Both in pacifist thought and in the criticisms of pacifism, a great deal
of confusion arises because of the inexact use of terms. We have already
seen that pacifists of many shades of opinion are united in their
refusal to participate in war. In this objection there is a negative
quality. The very word "non-violence" used in the title of this study
suggests this same negative attitude, and it was not long ago that
pacifists were generally known as "non-resistants." Although some of
those who oppose participation in war still insist upon calling
themselves "non-resistants"[8] many of the modern pacifists disclaim the
term because it is negative, and insist that the essence of pacifism is
the element of active goodwill toward all men.[9] Yet when confronted
with evil, even he who thinks of his pacifism as a positive attitude
must decide not only what means he _will_ use to oppose evil, but what
means he _will not_ use. At the moment when the society of which he is a
part insists that every one of its members participate in an enterprise
to employ these proscribed means, the pacifists of all shades of opinion
become "conscientious objectors." To what is it exactly that they
object?
Most answers to this question would say that they oppose "the use of
force," "violence," "coercion," or in some cases, any "resistance" to
evil whatever. But pacifists themselves have not been agreed upon the
meanings and implications of these terms, and the opponents of pacifism
have hastened to define them in such a way as to deny validity to the
pacifist philosophy. Before we can proceed with our discussion we must
define these terms for ourselves, as we shall use them in the present
study.
_Force_ we may define as physical or intangible power or influence to
effect change in the material or immaterial world. _Coercion_ is the use
of either physical or intangible force to compel action contrary to the
will or reasoned judgment of the individual or group subjected to such
force. _Violence_ is the willful application of force in such a way that
it is physically or psychologically injurious to the person or group
against whom it is applied. _Resistance_ is any opposition either
physical or psychological to the positive will or action of another. It
is the negative or defensive counterpart of coercion.
The very diversity of terms used to describe the pacifist position shows
that none of them satisfactorily expresses the essence of the pacifist
philosophy. Among those commonly used are: (1) non-resistance, (2)
passive resistance, (3) non-violent resistance, (4) super-resistance,
(5) non-violent non-cooperation, (6) civil disobedience, (7) non-violent
coercion, (8) non-violent direct action, (9) war without violence, and
(10) Satyagraha or soul force.[10]
Of these terms only "non-resistance" implies acquiescence in the will of
the evil-doer; all the rest suggest an approval of resistance. Every one
of them, even "non-resistance" itself, contemplates the use of some
intangible moral force to oppose evil and a refusal to take an active
part in committing evil. At least the last five indicate the positive
desire to change the active policy of the evil-doer, either by
persuasion or by compulsion. As we shall see, in practice they tend to
involve a coercive element. Only in their rejection of violence are all
these terms in agreement. Perhaps we are justified in accepting
_opposition to violence_ as the heart of the pacifist philosophy. Under
the definition of violence which has been suggested, this would amount
to virtually the same thing as saying that the pacifist has such respect
for every human personality that he cannot, under any circumstances
whatsoever, intentionally inflict permanent injury upon any human being
either physically or psychologically. This statement deserves further
examination.
All pacifists approve the use of "force," as we have defined it, and
actually do use it, since it includes such things as "the force of
love," "the force of example," or "the force of public opinion."[11]
There are very few pacifists who would draw the line even at the use of
_physical_ force. Most of them would approve it in restraining children
or the mentally ill from injuring themselves or others, or in the
organized police force of a community under the proper safeguards of the
courts and law.[12]
Many pacifists are also willing to accept coercion, provided it be
non-violent. The strike, the boycott, or even the mass demonstration
involve an element of coercion as we have defined that term. Shridharani
assures us that despite Gandhi's insistence to the contrary, "In the
light of events in India in the past twenty years as well as in the
light of certain of Gandhi's own activities, ... it becomes apparent
that Satyagraha does contain the element of coercion, if in a somewhat
modified form."[13] Since to some people "coercion" implies revenge or
punishment, Shridharani would, however, substitute the word "compulsion"
for it. Gandhi himself and many of his followers would claim that the
techniques of Satyagraha are only a marshalling of the forces of
sympathy, public opinion, and the like, and that they are persuasive
rather than coercive. At any rate a distinction, on the basis of the
spirit in which they are undertaken, between types of action which are
outwardly similar seems perfectly valid.
There are other pacifists who would even accept a certain element of
violence, as we have defined it, provided it were not physical in
nature. Some persons with boundless good will feel that even physical
violence may be justified on occasion if it is not accompanied by hatred
toward its object.[14] However, there would be few who consider
themselves pacifists who would accept such a position.
We are again forced to the conclusion that it is violence as we have
defined it to which the pacifist objects. At this point, the chief
difference between the pacifist and the non-pacifist is that the latter
defines violence as does Clarence Case, as "the _unlawful_ or
_unregulated_ use of destructive physical force against persons or
things."[15] Under such a definition, war itself, since it is sanctioned
by law, would no longer involve violence. Thus for the non-pacifist it
is ethically acceptable to use lawful violence against unlawful
violence; for the pacifist, violence against any personality is never
ethically justified.[16]
On the other hand, a very large group of pacifists insist upon
discarding these negative definitions in favor of one that is wholly
positive. Maurice L. Rowntree has said: "The Pacifist way of life is the
way that brings into action all the sense and wisdom, all the passion of
love and goodwill that can be brought to bear upon the situation."[17]
In this study, no attempt will be made to determine which of the many
pacifist positions is most sound ethically. Before any person can make
such a determination for himself, however, it is necessary that he
understand the differences between the various approaches to the problem
of influencing other people either to do something which he believes
should be done, or to refrain from doing something which he feels ought
not to be done.
It might be helpful for us in our thinking to construct a scale at one
end of which we place violence coupled with hatred, and at the other,
dependence only upon the application of positive love and goodwill. In
the intermediate positions we might place (1) violence without hatred,
(2) non-violence practiced by necessity rather than because of
principle, (3) non-violent coercion, (4) Satyagraha and non-violent
direct action, and (5) non-resistance.
We need, at the outset, to recognize that we are speaking primarily of
the relationships between social groups rather than between individuals.
As Reinhold Niebuhr has so ably pointed out, our ethical concepts in
these two areas are greatly at variance with one another.[18] The
pacifist principles are already widely accepted as ideals in the affairs
of individuals. Every ethical religion teaches them in this area, and
the person who rejects them is definitely the exception in our western
society, until the violent man is regarded as subject to the discipline
of society in general.
Our real concern in this study is with non-violent means of achieving
group purposes, whether they be defensive and conservative in character,
or whether they be changes in the existing institutions of the social
order. The study is not so much concerned with the religious and ethical
bases of these techniques as it is with a consideration of their
application in practice, and their effectiveness in achieving the
purposes which the group in question has in view. We shall begin at one
end of our scale and proceed to discuss each type of action in turn.