Nonviolence and Power. A study about the importance of power relations for nonviolent action and resistance (original) (raw)
Related papers
Nonviolent resistance and repressive regimes
During the years a large range of non-violent methods has been developed. Usually it is so that their employment is considered to be dependent on their form and whether they fit in the strategy and tactics of the activists who use them. No attention is given to the character of the political regime where they have to be used. In this article I want to concentrate on the question whether that is right, especially in the case of repressive regimes. In a discussion of Sharp and his critic Bleiker I conclude that two fundamental types of non-violent methods have to be distinguished. Next I ask what kinds of repressive regimes there are. With Linz and Stepan I discern four types of such regimes, characterised by values on four different dimensions. Combining both typifications, it can be shown then that, unlike what has been supposed in the relevant literature, the successful employment of non-violent methods does be dependent on the regime type where they are used. This brings me to a first theory of the possibility of non-violent resistance under different forms of repressive regimes.
Raisons Politiques
In this paper, I examine the nature and ethics of nonviolent action, distinguishing it from civil disobedience and other categories of political action discussed in normative theory. I offer a justification for the specifically coercive character of non-violent action and identify the legitimate role it has to play not only in authoritarian states but in plausibly democratic societies. I critically interrogate Gandhi’s influential understanding of nonviolent action – or ‘satyagraha’ - as a method that converts opponents solely through the loving, purifying force of self-suffering and an argument by Vinit Haksar that nonviolent action does not count as coercive so long as its aims are morally justified. I dispute these perspectives and offer a justification for the use of coercive tactics based on democratic, republican grounds as a means to collectively contest certain objectionable forms of political domination.
1992
Preface vii To whom does she speak? And what does she say? She speaks to governments and their leaders, to ministries, parliaments, and parties. She addresses them in Germany and across national boundaries. Her conscience as a nonviolent human being transcends both her role as a government official and the diplomatic niceties of national boundaries. She uses Speaking to men, she calls for an end to patriarchal domination and exploitation. Speaking to women, she urges assertive solidarity in feminist restructuring of male power. She praises courageous feminist leadership in the antiwar, economic justice, ecological, human rights, freedom, and other movements for the well-being of all-while recognizing also the contributions of "many brave and courageous men" (Kelly 1990, p. 15). To all adults she asks that we consider how our political and economic policies and practices affect children, the elderly, the weak, and the poor. She also speaks to large and sweeping collectivities, encompassing all the foregoing. She calls upon Germany to be honestly critical about its past atrocities; to democratize, demilitarize, and neutralize itself; to liberate itself from racism; and to assume responsibility for domestic and global democratic and ecological well-being. She appeals to all humanity to speak up against abuses of power on behalf of its victims. To all she cries out, "Save the planet!" Ultimately she speaks to the self-the essence of the reflective, moral individual. "If we want to transform society in Petra Kelly's emphasis upon the acquisition, study, and use of "counterinformation" for effective nonviolent political action is of central importance. Such information is needed to counter governmental ignorance, secrecy, deception, and inaction. The stress of information overload experienced by the conscientious nonviolent political figure who seeks to respond to human needs on a wide range of local and global issues is readily understandable. This can be made more manageable by skilful
Power, Exclusion/Inclusion Mechanisms in relation with Revolutionary Violence and Emancipation
non-violent political means of communication could be used to achieve emancipation. It is under certain conditions that revolution becomes necessary for emancipation. By relying on Nietzsche’s notion of “Will to Power”, power in this paper is understood as a priori condition, it is something that every human being seeks. The second condition is the existence of exclusionary mechanisms existing among social groups. And finally, the third condition is discourse which is necessary for the continuity of the struggle for emancipation.
Nonviolent Power and the End of Domination
Claiming the right to rise up against oppression, civil reason speaking to the people’s mind, mobilizing people to fracture the power of dominating rulers—in short, unarmed liberation: When all this work is done worldwide, not only tyrannies, but the tyrannical principle will recede—and with it, the real source of violence and war.
The Unconquerable World: Power, Nonviolence, and the Will of the People
Political Science Quarterly, 2004
discrepancies between officers' and suspects' accounts of the use of force, and contains useful research pointers. Chapter 6 examines data from the 244 incidents involving the PGDP. Amid many interesting statistical features, in a multivariate analysis controlled for legitimate criteria concerning use of force, two illegitimate criteria were significantly related to Force Factor scores: the length of an officer's tenure, and arrest of black suspects by white officers. Although the latter is made explicit, and is acknowledged as worthy of further attention (p. 152), scant explanation or hypothesis is offered. Chapter 7 summarizes its predecessors. There is little discussion and no references are cited. The final chapter is arguably the most innovative, introducing the 'authority maintenance ritual'. This is an interactive theoretical construct designed to help explain encounters in which force is used. Brief but effective use is made of theoretical approaches to social rituals, and the linchpin is the exaggerated role of authority in officer-citizen interactions. Authority is asymmetrical. In routine interactions, officers exercise authority and citizens defer, but force (or resistance) signifies a breakdown of the principle of reciprocity as 'personal goals take precedence' (p. 172). This book is a valuable resource. The contents could well be useful for officers, instructors and policy makers as well as academics, although American cultural complexities render some findings unlikely to be applicable to other (even Western) contexts. The small number of 'sites' imposes inevitable limitations but the restricted methodological stance inhibits the scope and potential of an undoubtedly meticulous study. For those wedded to qualitative methods the glaring omission is the lack of opportunity for exploration and comprehension of police use of force. A more fitting title for the book might have been one that acknowledged contribution towards an understanding of police use of force.