In the last section we were considering the non-violent resistance of
groups which had no choice in their means of opposing the will of an
invader, but who would have chosen violence if the weapons of violence
had been available to them. In those cases there was no question but
that the choice rested upon the expediency of the moment rather than
upon principle. In the cases of non-violence by necessity the purposes
of the resisting groups were defensive and negative, designed to induce
the withdrawal of the invader rather than to induce him to follow
actively a different policy.
In this section we are concerned with the action of groups designed to
modify the conduct of others in order to promote their own ideals. We
are concerned with people who presumably have a possible choice of
methods to accomplish their purposes. They might rely upon persuasion
and education of their opponents through emotional or intellectual
appeals; but such action would have no coercive element in it, so we
shall consider it in a later section. Or they might attempt to coerce
their opponents, either by violent or non-violent means. For the present
we are interested only in the latter through its usual manifestations:
the strike, the boycott, or other organized movements of
non-cooperation.[36]
At first sight such methods do not appear to be coercive in nature,
since they involve merely an abstention from action on the part of the
group offering the resistance. Actually they are coercive, however,
because of the absolute necessity for inter-group cooperation in the
maintenance of our modern social, economic, and political systems. Under
modern conditions the group against whom the resistance is directed must
have the cooperation of the resisting group in order to continue to
survive. When that cooperation is denied, the old dominant group is
forced to make concessions, _even against its will_, to the former
subordinate group in order to regain the help that they have refused to
render under the old conditions.[37]
The non-violent resisters themselves are also dependent upon inter-group
cooperation. Hence the outcome of this type of struggle usually depends
upon which of the two parties to the conflict can best or longest
dispense with the services of the other. If the resisters are less able
to hold out than the defenders, or if the costs of continued resistance
become in their eyes greater than the advantages which might be gained
by ultimate victory, they will lose their will to resist and their
movement will end in failure.
In all such struggles, both sides are greatly influenced by the opinions
of parties not directly concerned in the immediate conflict, but who
might give support or opposition to one side or the other depending upon
which could enlist their sympathies. Because of the deep-seated dislike
of violence, even in our western society, the side that first employs it
is apt to lose the sympathy of these third parties. As E. A. Ross has
put it:
"Disobedience without violence wins, _if it wins_, not so much by
touching the conscience of the masters as by exciting the sympathy
of disinterested onlookers. The spectacle of men suffering for a
principle _and not hitting back_ is a moving one. It obliges the
power holders to condescend to explain, to justify themselves. The
weak get a change of venue from the will of the stronger to the
court of public opinion, perhaps of world opinion."[38]
The stakes in such a struggle may be great or small. They range all the
way from the demand of a labor union for an increase of five cents an
hour in wages, to that of a whole people demanding political
independence from an imperial master, or a revolutionary change in the
economic or political power of the community.
The decision of the resisters to use non-violent means of opposition to
gain their ends may be based either upon principle or upon expediency.
In the former case they would say that the purposes they have in mind
would not be worth attaining if their achievement were to involve
physical violence toward other human beings; in the latter they would
act on the basis of the conclusion that in view of all the factors
involved their purposes could best be served by avoiding violence. These
factors would include the likelihood of counter-violence, an estimate of
the relative physical strength of the two parties to the conflict, and
the attitude of the public toward the party that first used violence. In
practice the action of those who avoid violence because they regard it
as wrong is very little different from that of those who avoid it
because they think that it will not serve their ends. But since there is
a moral difference between them, we shall postpone the consideration of
Satyagraha, or non-violent direct action on the basis of principle,
until the next section. It would deserve such separate treatment in any
case because of the great amount of attention which it commands in
pacifist circles all over the world.
At the outset it is necessary to dispel the idea that non-violent
resistance is something esoteric and oriental, and that it is seldom
used in western society. This type of action is used constantly in our
own communities, and the histories of western peoples present us with a
large number of examples of the use of non-violent action in political
and revolutionary conflicts. In the following discussion, the point of
view is that of the West.