A Note on "Nonviolence is Two (original) (raw)
1968, Sociological Inquiry
The conscientious and pragmatic forms of nonviolence are discussed as sanctioning strategies adapted to different phases in the development of a social movement. Some general factors affecting the evolution of a movement's relations with its institutional environment are also considered.
Related papers
Competing Theories of Nonviolent Politics
NOMOS LXII: Protest and Dissent, 2020
The contemporary literature on nonviolent politics relies upon a sharp distinction between strategic and principled nonviolence. Gandhi and King are associated with the latter, defined as a strict moral commitment to nonviolence that both scholars and activists view as unnecessary for the successful practice of nonviolent politics. I argue the distinction between strategic and principled nonviolence is misleading. It misunderstands the most distinctive feature of classical nonviolent politics, namely, how Gandhi and King tethered ethical practice—practices of self-discipline or suffering—to political strategy. This chapter reconstructs an alternative account of nonviolent action—nonviolence as disciplined action—and argues that it is also strategic in orientation but premised upon a different theory of politics and political action. Disciplined action is underpinned by a skeptical ontology of action which highlights the affective dynamics of action. I contrast this to the prevailing model of nonviolence as collective power, which focuses on techniques of mass mobilization and the generation of social power. I distinguish the conceptual logic of these competing theories of nonviolent politics and the differing forms of protest and dissent they recommend.
Principled Nonviolence is an Imperative not an optional extra
This article compares principled and strategic nonviolent movements. While pragmatic, strategic nonviolence is effective for movements seeking to overthrow corrupt repressive and dictatorial regimes, it is much less successful in the progressive transformation of state and political systems. This is because principled nonviolence and movements associated with such value systems are ambivalent about political power and the role of the Weberian state. Conversely strategic nonviolent movements, are willing to utilize the coercive power of the state for their own political purposes and in doing so often become fatally compromised, as happened in Egypt, Palestine and Syria. The promise of principled nonviolence is social, political, and economic institutions capable of transcending Machiavellian politics because of a radical commitment to pacifism and emancipatory political processes.
Loading Preview
Sorry, preview is currently unavailable. You can download the paper by clicking the button above.