Civil Resistance Today

Kurt Schock

• Publisher: Polity
• Year: 2015
• Print ISBN: 9780745682679, 9780745682662
• eBook ISBN: 9780745682709
• Edition: 1
• Topic: Política y relaciones internacionales
• Subtopic: Defensa política

From Gandhi's salt march to the US civil rights movement and Occupy Wall Street, nonviolent campaigns to promote democracy, human rights and social justice have long played an important transformative role in local, national and global politics. Some have succeeded, some have failed; but nonviolent action remains a very effective means of achieving significant social and political change.

In this authoritative book Kurt Schock expertly guides readers through the changing terrain of nonviolent struggle, exploring the historical roots and development of modern civil resistance and its proliferation in recent decades. Discussing movements against economic and social injustice as well as political oppression, he explains how resistance happens and unpacks the complex interactions between state and non-state actors that affect the trajectories and outcomes of nonviolent campaigns. Drawing on a wealth of empirical data and comparative research, Civil Resistance Today will be an essential "one stop shop" for anyone keen to learn more about the methods, objectives and outcomes of civil resistance in the contemporary world.

1
Conceptualization and Debates

Collective civilian-based campaigns and movements to pro­mote group rights and social justice have occurred throughout history. When these challenges are waged outside of conventional political channels and without violence or the threat of violence, they fall within the realm of civil resistance. From the eighteenth century onward the frequency of civil resistance increased and propelled waves of democratization and struggles for labor rights, national liberation, and racial equality. Profound political transformations in the last quarter century were driven in part by civil resistance such as the demise of Communist Party rule in Eastern Europe in 1989–91, the end of the Cold War, and the Color Revolutions in the early twenty-first century. Along with these more recent challenges, such as the Arab Spring and widespread protests against austerity programs, privatization, corruption, land alienation, and increasing inequalities have generated widespread interest in civil resistance. Although the impact of civil resistance on domestic and international politics across the globe is often pivotal, we know relatively little about the dynamics of nonviolent struggle. This is due in part to the great attention paid by scholars and the media to violent resistance, terrorism, and war, as well as hegemonic ideas and myths about the power and utility of violence. In the introductory chapter civil resistance is defined and major questions and debates are introduced. In subsequent chapters various campaigns and movements implementing civil resistance and dynamics of civil resistance are explored.

What is Civil Resistance?

Civil resistance is resistance in the sense that it involves widespread activities that challenge a particular power, regime, or policy, and it is civil in the sense that it is implemented by groups whose goals are widely shared throughout civil society and involves nonviolent action rather than violent (uncivil) action (Roberts 2009: 2). Civil resistance avoids any systematic recourse to violence and it is collective action as opposed to individual dissent (Randle 1994: 10). Civil resistance, while abstaining from violence, involves full engagement in resisting oppression or injustice (Dudouet 2008: 3). Civil resistance is carried out by civilians rather than by armed groups, although members of the state's armed forces and security apparatus may engage in civil resistance by disobeying orders of superiors and refusing to use their arms. Civil resistance is a form of asymmetric conflict in the sense that there is a large power disparity between opponents (Arreguin-Toft 2005; Mack 1975). In the case of civil resistance the asymmetry is between marginalized or oppressed challenging groups and authorities that may use violence to maintain their privilege and power (Dudouet 2008: 4). Civil resistance is sustained when it occurs over a period of time as opposed to one-off events or occasional protest. Sustained collective action implies organization and leadership, although the form they take varies considerably from centralized organization and leadership to decentralized networks with no identifiable leaders.

Civil resistance may be defined as the use of methods of nonviolent action by civil society actors engaged in asymmetric conflicts with authorities not averse to using violence to defend their interests. Civil resistance has gained popularity as a term because of the moral and religious implications and misconceptions often associated with the term “nonviolence” and because the term “nonviolence” may be misleading when there is no explicit commitment to refrain from using violence, when violence is avoided solely for pragmatic reasons, and when property destruction occurs. Here the term “nonviolence” (as a noun) is used only where it is specifically appropriate. The terms civil resistance, nonviolent resistance, and nonviolent struggle are used interchangeably.

The core attribute of civil resistance is the collective implementation of methods of nonviolent action. Campaigns against oppression and injustice, of course, may be composed of diverse groups and networks, with diverse ideologies and goals that implement both routine and non-routine as well as violent and nonviolent action. Nevertheless in order to understand and explain dynamics of civil resistance, and of conflict more generally, it is useful to make conceptual distinctions between routine and non-routine politics as well as between violent and nonviolent action while recognizing that in acute conflicts resistance is rarely entirely violent or nonviolent.

Routine or conventional political action occurs within institutionally prescribed political and legal spheres and dialogical channels. By contrast, non-routine action (nonviolent or violent) occurs outside of political, legal, and dialogical channels controlled by authorities and elites. Of course, what is routine or conventional varies over time and across contexts.

Nonviolent action refers to non-routine and extra-institutional political acts that do not involve violence or the threat of violence. Nonviolent action may occur through acts of omission, whereby people refuse to perform acts expected by norms, custom, law, or decree, or acts of commission, whereby people perform acts which they do not usually perform, are not expected by norms or customs to perform, or are forbidden by law or decree to perform (Sharp 1973: 68, 2005: 41). Thus, nonviolent action may be legal or illegal. Civil disobedience, for example, involves open, deliberate and nonviolent violation of laws and policies perceived as unjust. Implementing nonviolent action does not mean that opponents, third parties, or bystanders will not be inconvenienced, distressed, or nonviolently coerced, or that they will not respond with violence, but it is clear that nonviolent action does not threaten or directly result in people being forcefully detained against their will, injured, violated, or killed.

On the surface the distinction between violent and nonviolent action is obvious. Violence entails intentional, direct, and unwanted physical interference with the bodies of others (Keane 2004: 35–6).¹ Violent action, such as detaining someone against their will, unwanted bodily injuries or violations, or killing, is intended to alter people's behavior through its use or threatened use. Violence may alter the behavior of people to whom it is applied or by setting an example that alters the calculations and behaviors of others. Although the application of violence is straightforward, the threat of violence or the perception of implied threats of violence or motivations to use violence attributed to actors may be less clear. Moreover, authorities typically label any sort of non-routine political action (whether violent or nonviolent), especially illegal or disruptive action, as “violent” and media coverage is biased in favor of a “law and order” perspective – in democracies as well as in authoritarian regimes. When police attack unarmed demonstrators, for example, it is often reported in the media as “violent protest.”

Both violent and nonviolent action are non-routine and they share some commonalities relative to conventional politics. By occurring outside of institutionally prescribed channels where authorities have inherent advantages, violent and nonviolent action represent direct threats to the status quo. Since both violent and nonviolent actions are often met with violent repression, they are higher risk actions than are conventional political actions. Both nonviolent and violent action are unilaterally initiated and do not require the consent or cooperation of the opposing party. Conflicts prosecuted through violent or nonviolent action are indeterminate in the sense that the contest is not regulated by codified agreements and rules about what action is acceptable or how conflicts are prosecuted and resolved. Instead, outcomes of contests depend on factors related to the strategic and bargaining interaction between parties to the conflict (Bond 1994). It is possible that moral preferences may also impact outcomes.

While violent and nonviolent action are both direct action, they operate through different mechanisms. Violent action works through physical and coercive force and the fear of detainment, bodily harm, or death. Nonviolent action, by contrast, instead of physically coercing, violating, disabling, or eliminating the opponent, works through social power and the human mind by use of appeals, manipulation, and nonviolent coercion. It is used to change relationships rather than to destroy opponents (Bond 1994). Moreover, Todd May (2015) suggests that nonviolent resistance embodies “equality” and “dignity” in sharp contrast to violent resistance.

Another difference concerns the reversibility of the consequences. The results of violent actions such as bombings and armed attacks that result in injury or death cannot be reversed, nor can time lost from being imprisoned be recuperated; but the consequences of strikes or boycotts, for example, can be easily reversed through the reestablishment of cooperative relations.² Thus, as opposed to violent action, nonviolent action is characterized by a “principle of reversibility” (Galtung 1996: 271–3). And since humans are fallible, the ability to reverse the consequences of one's actions is important. Moreover, some have suggested that civil resistance is a self-limiting style of struggle, characterized by mechanisms for inhibiting violent extremism and unbridled escalation, and keeping the conflict within acceptable bounds (Wehr 1979: 55–122). Similarly, struggles waged through nonviolent action are less likely to contribute to humiliation, intolerance, hatred, and desire for revenge, which may form the basis of future conflicts (Randle 1994: 113).

Moreover, nonviolent action is much more targeted and discriminating than is violent action. For example, one might participate in a boycott and picket of a local jewelry store that sells “blood diamonds,” but still cooperate with the storeowner in the local bocce ball league and at the annual public library book sale. The boycott and picket target the specific role of storeowner engaged in a specific practice; her other social roles and practices are left intact. Compare the nonviolent boycott and picket with a violent drone strike that kills not only a person who is allegedly plotting with people labeled as terrorists, but also the person's roles and practices as father, caregiver to the elderly, donor to the needy, and organizer at his place of worship, as well as all of the positive roles of innocent civilians who are killed as well (see Johansen 2007: 144). According to the logic of military violence, the killing of innocent civilians is mere “collateral damage.” Moreover, hundreds of billions of dollars are spent by governments every year on military research, development and production, yet no military weapon has been developed that can effectively differentiate between the various social roles and practices of a target, as can the weapons of nonviolent resistance.

Violent and nonviolent action may also be differentiated in terms of their relation to a third construct, power. Scholars have traditionally emphasized power over and equate violence with power. However, others emphasize power to or power with and differentiate violence from power. The twentieth-century political theorist Hannah Arendt, for example, suggests that rather than being an extreme manifestation of power, violence is the antithesis of power. Violence, she argues, may destroy power, but cannot create it. From this perspective, the use of violence indicates a lack of power, while voluntary, cooperative, nonviolent action is an essential indicator of power (Arendt 1970).

Thus, even though violent and nonviolent action may be used in tandem within campaigns, they are quite different phenomena with different dynamics and consequences. As early twentieth-century sociologist Max Weber stated, “the conceptual separation of peaceful (from violent) conflict is justified by the quality of the means normal to it and the peculiar sociological consequences of its occurrence” (Weber 1978 [1922]: 38).³ Rather than assuming that nonviolent action occupies an intermediary position on a grad...

Table of contents

• Cover
• Dedication
• Title page
• Copyright page
• Tables and Figures
• Preface
• Acknowledgments
• 1: Conceptualization and Debates
• 2: Civil Resistance in Theory and Practice
• 3: Proliferation and Expanding Forms of Civil Resistance
• 4: How Resistance Happens
• 5: The State and Civil Resisters
• 6: Transnational Relations and Intervention
• 7: Processes, Dynamics, and Outcomes
• 8: Conclusion
• References
• Index
• End User License Agreement