Posts
We are in an era of struggling to determine how to struggle. That is, we may be activists at some level, but are we being effective? Coming to any conclusions in that regard means measuring the effect of our actions against the stated goal of a campaign.
Instead, there are activists and academics who are getting lost in the analytical weeds of simply considering the emotional effect of various forms of activism. How cathartic is this action or that action? How does this or that method slot into an intellectual exercise--perhaps into the study of rhetoric, or psychology, or philosophy?
We find such scholarly analysis that comes to conclusions such as: "'Nonviolence' has come to mean that protesters secure a permit, march peacefully along the planned route, remain deferential to and even amicable with the police-State, and avoid any disturbance of the peace" (Murray, 2022, p. 151).
Seriously? Says who? Says one academic, echoing the most frustrated antifa activists, scorning what they regard as performative, risk-free liberalism. These sorts of intellectuals perhaps attend a few public demonstrations and claim to have a groundtruthed understanding of nonviolence.
They don't.
Nonviolence is indeed vulnerable to such weak expression and it's fair to critique such tepid methods. But the facts are stubborn things with regard to relating tactics and methods to outcomes; any campaign waged entirely nonviolently stands a far greater chance of succeeding in attaining its stated goal than a campaign based on--or even merely featuring--violence (Chenoweth, 2021).
As someone with less academic credentials than nonviolent resister credentials, I will confess to some eye-rolling moments when certifiably brilliant scholars come to firm conclusions about social movements based on relatively brief and frankly shallow direct observations. Immersion is a better teacher in many cases. I've served in virtually every conceivable role in social movements for the past 56 years--white ally, primary campaign organizer core group member, media liaison, police liaison, institutional liaison, targeted decider liaison, peacekeeper, public speaker, jail and prison support, arrestee, defendant, prisoner, childcare, trainer, logistics, consensus process facilitator, internal conflict mediator, cook, homestay host, canvasser, educator, expert witness in necessity defense, event organizer, researcher, conference organizer, and writer. In any one campaign, I tend to serve only one function and it's often a background role. I am very suspicious of any circle of activists who always turn to one person as the leader and actively try to uplift others if I find myself in too much of a frontline leadership role.
From civil rights to peace to disarmament to environmental protection to racial justice to police reform and more, I've been in the foreground or background of many campaigns over that half-century-plus and my answer to anyone who makes categorical statements is usually some version of, "it's complicated," because it is.
Mohandas Gandhi said, as he made his statement in court in 1922 before being sentenced to years in prison, "Nonviolence is the first article of my faith. It is also the last article of my creed."[1] If by "faith" I can equate to my faith in the scientific method, and if by "creed" I can equate to what I argue in favor of, then I resonate completely with Gandhi's assertion. The overwhelming evidence--never complete, never without exceptions, which of course complicates things--has shown me that nonviolence, when undertaken with a spirit of robust willingness to sacrifice from time-to-time, is by far the most effective method of seeking and achieving goals such as freedom, justice, and a disarmed peace.
When Annie Dillard wrote her memoir, An American Childhood, she described watching her mother fill out a job application during the McCarthy era, and her mother came to the standard loyalty oath section of that repressive time, "Do you support the overthrow of the United States government by force or violence?" Dillard wrote that her mother paused, thought, and wrote "force."
That is the kickass nonviolence analysis and attitude we need.
References
Chenoweth, Erica (2021). Civil resistance: What everyone needs to know. New York: Oxford University Press.
Murray, B. (2022). Violence and Nonviolence in the Rhetoric of Social Protest. Rhetoric & Public Affairs, 25(3), 145–166. https://doi-org.proxy.lib.pdx.edu/10.14321/rhetpublaffa.25.3.0145
No comments:
Post a Comment