Introduction to Non-Violence

Objector. Ernest L Meyer uses them to describe the psychological process by which a handful of men-a few professors and a lone student-at the University of Wisconsin grew i

mselves in agreement on the most fundamental of their values, when all the rest chose to go another way. By standing together they all gained strength for the ord

making their protest against war. Each in his own way has refused to participate in the mass destruction of human life which war involves, and by that refusal has been united by the strongest bonds of sympathy with those of his fellows who have done likewise. But it is the storm that has brought unity. When the skies clear, there w

hink of the pacifist as a negative obstructionist, because until the time came to make a negative protest against the evil of war we ourselves all too often forgot that we were pacifists. In other times, if we have been peace-makers at all, we have thought of ourselves merely a

type of human brotherhood for which they stand can be realized only when war is eliminated from the world. Their real aim is the creation of the new society-long and imperfect though that process of creation may be. They share a vision, but they are still groping for th

ndhi movement to the solution of pressing social issues which are likely to cause conflict within our own society, especially discrimination against racial minorities. As a "textbook" this group has been using Krishnalal Shridharani's analysis of the Gandhi procedures, War Without Violence.[2] The advocates of "non-violent direct action" believe that their method can bring about the resolution of an

perficial. Much confusion has crept into the discussion of the principle and into its application because of the constant use of ill-defined terms and partially formulated ideas. It is the purpose of th

s a principle, accepted as an end in itself, and non-violence as a means to some other desired end

olds most dear. Under no circumstances can the pacifist harm or destroy the person who does evil; he can use only love and sacrificial goodwill to bring about conversion. This is his highest value and his supreme principle. Though the heavens should fall, or he himself and all else he cherishes be destroyed in the process, he can

in the long run, the most effective way of overcoming evil and bringing about the triumph of good. The literature is full of stories of individuals who have overcome highwaymen, or refractory neighbors, by the power of love.[4] More recent treatments such as Richard Gregg's Power of Non-Violence[5] present story after story of the successful use of non-violent resist

uman personalities. Even in speaking of "absolute" pacifism he says, "The most fundamental objection to war is based on the conviction that violence and the taking of human life, being themselves wrong, cannot lead to anything but evil."[7] Thus he defines the absolute pacifist as one who accepts the ends and means ar

hat it is "impractical." Probably much of the pacifist defense of the position is designed to meet these non-pacifist arguments, and to persuade non-pacifists of goodwill that they can really best serve their highest va

te that non-violent means of overcoming evil are more effective than violent means, so I can serve my highest value-respect for every human personality-and at the same

of social or economic or political order that they desire. Others, in balancing the destruction of violent conflict against what they concede might be gained by it, say that the price of social achiev

as an effective means for bringing about social change. Hence there is no reason why they cannot join forces in many respects. Only a relatively small prop

TNO

y! Yellowbacks!" (New Yo

e, 1939); Selections from War Without Violence was published by the Fello

tastic Hypothesis (War Resisters League, New York, 1939). A new

resented by Adin Ballou, Christian Non-Resistance: In All Its Important Bea

a: Lippincott, 1934). A new and revised edition of this book

to the Nature of Ideals and the Methods Employed

gainst Pacifism (London: A

tion o

as not long ago that pacifists were generally known as "non-resistants." Although some of those who oppose participation in war still insist upon calling themselves "non-resistants"[8] many of the modern pacifists disclaim the term because it is negative, and insist that the essence of pacifism is the element of active goodwill toward all men.[9] Yet when confronted with evil, even he who think

s themselves have not been agreed upon the meanings and implications of these terms, and the opponents of pacifism have hastened to define them in such a way as to de

to the will or reasoned judgment of the individual or group subjected to such force. Violence is the willful application of force in such a way that it is physically or psychologically injurious to the

y. Among those commonly used are: (1) non-resistance, (2) passive resistance, (3) non-violent resistance, (4) super-resistance, (5) non-violent non-coope

desire to change the active policy of the evil-doer, either by persuasion or by compulsion. As we shall see, in practice they tend to involve a coercive element. Only in their rejection of violence are all these terms in agreement. Perhaps we are justified in accepting opposition to violence as the heart of the pacifist philosophy. Under the definiti

r "the force of public opinion."[11] There are very few pacifists who would draw the line even at the use of physical force. Most of them would approve it in restrainin

in the light of certain of Gandhi's own activities, ... it becomes apparent that Satyagraha does contain the element of coercion, if in a somewhat modified form."[13] Since to some people "coercion" implies revenge or punishment, Shridharani would, however, substitute the word "compulsion" for it. Gandhi himself and many of his followe

in nature. Some persons with boundless good will feel that even physical violence may be justified on occasion if it is not accompan

ines violence as does Clarence Case, as "the unlawful or unregulated use of destructive physical force against persons or things."[15] Under such a definition, war itself, since it is sanctioned by law, would no

that is wholly positive. Maurice L. Rowntree has said: "The Pacifist way of life is the way that brings into action

a determination for himself, however, it is necessary that he understand the differences between the various approaches to the problem of influe

e only upon the application of positive love and goodwill. In the intermediate positions we might place (1) violence without hatred, (2) non-violence

hical concepts in these two areas are greatly at variance with one another.[18] The pacifist principles are already widely accepted as ideals in the affairs of individuals. Every ethical religion

institutions of the social order. The study is not so much concerned with the religious and ethical bases of these techniques as it is with a consideration of their application in prac

TNO

renounce all coercion, even nonviolent coercion." He goes on to say, "Pacifism, on the other hand, is a term which covers many types of opposition to war. Some modern so-called pacifists are opposed to all wars, and some are not. Some who oppos

ar, but not necessarily a refusal to take part in it. In the United States, and generally in Gre

Fight for Peace (New York:

das T. Muzumdar, The United Nations of the

non-resistant is militant-but he lifts his militancy from the plane of physical, to the

(Oxford: Basil Blackwell, 1940), 15-16; Leyton Richards

ni, War Withou

he use of violence to achieve an unjust end and its use as police

Violent Coercion (New York: Ce

ressure which are either wholly non-coercive or are coercive in a strictly non-injurious way, foregoing altogether such injurio

e, Mankind Set Free (Lo