Those who do not share the pacifist philosophy are prone to insist that
the pacifists place far too much emphasis upon the refusal to employ
physical force. These critics maintain that force is non-moral in
character, and that the only moral question involved in its use is
whether or not the purposes for which it is employed are "good" or
"bad." They fail to realize that these concepts themselves arise from a
subjective set of values, different for every social group on the basis
of its own tradition and for every individual on the basis of his own
experience and training.
The "absolute" pacifist places at the very apex of his scale of values
respect for every human personality so great that he cannot inflict
injury on any human being regardless of the circumstances in which he
finds himself. He would rather himself suffer what he considers to be
injustice, or even see other innocent people suffer it, than to arrogate
to himself the right of sitting in judgment on his fellow men and
deciding that they must be destroyed through his action. For him to
inflict injury or death upon any human being would be to commit the
greatest iniquity of which he can conceive, and would create within his
own soul a sense of guilt so great that acceptance of any other evil
would be preferable to it.
The person who acts on the basis of such a scale of values is not
primarily concerned with the outward expediency of his action in turning
the evil-doer into new ways, although he is happy if his action does
have incidental desirable results. He acts as he does because of a deep
conviction about the nature of the universe in which all men are
brothers, and in which every personality is sacred. No logical argument
to act otherwise can appeal to him unless it is based upon assumptions
arising out of this conviction.
Those who place their primary moral emphasis upon respect for human
personality are led to hold many other values as well as their supreme
value of refusing to use violence against their fellow men. Except in
time of war, when governments insist that their citizens take part in
mass violence, the absolute pacifist is apt to serve these other values,
which he shares with many non-pacifists, without attracting the
attention which distinguishes him from other men of goodwill. He insists
only that in serving these subsidiary values he must not act in any way
inconsistent with his highest value.
Many pacifists, and all non-pacifists, differ from the absolutists in
that they place other values before this supreme respect for every human
personality. The pacifists who do so, refuse to inflict injury on their
fellows not because this is itself their highest value, but because they
believe other less objectionable methods are more effective for
achieving their highest purposes, or because they accept the argument
that the means they use must be consistent with the ends they seek. They
would say that it is impossible to achieve universal human brotherhood
by methods which destroy the basis for such brotherhood.
Such persons assess non-violence as a _tactic_, rather than accepting it
as a value in itself. John Lewis comes to the conclusion that under
certain circumstances violence is a more effective method. Gandhi
believes in non-violence both as a principle and as the most effective
means of achieving his purposes. Every individual who looks upon
non-violence as only a means, rather than as an end in itself, will
accept or reject it on the basis of his estimate of the expediency of
non-violent methods. Some come to the conclusion that violence can never
be effective and therefore refuse to use it under any circumstances;
others decide on each new occasion whether violence or non-violence will
best serve their ends in that particular situation. In such cases the
question is one of fact; the decision must be based upon the available
evidence.
From the diversity of opinions that exist at the present time it is
obvious that the social sciences are not yet ready to give an
unequivocal answer to this question of fact. Since the values that men
hold subjectively are themselves social facts which the scientist must
take into account, and since they vary from age to age, community to
community, and individual to individual, it may never be possible to
find the final answer. Meanwhile the individual facing the necessity for
action must answer the question for himself on the basis of the best
information available to him. Even if he refuses to face the issue for
himself and accepts the prevalent idea of our own day that violence is
an effective means of achieving desirable purposes, he has actually
answered the question without giving thought to it.
The potential tragedy of our generation is that the whole world has been
plunged into war on the basis of the prevalent assumption that violence
is an effective means of achieving high social purposes. Even that part
of the planning for peace that is based upon maintaining international
order by force rests upon this same assumption. If the assumption be
false, mankind has paid a terrible price for its mistake.
Another assumption on which the advocates of violence act is that the
use of physical force in a noble cause inevitably brings about the
triumph of that cause. History gives us no basis for such an assumption.
There is much evidence that force sometimes fails, even when it is used
on the "right" side. Although the sense of fighting in a righteous cause
may improve the morale and thus increase the effectiveness of an army,
actually wars are won by the _stronger_ side. It is a curious fact that
on occasion both opposing armies may feel that they are fighting on the
side of righteousness. Napoleon summarized the soldier's point of view
when he said that God was on the side of the largest battalions. During
the uncertain process of violent conflict, the destruction of human
life--innocent and guilty alike--goes on.
Just as there is evidence that violence used in a righteous cause is not
always successful, there is evidence that non-violent methods sometimes
succeed. Without attempting to give the final answer to the question
whether violence creates so much destruction of human values that its
apparent successes are only illusory, we can say that the success or
failure of both violence and non-violence is determined by the
conditions under which both are used, and attempt to discover the
circumstances under which they have been effective.
(1) No great social movement can arise unless the grievance against the
existing order is great and continuous, or the demand for a new order is
so deeply ingrained in the minds of the people in the movement that they
are willing to expend great effort and undergo great sacrifices in order
to bring about the desired change.
(2) The group devoted to the idea of change must be large enough to have
an impact on the situation. This is true whether the group desires to
use violent or non-violent methods. In any case there will be a
balancing of forces between those desiring change and those who oppose
it. All of the non-violent techniques we have considered require
sufficient numbers so that either their refusal of cooperation, their
participation in politics, or their practice of positive goodwill has a
significant effect upon the whole community.
(3) The group that has a strong desire to bring about social change may
be augmented in strength by the support of other elements in the
population who do not feel so strongly on the issue. The less vigorous
support of such neutrals may be the element that swings the balance in
favor of the group desiring change. This "third party" group may also
remain indifferent to the conflict. In that case the result will be
determined solely by the relative strength of the direct participants.
In any case, the group desiring change will be defeated if it alienates
the members of the third party so that they join the other side. This
latter consideration gives a great advantage to the practitioners of
non-violence, since in our own day people generally are disposed to
oppose violence, or at least "unlawful" violence, and to sympathize with
the victims of violence, especially if they do not fight back. A
definite commitment on the part of the reformers not to use violence may
go far toward winning the initial support of the group neutral in the
conflict.
(4) These conditions of success must be created through the use of
education and persuasion prior to taking action. The sense of grievance
or the desire for social change must be developed in this way if it does
not already exist. Even such a violent movement as the French Revolution
grew out of a change in the intellectual climate of France created by
the writers of the preceding century. Only when a large enough group has
been won over to the cause of reform by such an educational campaign can
the second requisite for success be obtained. Finally, much educational
work must be done among the less interested third parties in order to
predispose them to favor the changes advocated and to sympathize with
the group taking part in the movement of reform.
The final result of any social conflict is determined by the balancing
of forces involved. Violence itself can never succeed against a stronger
adversary, so those who desire to bring about social change or
revolution by violence have to begin with the process of education to
build a group large enough to overcome the violent forces which are
likely to be arrayed against them. Even a violent revolution must be
preceded by much non-violent educational preparation. But even when the
group using violence has become large enough to overcome the physical
force arrayed against it, its victory rests upon the coercion of its
opponents rather than upon their conversion. Though defeated, the
opponents still entertain their old concepts and look forward to the day
of retribution, or to the counter-revolution. A social order so
established rests upon a very unstable foundation. Revolutionaries have
attempted in such circumstances to "liquidate" all the opposition, but
it is doubtful that they have ever been completely successful in doing
so. The ruthless use of violence in the process of liquidation has
usually alienated third parties against the regime that uses it, and
thus augmented the group that might support the counter-revolution.
Advocates of non-violence must start in the same way as the violent
revolutionaries to build their forces through persuasion and education.
They must assess properly the attitude of the third party and carry on
educational work with this group until it is certain that it will not go
over to the other side at the moment of action.
By the time a revolutionary or reforming group was large enough to use
violence successfully, and to weather the storm of the
counter-revolution or reaction, it would already have won to its side so
large a portion of the community that it could probably succeed without
the use of violence. This would certainly be true in a country like the
United States. We must ask the question as to whether the energy
consumed in the use of violence might not bring better results if it
were expended upon additional education and persuasion, without
involving the destruction of human life, human values, and property
which violence inevitably entails.
Even most of the ardent advocates of war and violent revolution admit
that violence is only an undesirable necessity for the achievement of
desirable ends. Non-violent methods pursued with the same commitment and
vigor would be just as likely to succeed in the immediate situation as
violence, without bringing in their train the tremendous human suffering
attendant upon violence. More important is the fact that a social order
based upon consent is more stable than one based upon coercion. If we
are interested in the long range results of action, non-violence is much
more likely to bring about the new society than is violence, because it
fosters rather than destroys the sense of community upon which any new
social order must be founded.
* * * * *