"In the storm we found each other." "In the storm we clung together."
These words are found in the opening paragraphs of "_Hey! Yellowbacks!"
The War Diary of a Conscientious Objector_. Ernest L Meyer uses them to
describe the psychological process by which a handful of men--a few
professors and a lone student--at the University of Wisconsin grew into
unity because they opposed the First World War, when everyone around
them was being carried away in the enthusiasm which marked the first
days of American participation. If there had been no storm, they might
not have discovered their affinity, but as it was, despite the disparity
of their interests and backgrounds, they found themselves in agreement
on the most fundamental of their values, when all the rest chose to go
another way. By standing together they all gained strength for the
ordeals through which each must go, and they were filled with the spirit
of others before them and far removed from them, who had understood life
in the same way.[1]
The incident may be taken as symbolic of the experience through which
pacifists have gone in this Second World War, too. Men and women of many
creeds, of diverse economic backgrounds, of greatly divergent
philosophies, with wide variations in education, have come together in
the desire to sustain one another and aid one another in making their
protest against war. Each in his own way has refused to participate in
the mass destruction of human life which war involves, and by that
refusal has been united by the strongest bonds of sympathy with those of
his fellows who have done likewise. But it is the storm that has brought
unity. When the skies clear, there will be a memory of fellowship
together, but there will also be a realization that in the half light we
have seen only one aspect of each other's being, and that there are
enormous differences between us. Our future hope of achieving the type
of world we want will demand a continuation of our sense of unity,
despite our diversities.
At present pacifism is no completely integrated philosophy of life. Most
of us would be hard pressed to define the term "pacifist" itself.
Despite the fact that according to the Latin origins of the word it
means "peace maker," it is small wonder that our non-pacifist friends
think of the pacifist as a negative obstructionist, because until the
time came to make a negative protest against the evil of war we
ourselves all too often forgot that we were pacifists. In other times,
if we have been peace-makers at all, we have thought of ourselves
merely as doing the duty of citizens, and, in attempting to overcome
some of the causes of conflict both within our domestic society and in
the relations between nations, we have willingly merged ourselves with
other men of goodwill whose aims and practices were almost identical to
ours.
Since the charge of negativism strikes home, many pacifists defend
themselves by insisting that they stand primarily for a positive
program, of which war-resistance is only a pre-requisite. They oppose
war because it is evil in itself, but they oppose it also because the
type of human brotherhood for which they stand can be realized only when
war is eliminated from the world. Their real aim is the creation of the
new society--long and imperfect though that process of creation may be.
They share a vision, but they are still groping for the means of moving
forward towards its achievement. They are generally convinced that some
means are inappropriate to their ends, and that to use such means would
automatically defeat them; but they are less certain about the means
which _will_ bring some measure of success.
One section of the pacifist movement believes that it has discovered a
solution to the problem in what it calls "non-violent direct action."
This group derives much of its inspiration from Gandhi and his
non-violent movement for Indian independence. For instance, the
Fellowship of Reconciliation has a committee on non-violent direct
action which concerns itself with applying the techniques of the Gandhi
movement to the solution of pressing social issues which are likely to
cause conflict within our own society, especially discrimination against
racial minorities. As a "textbook" this group has been using Krishnalal
Shridharani's analysis of the Gandhi procedures, _War Without
Violence_.[2] The advocates of "non-violent direct action" believe that
their method can bring about the resolution of any conflict through the
ultimate defeat of the forces of evil, and the triumph of justice and
goodwill. In a widely discussed pamphlet, _If We Should Be Invaded_,
issued just before the outbreak of the present war, Jessie Wallace
Hughan, of the War Resisters League, maintained that non-violent
resistance would be more effective even in meeting an armed invasion
than would reliance upon military might.[3]
Many pacifists have accepted the general thesis of the advocates of
non-violent direct action without analyzing its meaning and
implications. Others have rejected it on the basis of judgments just as
superficial. Much confusion has crept into the discussion of the
principle and into its application because of the constant use of
ill-defined terms and partially formulated ideas. It is the purpose of
the present study to analyze the positions of both the friends and
opponents of non-violent direct action within the pacifist movement in
the hope of clarifying thought upon this vitally important question.
Before we can proceed with our discussion, we must make a clear
distinction between non-violence as a principle, accepted as an end in
itself, and non-violence as a means to some other desired end. Much of
the present confusion in pacifist thought arises from a failure to make
this distinction.
On the one hand, the absolute pacifist believes that all men are
brothers. Therefore, he maintains that the supreme duty of every
individual is to respect the personality of every other man, and to love
him, no matter what evil he may commit, and no matter how greatly he may
threaten his fellows or the values which the pacifist holds most dear.
Under no circumstances can the pacifist harm or destroy the person who
does evil; he can use only love and sacrificial goodwill to bring about
conversion. This is his highest value and his supreme principle. Though
the heavens should fall, or he himself and all else he cherishes be
destroyed in the process, he can place no other value before it. To the
pacifist who holds such a position, non-violence is imperative _even if
it does not work_. By his very respect for the personality of the
evil-doer, and his insistence upon maintaining the bond of human
brotherhood, he has already achieved his highest purpose and has won his
greatest victory.
But much of the present pacifist argument in favor of non-violence is
based rather upon its expediency. Here, we are told, is a means of
social action that _works_ in achieving the social goals to which
pacifists aspire. Non-violence provides a moral force which is more
powerful than any physical force. Whether it be used by the individual
or by the social group, it is, in the long run, the most effective way
of overcoming evil and bringing about the triumph of good. The
literature is full of stories of individuals who have overcome
highwaymen, or refractory neighbors, by the power of love.[4] More
recent treatments such as Richard Gregg's _Power of Non-Violence_[5]
present story after story of the successful use of non-violent
resistance by groups against political oppression. The history of the
Gandhi movement in India has seemed to provide proof of its expediency.
Even the argument in Aldous Huxley's _Ends and Means_, that we can
achieve no desired goal by means which are inconsistent with it, still
regards non-violent action as a _means_ for achieving some other end,
rather than an _end_ in itself.[6]
So prevalent has such thinking become among pacifists, that it is not
surprising that John Lewis, in his closely reasoned book, _The Case
Against Pacifism_, bases his whole attack on the logic of the pacifist
position upon the theory that pacifists _must_, as he does, hold other
values above their respect for individual human personalities. Even in
speaking of "absolute" pacifism he says, "The most fundamental objection
to war is based on the conviction that violence and the taking of human
life, being themselves wrong, cannot lead to anything but evil."[7] Thus
he defines the absolute pacifist as one who accepts the ends and means
argument of Huxley, which is really an argument based upon expediency,
rather than defining him correctly as one who insists that violence and
the taking of human life are the greatest evils, under any conditions,
and therefore cannot be justified, even if they could be used for the
achievement of highly desirable ends.
Maintaining as Lewis does that respect for every human personality is
not their highest value, non-pacifists attack pacifism almost entirely
on the ground that in the present state of world society it is not
expedient--that it is "impractical." Probably much of the pacifist
defense of the position is designed to meet these non-pacifist
arguments, and to persuade non-pacifists of goodwill that they can
really best serve _their_ highest values by adopting the pacifist
technique. Such reasoning is perfectly legitimate, even for the
"absolutist," but he should recognize it for what it is--a mere
afterthought to his acceptance of non-violence as a principle.
The whole absolutist argument is this: (1) Since violence to any human
personality is the greatest evil, I can never commit it. (2) But, at the
same time, it is fortunate that non-violent means of overcoming evil are
more effective than violent means, so I can serve my highest
value--respect for every human personality--and at the same time serve
the other values I hold. Or to say the same thing in positive terms, I
can achieve my other ends _only_ by employing means which are consistent
with those ends.
On the other hand, many pacifists do in fact hold the position that John
Lewis is attacking, and base their acceptance of pacifism entirely on
the fact that it is the best means of obtaining the sort of social or
economic or political order that they desire. Others, in balancing the
destruction of violent conflict against what they concede might be
gained by it, say that the price of social achievement through violent
means is too high--that so many of their values are destroyed in the
process of violence that they must abandon it entirely as a means, and
find another which is less destructive.
Different as are the positions of the absolute and the relative
pacifists, in practice they find themselves united in their logical
condemnation of violence as an effective means for bringing about social
change. Hence there is no reason why they cannot join forces in many
respects. Only a relatively small proportion, even of the absolutists,
have no interest whatever in bringing about social change, and are thus
unable to share in this aspect of pacifist thinking.