Judging Nonviolence

The Dispute Between Realists and Idealists

Manfred B. Steger

• Publisher: Routledge
• Year: 2013
• ISBN:
  9781136062100
• Edition: 1
• Topic: History
• Subtopic: World History
• Index: History

This text is an innovative and accessible work that introduces readers to the main arguments for and against the use of violence in politics. Indeed, the problem of political violence has acquired new salience in the wake of the September 11th terrorist attacks. Written by an experienced teacher and scholar of the subject, the book has been specially designed to engage readers by encouraging them to assume the role of impartial jurors in a simulated trial against nonviolence. This exciting participatory format allows readers to critical explore the main assumptions and myths that underpin various realist and idealist approaches to nonviolence. Key features of this text include: Coverage of the main idealist theories, traditions, methods and movements that favor non-violent political action Coverage of the main realist arguments against nonviolent strategies Examples of major nonviolent social and political movements from the early twentieth century to today

CHAPTER ONE

INTRODUCTION

Nonviolence on Trial

Nonviolence Accused: The Terrorist Attacks of September 11, 2001

Realism and Idealism

The Three Charges

Instructions to the Jurors

Clarification: What Is Meant by “Nonviolence”?

Suggestions for Further Reading and Thinking

Nonviolence Accused: The Terrorist Attacks of September 11, 2001

When al-Qaeda terrorists crashed three hijacked American commercial airliners into New York’s World Trade Center and the Pentagon in Washington, D.C., people around the world were shocked by the scale and ferocity of these attacks. Opinion polls taken in the United States and Europe in the aftermath of these events showed that citizens particularly disapproved of violence directed against unsuspecting civilians. Indeed, many people felt that no political end could ever justify the exercise of terrorist violence.

And yet, many opinion polls revealed that large majorities on both sides of the Atlantic endorsed the idea of responding to the attacks with a massive dose of retaliatory military violence. In the United States, about 90 percent of the population supported a full-scale “war on terrorism”—even if such a military campaign lasted for several years and cost taxpayers hundreds of billions of dollars. Invoking a nation’s right to self-defense, most commentators in the U.S. media concurred with President George W. Bush’s argument that the only “rational” way of dealing with such terrorist “evildoers” was to “smoke them out of their holes” and destroy their capacity to launch further attacks.

Opinion polls conducted throughout 2002 showed that only a small minority—about 5 to 10 percent of Americans—disagreed. Some of these dissenters argued that the terrorist attacks of September 11 should be seen not as an act of war against the United States but as a heinous crime against humanity. Expressing a qualified commitment to nonviolence, they favored an internationally coordinated response that would include the imposition of economic and political sanctions against nations harboring terrorists, the creation of an international police force to apprehend those responsible for the 9/11 attacks, and criminal trials of al-Qaeda terrorists before an international court of law. Only very few dissenters expressed an unqualified commitment to nonviolence by categorically opposing all forms of retaliatory military violence. They insisted that exchanges of lethal force would only pull the world further down a descending spiral of terrorist strikes and counterstrikes, ultimately setting the stage for a new generation of terrorists.

The overwhelming media reaction to these minority views was anger, scorn, and derision. Many commentators referred to the members of the dissenting minority as irrelevant “pacifists” blinded by their political naïveté and suffering from a lack of patriotism. These accusations were repeated even more stridently when, in the aftermath of 9/11, European and North American peace activists organized sizable demonstrations against the expanding war on terrorism.

Claiming that nonviolent strategies won’t work against hard-edged terrorists, mainstream media pundits presented the war on terrorism as an act of purest logic: kill or be killed. In fact, some commentators went even further, insisting that the pacifists’ refusal to endorse a military campaign amounted to a hypocritical, immoral, and treacherous position. Hypocritical because pacifists enjoy the liberties and democratic arrangements that someone else’s engagement in violence has created in the first place. Immoral because nonviolence does not constitute a realistic alternative strategy in a situation where one’s country has been attacked by ruthless killers. Treacherous because a commitment to non-violence not only undermines the virtues of patriotism and military resolve but also encourages terrorists to strike again.

BOX 1.1

WHAT IS PACIFISM?

The term “pacifism” refers to a system of norms, values, and beliefs that reflect opposition to war. Although pacifists usually support nonviolent forms of conflict resolution, it is important to remember that the concepts of pacifism and nonviolence are related but not necessarily the same. A pacifist is a person who holds that war is wrong and therefore opposes the violence of war. Whether a pacifist opposes all forms of violence may differ from person to person. Some pacifists make an “unqualified” or “absolute” commitment to nonviolence, arguing that violence is wrong under any conceivable circumstances. “Pragmatic” or “situational” pacifists explicitly renounce the violence of war, but are willing to consider milder forms of violence. Constituting a minority in most modern societies, pacifists are often derided as “traitors,” “cowards,” or “dreamers” by the majority who believe that, if employed legitimately, war and other forms of large-scale violence constitute a proper and necessary means of resolving political conflicts.

Although similar accusations have been leveled against pacifists and nonviolent activists for a long time, they have acquired new salience in the wake of the al-Qaeda attacks. Indeed, such a resolute rejection of nonviolence as both a philosophy and a method of political engagement is part and parcel of the dominant political ideology of realism.

Realism and Idealism

As noted above, the critics of nonviolence argue that those who enter the arena of politics had better adopt a “realistic” outlook on the world—one that sees the arena of power politics as moved primarily by self-interest and lust for power. From a realist perspective, ideals, morals, and concern for the common good are but rhetorical rationales for expedient, self-interested action. How do realists justify these assumptions?

First and foremost, they claim that human nature is fundamentally aggressive and, therefore, flawed and sinful. Hence, humans are prone to violent conflict. Greed, hatred, and aggression are the chief motivating forces of human behavior, realists say. They believe that fear of overwhelming violence plays an important restraining role in politics. After all, they insist, the only reliable way of keeping people’s destructive impulses in line is to create a governing authority whose capacity to unleash violence is greater than that of any other group in society.

BOX 1.2

NONVIOLENCE ACCUSED: TWO NEWSPAPER EXCERPTS

The American pacifists wish the Americans to not fight. If the Americans do not fight, the terrorists will attack America again. And now we know such attacks can kill many thousands of Americans. The American pacifists, therefore, are on the side of future mass murderers of Americans. They are objectively pro-terrorist…. A war has been declared; you are either on one side or another. You are either for doing what is necessary to capture and kill those who control and fund and harbor the terrorists, or you are for not doing this. If you are for not doing this, you are for allowing the terrorists to continue the attacks on America. You are saying, in fact: I believe that it is better to allow more Americans—perhaps a great many more—to be murdered than to capture and kill the murderers. That is the pacifists’ position, and it is evil.

Michael Kelly, The Washington Post, September 26, 2001

Pacifist demonstrations may work against the occasional repressive government or program, especially if the media are handy, but not against terrorism. In fact, terrorists love pacifists…. The pacifist who demonstrates against his own country’s military policies is exercising a right that was created with blood and born of violence. Not random violence, like the terrorist act, but violence resorted to out of necessity. That single fact is what makes the pacifist’s complaint so unpalatable.

Kathleen Parker, Chicago Tribune, November 28, 2001

Second, realists believe that the overriding interest of humans is biological survival. Ultimately, the inherent need to prolong one’s life overrides less tangible spiritual values and moral concerns. The most obvious strategy to ensure biological survival is to increase political power by building a strong state. The existence of a powerful state is essential for people who desire to secure their possessions and acquire new ones. Hence, the interests of the state predominate over all other interests and values.

Third, realists assume that we live in a world of scarcity. Hence, politics is a zero-sum game: there are winners and losers. Violent battles over those limited resources are an inevitable part of the human experience.

Overall, then, realists believe that war and other forms of violent behavior are sewn into the very fabric of human nature. In their view, the idealist desire to rid the world of violence is not only a utopian fantasy but also a dangerous notion whose realization would foster more aggressive behavior. Realists have no problem with violence as such; the pivotal question is who wields it and to what end. They insist that violence must be made “legitimate,” that is, put into the hands of the lawful representatives of the state solely for the purpose of maintaining domestic social order and repelling foreign aggression.

Pacifists and other adherents to nonviolence subscribe to an idealist model of politics. In their opinion, ideals, morals, and concern for the common good play a major role in politics. Self-interest and the lust for power are contingent social factors rooted in bad types of political organizations and poor forms of social communication. How do idealists justify their assumptions?

First and foremost, they argue that human nature is basically good. Given the fact that humans are malleable social animals, however, they are also susceptible to selfish behavior and other forms of corruption. Still, their violent impulses are not unalterable elements of their biological makeup but the result of bad forms of socialization. For example, some idealists argue that the capitalist economic system fosters competitiveness, selfishness, and materialism. Others make our political system of nation-states responsible for creating pernicious divisions among people. Idealists believe that love, not fear, constitutes the chief motivating force of human behavior. In their view, a profound reform of existing social institutions toward greater cooperation and better communication would drastically reduce violence within and among societies.

BOX 1.3

WHAT IS IDEOLOGY?

An ideology is a system of widely shared ideas, patterned beliefs, and guiding values accepted as fact by some group in society. Ideologies organize the tremendous complexity of the human experience into fairly simple and understandable images and slogans. Rooted in the power interests of particular groups and classes, ideologies always contain a political dimension, for they are ultimately about the many ways in which power is exercised, justified, and altered in society.

Second, idealists believe that people’s overriding interest is not merely biological survival but happiness and spiritual fulfillment. The best strategy to reach these objectives is to allow citizens equal access to political and economic power. A democratic system based on equality and individual liberty makes it easier for all citizens to cultivate high moral standards and secure ample material resources.

Third, idealists assume that we live in a world of plenty. Scarcity is not the natural state of affairs but a human-induced condition that reflects the workings of exploitative social arrangements. Once these arrangements have been reformed, violent struggles over limited resources will become a distant chapter in human history.

Overall, then, idealists believe that war and other forms of violent behavior are rooted in society, not in human nature. In their view, the desire to rid the world of violence is not a utopian fantasy but a feasible program whose realization would make our planet a better place. Idealists have a problem with violence as such; the question of who wields it and to what end is less important. Insisting that violence is not a necessary means for the maintenance of social order, idealists are instead guided by the ideals of peace and international cooperation.

BOX 1.4

REALISM IN INTERNATIONAL POLITICS

The term “realism” is associated with an anarchic model of international politics. “Anarchy” denotes the absence of a single global political authority—such as a world government—that could impose binding rules on nation-states. Given this inescapable condition of anarchy in the international sphere, sovereign nation-states must compete with each other in order to increase their power and ensure their survival. Thus, the interests of the state predominate over all other interests and values. Realists consider war and other forms of large-scale violence unavoidable features of political life.

BOX 1.5

IDEALISM IN INTERNATIONAL POLITICS

The term “idealism” is associated with a cooperative, interdependent model of international politics. Idealists believe that politics could be reorganized around global political institutions, such as a world government, that would impose binding rules on nation-states. Ceding much of their power to these global institutions, countries would no longer be bound to a relentless dynamic of national competition. In this way, war and other forms of large-scale violence could be eliminated from political life.

The exploration and evaluation of the main arguments emerging from these two opposing perspectives on nonviolence—realism and idealism—are at the center of this book. The moment has arrived when you, the critical reader, are asked to assume a more active role in discerning and evaluating the claims made by spokespersons for each side.

The Three Charges

For the remainder of this book, let us assume that you have been selected to serve as a juror in a trial of nonviolence. The jury system has had a long ...