{"collection":"scripture-revelation","full_text_available":true,"graph_url":"https://unchartedknowledge.5gfusion.net/v2/api/page/gutenberg_18493/graph","html_url":"https://unchartedknowledge.5gfusion.net/v2/page/gutenberg_18493","id":"gutenberg_18493","license":"Public Domain (US)","rights_basis":"gutenberg_metadata_copyright_false","source":"gutenberg","source_url":"https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/18493","summary":null,"tags":["Category: History - Modern (1750+)","Category: Philosophy & Ethics","Category: Politics","Category: Religion/Spirituality","Pacifism","Passive resistance","War"],"text":"Produced by Mark C. Orton, Martin Pettit and the Online\nDistributed Proofreading Team at http://www.pgdp.net\n\n\n\n\n\n\n                                  NON-VIOLENT ACTION\n                                  IN TENSION AREAS:\n                                  Series III: Number 1\n                                  July 1944.\n\n\n                    INTRODUCTION\n                         TO\n                    NON-VIOLENCE\n\n\n                        _By_\n                  THEODORE PAULLIN\n\n\n           THE PACIFIST RESEARCH BUREAU\n               1201 CHESTNUT STREET\n           PHILADELPHIA 7, PENNSYLVANIA\n\n\n       MEMBERS OF THE PACIFIST RESEARCH BUREAU\n\n\nCharles Boss, Jr.                Isidor B. Hoffman\nHenry J. Cadbury                 John Haynes Holmes\nAllan Knight Chalmers            E. Stanley Jones\nAbraham Cronbach                 John Howland Lathrop\nAlbert E. Day                    Frederick J. Libby\nDorothy Day                      A. J. Muste\nEdward W. Evans                  Ray Newton\nJane Evans                       Mildred Scott Olmsted\nF. Burt Farquharson              Kirby Page\nHarry Emerson Fosdick            Clarence E. Pickett\nHarrop A. Freeman                Guy W. Solt\nElmer A. Fridell                 Douglas V. Steere\nRichard Gregg                    Dan West\nHarold Hatch                     Norman Whitney\n                 E. Raymond Wilson\n\n\nFINANCIAL SUPPORT\n\nThe Pacifist Research Bureau is financed entirely by the contributions\nof organizations and individuals who are interested in seeing this type\nof research carried on. We trust that you may desire to have a part in\nthis positive pacifist endeavor to aid in the formulation of plans for\nthe world order of the future. Please make contributions payable to The\nPacifist Research Bureau, 1201 Chestnut Street, Philadelphia 7,\nPennsylvania. Contributions are deductible for income tax purposes.\n\n\n\n\nDIRECTOR'S FOREWORD\n\n\n     \"When I use a word,\" Humpty Dumpty said, in a rather scornful tone,\n     \"it means just what I choose it to mean--neither more nor less.\"\n\n     \"The question is,\" said Alice, \"whether you _can_ make words mean\n     different things.\"\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\nIn the writings of pacifists and non-pacifists concerning theories of\nand experiences with non-violence, there is a clear lack of uniformity\nin the use of words.\n\nThe present booklet, introducing the Bureau's new series on _Non-Violent\nAction in Tension Areas_, distinguished by green covers, critically\nexamines pacifist terminology. But it does more, for it analyzes various\ntypes of non-violence, evaluates examples of non-violence referred to in\nprevious literature, and points to new sources of case material.\n\nDr. Theodore Paullin, Assistant Director of the Bureau, is the author of\nthis study. The manuscript has been submitted to and reviewed by\nProfessor Charles A. Ellwood and Professor Hornell Hart, both of the\nDepartment of Sociology, Duke University; and by Richard B. Gregg,\nauthor of several works on the philosophy and practice of non-violence.\nTheir criticisms and suggestions have proved most helpful, but for any\nerrors of interpretation the author is responsible.\n\nThe Pacifist Research Bureau frankly bases its work upon the philosophy\nof pacifism: that man should exercise such respect for human personality\nthat he will employ only love and sacrificial good will in opposing evil\nand that the purpose of all human endeavor should be the creation of a\nworld brotherhood in which cooperative effort contributes to the good of\nall. A list of pamphlets published or in preparation appears on the back\ncover.\n\n                                     HARROP A. FREEMAN,\n                                                Executive Director\n\n\n_Any organization ordering 500 or more copies of any pamphlet published\nby the Pacifist Research Bureau may have its imprint appear on the title\npage along with that of the Bureau. The prepublication price for such\norders is $75.00 for each 500 copies._\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\n                       TABLE OF CONTENTS\n\n\n   I. INTRODUCTION: ON TERMS                               1\n         Definition of Terms                               5\n\n  II. VIOLENCE WITHOUT HATE                                9\n         Revolutionary Anarchism                          10\n         Abraham Lincoln                                  11\n         The Church and War                               11\n\n III. NON-VIOLENCE BY NECESSITY                           12\n         Non-Violent Resistance to Invaders               13\n         Chinese Boycotts Against Foreigners              15\n         Egyptian Opposition to Great Britain             16\n\n  IV. NON-VIOLENT COERCION                                17\n         The Labor Strike                                 19\n         The Boycott                                      21\n         Non-Violent Coercion by the American Colonies    22\n         Irish Opposition to Great Britain After 1900     23\n         Strikes with Political Purposes                  24\n         Non-Violence in International Affairs            24\n\n   V. SATYAGRAHA OR NON-VIOLENT DIRECT ACTION             25\n         The Origins of Satyagraha                        26\n         The Process of Satyagraha                        27\n         The Philosophy of Satyagraha                     29\n         The Empirical Origins of Gandhi's Method         31\n         Non-Cooperation                                  32\n         Fasting                                          33\n         The American Abolition Movement                  34\n\n  VI. NON-RESISTANCE                                      36\n         The Mennonites                                   37\n         The New England Non-Resistants                   39\n         Tolstoy                                          41\n\n VII. ACTIVE GOODWILL AND RECONCILIATION                  43\n         Action in the Face of Persecution                44\n         Coercion or Persuasion?                          46\n         Ministering to Groups in Conflict                47\n         The Power of Example                             48\n         Work for Social Reform                           49\n         Political Action and Compromise                  50\n         The Third Alternative                            51\n\nVIII. CONCLUSIONS                                         54\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\nPREFACE\n\n\nThe purpose of the present study is to analyze the various positions\nfound within the pacifist movement itself in regard to the use of\nnon-violent techniques of bringing about social change in group\nrelationships. In its attempt to differentiate between them, it makes no\npretense of determining which of the several pacifist positions is\nethically most valid. Hence it is concerned with the application of\nnon-violent principles in practice and their effectiveness in achieving\ngroup purposes, rather than with the philosophical and religious\nfoundations of such principles. It is hoped that the study may help\nindividuals to clarify their thinking within this field, but the author\nhas no brief for one method as against the others. Each person must\ndetermine his own principles of action on the basis of his conception of\nthe nature of the universe and his own scale of ethical values.\n\nThe examples chosen to illustrate the various positions have been taken\nlargely from historical situations in this country and in Europe,\nbecause our traditional education has made us more familiar with the\nhistory of these areas than with that of other parts of the world. It\nalso seemed that the possibilities of employing non-violent methods of\nsocial change would be more apparent if it was evident that they had\nbeen used in the West, and were not only applicable in Oriental\nsocieties. It is unfortunate that this deliberate choice has eliminated\nsuch valuable illustrative material as the work of Kagawa in Japan. The\nexception to this general rule in the case of \"Satyagraha\" has been made\nbecause of the wide-spread discussion of this movement in all parts of\nthe world in our day.\n\nI want to acknowledge with great appreciation the suggestions I have\nobtained from the preliminary work done for the Pacifist Research Bureau\nin this field by Russell Curtis and Haridas T. Muzumdar.\n\n                                            THEODORE PAULLIN\nJuly 1, 1944\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\nINTRODUCTION TO NON-VIOLENCE\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\n\n\n\nI. INTRODUCTION: ON TERMS\n\n\n\"In the storm we found each other.\" \"In the storm we clung together.\"\nThese words are found in the opening paragraphs of \"_Hey! Yellowbacks!\"\nThe War Diary of a Conscientious Objector_. Ernest L Meyer uses them to\ndescribe the psychological process by which a handful of men--a few\nprofessors and a lone student--at the University of Wisconsin grew into\nunity because they opposed the First World War, when everyone around\nthem was being carried away in the enthusiasm which marked the first\ndays of American participation. If there had been no storm, they might\nnot have discovered their affinity, but as it was, despite the disparity\nof their interests and backgrounds, they found themselves in agreement\non the most fundamental of their values, when all the rest chose to go\nanother way. By standing together they all gained strength for the\nordeals through which each must go, and they were filled with the spirit\nof others before them and far removed from them, who had understood life\nin the same way.[1]\n\nThe incident may be taken as symbolic of the experience through which\npacifists have gone in this Second World War, too. Men and women of many\ncreeds, of diverse economic backgrounds, of greatly divergent\nphilosophies, with wide variations in education, have come together in\nthe desire to sustain one another and aid one another in making their\nprotest against war. Each in his own way has refused to participate in\nthe mass destruction of human life which war involves, and by that\nrefusal has been united by the strongest bonds of sympathy with those of\nhis fellows who have done likewise. But it is the storm that has brought\nunity. When the skies clear, there will be a memory of fellowship\ntogether, but there will also be a realization that in the half light we\nhave seen only one aspect of each other's being, and that there are\nenormous differences between us. Our future hope of achieving the type\nof world we want will demand a continuation of our sense of unity,\ndespite our diversities.\n\nAt present pacifism is no completely integrated philosophy of life. Most\nof us would be hard pressed to define the term \"pacifist\" itself.\nDespite the fact that according to the Latin origins of the word it\nmeans \"peace maker,\" it is small wonder that our non-pacifist friends\nthink of the pacifist as a negative obstructionist, because until the\ntime came to make a negative protest against the evil of war we\nourselves all too often forgot that we were pacifists. In other times,\nif we have been peace-makers at all, we have thought of ourselves\nmerely as doing the duty of citizens, and, in attempting to overcome\nsome of the causes of conflict both within our domestic society and in\nthe relations between nations, we have willingly merged ourselves with\nother men of goodwill whose aims and practices were almost identical to\nours.\n\nSince the charge of negativism strikes home, many pacifists defend\nthemselves by insisting that they stand primarily for a positive\nprogram, of which war-resistance is only a pre-requisite. They oppose\nwar because it is evil in itself, but they oppose it also because the\ntype of human brotherhood for which they stand can be realized only when\nwar is eliminated from the world. Their real aim is the creation of the\nnew society--long and imperfect though that process of creation may be.\nThey share a vision, but they are still groping for the means of moving\nforward towards its achievement. They are generally convinced that some\nmeans are inappropriate to their ends, and that to use such means would\nautomatically defeat them; but they are less certain about the means\nwhich _will_ bring some measure of success.\n\nOne section of the pacifist movement believes that it has discovered a\nsolution to the problem in what it calls \"non-violent direct action.\"\nThis group derives much of its inspiration from Gandhi and his\nnon-violent movement for Indian independence. For instance, the\nFellowship of Reconciliation has a committee on non-violent direct\naction which concerns itself with applying the techniques of the Gandhi\nmovement to the solution of pressing social issues which are likely to\ncause conflict within our own society, especially discrimination against\nracial minorities. As a \"textbook\" this group has been using Krishnalal\nShridharani's analysis of the Gandhi procedures, _War Without\nViolence_.[2] The advocates of \"non-violent direct action\" believe that\ntheir method can bring about the resolution of any conflict through the\nultimate defeat of the forces of evil, and the triumph of justice and\ngoodwill. In a widely discussed pamphlet, _If We Should Be Invaded_,\nissued just before the outbreak of the present war, Jessie Wallace\nHughan, of the War Resisters League, maintained that non-violent\nresistance would be more effective even in meeting an armed invasion\nthan would reliance upon military might.[3]\n\nMany pacifists have accepted the general thesis of the advocates of\nnon-violent direct action without analyzing its meaning and\nimplications. Others have rejected it on the basis of judgments just as\nsuperficial. Much confusion has crept into the discussion of the\nprinciple and into its application because of the constant use of\nill-defined terms and partially formulated ideas. It is the purpose of\nthe present study to analyze the positions of both the friends and\nopponents of non-violent direct action within the pacifist movement in\nthe hope of clarifying thought upon this vitally important question.\n\nBefore we can proceed with our discussion, we must make a clear\ndistinction between non-violence as a principle, accepted as an end in\nitself, and non-violence as a means to some other desired end. Much of\nthe present confusion in pacifist thought arises from a failure to make\nthis distinction.\n\nOn the one hand, the absolute pacifist believes that all men are\nbrothers. Therefore, he maintains that the supreme duty of every\nindividual is to respect the personality of every other man, and to love\nhim, no matter what evil he may commit, and no matter how greatly he may\nthreaten his fellows or the values which the pacifist holds most dear.\nUnder no circumstances can the pacifist harm or destroy the person who\ndoes evil; he can use only love and sacrificial goodwill to bring about\nconversion. This is his highest value and his supreme principle. Though\nthe heavens should fall, or he himself and all else he cherishes be\ndestroyed in the process, he can place no other value before it. To the\npacifist who holds such a position, non-violence is imperative _even if\nit does not work_. By his very respect for the personality of the\nevil-doer, and his insistence upon maintaining the bond of human\nbrotherhood, he has already achieved his highest purpose and has won his\ngreatest victory.\n\nBut much of the present pacifist argument in favor of non-violence is\nbased rather upon its expediency. Here, we are told, is a means of\nsocial action that _works_ in achieving the social goals to which\npacifists aspire. Non-violence provides a moral force which is more\npowerful than any physical force. Whether it be used by the individual\nor by the social group, it is, in the long run, the most effective way\nof overcoming evil and bringing about the triumph of good. The\nliterature is full of stories of individuals who have overcome\nhighwaymen, or refractory neighbors, by the power of love.[4] More\nrecent treatments such as Richard Gregg's _Power of Non-Violence_[5]\npresent story after story of the successful use of non-violent\nresistance by groups against political oppression. The history of the\nGandhi movement in India has seemed to provide proof of its expediency.\nEven the argument in Aldous Huxley's _Ends and Means_, that we can\nachieve no desired goal by means which are inconsistent with it, still\nregards non-violent action as a _means_ for achieving some other end,\nrather than an _end_ in itself.[6]\n\nSo prevalent has such thinking become among pacifists, that it is not\nsurprising that John Lewis, in his closely reasoned book, _The Case\nAgainst Pacifism_, bases his whole attack on the logic of the pacifist\nposition upon the theory that pacifists _must_, as he does, hold other\nvalues above their respect for individual human personalities. Even in\nspeaking of \"absolute\" pacifism he says, \"The most fundamental objection\nto war is based on the conviction that violence and the taking of human\nlife, being themselves wrong, cannot lead to anything but evil.\"[7] Thus\nhe defines the absolute pacifist as one who accepts the ends and means\nargument of Huxley, which is really an argument based upon expediency,\nrather than defining him correctly as one who insists that violence and\nthe taking of human life are the greatest evils, under any conditions,\nand therefore cannot be justified, even if they could be used for the\nachievement of highly desirable ends.\n\nMaintaining as Lewis does that respect for every human personality is\nnot their highest value, non-pacifists attack pacifism almost entirely\non the ground that in the present state of world society it is not\nexpedient--that it is \"impractical.\" Probably much of the pacifist\ndefense of the position is designed to meet these non-pacifist\narguments, and to persuade non-pacifists of goodwill that they can\nreally best serve _their_ highest values by adopting the pacifist\ntechnique. Such reasoning is perfectly legitimate, even for the\n\"absolutist,\" but he should recognize it for what it is--a mere\nafterthought to his acceptance of non-violence as a principle.\n\nThe whole absolutist argument is this: (1) Since violence to any human\npersonality is the greatest evil, I can never commit it. (2) But, at the\nsame time, it is fortunate that non-violent means of overcoming evil are\nmore effective than violent means, so I can serve my highest\nvalue--respect for every human personality--and at the same time serve\nthe other values I hold. Or to say the same thing in positive terms, I\ncan achieve my other ends _only_ by employing means which are consistent\nwith those ends.\n\nOn the other hand, many pacifists do in fact hold the position that John\nLewis is attacking, and base their acceptance of pacifism entirely on\nthe fact that it is the best means of obtaining the sort of social or\neconomic or political order that they desire. Others, in balancing the\ndestruction of violent conflict against what they concede might be\ngained by it, say that the price of social achievement through violent\nmeans is too high--that so many of their values are destroyed in the\nprocess of violence that they must abandon it entirely as a means, and\nfind another which is less destructive.\n\nDifferent as are the positions of the absolute and the relative\npacifists, in practice they find themselves united in their logical\ncondemnation of violence as an effective means for bringing about social\nchange. Hence there is no reason why they cannot join forces in many\nrespects. Only a relatively small proportion, even of the absolutists,\nhave no interest whatever in bringing about social change, and are thus\nunable to share in this aspect of pacifist thinking.\n\nFOOTNOTES:\n\n[1] Ernest L. Meyer, \"_Hey! Yellowbacks!_\" (New York: John Day, 1930),\n3-6.\n\n[2] Krishnalal Shridharani, _War Without Violence_ (New York: Harcourt\nBrace, 1939); _Selections from War Without Violence_ was published by\nthe Fellowship of Reconciliation, 2929 Broadway, New York, as a\npamphlet, in 1941.\n\n[3] Jessie Wallace Hughan, _If We Should Be Invaded: Facing a Fantastic\nHypothesis_ (War Resisters League, New York, 1939). A new edition with\nthe title _Pacifism and Invasion_ was issued in 1942.\n\n[4] Many later writers have selected their examples from the large\nnumber presented by Adin Ballou, _Christian Non-Resistance: In All Its\nImportant Bearings_ (Philadelphia: Universal Peace Union, 1910); first\npublished in 1846.\n\n[5] Richard B. Gregg, _The Power of Non-Violence_ (Philadelphia:\nLippincott, 1934). A new and revised edition of this book is to be\npublished by Fellowship Publications, N. Y., 1944.\n\n[6] Aldous Huxley, _Ends and Means: An Inquiry into the Nature of Ideals\nand the Methods Employed for Their Realization_ (New York: Harpers,\n1937).\n\n[7] John Lewis, _The Case Against Pacifism_ (London: Allen and Unwin,\n1940), 23.\n\n\nDefinition of Terms\n\nBoth in pacifist thought and in the criticisms of pacifism, a great deal\nof confusion arises because of the inexact use of terms. We have already\nseen that pacifists of many shades of opinion are united in their\nrefusal to participate in war. In this objection there is a negative\nquality. The very word \"non-violence\" used in the title of this study\nsuggests this same negative attitude, and it was not long ago that\npacifists were generally known as \"non-resistants.\" Although some of\nthose who oppose participation in war still insist upon calling\nthemselves \"non-resistants\"[8] many of the modern pacifists disclaim the\nterm because it is negative, and insist that the essence of pacifism is\nthe element of active goodwill toward all men.[9] Yet when confronted\nwith evil, even he who thinks of his pacifism as a positive attitude\nmust decide not only what means he _will_ use to oppose evil, but what\nmeans he _will not_ use. At the moment when the society of which he is a\npart insists that every one of its members participate in an enterprise\nto employ these proscribed means, the pacifists of all shades of opinion\nbecome \"conscientious objectors.\" To what is it exactly that they\nobject?\n\nMost answers to this question would say that they oppose \"the use of\nforce,\" \"violence,\" \"coercion,\" or in some cases, any \"resistance\" to\nevil whatever. But pacifists themselves have not been agreed upon the\nmeanings and implications of these terms, and the opponents of pacifism\nhave hastened to define them in such a way as to deny validity to the\npacifist philosophy. Before we can proceed with our discussion we must\ndefine these terms for ourselves, as we shall use them in the present\nstudy.\n\n_Force_ we may define as physical or intangible power or influence to\neffect change in the material or immaterial world. _Coercion_ is the use\nof either physical or intangible force to compel action contrary to the\nwill or reasoned judgment of the individual or group subjected to such\nforce. _Violence_ is the willful application of force in such a way that\nit is physically or psychologically injurious to the person or group\nagainst whom it is applied. _Resistance_ is any opposition either\nphysical or psychological to the positive will or action of another. It\nis the negative or defensive counterpart of coercion.\n\nThe very diversity of terms used to describe the pacifist position shows\nthat none of them satisfactorily expresses the essence of the pacifist\nphilosophy. Among those commonly used are: (1) non-resistance, (2)\npassive resistance, (3) non-violent resistance, (4) super-resistance,\n(5) non-violent non-cooperation, (6) civil disobedience, (7) non-violent\ncoercion, (8) non-violent direct action, (9) war without violence, and\n(10) Satyagraha or soul force.[10]\n\nOf these terms only \"non-resistance\" implies acquiescence in the will of\nthe evil-doer; all the rest suggest an approval of resistance. Every one\nof them, even \"non-resistance\" itself, contemplates the use of some\nintangible moral force to oppose evil and a refusal to take an active\npart in committing evil. At least the last five indicate the positive\ndesire to change the active policy of the evil-doer, either by\npersuasion or by compulsion. As we shall see, in practice they tend to\ninvolve a coercive element. Only in their rejection of violence are all\nthese terms in agreement. Perhaps we are justified in accepting\n_opposition to violence_ as the heart of the pacifist philosophy. Under\nthe definition of violence which has been suggested, this would amount\nto virtually the same thing as saying that the pacifist has such respect\nfor every human personality that he cannot, under any circumstances\nwhatsoever, intentionally inflict permanent injury upon any human being\neither physically or psychologically. This statement deserves further\nexamination.\n\nAll pacifists approve the use of \"force,\" as we have defined it, and\nactually do use it, since it includes such things as \"the force of\nlove,\" \"the force of example,\" or \"the force of public opinion.\"[11]\nThere are very few pacifists who would draw the line even at the use of\n_physical_ force. Most of them would approve it in restraining children\nor the mentally ill from injuring themselves or others, or in the\norganized police force of a community under the proper safeguards of the\ncourts and law.[12]\n\nMany pacifists are also willing to accept coercion, provided it be\nnon-violent. The strike, the boycott, or even the mass demonstration\ninvolve an element of coercion as we have defined that term. Shridharani\nassures us that despite Gandhi's insistence to the contrary, \"In the\nlight of events in India in the past twenty years as well as in the\nlight of certain of Gandhi's own activities, ... it becomes apparent\nthat Satyagraha does contain the element of coercion, if in a somewhat\nmodified form.\"[13] Since to some people \"coercion\" implies revenge or\npunishment, Shridharani would, however, substitute the word \"compulsion\"\nfor it. Gandhi himself and many of his followers would claim that the\ntechniques of Satyagraha are only a marshalling of the forces of\nsympathy, public opinion, and the like, and that they are persuasive\nrather than coercive. At any rate a distinction, on the basis of the\nspirit in which they are undertaken, between types of action which are\noutwardly similar seems perfectly valid.\n\nThere are other pacifists who would even accept a certain element of\nviolence, as we have defined it, provided it were not physical in\nnature. Some persons with boundless good will feel that even physical\nviolence may be justified on occasion if it is not accompanied by hatred\ntoward its object.[14] However, there would be few who consider\nthemselves pacifists who would accept such a position.\n\nWe are again forced to the conclusion that it is violence as we have\ndefined it to which the pacifist objects. At this point, the chief\ndifference between the pacifist and the non-pacifist is that the latter\ndefines violence as does Clarence Case, as \"the _unlawful_ or\n_unregulated_ use of destructive physical force against persons or\nthings.\"[15] Under such a definition, war itself, since it is sanctioned\nby law, would no longer involve violence. Thus for the non-pacifist it\nis ethically acceptable to use lawful violence against unlawful\nviolence; for the pacifist, violence against any personality is never\nethically justified.[16]\n\nOn the other hand, a very large group of pacifists insist upon\ndiscarding these negative definitions in favor of one that is wholly\npositive. Maurice L. Rowntree has said: \"The Pacifist way of life is the\nway that brings into action all the sense and wisdom, all the passion of\nlove and goodwill that can be brought to bear upon the situation.\"[17]\n\nIn this study, no attempt will be made to determine which of the many\npacifist positions is most sound ethically. Before any person can make\nsuch a determination for himself, however, it is necessary that he\nunderstand the differences between the various approaches to the problem\nof influencing other people either to do something which he believes\nshould be done, or to refrain from doing something which he feels ought\nnot to be done.\n\nIt might be helpful for us in our thinking to construct a scale at one\nend of which we place violence coupled with hatred, and at the other,\ndependence only upon the application of positive love and goodwill. In\nthe intermediate positions we might place (1) violence without hatred,\n(2) non-violence practiced by necessity rather than because of\nprinciple, (3) non-violent coercion, (4) Satyagraha and non-violent\ndirect action, and (5) non-resistance.\n\nWe need, at the outset, to recognize that we are speaking primarily of\nthe relationships between social groups rather than between individuals.\nAs Reinhold Niebuhr has so ably pointed out, our ethical concepts in\nthese two areas are greatly at variance with one another.[18] The\npacifist principles are already widely accepted as ideals in the affairs\nof individuals. Every ethical religion teaches them in this area, and\nthe person who rejects them is definitely the exception in our western\nsociety, until the violent man is regarded as subject to the discipline\nof society in general.\n\nOur real concern in this study is with non-violent means of achieving\ngroup purposes, whether they be defensive and conservative in character,\nor whether they be changes in the existing institutions of the social\norder. The study is not so much concerned with the religious and ethical\nbases of these techniques as it is with a consideration of their\napplication in practice, and their effectiveness in achieving the\npurposes which the group in question has in view. We shall begin at one\nend of our scale and proceed to discuss each type of action in turn.\n\nFOOTNOTES:\n\n[8] Guy F. Hershberger makes a definite distinction between\nnon-resistance and pacifism. He says that the former term describes the\nfaith and life of those \"Who cannot have any part in warfare because\nthey believe the Bible forbids it, and who renounce all coercion, even\nnonviolent coercion.\" He goes on to say, \"Pacifism, on the other hand,\nis a term which covers many types of opposition to war. Some modern\nso-called pacifists are opposed to all wars, and some are not. Some who\noppose all wars find their authority in the will of God, while others\nfind it largely in human reason. There are many other differences among\nthem.\" \"Biblical Nonresistance and Modern Pacifism,\" _The Mennonite\nQuarterly Review_, XVII, (July, 1943), 116.\n\nHershberger is here defining pacifism broadly to include the European\nmeaning of opposition to war, but not necessarily a refusal to take part\nin it. In the United States, and generally in Great Britain, the term is\nordinarily applied only to those who actually refuse participation in\nwar.\n\n[9] See Devere Allen, _The Fight for Peace_ (New York: Macmillan, 1930),\n531-540.\n\n[10] On the origins of these terms see Haridas T. Muzumdar, _The United\nNations of the World_ (New York: Universal, 1942), 201-203.\n\n[11] John Haynes Holmes, using the older term rather than \"pacifist,\"\nhas said, \"The true non-resistant is militant--but he lifts his\nmilitancy from the plane of physical, to the plane of moral and\nspiritual force.\" _New Wars for Old_ (New York: Dodd, Mead, 1916), xiii.\n\n[12] Cecil John Cadoux, _Christian Pacifism Re-examined_ (Oxford: Basil\nBlackwell, 1940), 15-16; Leyton Richards, _Realistic Pacifism_ (Chicago:\nWillett, Clark, 1935), 3.\n\n[13] Shridharani, _War Without Violence_, 292.\n\n[14] John Lewis says, \"We must draw a sharp distinction between the use\nof violence to achieve an unjust end and its use as police action in\ndefence of the rule of law.\" _Case Against Pacifism_, 85.\n\n[15] Clarence Marsh Case, _Non-Violent Coercion_ (New York: Century,\n1923), 323. Italics mine.\n\n[16] C. J. Cadoux has clearly stated his position in these words: \"He\n[the pacifist] will confine himself to those methods of pressure which\nare either wholly non-coercive or are coercive in a strictly\nnon-injurious way, foregoing altogether such injurious methods of\ncoercion as torture, mutilation, or homicide: that is to say, he will\nrefrain from war.\" _Christian Pacifism_, 65-66.\n\n[17] Maurice L. Rowntree, _Mankind Set Free_ (London: Cape, 1939),\n80-81.\n\n\n\n\nII. VIOLENCE WITHOUT HATE\n\n\nOccasions may arise in which a man who genuinely abhors violence\nconfronts an almost insoluble dilemma. On the one hand he may be faced\nwith the imminent triumph of some almost insufferable evil; on the\nother, he may feel that the only available means of opposing that evil\nis violence, which is in itself evil.[19]\n\nIn such a situation, the choice made by any individual depends upon his\nown subjective scale of values. The pacifist is convinced that for him\nto commit violence upon another is itself the greatest possible evil.\nThe non-pacifist says that some other evils may be greater, and that the\nuse of this lesser evil to oppose them is entirely justified. John Lewis\nbases his entire _Case Against Pacifism_ upon this latter assumption,\nand says that in such a conflict of values, pacifists \"continue to be\npacifists either because there is no serious threat, or because they do\nnot expect to lose anything, or perhaps even because they do not value\nwhat is threatened.\"[20] The latter charge is entirely unjustified. The\npacifist maintains his opposition to violence in the face of such a\nthreat, not because he does not value what is threatened, but because he\nvalues something else more.\n\nCadoux has phrased it, \"Pacifism is applicable only in so far as there\nexist pacifists who are convinced of its wisdom. The subjective\ndifferences are of vital importance, yet are usually overlooked in\narguments on the subject.\"[21] This means that our problem of\nconsidering the place of violence and non-violence in human life is not\none of purely objective science, since the attitudes and beliefs of\npacifists (and non-pacifists) themselves become a factor in the\nsituation. If enough people accepted the pacifist scale of values, it\nwould in fact become the true basis for social interaction.[22]\n\nIn our western society, the majority even of those who believe in the\nbrotherhood of man, and have great respect for the dignity of every\nhuman personality, will on occasion use violence as a means to attempt\nthe achievement of their goals. Since their attitude is different from\nthat of the militarist who would place violence itself high in his scale\nof values, it would pay us to consider their position.\n\nFOOTNOTES:\n\n[18] Reinhold Niebuhr, _Moral Man and Immoral Society_ (New York:\nScribner's, 1932). See especially his consideration of coercion and\npersuasion in the two realms of individual and social conduct, pages\nxxii-xxiii.\n\n[19] As Cadoux puts it, \"Broadly speaking, almost the whole human race\nbelieves that it is occasionally right and necessary to inflict\ninjurious coercion on human beings, in order to prevent the perpetration\nby them of some intolerable evil.\" _Christian Pacifism Re-examined_, 97.\n\n[20] Lewis, 62.\n\n\nRevolutionary Anarchism\n\nThe revolutionary Anarchists belong essentially in this group. As\nAlexander Berkman has put it, \"The teachings of Anarchism are those of\npeace and harmony, of non-invasion, of the sacredness of life and\nliberty;\" or again, \"It [Anarchism] means that men are brothers, and\nthat they should live like brothers, in peace and harmony.\"[23] But to\ncreate this ideal society the Anarchist feels that violence may be\nnecessary. Berkman himself, in his younger days, was able to justify his\nattack upon the life of Frick at the time of the Homestead Strike in\n1893 in these words:\n\n\n     \"But to the People belongs the earth--by right, if not in fact. To\n     make it so in fact, all means are justifiable; nay advisable, even\n     to the point of taking life.... Human life is, indeed, sacred and\n     inviolate. But the killing of a tyrant, of an enemy of the People,\n     is in no way to be considered as the taking of a life.... To remove\n     a tyrant is an act of liberation, the giving of life and\n     opportunity to an oppressed people.\"[24]\n\n\nLater, Berkman insisted that a successful revolution must be non-violent\nin nature. It must be the result of thoroughgoing changes in the ideas\nand opinions of the people. When their ideas have become sufficiently\nchanged and unified, the people can stage a general strike in which they\noverthrow the old order by their refusal to co-operate with it. He\nmaintains that any attempt to carry on the revolution itself by military\nmeans would fail because \"government and capital are too well organized\nin a military way for the workers to cope with them.\" But, says Berkman,\nwhen the success of the revolution becomes apparent, the opposition will\nuse violent means to suppress it. At that moment the people are\njustified in using violence themselves to protect it. Berkman believes\nthat there is no record of any group in power giving up its power\nwithout being subjected to the use of physical force, or at least the\nthreat of it.[25] Thus in effect, Berkman would still use violence\nagainst some personalities in order to establish a system in which\nrespect for every personality would be possible. Actually his desire for\nthe new society is greater than his abhorrence of violence.\n\nFOOTNOTES:\n\n[21] Cadoux, _Christian Pacifism Re-examined_, 116-117.\n\n[22] The way in which a whole social order can differ from that of the\nWest, merely because it chooses to operate on the basis of different\nassumptions concerning such things as the aggressive nature of man is\nwell brought out in the study of three New Guinea tribes living in very\nsimilar environments. Margaret Mead, _Sex and Temperament in Three\nPrimitive Societies_ (London: Routledge, 1935).\n\n[23] Alexander Berkman, _What Is Communist Anarchism_? (New York:\nVanguard, 1929), x-xi, 176.\n\n[24] Alexander Berkman, _Prison Memoirs of an Anarchist_ (New York:\nMother Earth Publishing Association, 1912), 7.\n\n[25] Berkman, _Communist Anarchism_, 217-229, 247-248, 290.\n\n\nAbraham Lincoln\n\nAbraham Lincoln represented the spirit of moderation in the use of\nviolence. He led his nation in war reluctantly and prayerfully, with no\ntouch of hatred toward those whom the armies of which he was\nCommander-in-Chief were destroying. He expressed his feeling in an\ninspiring way in the closing words of his Second Inaugural Address, when\nthe war was rapidly drawing to a victorious close:\n\n\n     \"With malice toward none; with charity for all; with firmness to do\n     the right, as God gives us to see the right, let us strive on to\n     finish the work we are in; to bind up the nation's wounds; to care\n     for him who shall have borne battle, and for his widow, and his\n     orphan--to do all which may achieve and cherish a just and lasting\n     peace among ourselves, and with all nations.\"\n\n\nThe Church and War\n\nThe statements of British and American churchmen during the present war\ncall to mind these words of Lincoln. At Malvern, in 1941, members of the\nChurch of England declared: \"God himself is the sovereign of all human\nlife; all men are his children, and ought to be brothers of one another;\nthrough Christ the Redeemer they can become what they ought to be.\" In\nMarch, 1942, American Protestant leaders at Delaware, Ohio, asserted:\n\"We believe it is the purpose of God to create a world-wide community in\nJesus Christ, transcending nation, race and class.\"[26] Yet the majority\nof the men who drew up these two statements were supporting the war\nwhich their nations were waging against fellow members of the world\ncommunity--against those whom they professed to call brothers. Like\nLincoln they did so in the belief that when the military phases of the\nwar were over, it would be possible to turn from violence and to\npractice the principles of Christian charity.[27]\n\nThere is little in human history to justify their hope. There is much to\nmake us believe that the violent attitudes of war will lead to hatred\nand injustice toward enemies when the war is done. The inspiring words\nof Lincoln were followed by the orgy of radical reconstruction in the\nSouth. There is at least as grave a doubt that the spirit of the\nChristian Church will dominate the peace which is concluded at the end\nof the present war.\n\nThe question arises insistently whether violence without hate can long\nlive up to its own professions.\n\nFOOTNOTES:\n\n[26] number of these religious statements are conveniently brought\ntogether in the appendix to Paul Hutchinson's _From Victory to Peace_\n(Chicago: Willett, Clark, 1943). For a statement of a point of view\nsimilar to the one we are discussing here, see also Charles Clayton\nMorrison, _The Christian and the War_ (Chicago: Willett, Clark, 1942).\n\n[27] Bernard Iddings Bell has expressed the attitude of such churchmen:\n\"Evil may sometimes get such control of men and nations, they have\nrealized, that armed resistance becomes a necessity. There are times\nwhen not to participate in violence is in itself violence to the welfare\nof the brethren. But no Christian moralist worth mentioning has ever\nregarded war _per se_ as other than monstrous, or hoped that by the use\nof violence anything more could be accomplished than the frustration of\na temporarily powerful malicious wickedness. War in itself gives birth\nto no righteousness. Only such a fire of love as leads to\nself-effacement can advance the welfare of mankind.\" \"Will the Christian\nChurch Survive?\" _Atlantic Monthly_, Vol. 170, October, 1942, 109.\n\n\n\n\nIII. NON-VIOLENCE BY NECESSITY\n\n\nThe use of non-violent resistance does not always denote devotion to\npacifist principles. Groups who would gladly use arms against an enemy\nif they had them often use non-violent means simply because they have no\nothers at their disposal at the moment. In contrast to the type of\naction described in the preceding section, such a procedure might be\ncalled \"hate without violence.\" It would probably be better to call it\n\"non-violence by necessity.\"\n\nThe group using non-violence under such circumstances might have in view\none of three purposes. It might hope through its display of opposition\nand its own suffering to appeal to the sense of fair play of the group\nthat was oppressing it. However, such a hope can exist only in cases\nwhere the two opposing parties have a large area of agreement upon\nvalues, or homogeneity, and would have no basis when the oppressing\ngroup looked upon the oppressed as completely beneath their\nconsideration. It is unlikely that it would have much success in\nchanging the policy of a nation which consciously chose to invade\nanother country, although it might affect individual soldiers if their\ncultural background were similar to that of the invaded people.[28]\n\nAn invader usually desires to gain something from the invaded people. In\norder to succeed, he needs their cooperation. A second way of thwarting\nthe will of the invader is to refuse that cooperation, and be willing to\nsuffer the penalties of such refusal. Since the invaded territory would\nthen have no value, the invader might leave of his own accord.\n\nA third possibility is for the invaded people to employ sabotage and\ninflict damage upon the invader in the belief that his invasion can be\nmade so costly that it will be impossible for him to remain in the\nconquered territory. Such sabotage easily merges into violence.\n\nIn the preceding paragraphs, the enemy of the group using non-violence\nhas been referred to as the \"invader,\" because our best examples of this\ntype of non-violent opposition are to be found in the histories of\nconquered people opposing the will of occupying forces. A similar\nsituation may exist between a colonial people and the home government of\nan imperial power, since in most cases their position is essentially\nthat of a conquered people, except that their territory has been\noccupied for a longer period of time.\n\nFOOTNOTE:\n\n[28] Franklin H. Giddings said, \"In a word, non-aggression and\nnon-resistance are an outcome of homogeneity.\" \"The Gospel of\nNon-Resistance,\" in _Democracy and Empire_ (New York: Macmillan, 1900),\n356. See also Case, _Non-Violent Coercion_, 248; Lewis, _Case Against\nPacifism_, 185-186.\n\n\nNon-Violent Resistance to Invaders\n\nStories of the use of this sort of non-violence occur in our press every\nday, as they find their way out of the occupied countries which are\nopposing the Nazi invaders with every means at their disposal. In these\ncountries the vast majority of the people are agreed in their\ndetermination to rid themselves of Nazi control. Such common agreement\nis the first requisite for the success of this method of resistance.\nWhen the people of the territory refuse to inform the police about\nindividuals who are committing unlawful acts against the invaders, it is\nvirtually impossible for the latter to check the expansion of\nnon-cooperation or sabotage. Similarly, if the whole population refuses\nto cooperate with the invader, it is impossible for him to punish them\nall, or if he did, he would be destroying the labor force whose\ncooperation he desires, and would have defeated himself in the very\nprocess of stamping out the opposition to his regime.\n\nHitler himself has discovered that there is a difference between\nmilitary occupation and actual conquest. In his New Year's proclamation\nto the German people in 1944, he attempted to explain the Nazi reverses\nin North Africa and Italy in these words:\n\n\n     \"The true cause of the difficulties in North Africa and the Balkans\n     was in reality the persistent attempts at sabotage and paralyzation\n     of these plutocratic enemies of the fascist people's State.\n\n     \"Their continual sabotage not only succeeded in stopping supplies\n     to Africa and, later on, to Italy, by ever-new methods of passive\n     resistance, thus preventing our soldiers and the Italians standing\n     at their side from receiving the material wherewithal for the\n     conduct of the struggle, but also aggravated or confused the\n     situation in the Balkans, which had been cleared according to plan\n     by German actions.\"[29]\n\n\nOpposition to the German invader has taken different forms in different\ncountries. In Denmark, where there was no military resistance to the\ninitial invasion, the subtle opposition of the people has made itself\nfelt in innumerable ways. There are many stories such as that of the\nKing's refusal to institute anti-Jewish laws in Denmark on the ground\nthat there was no Jewish problem there since the Danes did not feel\nthemselves to be inferior to the Jews. Such ideological opposition makes\nthe Nazis angry, and it also makes them uncomfortable, since they do\nhold enough values in common with the Danes to understand perfectly the\nimplications of the Danish jibes. Such psychological opposition merges\ninto sabotage very easily. For instance when the Germans demanded ten\ntorpedo boats from the Danish navy, the Danes prepared them for delivery\nby taking all their guns and equipment ashore, and then burning the\nwarehouse in which these were stored. The Nazis even forbade the press\nto mention the incident, lest it become a signal for a nationwide\ndemonstration of solidarity.[30]\n\nOther occupied countries report the same type of non-violent resistance.\nThere are strikes of parents against sending their children to\nNazi-controlled schools, strikes of ministers against conforming to Nazi\ndecrees, demonstrations, malingering, and interference with internal\nadministration. Such events may appear less important than military\nresistance, but they make the life of an occupying force uneasy and\nunhappy.[31]\n\nCalls for non-violent preparation for the day of delivery go out\nconstantly in the underground press. While urging solidarity in illegal\nacts among the French population at home, one French appeal even gave\ninstructions to Frenchmen who might go to work in Germany:\n\n\n     \"If you respond to Laval's appeal, I know in what spirit you will\n     do so. You will wish to slow down German production, establish\n     contacts with all the Frenchmen in Germany, and create the\n     strongest of Fifth Columns in the enemy country.\"[32]\n\n\nOver a long period of time such action cannot help having an effect upon\nthe success of the invader. Since the grievance of the peoples of the\noccupied countries is a continuous one, there is no prospect that their\nresistance will relax until they have freed themselves of their\noppressors.\n\nFOOTNOTES:\n\n[29] _New York Times_, Jan. 1, 1944, page 4, columns 2-7.\n\n[30] C. H. W. Hasselriis, \"Nothing Rotten in Denmark,\" in _The New\nRepublic_, June 7, 1943, Vol. 108: 760-761.\n\n[31] The publications of the various governments in exile are filled\nwith such stories. See such periodicals as _News of Norway_ and _News\nfrom Belgium_, which can be obtained through the United Nations\nInformation Service, 610 Fifth Avenue, New York City.\n\n[32] _Resistance_, Feb. 17, 1943, reprinted in _Free World_, July, 1943,\nVol. 6, 77.\n\n\nChinese Boycotts Against Foreigners\n\nWe can find many other examples of the use of these non-violent methods\nunder similar circumstances. The Chinese made use of the boycott\nrepeatedly to oppose foreign domination and interference in their\ninternal affairs in the years before the outbreak of the present war\nagainst Japan. Clarence Case lists five significant Chinese boycotts\nbetween 1906 and 1919. The last one was directed against foreigners _and\nthe Chinese government_ to protest the action of the Peace Conference in\ngiving Japan a predominant interest in Shantung. As a result the\ngovernment of China was ousted, and the provisions of the treaty\nrevised. Japan felt the effects of the boycott more than any other\ncountry. Case says of the Japanese reaction:\n\n\n     \"As for the total loss to Japanese trade, various authorities have\n     settled upon $50,000,000, which we may accept as a close\n     approximation. At any rate the pressure was great enough to impel\n     the Japanese merchants of Peking and Tientsin, with apparent ruin\n     staring them in the face, to appeal to their home government for\n     protection. They insisted that the boycott should be made a\n     diplomatic question of the first order and that demands for its\n     removal should be backed by threats of military intervention. To\n     this the government at Tokio 'could only reply that it knew no way\n     by which the Chinese merchants, much less the Chinese people, could\n     be made to buy Japanese goods against their will.'\"[33]\n\n\nThis incident calls to mind the experience of the American colonists in\ntheir non-violent resistance to Great Britain's imperial policy in the\nyears following 1763, which we shall discuss more at length in the next\nsection.\n\n\nEgyptian Opposition to Great Britain\n\nAnother similar example is that of the Egyptian protest against British\noccupation of the country in 1919. People in all walks of life went on\nstrike. Officials boycotted the British mission under Lord Milner, which\ncame to work out a compromise. The mission was forced to return to\nLondon empty handed, but finally an agreement was reached there with\nSaad Zagloul Pasha, leader of the Egyptian movement, on the basis of\nindependence for the country, with the British retaining only enough\nmilitary control to safeguard their interest in the Suez Canal. After\nthe acceptance of the settlement in 1922, friction between Egypt and\nGreat Britain continued, but Egypt was not sufficiently united, nor were\nthe grievances great enough to lead to the same type of successful\nnon-cooperation practiced in 1919.[34]\n\nIt must be recognized that in most cases such as those we have been\nconsidering, violence would be used by the resisters if they had it at\ntheir disposal. However, the occasional success of non-violence even\nunder such circumstances is proof of the possible expediency of this\nmethod. When it has failed, it has done so because the resisters were\nnot sufficiently committed to their purpose to carry it out in the face\nof possible death. It appears from this experience that complete\nsolidarity and commitment is required for the success of non-violent\nmethods when used in this way, just as they are if such methods are used\nas a matter of principle. It must be recognized that the self-discipline\nnecessary for the success of a non-violent movement must be even more\nrigorous than the imposed discipline of a military machine, and also\nthat there is a chance that the non-violent resisters will fail in their\nendeavor, just as there is a virtual certainty that one side in a\nmilitary conflict will be defeated.[35]\n\nFOOTNOTES:\n\n[33] Case, _Non-Violent Coercion_, 330-339. The last sentence is quoted\nfrom _The Christian Science Monitor_, April 7, 1920.\n\n[34] A. Fenner Brockway, _Non-Co-operation in Other Lands_ (Madras:\nTagore and Co., 1921), 25-39; Charles E. Mullett, _The British Empire_\n(New York: Holt, 1938), 622-627.\n\nPacifist literature has also made much of the Hungarian independence\nmovement in the 1860's under Francis Deak, which refused to pay taxes to\nthe Austrian government, or to co-operate in other ways. However, it\nwould appear that outside pressures were as important in the final\nsettlement establishing the Dual Monarchy in 1867 as was the Hungarian\nmovement of non-cooperation. The pacifist writers generally follow the\naccount in Brockway, _Non-Co-operation_, 1-24. He in turn follows the\nbook of Arthur Griffith, _The Resurrection of Hungary_, published in\n1904 in order to induce the Irish to use non-co-operation in their\nstruggle against the English. For some of the other factors involved see\nA. J. P. Taylor, _The Hapsburg Monarchy 1815-1918_ (London: Macmillan,\n1941), 101-151.\n\n[35] On the discipline required see Gregg, _Power of Non-Violence_,\n266-294. Lewis, to prove the ineffectiveness of non-violence, quotes\nJoad: \"There have been only too many occasions in history in which the\nmeeting of violence by non-violence has led not to the taming of the\nviolent, but to the extinction of the non-violent.\" _The Case Against\nPacifism_, 184.\n\n\n\n\nIV. NON-VIOLENT COERCION\n\n\nIn the last section we were considering the non-violent resistance of\ngroups which had no choice in their means of opposing the will of an\ninvader, but who would have chosen violence if the weapons of violence\nhad been available to them. In those cases there was no question but\nthat the choice rested upon the expediency of the moment rather than\nupon principle. In the cases of non-violence by necessity the purposes\nof the resisting groups were defensive and negative, designed to induce\nthe withdrawal of the invader rather than to induce him to follow\nactively a different policy.\n\nIn this section we are concerned with the action of groups designed to\nmodify the conduct of others in order to promote their own ideals. We\nare concerned with people who presumably have a possible choice of\nmethods to accomplish their purposes. They might rely upon persuasion\nand education of their opponents through emotional or intellectual\nappeals; but such action would have no coercive element in it, so we\nshall consider it in a later section. Or they might attempt to coerce\ntheir opponents, either by violent or non-violent means. For the present\nwe are interested only in the latter through its usual manifestations:\nthe strike, the boycott, or other organized movements of\nnon-cooperation.[36]\n\nAt first sight such methods do not appear to be coercive in nature,\nsince they involve merely an abstention from action on the part of the\ngroup offering the resistance. Actually they are coercive, however,\nbecause of the absolute necessity for inter-group cooperation in the\nmaintenance of our modern social, economic, and political systems. Under\nmodern conditions the group against whom the resistance is directed must\nhave the cooperation of the resisting group in order to continue to\nsurvive. When that cooperation is denied, the old dominant group is\nforced to make concessions, _even against its will_, to the former\nsubordinate group in order to regain the help that they have refused to\nrender under the old conditions.[37]\n\nThe non-violent resisters themselves are also dependent upon inter-group\ncooperation. Hence the outcome of this type of struggle usually depends\nupon which of the two parties to the conflict can best or longest\ndispense with the services of the other. If the resisters are less able\nto hold out than the defenders, or if the costs of continued resistance\nbecome in their eyes greater than the advantages which might be gained\nby ultimate victory, they will lose their will to resist and their\nmovement will end in failure.\n\nIn all such struggles, both sides are greatly influenced by the opinions\nof parties not directly concerned in the immediate conflict, but who\nmight give support or opposition to one side or the other depending upon\nwhich could enlist their sympathies. Because of the deep-seated dislike\nof violence, even in our western society, the side that first employs it\nis apt to lose the sympathy of these third parties. As E. A. Ross has\nput it:\n\n\n     \"Disobedience without violence wins, _if it wins_, not so much by\n     touching the conscience of the masters as by exciting the sympathy\n     of disinterested onlookers. The spectacle of men suffering for a\n     principle _and not hitting back_ is a moving one. It obliges the\n     power holders to condescend to explain, to justify themselves. The\n     weak get a change of venue from the will of the stronger to the\n     court of public opinion, perhaps of world opinion.\"[38]\n\n\nThe stakes in such a struggle may be great or small. They range all the\nway from the demand of a labor union for an increase of five cents an\nhour in wages, to that of a whole people demanding political\nindependence from an imperial master, or a revolutionary change in the\neconomic or political power of the community.\n\nThe decision of the resisters to use non-violent means of opposition to\ngain their ends may be based either upon principle or upon expediency.\nIn the former case they would say that the purposes they have in mind\nwould not be worth attaining if their achievement were to involve\nphysical violence toward other human beings; in the latter they would\nact on the basis of the conclusion that in view of all the factors\ninvolved their purposes could best be served by avoiding violence. These\nfactors would include the likelihood of counter-violence, an estimate of\nthe relative physical strength of the two parties to the conflict, and\nthe attitude of the public toward the party that first used violence. In\npractice the action of those who avoid violence because they regard it\nas wrong is very little different from that of those who avoid it\nbecause they think that it will not serve their ends. But since there is\na moral difference between them, we shall postpone the consideration of\nSatyagraha, or non-violent direct action on the basis of principle,\nuntil the next section. It would deserve such separate treatment in any\ncase because of the great amount of attention which it commands in\npacifist circles all over the world.\n\nAt the outset it is necessary to dispel the idea that non-violent\nresistance is something esoteric and oriental, and that it is seldom\nused in western society. This type of action is used constantly in our\nown communities, and the histories of western peoples present us with a\nlarge number of examples of the use of non-violent action in political\nand revolutionary conflicts. In the following discussion, the point of\nview is that of the West.\n\nFOOTNOTES:\n\n[36] Clarence Marsh Case, \"Friends and Social Thinking\" in S. B.\nLaughlin (Ed.), _Beyond Dilemmas_ (Philadelphia: Lippincott, 1937),\n130-137; Cadoux, _Christian Pacifism Re-Examined_, 24-25, and the chart\non page 45.\n\n[37] Case, _Non-Violent Coercion_, 330. John Lewis says, \"Non-violence\ncan be as completely coercive as violence itself, in which case, while\nit has the advantage of not involving war, it cannot be defended on\nspiritual grounds.\" _Case Against Pacifism_, 110.\n\n[38] In his \"Introduction\" to Case, _Non-Violent Coercion_.\n\n\nThe Labor Strike\n\nThe most common type of non-violent conflict is the ordinary labor\nstrike. In a strike, the workers withdraw their cooperation from the\nemployer until he meets their demands. He suffers, because as long as\nthey refuse to work for him it is impossible for him to produce the\ngoods or services upon the sale of which his own living depends. Usually\nhe is fighting for no principle during such a strike, so that he is apt\nto calculate his monetary loss from it against the advantages he would\nhave to surrender in order to reach an agreement. When he concludes that\nit would be cheaper to give in, it is possible for the management and\nthe strikers to arrive at a settlement. If the employer does feel that\nthe principle of control of an enterprise by its owner is at stake, he\nmay hold out longer, until he actually loses more by the strike than he\nwould by conceding the demands of the strikers, but even then he\nbalances psychological cost against monetary cost, and when the latter\noverweighs the former he becomes receptive to a settlement.\n\nDuring the strike the workers are going through much the same process. A\nstrike from their point of view is even more costly than it is to the\nemployer. It is not to be entered upon lightly, since their very means\nof sustenance are at stake. They too have to balance the monetary costs\nof their continued refusal to cooperate against the gains that they\nmight hope for by continued resistance, and when the cost becomes\ngreater than the prospective gain they are receptive to suggestions for\ncompromise. They too may be contending for the principle of the right of\norganization and control over their own economic destinies, so that they\nmay be willing to suffer loss for a longer period than they would if\nthey stood to gain only the immediate monetary advantages, but when\nimmediate costs more than overweigh ultimate psychological advantages,\nthey too will be willing to capitulate.\n\nIn the meantime the strikers have to see to it that the employer does\nnot find someone else with whom he can cooperate in order to eliminate\nhis dependence upon them. Hence they picket the plant, in an attempt to\npersuade others not to work there. If persuasion is not effective, they\nmay resort to mass picketing, which amounts to a threat of violence\nagainst the persons who would attempt to take over their jobs. On\noccasion the threat to their jobs becomes so great that in order to\ndefend them they will resort to violence against the strikebreaker. At\nthis point, the public, which is apt to be somewhat sympathetic toward\ntheir demands for fair wages or better working conditions, turns against\nthem and supports the employer, greatly adding to his moral standing and\nweakening that of the strikers, until the strikers, feeling that the\nforces against them are too great, are apt to give way. The employer\nwill find the same negative reaction among the public if he tries to use\nviolence in order to break the strike. Hence, if he does decide to use\nviolence, he tries to make it appear that the strikers are responsible,\nor tries to induce them to use it first. It is to their advantage not to\nuse it, even when it is used against them. Labor leaders in general\nunderstand this principle and try to avoid violence at all costs. They\ndo so not on the basis of principle, but on the basis of expediency.[39]\n\nIn the great wave of enthusiastic organization of labor that swept over\nthe United States in 1936 and 1937, American labor copied a variant of\nthe strike, which had been used earlier in Hungary and in France.[40]\nInstead of leaving the property of the employer and trying to prevent\nothers from entering it to take their places, workers remained on a \"sit\ndown strike\" within the plants, so that the employer would have been\nforced to use violence to remove them in order to operate the factory.\nThese strikes were based in part upon the theory that the worker had a\nproperty right to his job, just as the employer did to his capital\nequipment. Such strikes were for a time more successful than the older\nvariety, because strike-breaking was virtually impossible. However, it\nwas not long before public opinion forced the abandonment of the\ntechnique. It was revolutionary in character, since it threatened the\nold concept of private property. The fear of small property holders that\ntheir own possessions would be jeopardized by the success of such a\nmovement, made them support the owners of the plants against the\nstrikers, who were then forced to give way. In this case the public's\nfear of revolutionary change was greater than their dislike of violence,\nso they even supported the use of physical force by the employers and\nthe police authorities to remove the strikers from the plants. The very\neffectiveness of the method which labor was employing brought about its\ndefeat, because the public was not yet persuaded to accept the new\nconcept of the property right of the laborer to his job.\n\nFOOTNOTES:\n\n[39] A. J. Muste, _Non-Violence in an Aggressive World_ (New York:\nHarper, 1940), 70-72.\n\n[40] Barthelemy de Ligt, _The Conquest of Violence: An Essay on War and\nRevolution_ (New York: E. P. Dutton, 1938), 131-132.\n\n\nThe Boycott\n\nThe boycott is a more indirect type of non-cooperation than the strike,\nin most cases.[41] This word originated in Ireland in 1880 when a\nCaptain Boycott, an agent for an Irish landlord, refused the demands of\nthe tenants on the estate. In retaliation they threatened his life,\nforced his servants to leave him, tore down his fences, and cut off his\nfood supplies. The Irish Land League, insisting that the land of Ireland\nshould belong to its people, used this method of opposition in the years\nthat followed. Its members refused to deal with peasants or tradesmen\nwho sided with the government, but they used acts of violence and\nintimidation as well as economic pressure. The government employed\n15,000 military police and 40,000 soldiers against the people, but they\nsucceeded only in filling the jails. The struggle might well have won\nland for the Irish peasant, if Parnell, who had become leader of the\nIrish movement, had not agreed to accept the Gladstone Home Rule Bill of\n1886 in exchange for calling off the opposition in Ireland. The Bill was\ndefeated in Parliament and the Irish problem continued.[42]\n\nIn later usage, the word \"boycott\" has been applied almost exclusively\nto the refusal of economic cooperation. Organized labor in America used\nthe boycott against the goods of manufacturers who refused to deal with\nunions, and it is still used in appeals to the public not to patronize\nstores or manufacturers who deal unfairly with labor.\n\nThe idea of economic sanctions, which played so large a part in the\nhistory of the League of Nations in its attempts to deal with those who\ndisregarded decisions of the League, is essentially similar to the\nboycott. In fact much of the thinking of the pacifist movement between\nthe two wars maintained that economic sanctions would provide a\nnon-violent but coercive substitute for war, in settling international\ncontroversies.[43]\n\nFOOTNOTES:\n\n[41] \"The boycott is a form of passive resistance in all cases where it\ndoes not descend to violence and intimidation. The fact that it is\ncoercive does not place it beyond the moral pale, for coercion ... is a\nfact inseparable from life in society.\" Case, _Non-Violent Coercion_,\n319.\n\n[42] De Ligt, 114-117; Carleton J. H. Hayes, _A Political and Cultural\nHistory of Modern Europe_ (New York: Macmillan, 1936), II, 496.\n\n[43] De Ligt, 218-241.\n\n\nNon-Violent Coercion by the American Colonies\n\nThe western world has repeatedly employed non-violent coercion as a\npolitical as well as an economic technique. Strangely enough, many\nAmericans who are apt to scoff at the methods of the Indian independence\nmovement today forget that the American colonists used much the same\nmethods in the early stages of their own revolt against England. When\nEngland began to assert imperial control over the colonies after 1763,\nthe colonists answered with protests and refusals to cooperate. Against\nboth the Stamp Act of 1765 and the Townshend Duties of 1767, they\nadopted non-importation agreements whereby they refused to import\nBritish goods. To be sure, the more radical colonists did not eschew\nviolence on the basis of principle, and the direct action by which they\nforced colonial merchants to respect the terms of the non-importation\nagreements was not always non-violent. The loss of trade induced British\nmerchants to go to Parliament on both occasions and to insist\nsuccessfully upon the repeal of the Stamp Act in 1766 and the Townshend\nDuties in 1770. In the face of non-cooperation practiced by the vast\nmajority of the colonists, the British government had been forced to\ngive way in order to serve its own best interests.[44]\n\nIn 1774, when the Continental Congress established the Continental\nAssociation in order to use the same economic weapon again, the issues\nin the conflict were more clearly drawn. Many of the moderate colonists\nwho had supported the earlier action, denounced this one as\nrevolutionary, and went over to the loyalist side. The radicals\nthemselves felt less secure in the use of their economic weapon, and\nbegan to gather arms for a violent rebellion. The attempt of the British\nto destroy these weapons led to Lexington and Concord.[45] What had been\nnon-violent opposition to British policy had become armed revolt and\ncivil war. It was a war which would probably have ended in the defeat of\nthe colonists if they had not been able to fish in the troubled waters\nof international politics and win the active support of France, who\nsought thus to avenge the loss of her own colonies to Great Britain in\n1763. We have here an example of the way in which non-violent\nresistance, when used merely on the basis of expediency, is apt to\nintensify and sharpen the conflict, until it finally leads to war\nitself.[46]\n\nFOOTNOTES:\n\n[44] Curtis Nettels says of the Stamp Act opposition, \"The most telling\nweapons used by the colonists were the non-importation agreements, which\nstruck the British merchants at a time when trade was bad.\" _The Roots\nof American Civilization_ (New York: Crofts, 1938), 632. Later he says,\n\"The colonial merchants again resorted to the non-importation agreements\nas the most effectual means of compelling Britain to repeal the\nTownshend Acts.\" _Ibid._, 635.\n\nFor a good account of this whole movement see also John C. Miller,\n_Origins of the American Revolution_ (Boston: Little, Brown, 1943),\n150-164, 235-281.\n\n[45] Miller, 355-411.\n\n[46] Case, _Non-Violent Coercion_, 308-309.\n\n\nIrish Opposition to Great Britain After 1900\n\nAfter centuries of violent opposition to British occupation, the Irish\ntried an experiment in non-violent non-cooperation after 1900. Arthur\nGriffith was inspired to use in Ireland the techniques employed in the\nHungarian independence movement of 1866-1867. His Sinn Fein party,\norganized in 1906, determined to set up an independent government for\nIreland outside the framework of the United Kingdom. When the Home Rule\nAct of 1914 was not put into operation because of the war, Sinn Fein\ngained ground. In the elections of 1918, three fourths of the successful\nIrish candidates were members of the party, so they met at Dublin as an\nIrish parliament rather than proceeding to Westminster. In 1921, after a\nnew Home Rule Act had resulted only in additional opposition, the\nBritish government negotiated a settlement with the representatives of\nthe \"Irish Republic,\" which set up the \"Irish Free State\" as a\nself-governing dominion within the British Commonwealth. The Irish\naccepted the treaty, and the Irish problem was on its way to settlement,\nalthough later events were to prove that Ireland would not be satisfied\nuntil she had demonstrated that the new status made her in fact\nindependent. Her neutrality in the present war should dispel all\ndoubts.[47]\n\nFOOTNOTE:\n\n[47] Brockway, _Non-Co-operation_, 71-92; William I. Hull, _The War\nMethod and the Peace Method: An Historical Contrast_ (New York: Revell,\n1929), 229-231; Hayes, _Modern Europe_, II, 498-501, 876-879, 952-953.\n\n\nStrikes with Political Purposes\n\nBritish workers themselves have made use of strikes with political\nsignificance. In 1920, transport workers refused to handle goods\ndestined to be used in the war against the Bolshevik regime in Russia,\nand thus forced Britain to cease her intervention.[48] In 1926, the\ngeneral strike in Britain had revolutionary implications which the\nGovernment and the public recognized only too well. Hence the widespread\nopposition to it. The leaders of the strike were even frightened\nthemselves, and called it off suddenly, leaving the masses of the\nworkers completely bewildered.[49]\n\nIn Germany, non-cooperation has also been used successfully. In 1920, a\ngeneral strike defeated the attempt of the militarists to seize control\nof the state in the Kapp Putsch. In 1924, when the French Army invaded\nthe Ruhr, the non-violent refusal of the German workers to mine coal for\nFrance had the support of the whole German nation. As the saying was at\nthe time, \"You can't mine coal with bayonets.\" Finally the French\nwithdrew from their fruitless adventure.[50]\n\nFOOTNOTES:\n\n[48] Allen, _Fight for Peace_, 633-634; Huxley, _Ends and Means_,\n169-170.\n\n[49] Berkman, _Communist Anarchism_, 247-248.\n\n[50] Oswald Garrison Villard's \"Preface\" to Shridharani, _War Without\nViolence_, xiv-xv.\n\n\nNon-Violence in International Affairs\n\nIn the international field, we also have examples of the use of\nnon-violent coercion. Thomas Jefferson, during the struggle for the\nrecognition of American neutral rights by Britain and France, attempted\nto employ the economic weapons of pre-revolutionary days. His embargo\nupon American commerce and the later variants on that policy, designed\nto force the belligerents to recognize the American position, actually\nwere more costly to American shippers than were the depredations of the\nFrench and the British, so they forced a reversal of American policy.\nThe war against England that followed did not have the support of the\nshipping interests, whose trade it was supposedly trying to protect. It\nwas more an adventure in American imperialism than it was an attempt to\ndefend neutral rights, so it can hardly be said to have grown out of the\nissues which led to Jefferson's use of economic sanctions. The whole\nincident proves that the country which attempts to use this method in\ninternational affairs must expect to lose its own trade in the process.\nThe cause must be great indeed before such undramatic losses become\nacceptable.[51]\n\nThe same principle is illustrated in the attempt to impose economic\nsanctions on Italy in 1935 and 1936. The nations who made a gesture\ntoward using them actually did not want to hinder Italian expansion, or\ndid not want to do so enough to surrender their trade with Italy. The\ninevitable result was that the sanctions failed.\n\nThe success of non-violent coercion is by no means assured in every\ncase. It depends upon (1) the existence of a grievance great enough to\njustify the suffering that devolves upon the resisters, (2) the\ndependence of the opposition on the cooperation of the resisters, (3)\nsolidarity among a large enough number of resisters, and (4) in most\ncases, the favorable reaction of the public not involved in the\nconflict. When all or most of these factors have been present,\nnon-violent coercion has succeeded in our western society. On other\noccasions it has failed. But one who remembers the utter defeat of the\nAustrian socialists who employed arms against Chancellor Dolfuss in 1934\nmust admit that violent coercion also has its failures.[52]\n\nFOOTNOTES:\n\n[51] Louis Martin Sears, _Jefferson and the Embargo_ (Durham, N. C.:\nDuke University, 1927); Julius W. Pratt, _Expansionists of 1812_ (New\nYork: Macmillan, 1925).\n\n[52] De Ligt, 131. For other statements concerning the virtual\nimpossibility of violent revolution today see De Ligt, 81-82, 162-163;\nHorace G. Alexander, \"Great Possessions\" in Gerald Heard, _et. al._,\n_The New Pacifism_ (London: Allenson, 1936), 89-91; Huxley, _Ends and\nMeans_, 178-179; Lewis, _Case Against Pacifism_, 112-113.\n\n\n\n\nV. SATYAGRAHA OR NON-VIOLENT DIRECT ACTION\n\n\nThere is a distinction between those who employ non-violent methods of\nopposition on the basis of expediency and those who refuse to use\nviolence on the basis of principle. In the minds of many pacifists the\nmovement for Indian independence under the leadership of Mohandas K.\nGandhi stands out as the supreme example of a political revolt which has\ninsisted on this principle, and hence as a model to be followed in any\npacifist movement of social, economic, or political reform. Gandhi's\nSatyagraha, therefore, deserves careful analysis in the light of\npacifist principles.\n\nWestern critics of Gandhi's methods are prone to insist that they may be\napplicable in the Orient, but that they can never be applied in the same\nway within our western culture. We have already seen that there have\nbeen many non-violent movements of reform within our western society,\nbut those that we have examined have been based on expediency.\nUndoubtedly the widespread Hindu acceptance of the principle of\n_ahimsa_, or non-killing, even in the case of animals, prepared the way\nfor Gandhi more completely than would have been the case in western\nsociety.\n\n\nThe Origins of Satyagraha\n\nShridharani has traced for us the origins of this distinctive Hindu\nphilosophy of _ahimsa_. It arose from the idea of the sacrifice, which\nthe Aryans brought to India with them at least 1500 years before Christ.\nFrom a gesture of propitiation of the gods, sacrifice gradually turned\ninto a magic formula which would work automatically to procure desired\nends and eliminate evil. In time the Hindus came to believe that the\nmost effective type of sacrifice was self-sacrifice and suffering,\naccompanied by a refusal to injure others, or _ahimsa_.[53] Only the\nwarrior caste of _Kshatriyas_ was allowed to fight. In his\nautobiography, Gandhi brings out clearly the pious nature of his home\nenvironment, and the emphasis which was placed there upon not eating\nmeat because of the sacred character of animal life.[54]\n\nIt is not surprising that a logical mind reared in such an environment\nshould have espoused the principle of non-killing. In his western\neducation Gandhi became acquainted with The Sermon on the Mount, and the\nwritings of Tolstoy and Thoreau, but he tells us himself that he was\nattracted to these philosophies because they expressed ideas in which he\nalready believed.[55]\n\nIn fact, the Hindese have long employed the non-violent methods of\nresistance which Gandhi has encouraged in our own day. In 1830, the\npopulation of the State of Mysore carried on a great movement of\nnon-cooperation against the exploitation by the native despot, during\nwhich they refused to work or pay taxes, and retired into the forests.\nThere was no disorder or use of arms. The official report of the British\nGovernment said:\n\n\n     \"The natives understand very well the use of such measures to\n     defend themselves against the abuse of authority. The method most\n     in use, and that which gives the best results, is complete\n     non-co-operation in all that concerns the Government, the\n     administration and public life generally.\"[56]\n\n\nIn about 1900 there was a great movement of non-cooperation under the\nleadership of Aurobindo Ghose against the British Government in Bengal.\nGhose wanted independence and freedom from foreign tribute. He called\nupon the people to demonstrate their fitness for self-government by\nestablishing hygienic conditions, founding schools, building roads and\ndeveloping agriculture. But Ghose had the experience Gandhi was to have\nlater. The people became impatient and fell back on violence; and the\nBritish then employed counter-violence to crush the movement\ncompletely.[57]\n\nThe term \"Satyagraha\" itself was, however, a contribution of Gandhi. It\nwas coined about 1906 in connection with the Indian movement of\nnon-violent resistance in South Africa. Previously the English term\n\"passive resistance\" had been used, but Gandhi tells us that when he\ndiscovered that among Europeans, \"it was supposed to be a weapon of the\nweak, that it could be characterized by hatred and that it could finally\nmanifest itself as violence,\" he was forced to find a new word to carry\nhis idea. The result was a combination of the Gujerati words _Sat_,\nmeaning truth, and _Agraha_, meaning firmness--hence \"truth force,\" or\nas it has been translated since, \"soul force.\"[58]\n\nFOOTNOTES:\n\n[53] Shridharani, _War Without Violence_, 165-167.\n\n[54] M. K. Gandhi, _The Story of My Experiments with Truth_, translated\nby Mahadev Desai and Pyrelal Nair (Ahmedabad: Navajivan Press,\n1927-1929), the earlier portions of Vol. I.\n\n[55] _Ibid._, I, 322; Shridharani, 167.\n\n[56] Quoted by De Ligt, _Conquest of Violence_, 89.\n\n[57] _Ibid._, 89-90.\n\n[58] Gandhi, _Experiments with Truth_, II, 153-154.\n\n\nThe Process of Satyagraha\n\nShridharani, who considers himself a follower of Gandhi, has given us a\ncomprehensive analysis of Satyagraha as a mass movement. He begins his\ndiscussion with this statement of the conditions under which it is\npossible:\n\n\n     \"Satyagraha, as an organized mass action, presupposes that _the\n     community concerned has a grievance which practically every member\n     of that community feels_. This grievance should be of such large\n     proportions that it could be transformed, in its positive side,\n     into a 'Cause' rightfully claiming sacrifice and suffering from the\n     community on its behalf.\"[59]\n\n\nThis necessity for community solidarity is often overlooked by followers\nof Gandhi who advocate reforms by means of non-violent direct action in\nour western society. Given the grievance of British rule, Shridharani\nbelieves that the Hindese were willing to accept Satyagraha first\nbecause, unarmed under British law, no other means were available to\nthem, and then because they were predisposed to the method because of\nthe Hindu philosophy of non-violence and the mystic belief that truth\nwill triumph eventually since it is a force greater than the\nphysical.[60]\n\nThe first step in Satyagraha is negotiation and arbitration with the\nadversary. Under these terms Shridharani includes the use of legislative\nchannels, direct negotiations, and arbitration by third parties.[61] In\nreading his discussion one gets the impression that under the American\nsystem of government the later stages of Satyagraha would never be\nnecessary, since the Satyagrahi must first exhaust all the avenues of\npolitical expression and legislative action which are open to him. If\nany sizeable group in American society displayed on any issue the\nsolidarity required for successful use of this method, their political\ninfluence would undoubtedly be great enough to effect a change in the\nlaw, imperfect though American democracy may be.\n\nThe second step in Satyagraha is agitation, the purpose of which is to\neducate the public on the issues at stake, to create the solidarity that\nis needed in the later stages of the movement, and to win acceptance, by\nmembers of the movement, of the methods to be employed.[62] According to\nFenner Brockway, the failure of Satyagraha to achieve its objectives is\nan indication that the people of India had not really caught and\naccepted Gandhi's spirit and principles.[63] This means that on several\noccasions the later stages of Satyagraha have been put into action\nbefore earlier stages of creating solidarity on both purpose and method\nhave been fully completed. Despite Gandhi's tremendous influence in\nIndia, the movement for Indian independence has not yet fully succeeded.\nIn view of the fact that so many of the people who have worked for\nindependence have failed to espouse Gandhi's principles whole-heartedly,\nif independence be achieved in the future it will be difficult to tell\nwhether or not it was achieved because the Indian people fully accepted\nthese principles. Many seem to have done so only in the spirit in which\nthe American colonists of the eighteenth century employed similar\nmethods during the earlier stages of their own independence\nmovement.[64]\n\nOnly after negotiation and arbitration have failed does Satyagraha make\nuse of the techniques which are usually associated with it in the\npopular mind. As Shridharani puts it, \"Moral suasion having proved\nineffective the Satyagrahis do not hesitate to shift their technique to\ncompulsive force.\"[65] He is pointing out that in practice Satyagraha is\ncoercive in character, and that all the later steps from mass\ndemonstrations through strikes, boycotts, non-cooperation, and civil\ndisobedience to parallel government which divorces itself completely\nfrom the old are designed to _compel_ rather than to _persuade_ the\noppressors to change their policy. In this respect it is very similar to\nthe movements of non-violent resistance based on expediency which were\nconsidered in the preceding section.\n\nFOOTNOTES:\n\n[59] Shridharani, 4. Italics mine.\n\n[60] _Ibid._, 192-209.\n\n[61] _Ibid._, 5-7.\n\n[62] _Ibid._, 7-12.\n\n[63] A. Fenner Brockway, \"Does Noncooeperation Work?\" in Devere Allen\n(Ed.), _Pacifism in the Modern World_ (Garden City, N. Y.: Doubleday,\nDoran, 1929), 126.\n\n[64] Nehru in his autobiography expresses strong differences of opinion\nwith Gandhi at many points. In one place he says: \"What a problem and a\npuzzle he has been not only to the British Government but to his own\npeople and his closest associates!... How came we to associate ourselves\nwith Gandhiji politically, and to become, in many instances, his devoted\nfollowers?... He attracted people, but it was ultimately intellectual\nconviction that brought them to him and kept them there. They did not\nagree with his philosophy of life, or even with many of his ideals.\nOften they did not understand him. But the action that he proposed was\nsomething tangible which could be understood and appreciated\nintellectually. Any action would be welcome after the long tradition of\ninaction which our spineless politics had nurtured; brave and effective\naction with an ethical halo about it had an irresistible appeal, both to\nthe intellect and the emotions. Step by step he convinced us of the\nrightness of the action, and we went with him, although we did not\naccept his philosophy. To divorce action from the thought underlying it\nwas not perhaps a proper procedure and was bound to lead to mental\nconflict and trouble later. Vaguely we hoped that Gandhiji, being\nessentially a man of action and very sensitive to changing conditions,\nwould advance along the line that seemed to us to be right. And in any\nevent the road he was following was the right one thus far; and, if the\nfuture meant a parting, it would be folly to anticipate it.\" Jawaharlal\nNehru, _Toward Freedom_ (New York: John Day, 1942), 190-191.\n\n[65] Shridharani, 12. He lists and discusses 13 steps in the development\nof a campaign of Satyagraha, pp. 5-43.\n\n\nThe Philosophy of Satyagraha\n\nIt seems clear that Satyagraha cannot be equated with Christian\npacifism. As Shridharani has said, \"In India, the people are not\nstopping with mere good will, as the pacifists usually do, but, on the\ncontrary, are engaged in direct action of a non-violent variety which\nthey are confident will either mend or end the powers that be,\" and,\n\"Satyagraha seems to have more in common with war than with Western\npacifism.\"[66]\n\nGandhi's campaign to recruit Indians for the British army during the\nFirst World War distinguishes him also from most western pacifists.[67]\nIn an article entitled \"The Doctrine of the Sword,\" written in 1920,\nGandhi brought out clearly the fact that in his philosophy he places the\nends above the means, so far as the mass of the people are concerned:\n\n\n     \"Where the only choice is between cowardice and violence I advise\n     violence. I cultivate the quiet courage of dying without killing.\n     But to him who has not this courage I advise killing and being\n     killed rather than shameful flight from danger. I would risk\n     violence a thousand times rather than the emasculation of the race.\n     I would rather have India resort to arms to defend her honour than\n     that she should in a cowardly manner remain a helpless victim of\n     her own dishonour.\"[68]\n\n\nBoth pacifists and their opponents have noted this inconsistency in\nGandhi's philosophy. Lewis calls Gandhi \"a strange mixture of\nMachiavellian astuteness and personal sanctity, profound humanitarianism\nand paralysing conservatism.\"[69] Bishop McConnell has said of his\nnon-violent coercion, \"This coercion is less harmful socially than\ncoercion by direct force, but it is coercion nevertheless.\"[70] And C.\nJ. Cadoux has declared:\n\n\n     \"The well-known work of Mr. Gandhi, both in India today and earlier\n     in Africa, exemplifies rather the power of non-co-operation than\n     Christian love on the part of a group; but even so, it calls for\n     mention ... as another manifestation of the efficacy of non-violent\n     methods of restraint.\"[71]\n\n\nGandhi's own analysis of his movement places much emphasis on the\nmystical Hindu idea of self-inflicted suffering. In 1920, he said,\n\"Progress is to be measured by the amount of suffering undergone by the\nsufferer.\"[72] This idea recurs many times in Gandhi's writings. The\nacceptance of such suffering is not easy; hence his emphasis upon the\nneed of self-purification, preparation, and discipline. Because of the\nviolence used by many of his followers during the first great campaign\nin India, Gandhi came to the conclusion that \"before re-starting civil\ndisobedience on a mass scale, it would be necessary to create a band of\nwell-trained, pure-hearted volunteers who thoroughly understood the\nstrict conditions of Satyagraha.\"[73]\n\nFOOTNOTES:\n\n[66] _Ibid._, xxvii, xxx.\n\n[67] Speech at Gujarat political conference, Nov., 1917, quoted by Case,\n_Non-violent Coercion_, 374-375. See also Shridharani, 122, note.\n\n[68] Quoted in Lewis, _Case Against Pacifism_, 107. A slightly different\nversion is reprinted in Nehru, _Towards Freedom_, 81.\n\n[69] Lewis, _Case Against Pacifism_, 99. He goes on to say, \"He is\nanti-British more than he is anti-war. He adopts tactics of non-violence\nbecause that is the most effective way in which a disarmed and\ndisorganized multitude can resist armed troops and police. He has never\nsuggested that when India attains full independence it shall disband the\nIndian army. The Indian National Congress ... never for one moment\ncontemplated abandoning violence as the necessary instrument of the\nState they hoped one day to command.\" Pp. 99-100.\n\n[70] Francis J. McConnell, _Christianity and Coercion_ (Nashville:\nCokesbury Press, 1933), 46.\n\n[71] Cadoux, _Christian Pacifism_, 109.\n\n[72] _Young India_, June 16, 1920, quoted by Shridharani, 169.\n\n[73] Gandhi, _Experiments_, II, 509-513.\n\n\nThe Empirical Origins of Gandhi's Method\n\nGandhi's autobiography brings out the origins of many of his ideas. We\nhave already noted the importance of his Hindu training. He arrived\nempirically at many of his specific techniques. For instance, he\ndescribes in some detail a journey he made by coach in 1893 in South\nAfrica, during which he was placed on the driver's seat, since Indians\nwere not allowed to sit inside the coach. Later the coachman desired his\nseat and asked him to sit on the footboard. This Gandhi refused to do,\nwhereupon the coachman began to box his ears. He describes the rest of\nthe incident thus:\n\n\n     \"He was strong and I was weak. Some of the passengers were moved to\n     pity and they exclaimed: 'Man, let him alone. Don't beat him. He is\n     not to blame. He is right. If he can't stay there, let him come and\n     sit with us.' 'No fear,' cried the man, but he seemed somewhat\n     crestfallen and stopped beating me. He let go my arm, swore at me a\n     little more, and asking the Hottenot servant who was sitting on the\n     other side of the coachbox to sit on the footboard, took the seat\n     so vacated.\"[74]\n\n\nHe had a similar experience in 1896 when his refusal to prosecute the\nleaders of a mob which had beaten him aroused a favorable reaction on\nthe part of the public.[75] Gradually the principle developed that the\nacceptance of suffering was an effective method of winning the sympathy\nand support of disinterested parties in a dispute, and that their moral\ninfluence might go far in determining its outcome.\n\nOn his return to India after his successful campaign for Indian rights\nin South Africa, Gandhi led a strike of mill workers in Ahmedabad. He\nestablished a set of rules, forbidding resort to violence, the\nmolestation of \"blacklegs,\" and the taking of alms, and requiring the\nstrikers to remain firm no matter how long the strike took--rules not\ntoo different from those that would be used in a strike by an\noccidental labor union.[76] Speaking of a period during this strike\nwhen the laborers were growing restive and threatening violence, Gandhi\nsays:\n\n\n     \"One morning--it was at a mill-hands' meeting--while I was still\n     groping and unable to see my way clearly, the light came to me.\n     Unbidden and all by themselves the words came to my lips: 'Unless\n     the strikers rally,' I declared to the meeting, 'and continue the\n     strike till a settlement is reached, or till they leave the mills\n     altogether, I will not touch any food.'\"\n\n\nGandhi insisted that the fast was not directed at the mill owners, but\nwas for the purification of himself and the strikers. He told the owners\nthat it should not influence their decision, and yet an arbitrator was\nnow appointed, and as he says, \"The strike was called off after I had\nfasted only for three days.\"[77] The efficacy of the fast was thus borne\nin on Gandhi.\n\nIn the Kheda Satyagraha against unjust taxation, which was the first big\nmovement of the sort in India, Gandhi discovered that \"When the fear of\njail disappears, repression puts heart into people.\" The movement ended\nin a compromise rather than the complete success of Gandhi's program. He\nsaid of it, \"Although, therefore, the termination was celebrated as a\ntriumph of Satyagraha, I could not enthuse over it, as it lacked the\nessentials of a complete triumph.\"[78] But even though Gandhi was not\nsatisfied with anything less than a complete triumph, he had learned\nthat when a people no longer fears the punishments that an oppressor\nmetes out, the power of the oppressor is gone.[79]\n\nFOOTNOTES:\n\n[74] _Ibid._, I, 268-269.\n\n[75] Of the incident he says, \"Thus the lynching ultimately proved to be\na blessing for me, that is for the cause. It enhanced the prestige of\nthe Indian community in South Africa, and made my work easier.... The\nincident also added to my professional practice.\" _Ibid._, I, 452-457.\n\n[76] _Ibid._, II, 411-413.\n\n[77] _Ibid._, II, 420-424.\n\n[78] _Ibid._, II, 428-440.\n\n[79] See the quotation from Gandhi in Shridharani, 29.\n\n\nNon-Cooperation\n\nIt will be impossible for us here to consider in detail the great\nmovements of non-cooperation on which Gandhi's followers have embarked\nin order to throw off British rule. In 1919 and again in the struggle of\n1920-1922, Gandhi felt forced to call off the non-cooperation campaigns\nbecause the people, who were not sufficiently prepared, fell back upon\nviolence.[80] In the struggle in 1930, Gandhi laid down more definite\nrules for Satyagrahis, forbidding them to harbor anger, or to offer any\nphysical resistance or to insult their opponents, although they must\nrefuse to do any act forbidden to them by the movement even at the cost\nof great suffering.[81] The movement ended in a compromise agreement\nwith the British, but the terms of the agreement were never completely\ncarried out. Repressive measures and the imprisonment of Gandhi checked\nthe non-cooperation movement during the present war, at least\ntemporarily.\n\nFOOTNOTES:\n\n[80] Gandhi, _Experiments_, II, 486-507; Shridharani, 126-129.\n\n[81] The rules, first published in _Young India_, Feb. 27, 1930, are\ngiven by Shridharani, 154-157.\n\n\nFasting\n\nGandhi also made use of the fast in 1919, 1924, 1932, 1933, 1939, and\n1943 to obtain concessions, either from the British government or from\ngroups of Hindese who did not accept his philosophy.[82] Of fasting\nGandhi has said:\n\n\n     \"It does not mean coercion of anybody. It does, of course, exercise\n     pressure on individuals, even as on the government; but it is\n     nothing more than the natural and moral result of an act of\n     sacrifice. It stirs up sluggish consciences and it fires loving\n     hearts to action.\"[83]\n\n\nYet Gandhi believed that the fast of the Irish leader, MacSweeney, when\nhe was imprisoned in Dublin, was an act of violence.[84]\n\nIn practice, Satyagraha is a mixture of expediency and principle. It is\nfirmly based on the Hindu idea of _ahimsa_, and hence avoids physical\nviolence. Despite Gandhi's insistence upon respect for and love for the\nopponent, however, his equal insistence upon winning the opponent\ncompletely to his point of view leads one to suspect that he is using\nthe technique as a means to an end which he considers equally\nfundamental. He accepts suffering as an end in itself, yet he knows that\nit also is a means to other ends since it arouses the sympathy of public\nopinion. He regards non-cooperation as compatible with love for the\nopponent, yet we have already seen that under modern conditions it is\ncoercive rather than persuasive in nature. Despite Gandhi's distinction\nbetween his own fasts and those of others, they too involve an element\nof psychological coercion. We are led to conclude that much of Gandhi's\nprogram is based upon expediency as well as upon the complete respect\nfor every human personality which characterizes absolute pacifism.\n\nFOOTNOTES:\n\n[82] See the list given by Haridas T. Muzumdar, _Gandhi Triumphant! The\nInside Story of the Historic Fast_ (New York: Universal, 1939), vi-vii.\n\n[83] _Ibid._, 89.\n\n[84] _Ibid._, 90. Lewis quotes Gandhi thus: \"You cannot fast against a\ntyrant, for it will be a species of violence done to him. Fasting can\nonly be resorted to against a lover not to extort rights, but to reform\nhim.\" _Case Against Pacifism_, 109.\n\n\nThe American Abolition Movement\n\nThe West also has had its movements of reform which have espoused\nnon-violence as a principle. The most significant one in the United\nStates has been the abolition crusade before the Civil War. Its most\npublicized faction was the group led by William Lloyd Garrison, who has\nhad a reputation as an uncompromising extremist. Almost every school boy\nremembers the words with which he introduced the first issue of the\n_Liberator_ in 1831:\n\n\n     \"I _will_ be as harsh as truth, and as uncompromising as\n     justice.... I am in earnest--I will not equivocate--I will not\n     excuse--I will not retreat a single inch--AND I WILL BE HEARD.\"\n\n\nHe lived up to his promise during the years that followed, and it is no\nwonder that Parrington called him \"the flintiest character amongst the\nNew England militants.\"[85] In the South they regarded him as an inciter\nto violence, and barred his writings from the mails.\n\nGarrison's belief in \"non-resistance\" is less often stressed, yet his\nespousal of this principle was stated in the same uncompromising terms\nas his opposition to slavery. In 1838 he induced the Boston Peace\nConvention to found the New England Non-Resistance Society. In the\n\"Declaration of Sentiments\" which he wrote and which the new Society\nadopted, he said:\n\n\n     \"The history of mankind is crowded with evidences proving that\n     physical coercion is not adapted to moral regeneration; that the\n     sinful dispositions of men can be subdued only by love; that evil\n     can be exterminated from the earth only by goodness.\"[86]\n\n\nThroughout his long struggle against slavery, Garrison remained true to\nhis principles of non-resistance. But his denunciations of slavery made\nmore impression on the popular mind, and aided in stirring up much of\nthe violent sentiment in the North which expressed itself in a crescendo\nof denunciation of the slave owners. In the South, where anti-slavery\nsentiment had been strong before, a new defensive attitude began to\ndevelop. As Calhoun said of the northern criticism of slavery:\n\n\n     \"It has compelled us to the South to look into the nature and\n     character of this great institution, and to correct many false\n     impressions that even we had entertained in relation to it. Many in\n     the South once believed that it was a moral and political evil;\n     that folly and delusion are gone; we see it now in its true light,\n     and regard it as the most safe and stable basis for free\n     institutions in the world.\"[87]\n\n\nIn the North the violent statements of the abolitionists aroused a\nphysically violent response. Mobs attacked abolition meetings in many\nplaces, and on one occasion Garrison himself was rescued from an angry\nBoston mob. This violence in turn aroused many men like Salmon P. Chase\nand Wendell Phillips to espouse the anti-slavery cause because they\ncould not condone the actions of the anti-abolitionists.[88] Garrison\nhimself proceeded serenely through the storms that his vigorous writings\nprecipitated.\n\nFeelings rose on both sides, and many who heard and accepted the\nGarrisonian indictment of slavery knew nothing of his non-resistance\nprinciples.[89] Others, who did, came reluctantly to the conclusion that\na civil war to rid the country of the evil would be preferable to its\ncontinuance. In time the struggle was transferred to the political\narena, where men acted sometimes on the basis of interest and not always\non the basis of moral principles. The gulf between the sections widened,\nand civil war approached.\n\nAs abolitionists themselves began to express the belief that the slavery\nissue could not be settled without bloodshed, Garrison disclaimed all\nresponsibility for the growing propensity to espouse violence. In the\n_Liberator_ in 1858 he said:\n\n\n     \"When the anti-slavery cause was launched, it was baptized in the\n     spirit of peace. We proclaimed to the country and to the world that\n     the weapons of our warfare were not carnal but spiritual, and we\n     believed them to be mighty through God to the pulling down even of\n     the stronghold of slavery; and for several years great moral power\n     accompanied our cause wherever presented. Alas! in the course of\n     the fearful developments of the Slave Power, and its continued\n     aggressions on the rights of the people of the North, in my\n     judgment a sad change has come over the spirit of anti-slavery men,\n     generally speaking. We are growing more and more warlike, more and\n     more disposed to repudiate the principles of peace.... Just in\n     proportion as this spirit prevails, I feel that our moral power is\n     departing and will depart.... I will not trust the war-spirit\n     anywhere in the universe of God, because the experience of six\n     thousand years proves it not to be at all reliable in such a\n     struggle as ours....\n\n     \"I pray you, abolitionists, still to adhere to that truth. Do not\n     get impatient; do not become exasperated; do not attempt any new\n     political organization; do not make yourselves familiar with the\n     idea that blood must flow. Perhaps blood will flow--God knows, I do\n     not; but it shall not flow through any counsel of mine. Much as I\n     detest the oppression exercised by the Southern slaveholder, he is\n     a man, sacred before me. He is a man, not to be harmed by my hand\n     nor with my consent.... While I will not cease reprobating his\n     horrible injustice, I will let him see that in my heart there is no\n     desire to do him harm,--that I wish to bless him here, and bless\n     him everlastingly,--and that I have no other weapon to wield\n     against him but the simple truth of God, which is the great\n     instrument for the overthrow of all iniquity, and the salvation of\n     the world.\"[90]\n\n\nYet Garrison's fervor for the emancipation of the slaves was so great\nthat when the Civil War came, he said of Lincoln and the Republicans:\n\n\n     \"They are instruments in the hand of God to carry forward and help\n     achieve the great object of emancipation for which we have so long\n     been striving.... All our sympathies and wishes must be with the\n     Government, as against the Southern desperadoes and buccaneers; yet\n     of course without any compromise of principle on our part.\"[91]\n\n\nAlthough Lincoln insisted that the purpose of the North was the\npreservation of the Union rather than emancipation, eventually he did\nfree the slaves. It would seem that Garrison, for all his non-resistance\ndeclarations, bore some of the responsibility for the great conflict.\n\nIn this case, as in the case of Satyagraha, the demand for reform by\nnon-violent means was translated into violence by followers who were\nmore devoted to the cause of reform than they were to the non-violent\nmethods which their leaders proclaimed.\n\nFOOTNOTES:\n\n[85] Vernon Louis Parrington, _Main Currents in American Thought_ (New\nYork: Harcourt Brace, 1930), II, 352.\n\n[86] The \"Declaration\" is reprinted in Allen, _Fight for Peace_,\n694-697.\n\n[87] Quoted in Avery Craven, _The Coming of the Civil War_ (New York:\nScribners, 1942), 161.\n\n[88] Jesse Macy, _The Anti-Slavery Crusade_ (New Haven: Yale University\nPress, 1919), 69-70.\n\n[89] For the many elements in the abolition movement, see Gilbert Hobbs\nBarnes, _The Antislavery Impulse, 1830-1844_ (New York: D.\nAppleton-Century, 1933).\n\n[90] Wendell Phillips Garrison, _William Lloyd Garrison_ (New York:\nCentury, 1889), III, 473-474.\n\n[91] Letter to Oliver Johnson, quoted in Allen, _Fight for Peace_,\n449-450.\n\n\n\n\nVI. NON-RESISTANCE\n\n\nThe preceding section of this study dealt with those who rejected\nphysical violence on principle, and who felt no hatred toward the\npersons who were responsible for evil, but who used methods of bringing\nabout reform which involved the use of non-physical coercion, and in\nsome cases what might be called psychological violence. These advocates\nof non-violent direct action not only resisted evil negatively; they\nalso attempted to establish what they considered to be a better state of\naffairs.\n\nThis section will deal with true non-resistance. It is concerned with\nthose who refuse to resist evil, even by non-violent means, for the most\npart basing their belief upon the injunction of Jesus to \"resist not\nevil.\" For them, non-resistance becomes an end in itself, rather than a\nmeans for achieving other purposes. They are less concerned with\nreforming society than they are with maintaining the integrity of their\nown lives in this respect. If they have a social influence at all, it is\nonly because by exhortation or, more especially by the force of example,\nthey induce others to accept the same way of life. However, in their\nrefusal to participate directly in such evil as war, even non-resistants\ndo actually resist evil.\n\n\nThe Mennonites\n\nThe Mennonites are the largest and most significant group of\nnon-resistants. For over four hundred years they have maintained their\nreligious views, and applied them with remarkable consistency.[92] Their\nchurch grew out of the Anabaptist movement, which had its origins in\nSwitzerland shortly after 1520. The Anabaptists believed in the literal\nacceptance of the teachings of the Bible, and their application as rules\nof conduct in daily life. Since they did not depend for their\ninterpretations upon the authority of any priesthood or ministry,\ndifferences grew up among them at an early date. The more radical wing,\nfrom which the Mennonites came, accepting the Sermon on the Mount as the\nheart of the Gospel, early refused to offer any physical resistance to\nevil.[93] Felix Manz, who was executed for his beliefs in 1527,\ndeclared, \"No Christian smites with the sword nor resists evil.\"[94]\nHundreds of other Anabaptists followed Manz into martyrdom without\nsurrendering their faith.\n\nIn a day before conscription had come into general use, the Anabaptists\nsuffered more for their heresy and their political views than they did\nfor their non-resistance principles. In their belief in rendering unto\nCaesar only those things which were Caesar's and unto God the things\nthat were God's, they came into conflict with the authorities of both\nchurch and state. The established church they refused to recognize at\nall, and they came to regard the state only as a necessary instrument to\ncontrol those who had not become Christians. Far in advance of the times\nthey adopted the principle of complete separation of church and state,\nwhich for them meant that no Christian might hold political office nor\nact as the agent of a coercive state, although he must obey its commands\nin matters which did not interfere with his duty toward God. On the\nbasis of direct scriptural authority, they placed the payment of taxes\nin the latter category.[95]\n\nThe modern Mennonites are descended from the followers of Menno Simons,\nwho was born in the Netherlands in 1496. In 1524 he was ordained as a\nCatholic priest, but he soon came to doubt the soundness of that\nreligion, and found his way into Anabaptist ranks, where he became one\nof the leading expounders of the radical principles, placing great\nemphasis upon non-resistance. In his biblical language, he thus stated\nhis belief on this point:\n\n\n     \"The regenerated do not go to war, nor engage in strife. They are\n     the children of peace who have beaten their swords into plowshares\n     and their spears into pruning hooks, and know of no war. They\n     render unto Caesar the things that are Caesar's and unto God the\n     things that are God's. Their sword is the sword of the Spirit which\n     they wield with a good conscience through the Holy Ghost.\"[96]\n\n\nIn time the followers of Menno Simons gained in influence, while\nbranches of the Anabaptist movement which did not follow the principle\nof non-resistance died out. Here and there other non-resistant groups\nsuch as the Hutterites and the Moravian Brethren continued.[97]\n\nUltimately the Mennonites found their way into several parts of Europe,\nfrom the North Sea to Russia, in their search for a home where they\nmight be free from persecution. The founding of Germantown in the new\nPennsylvania colony in 1683 marked the beginning of a migration which in\nthe years that followed brought the more radical of them to America.[98]\nWith the coming of conscription in Europe, those who held most strongly\nto their non-resistant principles came to the United States to escape\nmilitary service. Those who remained in Europe gradually gave up their\nopposition to war, but those in America have largely maintained their\noriginal position.[99]\n\n\nToday they still refrain from opposing evil, and believe in the\nseparation of church and state, which to them means a refusal to hold\noffice and, in many cases, to vote or to have recourse to the courts.\nThey pay their taxes and do what the state demands, as long as it is not\ninconsistent with their duty to God. In case of a conflict in duty,\nservice to God is placed first. Since they do not believe that it is\npossible for the world as a whole to become free of sin, they maintain\nthat the Christian must separate himself from it. They make no attempt\nto bring about reform in society by means of political action or other\nmovements of the sort which we have considered under non-violent direct\naction.[100]\n\nSince the term \"pacifist\" has come into general use to designate those\nopposed to war, the Mennonites have usually made a distinction between\nthemselves as \"non-resistants\" and the pacifists, who, they claim, are\nmore interested in creating a good society than they are in following\ncompletely the admonitions of the Bible. They also disclaim any\nrelationship to such non-resistants as Garrison or Ballou, even though\nthese men reached substantially the same conclusion about the nature of\nthe state, or with Tolstoy who even refused to accept the support of the\nstate for the institution of private property. The American\nnon-resistants they regard primarily as reformers of human society, and\nTolstoy as an anarchist who rejected the state altogether, rather than\naccepting it as a necessary evil.[101] In so far as the Mennonites have\nused social influence at all, it has been through the force of example,\nand in their missionary endeavors to win other individuals to the same\nhigh principles which they themselves follow.\n\nFOOTNOTES:\n\n[92] See the pamphlet by C. Henry Smith, _Christian Peace: Four Hundred\nYears of Mennonite Peace Principles and Practice_ (Newton, Kansas:\nMennonite Publication Office, 1938).\n\n[93] C. Henry Smith, _The Story of the Mennonites_ (Berne, Ind.:\nMennonite Book Concern, 1941), 9-30.\n\n[94] John Horsch, _Mennonites in Europe_, (Scottdale, Pa.: Mennonite\nPublishing House, 1942), 359.\n\n[95] Smith, _Story of the Mennonites_, 30-35.\n\n[96] Quoted by Horsch, 363.\n\n[97] _Ibid._, 365.\n\n[98] Smith, _Story of the Mennonites_, 536-539.\n\n[99] Smith, _Christian Peace_, 12-15.\n\n[100] Edward Yoder, _et al._, _Must Christians Fight: A Scriptural\nInquiry_ (Akron, Pa.: Mennonite Central Committee, 1943), 31-32, 41-44,\n59-61, 64-65.\n\n[101] _Ibid._, 62-63; and for a full discussion of the attitude see Guy\nF. Hershberger, \"Biblical Non-resistance and Modern Pacifism\" in\n_Mennonite Quarterly Rev._, XVII (July, 1943), 115-135.\n\n\nThe New England Non-Resistants\n\nThe Mennonites are undoubtedly right in making a distinction between\ntheir position and that of the relatively large group of\n\"non-resistants\" which arose in New England during the middle of the\nnineteenth century. We have already noted the \"Declaration of\nPrinciples\" written by Garrison and accepted by the New England\nNon-Resistance Society in 1838. Despite the fact that Garrison insisted\nthat an individual ought not to participate in the government of a state\nwhich used coercion against its subjects, his life was devoted to a\ncampaign against the evil of slavery. In the \"Declaration\" itself he\nsaid:\n\n\n     \"But, while we shall adhere to the doctrine of non-resistance and\n     passive submission to enemies, we purpose, in a moral and spiritual\n     sense, to speak and act boldly in the cause of GOD; to assail\n     iniquity in high places, and in low places; to apply our principles\n     to all existing civil, political, legal and ecclesiastical\n     institutions; and to hasten the time, when the kingdoms of this\n     world will have become the kingdoms of our LORD and of his CHRIST,\n     and he shall reign forever.\"[102]\n\n\nGarrison was essentially a man of action; the real philosopher of the\nnon-resistance movement was Adin Ballou, a Universalist minister of New\nEngland who devoted his whole life to the advancement of its principles.\nIn 1846 he published his _Christian Non-Resistance: In All Its Important\nBearings_, in which he set forth his doctrine, supported it with full\nscriptural citations, and then presented a catalogue of incidents which\nto his own satisfaction proved its effectiveness, both in personal and\nin social relationships.\n\nAlthough Ballou listed a long series of means which a Christian\nnon-resistant might not use, he insisted that he had a duty to oppose\nevil, saying:\n\n\n     \"I claim the right to offer the utmost moral resistance, not\n     sinful, of which God has made me capable, to every manifestation of\n     evil among mankind. Nay, I hold it my duty to offer such moral\n     resistance. In this sense my very non-resistance becomes the\n     highest kind of resistance to evil.\"[103]\n\n\nNor did Ballou condemn all use of \"uninjurious, benevolent physical\nforce\" in restraining the insane or the man about to commit an injury to\nanother. He finally defined non-resistance as \"simply non-resistance of\ninjury with injury--evil with evil.\" Rather, he believed in \"the\nessential efficacy of good, as the counter-acting force with which to\nresist evil.\"[104]\n\nIn applying his principle rigorously, Ballou, like the Mennonites, came\nto the conclusion that the non-resistant could have nothing to do with\ngovernment. If he so much as voted for its officials, he had to share\nthe moral responsibility for the wars, capital punishment, and other\npersonal injuries which were carried out in its name. He insisted:\n\n\n     \"There is no escape from this terrible moral responsibility but by\n     a conscientious withdrawal from such government, and an\n     uncompromising protest against so much of its fundamental creed and\n     constitutional law, as is decidedly anti-Christian. He must cease\n     to be its pledged supporter, and approving dependent.\"[105]\n\n\nLike the Mennonites, he saw that the reason that governments were\nunchristian was that the people themselves were not Christian; but\nunlike the Mennonites he maintained that they might eventually become\nso, and that it was the duty of the Christian to hasten the day of their\ncomplete conversion. \"This,\" he said,\n\n\n     \"is not to be done by voting at the polls, by seeking influential\n     offices in the government and binding ourselves to anti-Christian\n     political compacts. It is to be done by pure Christian precepts\n     faithfully inculcated, and pure Christian examples on the part of\n     those who have been favored to receive and embrace the highest\n     truths.\"[106]\n\n\nThe Mennonites believed that man was essentially depraved; Ballou\nbelieved that he was perfectible.[107]\n\nFOOTNOTES:\n\n[102] Allen, _Fight for Peace_, 696.\n\n[103] Ballou, _Christian Non-Resistance_, 3.\n\n[104] _Ibid._, 2-25.\n\n[105] _Ibid._, 18.\n\n[106] _Ibid._, 223-224.\n\n[107] Perhaps this is the point at which to insert a footnote on Henry\nThoreau, whose essay on \"Civil Disobedience\" is said to have influenced\nGandhi. Although he lived in the same intellectual climate that produced\nGarrison and Ballou, he was not a non-resistant on principle. For\ninstance, he supported the violent attack upon slave holders by John\nBrown just before the Civil War. He did come to substantially the same\nconclusions, however, on government. He refused even to pay a tax to a\ngovernment which carried on activities which he considered immoral, such\nas supporting slavery, or carrying on war. On one occasion he said,\n\"They are the lovers of law and order who observe the law when the\ngovernment breaks it.\" Essentially, Thoreau was a philosophical\nanarchist, who placed his faith entirely in the individual, rather than\nin any sort of organized social action. See the essay on him in\nParrington, II, 400-413; and his own essay on \"Civil Disobedience\" in\n_The Writings of Henry David Thoreau_ (Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 1906),\nIV, 356-387.\n\n\nTolstoy\n\nMany people regard the writings of Count Leo Tolstoy as the epitome of\nthe doctrine of non-resistance. Tolstoy arrived at his convictions after\na long period of inner turmoil, and published them in _My Religion_ in\n1884. In the years that followed, his wide correspondence introduced him\nto many others who had held the same views. He was especially impressed\nwith the 1838 statement of Garrison, and with the writings of Ballou,\nwith whom he entered into correspondence directly.[108]\n\nHowever, he went further than Ballou, and even further than the\nMennonites in his theory, which he formulated fully in _The Kingdom of\nGod is Within You_, published in 1893. He renounced the use of physical\nforce completely even in dealing with the insane or with children.[109]\nHe severed all relations with government, and went on to insist that the\ntrue Christian might not own any property. He practiced his own\ndoctrines strictly.\n\nTolstoy had quite a number of followers, and a few groups were\nestablished to carry out his teachings. These groups have continued to\nexist under the Soviet Union, but their present fate is obscure. His\nworks greatly influenced Peter Verigin, leader of the Dukhobors, who\nshortly after 1900 left Russia and settled in Canada in order to find a\nmore hospitable environment for their communistic community, and to\nescape the necessity for military service.[110]\n\nHowever, Tolstoy's theory is so completely anarchistic that it does not\nlend itself to organization. Hence his chief influence has been\nintellectual, and upon individuals. We have already noted the great\nimpact that his works made on Gandhi, while he was formulating the ideas\nwhich were to result in Satyagraha.\n\nNeither in the case of Gandhi, nor of Peter Verigin, however, were\nTolstoy's doctrines applied in completely undiluted form. The Mennonites\nalso disclaim kinship with him on the grounds that he sought a\nregeneration of society as a whole in this world.[111]\n\nFor most men the doctrine of complete anarchism has seemed too extreme\nfor practical consideration, but it would seem that Tolstoy arrived at\nthe logical conclusion of a system of non-resistance based on the\npremise that man should not combat evil, nor have any relationship\nwhatever with human institutions which attempt to restrain men by means\nother than reliance upon the force of example and goodwill.\n\nFOOTNOTES:\n\n[108] Aylmer Maude, _The Life of Tolstoy,_ (New York: Dodd, Mead, 1910),\nII, 354-360, where the letters to and from Ballou are quoted at length.\nSee also Count Leo N. Tolstoy, _The Kingdom of God is Within You_,\ntranslated by Leo Wiener (Boston: Dana Estes & Co., 1905), 6-22.\n\n[109] In a letter to L. G. Wilson, Tolstoy said: \"I cannot agree with\nthe concession he [Ballou] makes for employing violence against\ndrunkards and insane people. The Master made no concessions, and we can\nmake none. We must try, as Mr. Ballou puts it, to make impossible the\nexistence of such people, but if they do exist, we must use all possible\nmeans, and sacrifice ourselves, but not employ violence. A true\nChristian will always prefer to be killed by a madman, than to deprive\nhim of his liberty.\" Maude, _Tolstoy_, II, 355-356.\n\n[110] J. F. C. Wright, _Slava Bohu: The Story of the Dukhobors_ (New\nYork: Farrar and Rinehart, 1940), 99.\n\n[111] Hershberger says of him: \"He identified the kingdom of God with\nhuman society after the manner of the social gospel. But since he\nbelieved in an absolute renunciation of violence for all men, Tolstoy\nwas an anarchist, repudiating the state altogether. Biblical\nnonresistance declines to participate in the coercive activities of the\nstate, but nevertheless regards those as necessary for the maintenance\nof order in a sinful society, and is not anarchistic. But Tolstoy found\nno place for the state in human society at all; and due to his faith in\nthe goodness of man he believed that eventually all coercion, including\ndomestic police, would be done away.\" _Mennonite Qu. Rev._, XVII,\n129-130.\n\n\n\n\nVII. ACTIVE GOODWILL AND RECONCILIATION\n\n\nThe term \"resistance\" has occurred frequently in this study. As has been\npointed out, this word has a negative quality, and implies opposition to\nthe will of another, rather than an attempt to realize a positive\npolicy. The preceding section dealt with its counterpart,\n\"non-resistance,\" which has a neutral connotation, and implies that the\nnon-resister is not involved in the immediate struggle, and that for him\nthe refusal to inflict injury upon anyone is a higher value than the\nachievement of any policy of his own, either positive or negative.\n\nNon-violent coercion, Satyagraha, and non-violent direct action, on the\nother hand, are definitely positive in their approach. Each seeks to\neffectuate a specified change in the policy of the person or group\nresponsible for a situation which those who organize the non-violent\naction believe to be undesirable. However, even in such action the\nnegative quality may appear. Satyagraha, for instance, insofar as it is\na movement of opposition or \"resistance\" to British rule in India is\nnegative, despite its positive objectives of establishing a certain type\nof government and economic system in that country.\n\nThe employment of active goodwill is another approach to the problem of\nbringing about desired social change. Its proponents seek to accomplish\na positive alteration in the attitude and policy of the group or person\nresponsible for some undesirable situation; but they refuse to use\ncoercion--even non-violent coercion. Rather they endeavor to convince\ntheir opponent that it would be desirable to change his policy because\nthe change would be in his own best interest, or would actually maintain\nhis own real standard of values.\n\nMany of those who would reject all coercion of an opponent practice such\npositive goodwill towards him, not because they are convinced that their\naction will accomplish the social purposes which they would like to\nachieve, but rather because they place such an attitude toward their\nfellowmen as their highest value. They insist that they would act in the\nsame way regardless of the consequences of their action, either to the\nperson towards whom they practice goodwill or to themselves. They act on\nthe basis of principle rather than on the basis of expediency. In this\nregard they are like many of the practitioners of other methods of\nnon-violence; but unlike them they place their emphasis on the positive\naction of goodwill which they _will_ use, rather than upon a catalogue\nof violent actions which they will not use.\n\nTo those who practice the method of goodwill all types of education and\npersuasion are available. In the past they have used the printed and\nspoken word, and under favorable circumstances even political action.\nThey hope to appeal to \"that of God in every man,\" to bring about\ngenuine repentance on the part of those who have been responsible for\nevil. If direct persuasion is not effective, they hope that their\nexhibition of love towards him whom others under the same circumstances\nwould regard as an enemy may appeal to an aspect of his nature which is\ntemporarily submerged, and result in a change of attitude on his part.\nIf it does not, these advocates of goodwill are ready to suffer the\nconsequences of their action, even to the point of death.\n\n\nAction in the Face of Persecution\n\nThe practice of positive goodwill is open to the individual as well as\nto the group. Since he does what he believes to be right regardless of\nthe consequences, he will act before there are enough who share his\nopinion to create any chance of victory over the well organized forces\nof the state or other institutions which are responsible for evil. The\nhistory of the martyrs of all ages presents us with innumerable examples\nof men who have acted in this way. Socrates is of their number, as well\nas the early Christians who insisted upon practicing their religion\ndespite the edicts of the Roman empire. Jesus himself is the outstanding\nexample of one who was willing to die rather than to surrender\nprinciple. It cannot be said of these martyrs that they acted in order\nto bring about reforms in society. They suffered because under the\ncompulsion of their faith they could act in no other way, and at the\ntime of their deaths it always looked as though they had been defeated.\nBut in the end their sacrifices had unsought results. The proof of their\neffectiveness is declared in the old adage that \"the blood of the\nmartyrs is the seed of the church.\"\n\nIf we seek examples from relatively recent times, we may find them in\nthe annals of many of the pacifist sects of our own day. Robert Barclay,\nthe Quaker apologist of the late seventeenth century, stated the\nposition which the members of the Society of Friends so often put to the\ntest:\n\n\n     \"But the true, faithful and Christian suffering is for men to\n     profess what they are persuaded is right, and so practise and\n     perform their worship towards God, as being their true right so to\n     do; and neither to do more than that, because of outward\n     encouragement from men; nor any whit less, because of the fear of\n     their laws and acts against it.\"[112]\n\n\nThe early Quakers suffered severely under the laws of England in a day\nwhen religious toleration was virtually unheard of. George Fox himself\nhad sixty encounters with magistrates and was imprisoned on eight\noccasions; yet he was not diverted from his task of preaching truth. It\nhas been estimated that 15,000 Quakers \"suffered\" under the various\nreligious acts of the Restoration.[113] But they continued to hold the\nprinciples which had been stated by twelve of their leaders, including\nFox, to King Charles shortly after his return to England:\n\n\n     \"Our principle is, and our practice always has been, to seek peace\n     and ensue it; to follow after righteousness and the knowledge of\n     God; seeking the good and welfare, and doing that which tends to\n     the peace of all.\n\n            *       *       *       *       *\n\n     \"When we have been wronged, we have not sought to revenge\n     ourselves; we have not made resistance against authority; but\n     whenever we could not obey for conscience sake, we have suffered\n     the most of any people in the nation....\"[114]\n\n\nThese sufferings did not go unheeded. Even the wordly Samuel Pepys wrote\nin his diary concerning Quakers on their way to prison: \"They go like\nlambs without any resistance I would to God they would either conform or\nbe more wise and not be catched.\"[115]\n\nIn Massachusetts, where the Puritans hoped to establish the true garden\nof the Lord, the lot of the Quakers was even more severe. Despite\nwarnings and imprisonments, Friends kept encroaching upon the Puritan\npreserve until the Massachusetts zealots, in their desperation over the\nfailure of the gentler means of quenching Quaker ardor, condemned and\nexecuted three men and a woman. Even Charles II was revolted by such\nextreme measures, and ordered the colony to desist. After a long\nstruggle the Quakers, along with other advocates of liberty of\nconscience, won their struggle for religious liberty even in\nMassachusetts. There can be little doubt that their sufferings played\nan important part in the establishment of religious liberty as an\nAmerican principle.[116]\n\nIn our own day the conscientious objector to military service, whatever\nhis motivation and philosophy, faces a social situation very similar to\nthat which confronted these early supporters of a new faith. For the\nmoment there is little chance that his insistence upon following the\nhighest values which his conscience recognizes will bring an end to war,\nbecause there are not enough others who share his convictions. He takes\nhis individual stand without regard for outward consequences to himself,\nbecause his conviction leaves him no other alternative. But even though\nhis \"sufferings\" do not at once make possible the universal practice of\ngoodwill towards all men, they may in the end have the result of helping\nto banish war from the world.\n\nFOOTNOTES:\n\n[112] Robert Barclay, _An Apology for the True Christian Divinity; being\nan Explanation and Vindication of the Principles and Doctrines of the\nPeople Called Quakers_ (Philadelphia: Friends' Book Store, 1908),\nProposition XIV, Section VI, 480.\n\n[113] A. Ruth Fry, _Quaker Ways: An Attempt to Explain Quaker Beliefs\nand Practices and to Illustrate them by the Lives and Activities of\nFriends of Former Days_ (London: Cassell, 1933), 126, 131.\n\n[114] Quoted by Margaret E. Hirst, _The Quakers in Peace and War: an\nAccount of Their Peace Principles and Practice_ (New York: George H.\nDoran, 1923), 115-116.\n\n[115] Quoted in Fry, _Quaker Ways_, 128-129.\n\n[116] Hirst, 327; Rufus M. Jones, _The Quakers in the American Colonies_\n(London: Macmillan, 1923), 3-135.\n\n\nCoercion or Persuasion?\n\nA man who is willing to undergo imprisonment and even death itself\nrather than to cease doing what he believes is right knows in his own\nheart that coercion is not an effective means of persuasion. The early\nQuakers saw this clearly. Barclay stated his conviction in these words:\n\n\n     \"This forcing of men's consciences is contrary to sound reason, and\n     the very law of nature. For man's understanding cannot be forced by\n     all the bodily sufferings another man can inflict upon him,\n     especially in matters spiritual and super-natural: 'Tis argument,\n     and evident demonstration of reason, together with the power of God\n     reaching the heart, that can change a man's mind from one opinion\n     to another, and not knocks and blows, and such like things, which\n     may well destroy the body, but never can inform the soul, which is\n     a free agent, and must either accept or reject matters of opinion\n     as they are borne in upon it by something proportioned to its own\n     nature.\"[117]\n\n\nAnd William Penn said more simply, \"Gaols and gibbets are inadequate\nmethods for conversion: this forbids all further light to come into the\nworld.\"[118]\n\nOther religious groups who went through experiences comparable to those\nof the Friends came to similar conclusions. The Church of the Brethren,\nfounded in 1709 in Germany, took as one of its leading principles that\n\"there shall be no force in religion,\" and carried it out so faithfully\nthat they would not baptize children, on the ground that this act would\ncoerce them into membership in the church before they could decide to\njoin of their own free will. The Brethren have refused to take part in\nwar not only because it is contrary to the spirit of Christian love, and\ndestroys sacred human life, but also because it is coercive and\ninterferes with the free rights of others.[119]\n\nFor the person who believes in the practice of positive goodwill towards\nall men, the refusal to use coercion arises from its incompatibility\nwith the spirit of positive regard for every member of the human family,\nrather than being a separate value in itself. In social situations this\nregard may express itself in various ways. It may have a desirable\nresult from the point of view of the practitioner, but again we must\nemphasize that he does what he does on the basis of principle; the\nresult is a secondary consideration.\n\nFOOTNOTES:\n\n[117] Barclay, _Apology_, Prop. XIV, Sec. IV, 470.\n\n[118] Fry, _Quaker Ways_. 59-60.\n\n[119] D. W. Kurtz, _Ideals of the Church of the Brethren_, leaflet\n(Elgin, Ill.: General Mission Board, 1934?); Martin G. Brumbaugh in\n_Studies in the Doctrine of Peace_ (Elgin, Ill.: Board of Christian\nEducation, Church of the Brethren, 1939), 56; the statement of the\nGoshen Conference of 1918 and other statements of the position of the\nchurch in L. W. Shultz (ed.), _Minutes of the Annual Conference of the\nChurch of the Brethren on War and Peace_, mimeo (Elgin: Bd. of Chr. Ed.,\nChurch of the Brethren, 1935); and the pamphlet by Robert Henry Miller,\n_The Christian Philosophy of Peace_ (Elgin: Bd. of Chr. Ed., Church of\nthe Brethren, 1935).\n\n\nMinistering to Groups in Conflict\n\nOne expression of this philosophy may be abstention from partisanship in\nconflicts between other groups, in order to administer impartially to\nthe human need of both parties to the conflict.\n\nIn this connection much has been made of the story of the Irish Quakers\nduring the rebellion in that country in 1798. Before the conflict broke\ninto open violence the Quarterly Meetings and the General National\nMeeting recommended that all Friends destroy all firearms in their\npossession so that there could be no suspicion of their implication in\nthe coming struggle. During the fighting in 1798 the Friends interceded\nwith both sides in the interests of humanity, entertained the destitute\nfrom both parties and treated the wounds of any man who needed care.\nBoth the Government forces and the rebels came to respect Quaker\nintegrity, and in the midst of pillage and rapine the Quaker households\nescaped unscathed. But Thomas Hancock, who told the story a few years\nlater, pointed out that in their course of conduct the Friends had not\nsought safety.\n\n\n     \"It is,\" he said, \"to be presumed, that, even if outward\n     preservation had not been experienced, they who conscientiously\n     take the maxims of Peace for the rule of their conduct, would hold\n     it not less their duty to conform to those principles; because the\n     reward of such endeavor to act in obedience to their Divine\n     Master's will is not always to be looked for in the present life.\n     While, therefore, the fact of their outward preservation would be\n     no sufficient argument to themselves that they had acted as they\n     ought to act in such a crisis, it affords a striking lesson to\n     those who will take no principle, that has not been verified by\n     experience, for a rule of human conduct, even if it should have the\n     sanction of Divine authority.\"[120]\n\n\nIt is in this same spirit that various pacifist groups undertook the\nwork of relief of suffering after the First World War in \"friendly\" and\n\"enemy\" countries alike, ministering to human need without distinction\nof party, race or creed. The stories of the work of the American Friends\nService Committee and the _Service Civil_ founded by Pierre Ceresole are\ntoo well known to need repeating here.[121] It should not be overlooked\nthat in this same spirit the Brethren and the Mennonites also carried on\nlarge scale relief projects during the interwar years.\n\nFOOTNOTES:\n\n[120] Thomas Hancock, _The Principles of Peace Exemplified in the\nConduct of the Society of Friends in Ireland During the Rebellion of the\nyear 1798, with some Preliminary and Concluding Observations_ (2nd ed.,\nLondon, 1826), 28-29. All the important features of the story are\nsummarized in Hirst, 216-224.\n\n[121] Lester M. Jones, _Quakers in Action: Recent Humanitarian and\nReform Activities of the American Quakers_ (New York: Macmillan, 1929);\nRufus M. Jones, _A Service of Love in War Time_ (New York: Macmillan,\n1920); Mary Hoxie Jones, _Swords into Plowshares: An Account of the\nAmerican Friends Service Committee 1917-1937_ (New York: Macmillan,\n1937); Willis H. Hall, _Quaker International Work in Europe Since 1914_\n(Chambery, Savoie, France: Imprimeries Reunies, 1938). On _Service\nCivil_, see Lilian Stevenson, _Towards a Christian International, The\nStory of the International Fellowship of Reconciliation_ (Vienna:\nInternational Fellowship of Reconciliation, 1929), 27-31, and Alan A.\nHunter, _White Corpuscles in Europe_ (Chicago: Willett, Clark, 1939),\n33-42.\n\n\nThe Power of Example\n\nA social group that acts consistently in accordance with the principles\nof active goodwill also exerts great influence through the force of its\nexample. A study of the Quaker activities in behalf of social welfare\nwas published in Germany just before the First World War, by Auguste\nJorns. She shows how, in relief of the poor, education, temperance,\npublic health, the care of the insane, prison reform, and the abolition\nof slavery, the Quakers set about to solve the problem within their own\nsociety, but never in an exclusive way, so that others as well as\nmembers might receive the benefits of Quaker enterprises. Quaker methods\nbecame well known, and in time served as models for similar undertakings\nby other philanthropic groups and public agencies. Many modern social\nwork procedures thus had their origins in the work of the Friends in a\nrelatively small circle.[122]\n\nFOOTNOTE:\n\n[122] Auguste Jorns, _The Quakers as Pioneers in Social Work_, trans. by\nThomas Kite Brown (New York: Macmillan, 1931).\n\n\nWork for Social Reform\n\nThe activity of Quakers in the abolition of slavery both in England and\nAmerica, especially the life-long work of John Woolman in the colonies,\nis well known. Here too, the first \"concerned\" Friends attempted to\nbring to an end the practice of holding slaves within the Society\nitself. When they had succeeded in eliminating it from their own ranks,\nthey could, with a clear conscience, suggest that their neighbors follow\ntheir example. When the time came, Quakers were willing to take part in\npolitical action to eradicate the evil. The compensated emancipation of\nthe slaves in the British Empire in 1833 proved that the reform could be\naccomplished without the violent repercussions which followed in the\nUnited States.[123]\n\nHorace G. Alexander has pointed out that the person who voluntarily\nsurrenders privilege, as the American Quakers did in giving up their\nslaves, not only serves as a witness to the falsehood of privilege, but\ncan never rest until reform is achieved.\n\n\n     \"The very fact,\" he says, \"that he feels a loyalty to the\n     oppressors as well as to the oppressed means that he can never rest\n     until the oppressors have been converted. It is not their\n     destruction that he wants, but a change in their hearts.\"[124]\n\n\nSuch an attitude is based upon a faith in the perfectibility of man and\nthe possibility of the regeneration of society. It leads from a desire\nto live one's own life according to high principles to a desire to\nestablish similar principles in human institutions. It rejects the\nthesis of Reinhold Niebuhr that social groups can never live according\nto the same moral codes as individuals, and also the belief of such\ngroups as the Mennonites that, since the \"world\" is necessarily evil,\nthe precepts of high religion apply only to those who have accepted the\nChristian way of life. Instead, the conviction of those who hold this\nideal that it is social as well as individual in its application leads\nthem into the pathways of social reform, and even into political\naction.\n\nFOOTNOTES:\n\n[123] Henry J. Cadbury, _Colonial Quaker Antecedents to British\nAbolition of Slavery_, An address to the Friends' Historical Society,\nMarch 1933 (London: Friends Committee on Slavery and Protection of\nNative Races, 1933), reprinted from _The Friends' Quarterly Examiner_,\nJuly, 1933; Jorns, 197-233.\n\n[124] Horace G. Alexander in Heard, _et al._, _The New Pacifism_, 93.\n\n\nPolitical Action and Compromise\n\nThe Quakers, for instance, have been noted for their participation in\nall sorts of reform movements. Since every reform in one sense involves\nopposition to some existing institution, Clarence Case has been led to\ncall the Quakers \"non-physical resistants;\"[125] but since their real\nobjective was usually the establishment of a new institution rather than\nthe mere destruction of an old one, they might better be called\n\"non-violent advocates.\" They were willing to advocate their reforms in\nthe public forum and the political arena. Since, as Rufus Jones has\npointed out, such action might yield to the temptation to compromise\nwith men of lesser ideals, there has always been an element in the\nSociety of Friends which insisted that the ideal must be served in its\nentirety, even to the extent of giving up public office and influence\nrather than to compromise.[126] In Pennsylvania the Quakers withdrew\nfrom the legislature when it became necessary in the existing political\nsituation to vote support of the French and Indian war, but they did so\nnot because they did not believe in political action, in which up to\nthat moment they had taken part willingly enough, but rather because\nunder the circumstances of the moment it was impossible to realize their\nideals by that means.[127]\n\nRuth Fry, in discussing the uncompromising attitude of the Friends on\nthe issue of slavery, has well described the process of Quaker reform:\n\n\n     \"One cannot help feeling that this strong stand for the ultimate\n     right was far more responsible for success than the more timid one,\n     and should encourage such action in other great causes. In fact,\n     the ideal Quaker method would seem to be patient waiting for\n     enlightenment on the underlying principle, which when seen is so\n     absolutely clear and convincing that no outer difficulties or\n     suffering can affect it: its full implications gradually appear,\n     and its ultimate triumph can never be doubted. Any advance towards\n     it, may be accepted as a stepping stone, although only methods\n     consistent with Quaker ideals may be used to gain the desired end.\n     Doing anything tinged with evil, that good may come, is entirely\n     contrary to their ideas.\"[128]\n\n\nShe goes on to say, \"As ever, the exact line of demarcation between\nmethods aggressive enough to arouse the indolent and those beyond the\nbounds of Quaker propriety was indeed difficult to draw.\"[129]\n\nIn such a statement we find a conception of compromise which is\ndifferent from that usually encountered. In it the advocate of the ideal\nsays that for the time being he will accept less than his ultimate goal,\nprovided the change is in the direction in which he desires to move, but\nhe will not accept the slightest compromise which would move away from\nhis goal.\n\nFOOTNOTES:\n\n[125] Case, _Non-Violent Coercion_, 92-93.\n\n[126] Rufus M. Jones, _The Quakers in the American Colonies_, 175-176.\n\n[127] Jones, _Quakers in the Colonies_, 459-494; Isaac Sharpless, _A\nQuaker Experiment in Government_ (Philadelphia: Alfred J. Ferris, 1898),\n226-276.\n\n[128] Fry, _Quaker Ways_, 171-172.\n\n[129] _Ibid._, 177.\n\n\nThe Third Alternative\n\nThe logical pursuit of such a principle leads even further than the type\nof compromise which Ruth Fry has described, to the establishment of a\nnew basis of understanding which may not include any of the principles\nfor which the parties in conflict may have been striving, and yet which\nbrings about reconciliation.\n\nEric Heyman, speaking in religious terms, has said of this process of\ndiscovering a new basis of understanding through the exercise of\npositive goodwill, even toward an oppressor:\n\n\n     \"That is the way of God, and it is therefore the way of our\n     discipleship as reconcilers; the way of non-resistance to evil, of\n     the total acceptance of the consequences of evil in all their lurid\n     destructiveness, in order that the evil doer may be reconciled to\n     God.... The whole consequences of his presence, whether small or\n     great must be accepted with the single realisation that the whole\n     process of the world's redemption rests upon the relationship which\n     the Christian is able to create between himself and his oppressor.\n     This course has nothing in common with resistance; it is the\n     opposite of surrender, for its whole purpose and motive is the\n     triumphing over evil by acceptance of all that it brings.... The\n     resistance of evil, whether by way of violence or 'non-violence' is\n     the way of this world. Resignation to evil is the way of weak\n     surrender, and yields only a powerless resentment; at its best it\n     is non-moral, at the worst sheerly immoral. Acceptance of evil is\n     the triumphant answer of the redeemer. In the moment of his\n     acceptance he knows of a certainty that he has overcome the\n     world.\"[130]\n\n\nThis process of finding a new basis of relationship has been called \"a\nthird alternative, which produces no majority rule and no defeated\nminority.\"[131] The Quakers have long used this method in arriving at\ndecisions within their own meetings. They refuse to make motions and\ntake votes which produce clearcut divisions within the group, but insist\nthat no action shall be taken until all divergent points of view have\nbeen expressed, and a statement drawn up which embodies \"the sense of\nthe meeting\" and is acceptable to all. As Elton Trueblood has said, \"The\noverpowering of a minority by calling for a vote is a kind of force, and\nbreeds the resentment which keeps the method of force from achieving\nultimate success with persons.\"[132] Douglas Steere has described the\nprocess in these words:\n\n\n     \"This unshakable faith in the way of vital, mutual interaction by\n     conciliatory conference is held to be applicable to international\n     and interracial conflict as it is to that between workers and\n     employer, or between man and wife. But it is not content to stop\n     there. It would defy all fears and bring into the tense process of\n     arriving at this joint decision a kind of patience and a quiet\n     confidence which believes, not that there is no other way, but that\n     there is a 'third-alternative' which will annihilate neither\n     party.\"[133]\n\n\nM. P. Follett, twenty years ago, wrote a book entitled _Creative\nExperience_, in which she supported this same conclusion on the basis of\nscientific knowledge about the nature of man, society and politics.\nSpeaking of the democratic process she said:\n\n\n     \"We have the will of the people ideally when all desires are\n     satisfied.... The aim of democracy should be integrating desires. I\n     have said that truth emerges from difference. In the ballot-box\n     there is no confronting of difference, hence no possibility of\n     integrating, hence no creating; self-government is a creative\n     process and nothing else.... Democracy does not register various\n     opinions; it is an attempt to create unity.\"[134]\n\n\nIt might be said that in so far as democracy has succeeded, it has done\nso because of its adherence to this principle. The division of a society\ninto groups which are unremittingly committed to struggle against each\nother, whether by violent or non-violent means, until one or the other\nhas been annihilated or forced to yield outwardly to its oppressors for\nthe time being, will inevitably destroy the loyalty to a common purpose\nthrough which alone democracy can exist.\n\nThe contrast between the British and American attitudes toward the\nabolition of slavery presents us with a case in point. In Great Britain,\nthe Emancipation Act contained provisions for the compensation of the\nslave owners, so that it became acceptable to them. In the United States\nthe advocates of abolition insisted that since slavery was sin there\ncould be no recognition of the rights of the owners. Elihu Burritt and\nhis League of Universal Brotherhood were as much opposed to slavery as\nthe most ardent abolitionists, yet of the League Burritt declared: \"It\nwill not only aim at the mutual pacification of enemies, but at their\nconversion into brethren.\"[135] Burritt became the chief advocate of\ncompensated emancipation in the United States. Finally the idea was\nsuggested in the Senate and hearings had been arranged on the measure.\n\n\n     \"But,\" Burritt said, \"just as it had reached that stage at which\n     Congressional action was about to recognize it as a legitimate\n     proposition, 'John Brown's raid' suddenly closed the door against\n     all overtures or efforts for the peaceful extinction of slavery.\n     Its extinction by compensated emancipation would have recognized\n     the moral complicity of the whole nation in planting and\n     perpetuating it on this continent. It would have been an act of\n     repentance, and the meetest work for repentance the nation could\n     perform.\"[136]\n\n\nThe country was already too divided to strive for this \"third\nalternative,\" and, whether or not slavery was one of the prime causes of\nthe Civil War, it made its contribution to creating the feeling which\nbrought on the conflict. In the light of the present intensity of racial\nfeeling in the United States, it can hardly be said that the enforced\nsettlement of the war gave the Negro an equal place in American society\nor eliminated conflict between the races.\n\nOne of the virtues of the method of reconciliation of views in seeking\nthe \"third alternative\" is that it can be practiced by the individual or\na very small group as well as on the national or international scale.\nJames Myers has described its use within the local community in the\n\"informal conference.\" In such a conference, the person or group\ndesiring to create better understanding or to eliminate conflict between\nelements of the community calls together, without any publicity,\nrepresentatives of various interests for a discussion of points of view,\nwith the understanding that there will be no attempt to reach\nconclusions or arrive at any official decisions. James Myers' experience\nhas indicated that the conferences create an appreciation of the reasons\nfor former divergence of opinion, and a realization of the possibilities\nof new bases of relationship which have often resulted in easing\ntensions within the community and in the solution of racial, economic\nand social conflicts.[137]\n\nEven on the international level, individuals may make some contribution\ntoward the elimination of conflicts, although, in the face of the\npresent emphasis upon nationalism, and the lack of common international\nvalues to which appeal may be made, their labors are not apt to be\ncrowned with success. As in all the cases which we have been\nconsidering, however, concerned individuals and groups may act in this\nfield because they feel a compulsion to do so, regardless of whether or\nnot their actions are likely to be successful in producing the desired\nresult of reconciliation, and the discovery of the third\nalternative.[138]\n\nFOOTNOTES:\n\n[130] Eric Heyman, _The Pacifist Dilemma_ (Banbury, England: Friends'\nPeace Committee, 1941), 11-12.\n\n[131] Carl Heath, \"The Third Alternative\" in Heard, _et al._, _The New\nPacifism_, 102.\n\n[132] D. Elton Trueblood, \"The Quaker Method of Reaching Decisions\" in\nLaughlin, _Beyond Dilemmas_, 119.\n\n[133] Douglas V. Steere, \"Introduction\" to Laughlin, _Beyond Dilemmas_,\n18.\n\n[134] M. P. Follett, _Creative Experience_ (New York: Longmans, Green,\n1924), 209.\n\n[135] Quoted in Allen, _Fight for Peace_, 428.\n\n[136] Quoted in _Ibid._, 437.\n\n[137] James Myers, _\"Informal Conferences\" a New Technique In Social\nEducation_, Leaflet (New York: Federal Council of Churches of Christ in\nAmerica, 1943).\n\n[138] See George Lansbury, _My Pilgrimage for Peace_ (New York: Holt,\n1938); Bertram Pickard, _Pacifist Diplomacy in Conflict Situations:\nIllustrated by the Quaker International Centers_ (Philadelphia: Pacifist\nResearch Bureau, 1943).\n\n\n\n\nVIII. CONCLUSIONS\n\n\nThose who do not share the pacifist philosophy are prone to insist that\nthe pacifists place far too much emphasis upon the refusal to employ\nphysical force. These critics maintain that force is non-moral in\ncharacter, and that the only moral question involved in its use is\nwhether or not the purposes for which it is employed are \"good\" or\n\"bad.\" They fail to realize that these concepts themselves arise from a\nsubjective set of values, different for every social group on the basis\nof its own tradition and for every individual on the basis of his own\nexperience and training.\n\nThe \"absolute\" pacifist places at the very apex of his scale of values\nrespect for every human personality so great that he cannot inflict\ninjury on any human being regardless of the circumstances in which he\nfinds himself. He would rather himself suffer what he considers to be\ninjustice, or even see other innocent people suffer it, than to arrogate\nto himself the right of sitting in judgment on his fellow men and\ndeciding that they must be destroyed through his action. For him to\ninflict injury or death upon any human being would be to commit the\ngreatest iniquity of which he can conceive, and would create within his\nown soul a sense of guilt so great that acceptance of any other evil\nwould be preferable to it.\n\nThe person who acts on the basis of such a scale of values is not\nprimarily concerned with the outward expediency of his action in turning\nthe evil-doer into new ways, although he is happy if his action does\nhave incidental desirable results. He acts as he does because of a deep\nconviction about the nature of the universe in which all men are\nbrothers, and in which every personality is sacred. No logical argument\nto act otherwise can appeal to him unless it is based upon assumptions\narising out of this conviction.\n\nThose who place their primary moral emphasis upon respect for human\npersonality are led to hold many other values as well as their supreme\nvalue of refusing to use violence against their fellow men. Except in\ntime of war, when governments insist that their citizens take part in\nmass violence, the absolute pacifist is apt to serve these other values,\nwhich he shares with many non-pacifists, without attracting the\nattention which distinguishes him from other men of goodwill. He insists\nonly that in serving these subsidiary values he must not act in any way\ninconsistent with his highest value.\n\nMany pacifists, and all non-pacifists, differ from the absolutists in\nthat they place other values before this supreme respect for every human\npersonality. The pacifists who do so, refuse to inflict injury on their\nfellows not because this is itself their highest value, but because they\nbelieve other less objectionable methods are more effective for\nachieving their highest purposes, or because they accept the argument\nthat the means they use must be consistent with the ends they seek. They\nwould say that it is impossible to achieve universal human brotherhood\nby methods which destroy the basis for such brotherhood.\n\nSuch persons assess non-violence as a _tactic_, rather than accepting it\nas a value in itself. John Lewis comes to the conclusion that under\ncertain circumstances violence is a more effective method. Gandhi\nbelieves in non-violence both as a principle and as the most effective\nmeans of achieving his purposes. Every individual who looks upon\nnon-violence as only a means, rather than as an end in itself, will\naccept or reject it on the basis of his estimate of the expediency of\nnon-violent methods. Some come to the conclusion that violence can never\nbe effective and therefore refuse to use it under any circumstances;\nothers decide on each new occasion whether violence or non-violence will\nbest serve their ends in that particular situation. In such cases the\nquestion is one of fact; the decision must be based upon the available\nevidence.\n\nFrom the diversity of opinions that exist at the present time it is\nobvious that the social sciences are not yet ready to give an\nunequivocal answer to this question of fact. Since the values that men\nhold subjectively are themselves social facts which the scientist must\ntake into account, and since they vary from age to age, community to\ncommunity, and individual to individual, it may never be possible to\nfind the final answer. Meanwhile the individual facing the necessity for\naction must answer the question for himself on the basis of the best\ninformation available to him. Even if he refuses to face the issue for\nhimself and accepts the prevalent idea of our own day that violence is\nan effective means of achieving desirable purposes, he has actually\nanswered the question without giving thought to it.\n\nThe potential tragedy of our generation is that the whole world has been\nplunged into war on the basis of the prevalent assumption that violence\nis an effective means of achieving high social purposes. Even that part\nof the planning for peace that is based upon maintaining international\norder by force rests upon this same assumption. If the assumption be\nfalse, mankind has paid a terrible price for its mistake.\n\nAnother assumption on which the advocates of violence act is that the\nuse of physical force in a noble cause inevitably brings about the\ntriumph of that cause. History gives us no basis for such an assumption.\nThere is much evidence that force sometimes fails, even when it is used\non the \"right\" side. Although the sense of fighting in a righteous cause\nmay improve the morale and thus increase the effectiveness of an army,\nactually wars are won by the _stronger_ side. It is a curious fact that\non occasion both opposing armies may feel that they are fighting on the\nside of righteousness. Napoleon summarized the soldier's point of view\nwhen he said that God was on the side of the largest battalions. During\nthe uncertain process of violent conflict, the destruction of human\nlife--innocent and guilty alike--goes on.\n\nJust as there is evidence that violence used in a righteous cause is not\nalways successful, there is evidence that non-violent methods sometimes\nsucceed. Without attempting to give the final answer to the question\nwhether violence creates so much destruction of human values that its\napparent successes are only illusory, we can say that the success or\nfailure of both violence and non-violence is determined by the\nconditions under which both are used, and attempt to discover the\ncircumstances under which they have been effective.\n\n(1) No great social movement can arise unless the grievance against the\nexisting order is great and continuous, or the demand for a new order is\nso deeply ingrained in the minds of the people in the movement that they\nare willing to expend great effort and undergo great sacrifices in order\nto bring about the desired change.\n\n(2) The group devoted to the idea of change must be large enough to have\nan impact on the situation. This is true whether the group desires to\nuse violent or non-violent methods. In any case there will be a\nbalancing of forces between those desiring change and those who oppose\nit. All of the non-violent techniques we have considered require\nsufficient numbers so that either their refusal of cooperation, their\nparticipation in politics, or their practice of positive goodwill has a\nsignificant effect upon the whole community.\n\n(3) The group that has a strong desire to bring about social change may\nbe augmented in strength by the support of other elements in the\npopulation who do not feel so strongly on the issue. The less vigorous\nsupport of such neutrals may be the element that swings the balance in\nfavor of the group desiring change. This \"third party\" group may also\nremain indifferent to the conflict. In that case the result will be\ndetermined solely by the relative strength of the direct participants.\nIn any case, the group desiring change will be defeated if it alienates\nthe members of the third party so that they join the other side. This\nlatter consideration gives a great advantage to the practitioners of\nnon-violence, since in our own day people generally are disposed to\noppose violence, or at least \"unlawful\" violence, and to sympathize with\nthe victims of violence, especially if they do not fight back. A\ndefinite commitment on the part of the reformers not to use violence may\ngo far toward winning the initial support of the group neutral in the\nconflict.\n\n(4) These conditions of success must be created through the use of\neducation and persuasion prior to taking action. The sense of grievance\nor the desire for social change must be developed in this way if it does\nnot already exist. Even such a violent movement as the French Revolution\ngrew out of a change in the intellectual climate of France created by\nthe writers of the preceding century. Only when a large enough group has\nbeen won over to the cause of reform by such an educational campaign can\nthe second requisite for success be obtained. Finally, much educational\nwork must be done among the less interested third parties in order to\npredispose them to favor the changes advocated and to sympathize with\nthe group taking part in the movement of reform.\n\nThe final result of any social conflict is determined by the balancing\nof forces involved. Violence itself can never succeed against a stronger\nadversary, so those who desire to bring about social change or\nrevolution by violence have to begin with the process of education to\nbuild a group large enough to overcome the violent forces which are\nlikely to be arrayed against them. Even a violent revolution must be\npreceded by much non-violent educational preparation. But even when the\ngroup using violence has become large enough to overcome the physical\nforce arrayed against it, its victory rests upon the coercion of its\nopponents rather than upon their conversion. Though defeated, the\nopponents still entertain their old concepts and look forward to the day\nof retribution, or to the counter-revolution. A social order so\nestablished rests upon a very unstable foundation. Revolutionaries have\nattempted in such circumstances to \"liquidate\" all the opposition, but\nit is doubtful that they have ever been completely successful in doing\nso. The ruthless use of violence in the process of liquidation has\nusually alienated third parties against the regime that uses it, and\nthus augmented the group that might support the counter-revolution.\n\nAdvocates of non-violence must start in the same way as the violent\nrevolutionaries to build their forces through persuasion and education.\nThey must assess properly the attitude of the third party and carry on\neducational work with this group until it is certain that it will not go\nover to the other side at the moment of action.\n\nBy the time a revolutionary or reforming group was large enough to use\nviolence successfully, and to weather the storm of the\ncounter-revolution or reaction, it would already have won to its side so\nlarge a portion of the community that it could probably succeed without\nthe use of violence. This would certainly be true in a country like the\nUnited States. We must ask the question as to whether the energy\nconsumed in the use of violence might not bring better results if it\nwere expended upon additional education and persuasion, without\ninvolving the destruction of human life, human values, and property\nwhich violence inevitably entails.\n\nEven most of the ardent advocates of war and violent revolution admit\nthat violence is only an undesirable necessity for the achievement of\ndesirable ends. Non-violent methods pursued with the same commitment and\nvigor would be just as likely to succeed in the immediate situation as\nviolence, without bringing in their train the tremendous human suffering\nattendant upon violence. More important is the fact that a social order\nbased upon consent is more stable than one based upon coercion. If we\nare interested in the long range results of action, non-violence is much\nmore likely to bring about the new society than is violence, because it\nfosters rather than destroys the sense of community upon which any new\nsocial order must be founded.\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\n                         ADVERTISEMENT\n\n\n                                                  INTRODUCTION TO\n                                                     NON-VIOLENCE\n\n                 PUBLICATIONS OF THE\n              PACIFIST RESEARCH BUREAU\n\n         1. Five Foot Shelf of Pacifist Literature             5c\n        2. The Balance of Power                               25c\n       3. Coercion of States: In Federal Unions               25c\n      4. Coercion of States In International Organizations    25c\n     5. Comparative Peace Plans**                             25c\n    6. Pacifist Diplomacy in Conflict Situations              10c\n   7. The Political Theories of Modern Pacifism               25c\n  8. Introduction to Non-Violence                             25c\n 9. Economics for Peace*                                      25c\n10. Conscientious Objectors in Prison*                        25c\n\n * _In Preparation_\n** _Out of Print_\n\n       *       *       *       *       *","title":"Introduction to Non-Violence","tradition":"scripture-revelation","translated_text":null,"word_count":26677}