Non-Violent Action

The thread on manipulation inspired my own humble submission on the topic.

I quickly realized there was enough of a difference in the message I wanted to convey that it warranted its own post.

The manipulation most discussed in the other thread involves controlling the perception of an individual to influence them to act, not act, believe, or think in a way that promotes your interests. That sounds pretty Machiavellian...and it is. Manipulation is quite a dirty word when you put it that way...but is it inherently 'bad'? When writing in the context of the individual, manipulation looks pretty bad. But what about paired against an oppressive governing power? In that arena, manipulation becomes one of the strongest tools in your tool bag. The end-game is not necessarily to lie or trick people to support your cause, but to set conditions to disrupt a corrupt government's initiatives or to coerce it into a favorable compromise. Manipulation in this case means controlling the key factors and flow of information.

More often than not unfortunately, violence follows in places under that level of stress and upheaval. The key for the Non-Violent Action practitioner is to manage the perception and activities of his movement properly.

:lol:

I know you lot out there are dissidents at heart, so here you go. I've been studying this topic a while, and sometimes find some interesting reading in my off-time:

The Albert Einstein Institution

This website is the online flagship of Non-Violent Action. The man behind the AE Institution is Gene Sharp. He recognized that violence and oppression occur during a contested regime not because it is the last resort...but because peaceful means of enacting change were not given due consideration. If we spent half as much time, effort, and resource to non-violence as we did to violence, the world might look a little different right now. Funnily enough, most regime leaders across the world fear the guy and have referred to him in the media...Hugo Chavez, Hosni Mubarak, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, etc. And not fondly. Iran even produced a television show made in CGI that claimed Sharp was a CIA agent and showed him sitting at a table plotting to manipulate Iran's overthrow while twisting a thin mustache. Pretty funny. He named his group after Einstein because he looked to the man for inspiration. Sharp was a young man when he sent Einstein his thoughts on non-violence...while Einstein didn't come meet him, he wrote to Sharp encouraging and applauding his efforts.

I don't offer this up because I think we're all going to go do strategic non-violent action...I offer it because I think the methodology is sound and has application across many spectrums.

As Jedi, we are called to be bearers of peace. Sometimes that conflicts with what we see in the world around us...violence, pain, suffering, degradation, humiliation, bullying, abuse of power...all things that a person of fiber should want to change - to say nothing of a Jedi. How much more successful might the Occupy Wall Street movement have been if they had the right tools? Martin Luther King was a VERY manipulative character in practicing civil disobedience. How can we change things without sinking to the level of an oppressor? The man behind that site has put a LOT of thought into answering that question.

This is manipulation I can get behind. Peaceful, yet forceful in its pursuit of the right. Heck, even in the SW films our guy Kenobi directly manipulates when he mind-tricks the trooper searching for the droids. I hope you take a look!

Thanks Reacher I'll definitely give that site a look.

I'm reminded, however, about human nature. We are a violent species. You'd think that after all the wars that all of the countries in the world have been through, non-violent action would come as almost second-nature. But just look at the world. Where have we progressed in this manner? Only, it seems, in more destructive weapons. So yes, my faith in humanity is not great, but I will give the site some major consideration, and I hope I can spread its wisdom at every opportunity.

I think what it really boils down to, is the ease of which violence accomplishes the desires of those who imploy it as a means of accomplishing said desires. Violent action invokes fear and anxiety within those who have it used, or threatened to be used against them. Non-violent action on the other hand invokes a sense of irritation and aggravation in most cases, and takes far longer to accomplish the same goals as compared to more violent action.

Lets say I am seeking donations for a charitable cause. In one situation, I hold a gun to a greedy mans head, and demand money. He is very likely in this situation to give me the money I seek, out of fear of being shot and killed. In another situation, I try and explain the benefits his donation will bring to those who receive it, however he is far less likely to give me the money I seek in this situation without deriving some personal benefit from doing so.

I realize this is a somewhat extreme example of non-violent versus violent action, however the premise remains the same regardless of the example used.

We have, most of us - myself included, used both violent and nonviolent means to accomplish our goals and realize our desires in life. We are not better than someone who uses violent means to get what they want and need in life, we are simply adhering to a different standard of ethics than they are.

A robber is not bad because he has been raised to steal from others to fulfill his needs, he is simply adhering to his upbringing that has instructed him that thievery is OK. A man who works for a living and donates to charity is not better than the robber because he lives to a code society finds acceptable, as he too is simply adhering to his upbringing that has instructed him to respect the property and possessions of others, and to help those less fortunate than himself.

Non-violent action is certainly more desirable than violent action, however one is not better than the other. Violent action does not have to strictly involve physical violence, as violence can involve verbal insults, the creation of propaganda portraying one group to be of a lesser status than another comparative group, or simply creating divisions between individuals or groups of people for any purpose whatsoever.

Many actions considered to be non-violent are in fact, violent. They may not be violent in the sense that many people would define to be violent, in most cases, being physical violence, however they still remain violent in the outcomes they create through the use of such means.

So really, in most cases, it would be "Less-violent action" rather than "Non-violent action"

Thank you for sharing the information. I've been looking up the website and it is impressive. I believe that finding non-violent solution is the way of the future.

When you read studies like the following:

"More than 190,000 people have been killed in the 10 years since the war in Iraq began. The war will cost the U.S. $2.2 trillion, including substantial costs for veterans care through 2053, far exceeding the initial government estimate of $50 to $60 billion, according to a new report by scholars with the "Costs of War" project at Brown University's Watson Institute for International Studies."

To me this is reason enough to spend all of our time, effort, and resources to non-violence.

Kohadra wrote: I think what it really boils down to, is the ease of which violence accomplishes the desires of those who imploy it as a means of accomplishing said desires. Violent action invokes fear and anxiety within those who have it used, or threatened to be used against them. Non-violent action on the other hand invokes a sense of irritation and aggravation in most cases, and takes far longer to accomplish the same goals as compared to more violent action.

There are many variables factoring into the speed at which a movement succeeds or fails. Not all non-violent movements are slow...and not all violent movements are quick. There are enough exceptions to either rule to sufficiently discredit that as an enduring precedent. Each situation is different. That said, speed may or may not even be a CRITICAL factor. In fact, historically speaking a slower form of action favors resistance movements and statistically increases their chances of success - violent OR non-violent.

Kohadra wrote: Lets say I am seeking donations for a charitable cause. In one situation, I hold a gun to a greedy mans head, and demand money. He is very likely in this situation to give me the money I seek, out of fear of being shot and killed. In another situation, I try and explain the benefits his donation will bring to those who receive it, however he is far less likely to give me the money I seek in this situation without deriving some personal benefit from doing so.

I realize this is a somewhat extreme example of non-violent versus violent action, however the premise remains the same regardless of the example used.

I disagree with you here. The example you used means EVERYTHING to your premise. I know the example is a shallow one and is more off the cuff than anything, but consider a few things:

You MUST consider the factors involved. What ARE your goals? Is it thirty dollars to get cab fair? In that case, you may have achieved them. Unless you get arrested when the guy calls the police. You may open that time gap more if you actually KILLED him, but then again they'll come after you harder. But hey, at least you had your thirty for a little bit - maybe even long enough to get home. Or is it something more long-term...he owes you monthly rent. Holding a guy at gunpoint to get it may not be as effective as leveraging the law to your favor. With legal high ground, maybe he now understands that his rent can't be late and won't miss it any more.

What I'm getting at here is that non-violent action tends to to yield BETTER, LASTING results and actually has a better rate of success than violence. Again, I admit exception, but consider this: from 1900 to 2006 there have been over 323 resistance movements...both violent and non-violent. In violent cases, roughly 25% achieve their goals...whereas non-violent movements enjoy about a 75% success rate. Of the 25% that DO succeed, violent backlash from the vanquished occurs in nearly all of them. In effect, they create an insurgency of reversed role.

That bears heavy consideration.

Kohadra wrote: We have, most of us - myself included, used both violent and nonviolent means to accomplish our goals and realize our desires in life. We are not better than someone who uses violent means to get what they want and need in life, we are simply adhering to a different standard of ethics than they are.

A robber is not bad because he has been raised to steal from others to fulfill his needs, he is simply adhering to his upbringing that has instructed him that thievery is OK. A man who works for a living and donates to charity is not better than the robber because he lives to a code society finds acceptable, as he too is simply adhering to his upbringing that has instructed him to respect the property and possessions of others, and to help those less fortunate than himself.

I am not contending ethical high ground over a desperate man. I AM contending effectiveness

What IS effective is gaining support by appealing to morals and ethics, however. Promoting a narrative of victimization and villification. We do this all the time as children...violence tends to alienate MASSIVE portions of an otherwise supportive population. Stepping down from the national level, sure your brother Tommy took your doll, but you don't have to punch him the face to get it back. You're likely to lose parental support by doing that. Or legal support by shooting at a guy because he owes you rent.

Going the kinetic route appeals to far fewer.

Kohadra wrote: Non-violent action is certainly more desirable than violent action, however one is not better than the other.

I DO agree that one isn't inherently 'better' than the other. I'm not 100% on what you mean there, though. By 'better', I'm talking about effectiveness - not morality. You have to use what works - given that the juice is worth the squeeze in going the violent route, AND that it'll be a lasting solution. And as far as being desirable...I'd say it depends on your perspective. To a person or group actually achieving their goals through violent means after exhausting every non-violent option they can come up with, perhaps violence IS more desirable. EFFECTIVE non-violence definitely trumps EFFECTIVE violence - given that your goals are in line with the type of results each form delivers. I'm pretty sure that's what you mean, but definitely correct me if not.

Kohadra wrote: Violent action does not have to strictly involve physical violence, as violence can involve verbal insults, the creation of propaganda portraying one group to be of a lesser status than another comparative group, or simply creating divisions between individuals or groups of people for any purpose whatsoever.

Many actions considered to be non-violent are in fact, violent. They may not be violent in the sense that many people would define to be violent, in most cases, being physical violence, however they still remain violent in the outcomes they create through the use of such means.

So really, in most cases, it would be "Less-violent action" rather than "Non-violent action"

Hmm...you're definitely stretching the semantics of the word toward thought and feeling. While I don't disagree with you that bigotry, marginalization, and verbal abuse are all negative things...I don't consider them 'violent'. Non-violent Action is a methodology...it can be turned to evil purposes just as violent methodology can be used for good. My point isn't the inherent morality of either, it's the utility. I think people underestimate non-violence as a viable option.

Sure, it can be nasty...but no one is losing arms, lives, or loved ones. It keeps the sovereignty of the human body intact. Sure, emotional injury is a VERY real weapon - but NVA establishes a line that even the most despicable emotional abuse and manipulation is unwilling to cross.