfo Perez Esquivel, the Argentinean Nobel Peace Prize
winner, has defined nonviolence this way; "Nonviolence is a respect
for life and for the individual. That is to say, nonviolence is not a
method of non-aggression (as it is often considered) but rather a way
of life, and a way of understanding the relationship of human beings to
their fellow beings and with nature."
There are an infinite number of possible individual bases
of 'nonviolence'. There follows a very short attempt to classify a few
general bases;
- Based in principle; a) Religious
or spiritual, e.g. Christian or Buddhist ('our religion demands we be
nonviolent and do not harm others', 'it is a basic tenet of our faith')
and/or b) Secular, e.g. 'total respect for human life'.
- Pragmatic - 'nonviolence would seem
to work in this situation so let's give it a go' or 'we don't have the
arms we need to fight by military means so we'll use non-violent ones'.
The first of these is a positive pragmatic reason ('it works') and the
second a negative one ('we don't have the option to be violent').
- Geographical distinctions are also possible
- 'Nonviolence is OK in Europe and the rich world but not in
the poor, two thirds world'. Some years ago people arguing this line
might have added 'South Africa' to the places nonviolence did not work
but clearly the change from the apartheid system came much more through
nonviolence, including international solidarity and pressure, than it
did from violence. This 'geographically defined' approach is negative
in failing to support people who are struggling for change nonviolently
in atrociously difficult surroundings.
'Pacifism' can be taken as an older, more negative sounding,
synonym for 'nonviolence'. There can be a confusion, too, of 'pacifism'
with 'passivism' (as in being passive) or doing nothing. 'Pacifism' can
sometimes be seen as being concerned almost exclusively the rejection
of war and killing, though for others it is simply an older synonym for
nonviolence. The concern of nonviolence is, in religious language, 'peace,
justice and the integrity of creation', i.e. it is dynamic, active and
forward looking, working for justice and positive change.
'Nonviolent action' can be used as a more positive, action-oriented
term than 'nonviolence', though both may imply taking action on one side
in a conflict. 'Mediation', on the other hand, is relatively 'neutral'
between sides (though never value free), a third party intervention to
try to help people solve a dispute themselves in taking the different
parties through a mediation process, whether formal or informal. With
mediation the first stage could be strengthening one side in a dispute
to compete on equal terms with another disputant.
'Nonviolent direct action' is sometimes used in a confusing
way, and has been elevated in some circles to being sacrosanct, but it
can be useful to describe nonviolent action which is interventionist and
possibly illegal. In nonviolence there is a belief that justice and human
integrity are more important than laws; but laws are only broken where
those participating are prepared to take the action nonviolently and are
also prepared to accept the consequences of their action, which could
mean court appearances, jail, or in some circumstances injury or even
death.
Definitions of nonviolence can also be taken from its perceived
world-renowned gurus such as Gandhi, Martin Luther King, or from lesser
known prophets such as Tolstoy, Dorothy Day, Lanza del Vasto etc. However,
sometimes the reliance on 'nonviolent gurus' can make nonviolence seem
more remote and not something for ordinary people, so this is a danger
to beware of. Here are a few relevant quotes from Gandhi;
"...nonviolence is not a cloistered virtue to
be practised by the individual for his peace and final salvation, but
it is a rule of conduct for society....To practise nonviolence in mundane
matters is to know its true value. It is to bring heaven upon earth..."
"For a nonviolent person, the whole world is
one family. He will thus fear none, nor will others fear him."
"We are constantly being astonished these days
at the amazing discoveries in the field of violence. But I maintain
that far more undreamt of and seemingly impossible discoveries will
be made in the field of nonviolence."
Gandhi used the term 'ahimsa' , which means 'not harming'
or 'harmlessness'; this could be thought of as something akin to 'pacifism'.
But he also used the much stronger term 'satyagraha' meaning 'truth force'
or 'the power of truth'; by this he meant not only a dynamic, campaigning
approach but one which sought a transformation of relationships rather
than a simple victory or attempt at coercion. Satyagraha is one term that
can be developed as a particular concept of nonviolence.
In the end of the day, however, what matters is the
definition of nonviolence that we ourselves come up with. We each need
our own, individual and unique, definition of what nonviolence means to
us and the role that nonviolence can play in our lives and in helping
to bring justice and peace to our neighbourhoods, our areas, our countries
and the world.
|