The Small Acts of Kindness and Resistance

I want to reiterate what I wrote in 2008 in my The Small Things in Life post, about the small things in life being very important.  Small acts of kindness are the lifeblood of society and really make it work.  Without those acts of kindness, I think things would completely fall apart.  I want to see movements really start to use this hidden power, to do small acts of kindness as a central part of the process of changing society.

The Roman Empire was taken over by the Christians for many reasons, but I think the emphasis of early Christianity on being kind and giving to all was one of the main factors.  They helped plague victims when no one else would.  They lifted up the poor and helped those had lost their livelihoods.  Indeed, they became a poor people's movement and really disrupted the traditional society.  The only way the state could overcome them was to embrace them and set up a strict hierarchy (Constantine... sigh).  

I can only imagine how despairing the situation of early Christians must have seemed.  They were routinely tortured and crucified, killed because they persisted in living a different way.  The Roman Empire spanned the entire world they knew about, and there was no escaping it.  It must have seemed indomitable.  Yet they still continued doing those small acts of kindness and resistance.  The love and kindness they showed to the world was so contrary to the political status quo, and so surprisingly disruptive.  The Roman legal system was focused on property and not on people, prioritizing protection of property.  It was often up to the local authorities whether or not to persecute Christians, and they often did so in response to agitation from the public.  The public did not like the Christian emphasis on personal religion and their boycott of the pagan rituals that the public saw as essential to maintain the order of the universe.  As time went on though, Christians gained a reputation for being kind and giving.  I suspect killing Christians started to cause some cognitive dissonance among the public, should they kill people who act so kindly to strangers?  

Another fascinating aspect of this is how the official punishment was undermined as an effective tool.  Death was the usual punishment for righteous Christians, but more and more kept showing up to be killed.  The Roman magistrates even had to make a distinction between solicited martyrs and persecuted martyrs... they refused to kill solicited martyrs.  Can you imagine our court system refusing to punish people who willingly admit they broke the law?  That would be quite an interesting situation.  I think the number of people who were willing to step up and be killed shows both how powerful the message of kindness and love was and how deeply it was a resistance to the status quo.  Love and anger are the major emotional motivators, and early Christians figured out a way to combine love for each other with resistance to an unjust society.  It is an amazing feat.  They were so effective that they took over the empire.  All from the power of small individual acts and a willingness to suffer for their ideals.    

There is a great power in small acts.  With time they will win over a hostile public, and I can think of no other force that can change the inertia of a society so effectively.  

Wars are Arguments #2

Building on my last post, I would like to explain more about Satyagraha which is a method of conflict that goes to the very roots of social ills. Satyagraha's focus is to change society at a very basic level through organizing the populace to both improve their own lot and to act in concert to improve the society. This can take an infinite variety of forms, from encouraging better diet and exercise habits to developing and implementing better political systems. It even takes the form of civil resistance and disobedience. But the main thrust is a transformation of society itself, which is not the government, but the population. Changing minds and people's daily activities is the primary goal. Everything else is secondary to that focus.

Many may question why one should prioritize changing society instead of focusing on taking over the institutions that run society and then use those as a tool to change it. A careful look at history will show that whenever a movement focuses on taking the reigns of power, it always loses sight of the initial goal of improving society and becomes corrupted by the very means they sought to achieve their end, and in most cases fail to achieve the end anyway. Focusing on direct programs and campaigns to improve society has a two-fold benefit. It actually achieves the end of improving society and it brings the added benefit of building political power almost unconsciously. This political power will then almost naturally bring the institutions of power into its orbit over time.

But this is a slow process and not for the weak. A movement must be strong-willed as well as undogmatic in their approach to how to change society. Ever-improving the methods through practical application and revision is essential. This work will bring a movement into conflict with many groups, but through the judicious use of non-violence, these groups can be successfully turned to either acceptance or support. The weak will resort to violence while the strong remain indomitable in the face of oppression. Oppression and other such evils must be met with principled resistance. I found this sweet video introduction to civil resistance from Waging Nonviolence here is the article: http://wagingnonviolence.org/2010/08/a-succinct-introduction-to-civil-resistance/ the video itself is embedded below. I agree with most of it, but, similarly to what was said in Waging Nonviolence, I disagree with the supposition that nonviolence is not about winning over your opponents. Most successful revolutions whether they are violent or not have won over atleast large parts of the military and police. Look at the French Revolution, there was basically no internal military support for the King. Anyway, the video is still a good watch.

Civil Resistance: A First Look from ICNC on Vimeo.

Wars are Arguments

All wars are arguments about something.  This principle can even be expanded to conflicts. These arguments are about a wide variety of things... in the context of war between governments, the arguments are often over the assets that help create power; land, resources, rights to use common resources, and public perception of the government's credibility.  Revolutions and insurrections are often an argument over the role of government, how it treats people, and the government's and rebel group's credibility.  Even personal conflicts are arguments about something, such as money, or one party feels insulted and the other party refuses to apologize (which can also be boiled down to the perception of credibility).

Violence is not inherent in conflict, arguments are.  Conflicts end when the argument is resolved in a way that both parties can agree on.  Historically, the majority of both parties believed that if your armies were defeated in violent war, then you were defeated and should defer to the victor's will.  For the most part, war was seen for over two millennia to be the ultimate arbitrator to resolve international conflict.  This was possible thanks to the simple fact that everyone involved made an unspoken agreement that if you were defeated in violent combat then you stopped resisting.

This stopped being the case on the international scale around the time of the Napoleonic wars when the democratic and industrial forces changed the nature of warfare.  Famously the Spanish, who were defeated by Napoleon's armies, simply refused to be defeated.  They had shaken loose the mental straight-jacket that said violent war was the ultimate arbitrator.  Their resistance, while often violent, was a sign of things to come, where simply defeating an army was not enough to bring a solution to the argument.

You are not defeated as long as you still have the dignity and will to resist.  Threats of death and even death do not produce obedience or even an end to the argument.  "Fearful people do not act well."    The logic of violence presupposes that the opponent will act in a certain way, which is obedience.  This social construct is entirely escapable.  Refusing to embrace it confounds the violent opponent, because they simply do not know how to respond; conferring a significant advantage both tactically and strategically.

When a violent force confronts a non-violent opponent, it is the violent force's objective to provoke the non-violent opponent into becoming violent.  The violent force always has the advantage when it comes to violence, so it is to their advantage to deprive their opponent of the advantage of being non-violent.  If the non-violent force has the discipline to maintain it's dignity and remain non-violent, it deprives it's opponent of the ability to use violence in a legitimate way.  When violence is used against a stubbornly non-violent force, the violent organization loses its legitimacy and credibility, and is often shamed into surrender.

It may seem odd that a violent enemy can be defeated through non-violent means.  But remember, all conflict is an argument.  The point of the conflict is to get the other side to concede to a mutually agreed-upon conclusion.  Convincing the other side to agree will never again be as simple as it was before the Napoleonic Wars.  Non-violent resistance to violence will always sway the opinion of onlookers in favor of the non-violent party, it is a principle of human nature.  It will even go so far as to make the violent party question themselves and their actions.  That is the power of non-violence, it creates allies who pressure the other party, it undermines the other party's power (support from their population/allies), and makes the other party question itself about its own actions and motives.  This pressure, both external and internal, will always lead to a more beneficial agreement to the conflict for the non-violent party.

The Futility of Violence

Over the decade of contemplating the issue, I have really come to see violence as futile.  (I would like to make a distinction here, violence is completely different than resistance and force.  Both of which can be done more effectively without using violence).

  

The state has a monopoly on violence, and holy crap, do they exploit that monopoly.  They can easily harm and kill thousands without taking a single causality.  Their tactics have been refined over 5000 years of testing, and they have a institutional research infrastructure second to none.  Even from a violent standpoint the military and police arm of the government is so vast and so effective at violence that it is pointless to hit back.   Many may despair at the armies arrayed against the forces of social justice.  Not I.  For they may have the homefield advantage when it comes to violence, but they are so constricted and captured by the idea of violence that they are unable to fight any other way.  They are a prisoner of their own beliefs.  

By believing that violence is the only way to force people to do things, believing that it is the most powerful force known, and believing that it is, with all things considered, effective, is the key weakness that will allow non-violent resistance to triumph.  Non-violence performs a kind of ideological jujitsu on violence.  It turns what violence believes to be its greatest strength into its greatest weakness.  

Lets see, how to put this.  By committing acts of violence, people make themselves targets for the state to oppress.  The state's monopoly on violence is so ingrained in our society that when violence is committed by anyone else, that person automatically loses the moral high ground in the eyes of the public.  They are seen as a danger to the public, justifying the use of violence against them by the state, in the eyes of the public.  That is the typical scenario violent revolutions face.  Non-violent revolutions, however, totally throw off all the government's preconceived notions of conflict.  

How do you fight people who refuse to comply and refuse to respond violently?  With even partially effective politicking they can maintain the moral high ground against the government, making any violent sortie against them publicly deplorable.  They can non-violently provoke violence from the state in such a way that will undermine the population's belief in state supremacy.  Non-violence uses the violence of an oppressor to undermine their legitimacy. Turning their weapons into liabilities, and their attempted oppression into a PR disaster.  

A non-violent army would be 100x as effective as a violent one.  Imagine if we poured 200,000 unarmed people into our enemies' country?  What would they do?  What could they do?  They could try to kill them, but this would only cause them to lose prestige and support.  They could try to imprison them, but there are not enough prisons to hold them.  Deport them, they just come back.  Confine them and they will drain resources and sneak out.  Leave them alone and they will convert your population.  It is a lose/lose situation for a government.  None of their usual tools of control work against non-violence, and they are left utterly frustrated and stumped as to how to effectively fight back.  

There are some caveats to non-violence, however.  The cause has to be just, or one cannot maintain the moral high ground which is essential to victory.  The means have to be compatible with the end which is sought.  The people have to believe they are doing the right thing.  And, like anything else, it has to be organized, media-saavy, financially supported, and be able to maintain a certain base of support. 

So, this has been my most recent addition to the violence/non-violence debate.  As pre my previous post, I tried to write it in a non-competitive way that would not cause people who believe in violence to dig in their heels. 

In the News

Awesome news. There is an article about my friend Brian Kelly in the New York Times. Check it out: http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/23/nyregion/thecity/23sds.html?pagewanted=1&_r=1&ref=thecity

Also look at the list of media coverage of the sds 5th year anniversary events: http://studentsforademocraticsociety.org/march20/?q=node/26

It is so inspiring to see my fellow young adults being active and politically engaged. I am so proud of all my friends who got arrested in the past week. Ya'll are awesome.
This post is dedicated to all those who participated in those events! I love you all.