diff options
Diffstat (limited to '18493.txt')
| -rw-r--r-- | 18493.txt | 3652 |
1 files changed, 3652 insertions, 0 deletions
diff --git a/18493.txt b/18493.txt new file mode 100644 index 0000000..287ecdc --- /dev/null +++ b/18493.txt @@ -0,0 +1,3652 @@ +Project Gutenberg's Introduction to Non-Violence, by Theodore Paullin + +This eBook is for the use of anyone anywhere at no cost and with +almost no restrictions whatsoever. You may copy it, give it away or +re-use it under the terms of the Project Gutenberg License included +with this eBook or online at www.gutenberg.org + + +Title: Introduction to Non-Violence + +Author: Theodore Paullin + +Release Date: June 2, 2006 [EBook #18493] + +Language: English + +Character set encoding: ASCII + +*** START OF THIS PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK INTRODUCTION TO NON-VIOLENCE *** + + + + +Produced by Mark C. Orton, Martin Pettit and the Online +Distributed Proofreading Team at http://www.pgdp.net + + + + + + + NON-VIOLENT ACTION + IN TENSION AREAS: + Series III: Number 1 + July 1944. + + + INTRODUCTION + TO + NON-VIOLENCE + + + _By_ + THEODORE PAULLIN + + + THE PACIFIST RESEARCH BUREAU + 1201 CHESTNUT STREET + PHILADELPHIA 7, PENNSYLVANIA + + + MEMBERS OF THE PACIFIST RESEARCH BUREAU + + +Charles Boss, Jr. Isidor B. Hoffman +Henry J. Cadbury John Haynes Holmes +Allan Knight Chalmers E. Stanley Jones +Abraham Cronbach John Howland Lathrop +Albert E. Day Frederick J. Libby +Dorothy Day A. J. Muste +Edward W. Evans Ray Newton +Jane Evans Mildred Scott Olmsted +F. Burt Farquharson Kirby Page +Harry Emerson Fosdick Clarence E. Pickett +Harrop A. Freeman Guy W. Solt +Elmer A. Fridell Douglas V. Steere +Richard Gregg Dan West +Harold Hatch Norman Whitney + E. Raymond Wilson + + +FINANCIAL SUPPORT + +The Pacifist Research Bureau is financed entirely by the contributions +of organizations and individuals who are interested in seeing this type +of research carried on. We trust that you may desire to have a part in +this positive pacifist endeavor to aid in the formulation of plans for +the world order of the future. Please make contributions payable to The +Pacifist Research Bureau, 1201 Chestnut Street, Philadelphia 7, +Pennsylvania. Contributions are deductible for income tax purposes. + + + + +DIRECTOR'S FOREWORD + + + "When I use a word," Humpty Dumpty said, in a rather scornful tone, + "it means just what I choose it to mean--neither more nor less." + + "The question is," said Alice, "whether you _can_ make words mean + different things." + + * * * * * + +In the writings of pacifists and non-pacifists concerning theories of +and experiences with non-violence, there is a clear lack of uniformity +in the use of words. + +The present booklet, introducing the Bureau's new series on _Non-Violent +Action in Tension Areas_, distinguished by green covers, critically +examines pacifist terminology. But it does more, for it analyzes various +types of non-violence, evaluates examples of non-violence referred to in +previous literature, and points to new sources of case material. + +Dr. Theodore Paullin, Assistant Director of the Bureau, is the author of +this study. The manuscript has been submitted to and reviewed by +Professor Charles A. Ellwood and Professor Hornell Hart, both of the +Department of Sociology, Duke University; and by Richard B. Gregg, +author of several works on the philosophy and practice of non-violence. +Their criticisms and suggestions have proved most helpful, but for any +errors of interpretation the author is responsible. + +The Pacifist Research Bureau frankly bases its work upon the philosophy +of pacifism: that man should exercise such respect for human personality +that he will employ only love and sacrificial good will in opposing evil +and that the purpose of all human endeavor should be the creation of a +world brotherhood in which cooperative effort contributes to the good of +all. A list of pamphlets published or in preparation appears on the back +cover. + + HARROP A. FREEMAN, + Executive Director + + +_Any organization ordering 500 or more copies of any pamphlet published +by the Pacifist Research Bureau may have its imprint appear on the title +page along with that of the Bureau. The prepublication price for such +orders is $75.00 for each 500 copies._ + + * * * * * + + TABLE OF CONTENTS + + + I. INTRODUCTION: ON TERMS 1 + Definition of Terms 5 + + II. VIOLENCE WITHOUT HATE 9 + Revolutionary Anarchism 10 + Abraham Lincoln 11 + The Church and War 11 + + III. NON-VIOLENCE BY NECESSITY 12 + Non-Violent Resistance to Invaders 13 + Chinese Boycotts Against Foreigners 15 + Egyptian Opposition to Great Britain 16 + + IV. NON-VIOLENT COERCION 17 + The Labor Strike 19 + The Boycott 21 + Non-Violent Coercion by the American Colonies 22 + Irish Opposition to Great Britain After 1900 23 + Strikes with Political Purposes 24 + Non-Violence in International Affairs 24 + + V. SATYAGRAHA OR NON-VIOLENT DIRECT ACTION 25 + The Origins of Satyagraha 26 + The Process of Satyagraha 27 + The Philosophy of Satyagraha 29 + The Empirical Origins of Gandhi's Method 31 + Non-Cooperation 32 + Fasting 33 + The American Abolition Movement 34 + + VI. NON-RESISTANCE 36 + The Mennonites 37 + The New England Non-Resistants 39 + Tolstoy 41 + + VII. ACTIVE GOODWILL AND RECONCILIATION 43 + Action in the Face of Persecution 44 + Coercion or Persuasion? 46 + Ministering to Groups in Conflict 47 + The Power of Example 48 + Work for Social Reform 49 + Political Action and Compromise 50 + The Third Alternative 51 + +VIII. CONCLUSIONS 54 + + * * * * * + +PREFACE + + +The purpose of the present study is to analyze the various positions +found within the pacifist movement itself in regard to the use of +non-violent techniques of bringing about social change in group +relationships. In its attempt to differentiate between them, it makes no +pretense of determining which of the several pacifist positions is +ethically most valid. Hence it is concerned with the application of +non-violent principles in practice and their effectiveness in achieving +group purposes, rather than with the philosophical and religious +foundations of such principles. It is hoped that the study may help +individuals to clarify their thinking within this field, but the author +has no brief for one method as against the others. Each person must +determine his own principles of action on the basis of his conception of +the nature of the universe and his own scale of ethical values. + +The examples chosen to illustrate the various positions have been taken +largely from historical situations in this country and in Europe, +because our traditional education has made us more familiar with the +history of these areas than with that of other parts of the world. It +also seemed that the possibilities of employing non-violent methods of +social change would be more apparent if it was evident that they had +been used in the West, and were not only applicable in Oriental +societies. It is unfortunate that this deliberate choice has eliminated +such valuable illustrative material as the work of Kagawa in Japan. The +exception to this general rule in the case of "Satyagraha" has been made +because of the wide-spread discussion of this movement in all parts of +the world in our day. + +I want to acknowledge with great appreciation the suggestions I have +obtained from the preliminary work done for the Pacifist Research Bureau +in this field by Russell Curtis and Haridas T. Muzumdar. + + THEODORE PAULLIN +July 1, 1944 + + * * * * * + +INTRODUCTION TO NON-VIOLENCE + + * * * * * + + + + +I. INTRODUCTION: ON TERMS + + +"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. + +FOOTNOTES: + +[1] Ernest L. Meyer, "_Hey! Yellowbacks!_" (New York: John Day, 1930), +3-6. + +[2] Krishnalal Shridharani, _War Without Violence_ (New York: Harcourt +Brace, 1939); _Selections from War Without Violence_ was published by +the Fellowship of Reconciliation, 2929 Broadway, New York, as a +pamphlet, in 1941. + +[3] Jessie Wallace Hughan, _If We Should Be Invaded: Facing a Fantastic +Hypothesis_ (War Resisters League, New York, 1939). A new edition with +the title _Pacifism and Invasion_ was issued in 1942. + +[4] Many later writers have selected their examples from the large +number presented by Adin Ballou, _Christian Non-Resistance: In All Its +Important Bearings_ (Philadelphia: Universal Peace Union, 1910); first +published in 1846. + +[5] Richard B. Gregg, _The Power of Non-Violence_ (Philadelphia: +Lippincott, 1934). A new and revised edition of this book is to be +published by Fellowship Publications, N. Y., 1944. + +[6] Aldous Huxley, _Ends and Means: An Inquiry into the Nature of Ideals +and the Methods Employed for Their Realization_ (New York: Harpers, +1937). + +[7] John Lewis, _The Case Against Pacifism_ (London: Allen and Unwin, +1940), 23. + + +Definition of Terms + +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. + +FOOTNOTES: + +[8] Guy F. Hershberger makes a definite distinction between +non-resistance and pacifism. He says that the former term describes the +faith and life of those "Who cannot have any part in warfare because +they believe the Bible forbids it, and who renounce all coercion, even +nonviolent coercion." He goes on to say, "Pacifism, on the other hand, +is a term which covers many types of opposition to war. Some modern +so-called pacifists are opposed to all wars, and some are not. Some who +oppose all wars find their authority in the will of God, while others +find it largely in human reason. There are many other differences among +them." "Biblical Nonresistance and Modern Pacifism," _The Mennonite +Quarterly Review_, XVII, (July, 1943), 116. + +Hershberger is here defining pacifism broadly to include the European +meaning of opposition to war, but not necessarily a refusal to take part +in it. In the United States, and generally in Great Britain, the term is +ordinarily applied only to those who actually refuse participation in +war. + +[9] See Devere Allen, _The Fight for Peace_ (New York: Macmillan, 1930), +531-540. + +[10] On the origins of these terms see Haridas T. Muzumdar, _The United +Nations of the World_ (New York: Universal, 1942), 201-203. + +[11] John Haynes Holmes, using the older term rather than "pacifist," +has said, "The true non-resistant is militant--but he lifts his +militancy from the plane of physical, to the plane of moral and +spiritual force." _New Wars for Old_ (New York: Dodd, Mead, 1916), xiii. + +[12] Cecil John Cadoux, _Christian Pacifism Re-examined_ (Oxford: Basil +Blackwell, 1940), 15-16; Leyton Richards, _Realistic Pacifism_ (Chicago: +Willett, Clark, 1935), 3. + +[13] Shridharani, _War Without Violence_, 292. + +[14] John Lewis says, "We must draw a sharp distinction between the use +of violence to achieve an unjust end and its use as police action in +defence of the rule of law." _Case Against Pacifism_, 85. + +[15] Clarence Marsh Case, _Non-Violent Coercion_ (New York: Century, +1923), 323. Italics mine. + +[16] C. J. Cadoux has clearly stated his position in these words: "He +[the pacifist] will confine himself to those methods of pressure which +are either wholly non-coercive or are coercive in a strictly +non-injurious way, foregoing altogether such injurious methods of +coercion as torture, mutilation, or homicide: that is to say, he will +refrain from war." _Christian Pacifism_, 65-66. + +[17] Maurice L. Rowntree, _Mankind Set Free_ (London: Cape, 1939), +80-81. + + + + +II. VIOLENCE WITHOUT HATE + + +Occasions may arise in which a man who genuinely abhors violence +confronts an almost insoluble dilemma. On the one hand he may be faced +with the imminent triumph of some almost insufferable evil; on the +other, he may feel that the only available means of opposing that evil +is violence, which is in itself evil.[19] + +In such a situation, the choice made by any individual depends upon his +own subjective scale of values. The pacifist is convinced that for him +to commit violence upon another is itself the greatest possible evil. +The non-pacifist says that some other evils may be greater, and that the +use of this lesser evil to oppose them is entirely justified. John Lewis +bases his entire _Case Against Pacifism_ upon this latter assumption, +and says that in such a conflict of values, pacifists "continue to be +pacifists either because there is no serious threat, or because they do +not expect to lose anything, or perhaps even because they do not value +what is threatened."[20] The latter charge is entirely unjustified. The +pacifist maintains his opposition to violence in the face of such a +threat, not because he does not value what is threatened, but because he +values something else more. + +Cadoux has phrased it, "Pacifism is applicable only in so far as there +exist pacifists who are convinced of its wisdom. The subjective +differences are of vital importance, yet are usually overlooked in +arguments on the subject."[21] This means that our problem of +considering the place of violence and non-violence in human life is not +one of purely objective science, since the attitudes and beliefs of +pacifists (and non-pacifists) themselves become a factor in the +situation. If enough people accepted the pacifist scale of values, it +would in fact become the true basis for social interaction.[22] + +In our western society, the majority even of those who believe in the +brotherhood of man, and have great respect for the dignity of every +human personality, will on occasion use violence as a means to attempt +the achievement of their goals. Since their attitude is different from +that of the militarist who would place violence itself high in his scale +of values, it would pay us to consider their position. + +FOOTNOTES: + +[18] Reinhold Niebuhr, _Moral Man and Immoral Society_ (New York: +Scribner's, 1932). See especially his consideration of coercion and +persuasion in the two realms of individual and social conduct, pages +xxii-xxiii. + +[19] As Cadoux puts it, "Broadly speaking, almost the whole human race +believes that it is occasionally right and necessary to inflict +injurious coercion on human beings, in order to prevent the perpetration +by them of some intolerable evil." _Christian Pacifism Re-examined_, 97. + +[20] Lewis, 62. + + +Revolutionary Anarchism + +The revolutionary Anarchists belong essentially in this group. As +Alexander Berkman has put it, "The teachings of Anarchism are those of +peace and harmony, of non-invasion, of the sacredness of life and +liberty;" or again, "It [Anarchism] means that men are brothers, and +that they should live like brothers, in peace and harmony."[23] But to +create this ideal society the Anarchist feels that violence may be +necessary. Berkman himself, in his younger days, was able to justify his +attack upon the life of Frick at the time of the Homestead Strike in +1893 in these words: + + + "But to the People belongs the earth--by right, if not in fact. To + make it so in fact, all means are justifiable; nay advisable, even + to the point of taking life.... Human life is, indeed, sacred and + inviolate. But the killing of a tyrant, of an enemy of the People, + is in no way to be considered as the taking of a life.... To remove + a tyrant is an act of liberation, the giving of life and + opportunity to an oppressed people."[24] + + +Later, Berkman insisted that a successful revolution must be non-violent +in nature. It must be the result of thoroughgoing changes in the ideas +and opinions of the people. When their ideas have become sufficiently +changed and unified, the people can stage a general strike in which they +overthrow the old order by their refusal to co-operate with it. He +maintains that any attempt to carry on the revolution itself by military +means would fail because "government and capital are too well organized +in a military way for the workers to cope with them." But, says Berkman, +when the success of the revolution becomes apparent, the opposition will +use violent means to suppress it. At that moment the people are +justified in using violence themselves to protect it. Berkman believes +that there is no record of any group in power giving up its power +without being subjected to the use of physical force, or at least the +threat of it.[25] Thus in effect, Berkman would still use violence +against some personalities in order to establish a system in which +respect for every personality would be possible. Actually his desire for +the new society is greater than his abhorrence of violence. + +FOOTNOTES: + +[21] Cadoux, _Christian Pacifism Re-examined_, 116-117. + +[22] The way in which a whole social order can differ from that of the +West, merely because it chooses to operate on the basis of different +assumptions concerning such things as the aggressive nature of man is +well brought out in the study of three New Guinea tribes living in very +similar environments. Margaret Mead, _Sex and Temperament in Three +Primitive Societies_ (London: Routledge, 1935). + +[23] Alexander Berkman, _What Is Communist Anarchism_? (New York: +Vanguard, 1929), x-xi, 176. + +[24] Alexander Berkman, _Prison Memoirs of an Anarchist_ (New York: +Mother Earth Publishing Association, 1912), 7. + +[25] Berkman, _Communist Anarchism_, 217-229, 247-248, 290. + + +Abraham Lincoln + +Abraham Lincoln represented the spirit of moderation in the use of +violence. He led his nation in war reluctantly and prayerfully, with no +touch of hatred toward those whom the armies of which he was +Commander-in-Chief were destroying. He expressed his feeling in an +inspiring way in the closing words of his Second Inaugural Address, when +the war was rapidly drawing to a victorious close: + + + "With malice toward none; with charity for all; with firmness to do + the right, as God gives us to see the right, let us strive on to + finish the work we are in; to bind up the nation's wounds; to care + for him who shall have borne battle, and for his widow, and his + orphan--to do all which may achieve and cherish a just and lasting + peace among ourselves, and with all nations." + + +The Church and War + +The statements of British and American churchmen during the present war +call to mind these words of Lincoln. At Malvern, in 1941, members of the +Church of England declared: "God himself is the sovereign of all human +life; all men are his children, and ought to be brothers of one another; +through Christ the Redeemer they can become what they ought to be." In +March, 1942, American Protestant leaders at Delaware, Ohio, asserted: +"We believe it is the purpose of God to create a world-wide community in +Jesus Christ, transcending nation, race and class."[26] Yet the majority +of the men who drew up these two statements were supporting the war +which their nations were waging against fellow members of the world +community--against those whom they professed to call brothers. Like +Lincoln they did so in the belief that when the military phases of the +war were over, it would be possible to turn from violence and to +practice the principles of Christian charity.[27] + +There is little in human history to justify their hope. There is much to +make us believe that the violent attitudes of war will lead to hatred +and injustice toward enemies when the war is done. The inspiring words +of Lincoln were followed by the orgy of radical reconstruction in the +South. There is at least as grave a doubt that the spirit of the +Christian Church will dominate the peace which is concluded at the end +of the present war. + +The question arises insistently whether violence without hate can long +live up to its own professions. + +FOOTNOTES: + +[26] number of these religious statements are conveniently brought +together in the appendix to Paul Hutchinson's _From Victory to Peace_ +(Chicago: Willett, Clark, 1943). For a statement of a point of view +similar to the one we are discussing here, see also Charles Clayton +Morrison, _The Christian and the War_ (Chicago: Willett, Clark, 1942). + +[27] Bernard Iddings Bell has expressed the attitude of such churchmen: +"Evil may sometimes get such control of men and nations, they have +realized, that armed resistance becomes a necessity. There are times +when not to participate in violence is in itself violence to the welfare +of the brethren. But no Christian moralist worth mentioning has ever +regarded war _per se_ as other than monstrous, or hoped that by the use +of violence anything more could be accomplished than the frustration of +a temporarily powerful malicious wickedness. War in itself gives birth +to no righteousness. Only such a fire of love as leads to +self-effacement can advance the welfare of mankind." "Will the Christian +Church Survive?" _Atlantic Monthly_, Vol. 170, October, 1942, 109. + + + + +III. NON-VIOLENCE BY NECESSITY + + +The use of non-violent resistance does not always denote devotion to +pacifist principles. Groups who would gladly use arms against an enemy +if they had them often use non-violent means simply because they have no +others at their disposal at the moment. In contrast to the type of +action described in the preceding section, such a procedure might be +called "hate without violence." It would probably be better to call it +"non-violence by necessity." + +The group using non-violence under such circumstances might have in view +one of three purposes. It might hope through its display of opposition +and its own suffering to appeal to the sense of fair play of the group +that was oppressing it. However, such a hope can exist only in cases +where the two opposing parties have a large area of agreement upon +values, or homogeneity, and would have no basis when the oppressing +group looked upon the oppressed as completely beneath their +consideration. It is unlikely that it would have much success in +changing the policy of a nation which consciously chose to invade +another country, although it might affect individual soldiers if their +cultural background were similar to that of the invaded people.[28] + +An invader usually desires to gain something from the invaded people. In +order to succeed, he needs their cooperation. A second way of thwarting +the will of the invader is to refuse that cooperation, and be willing to +suffer the penalties of such refusal. Since the invaded territory would +then have no value, the invader might leave of his own accord. + +A third possibility is for the invaded people to employ sabotage and +inflict damage upon the invader in the belief that his invasion can be +made so costly that it will be impossible for him to remain in the +conquered territory. Such sabotage easily merges into violence. + +In the preceding paragraphs, the enemy of the group using non-violence +has been referred to as the "invader," because our best examples of this +type of non-violent opposition are to be found in the histories of +conquered people opposing the will of occupying forces. A similar +situation may exist between a colonial people and the home government of +an imperial power, since in most cases their position is essentially +that of a conquered people, except that their territory has been +occupied for a longer period of time. + +FOOTNOTE: + +[28] Franklin H. Giddings said, "In a word, non-aggression and +non-resistance are an outcome of homogeneity." "The Gospel of +Non-Resistance," in _Democracy and Empire_ (New York: Macmillan, 1900), +356. See also Case, _Non-Violent Coercion_, 248; Lewis, _Case Against +Pacifism_, 185-186. + + +Non-Violent Resistance to Invaders + +Stories of the use of this sort of non-violence occur in our press every +day, as they find their way out of the occupied countries which are +opposing the Nazi invaders with every means at their disposal. In these +countries the vast majority of the people are agreed in their +determination to rid themselves of Nazi control. Such common agreement +is the first requisite for the success of this method of resistance. +When the people of the territory refuse to inform the police about +individuals who are committing unlawful acts against the invaders, it is +virtually impossible for the latter to check the expansion of +non-cooperation or sabotage. Similarly, if the whole population refuses +to cooperate with the invader, it is impossible for him to punish them +all, or if he did, he would be destroying the labor force whose +cooperation he desires, and would have defeated himself in the very +process of stamping out the opposition to his regime. + +Hitler himself has discovered that there is a difference between +military occupation and actual conquest. In his New Year's proclamation +to the German people in 1944, he attempted to explain the Nazi reverses +in North Africa and Italy in these words: + + + "The true cause of the difficulties in North Africa and the Balkans + was in reality the persistent attempts at sabotage and paralyzation + of these plutocratic enemies of the fascist people's State. + + "Their continual sabotage not only succeeded in stopping supplies + to Africa and, later on, to Italy, by ever-new methods of passive + resistance, thus preventing our soldiers and the Italians standing + at their side from receiving the material wherewithal for the + conduct of the struggle, but also aggravated or confused the + situation in the Balkans, which had been cleared according to plan + by German actions."[29] + + +Opposition to the German invader has taken different forms in different +countries. In Denmark, where there was no military resistance to the +initial invasion, the subtle opposition of the people has made itself +felt in innumerable ways. There are many stories such as that of the +King's refusal to institute anti-Jewish laws in Denmark on the ground +that there was no Jewish problem there since the Danes did not feel +themselves to be inferior to the Jews. Such ideological opposition makes +the Nazis angry, and it also makes them uncomfortable, since they do +hold enough values in common with the Danes to understand perfectly the +implications of the Danish jibes. Such psychological opposition merges +into sabotage very easily. For instance when the Germans demanded ten +torpedo boats from the Danish navy, the Danes prepared them for delivery +by taking all their guns and equipment ashore, and then burning the +warehouse in which these were stored. The Nazis even forbade the press +to mention the incident, lest it become a signal for a nationwide +demonstration of solidarity.[30] + +Other occupied countries report the same type of non-violent resistance. +There are strikes of parents against sending their children to +Nazi-controlled schools, strikes of ministers against conforming to Nazi +decrees, demonstrations, malingering, and interference with internal +administration. Such events may appear less important than military +resistance, but they make the life of an occupying force uneasy and +unhappy.[31] + +Calls for non-violent preparation for the day of delivery go out +constantly in the underground press. While urging solidarity in illegal +acts among the French population at home, one French appeal even gave +instructions to Frenchmen who might go to work in Germany: + + + "If you respond to Laval's appeal, I know in what spirit you will + do so. You will wish to slow down German production, establish + contacts with all the Frenchmen in Germany, and create the + strongest of Fifth Columns in the enemy country."[32] + + +Over a long period of time such action cannot help having an effect upon +the success of the invader. Since the grievance of the peoples of the +occupied countries is a continuous one, there is no prospect that their +resistance will relax until they have freed themselves of their +oppressors. + +FOOTNOTES: + +[29] _New York Times_, Jan. 1, 1944, page 4, columns 2-7. + +[30] C. H. W. Hasselriis, "Nothing Rotten in Denmark," in _The New +Republic_, June 7, 1943, Vol. 108: 760-761. + +[31] The publications of the various governments in exile are filled +with such stories. See such periodicals as _News of Norway_ and _News +from Belgium_, which can be obtained through the United Nations +Information Service, 610 Fifth Avenue, New York City. + +[32] _Resistance_, Feb. 17, 1943, reprinted in _Free World_, July, 1943, +Vol. 6, 77. + + +Chinese Boycotts Against Foreigners + +We can find many other examples of the use of these non-violent methods +under similar circumstances. The Chinese made use of the boycott +repeatedly to oppose foreign domination and interference in their +internal affairs in the years before the outbreak of the present war +against Japan. Clarence Case lists five significant Chinese boycotts +between 1906 and 1919. The last one was directed against foreigners _and +the Chinese government_ to protest the action of the Peace Conference in +giving Japan a predominant interest in Shantung. As a result the +government of China was ousted, and the provisions of the treaty +revised. Japan felt the effects of the boycott more than any other +country. Case says of the Japanese reaction: + + + "As for the total loss to Japanese trade, various authorities have + settled upon $50,000,000, which we may accept as a close + approximation. At any rate the pressure was great enough to impel + the Japanese merchants of Peking and Tientsin, with apparent ruin + staring them in the face, to appeal to their home government for + protection. They insisted that the boycott should be made a + diplomatic question of the first order and that demands for its + removal should be backed by threats of military intervention. To + this the government at Tokio 'could only reply that it knew no way + by which the Chinese merchants, much less the Chinese people, could + be made to buy Japanese goods against their will.'"[33] + + +This incident calls to mind the experience of the American colonists in +their non-violent resistance to Great Britain's imperial policy in the +years following 1763, which we shall discuss more at length in the next +section. + + +Egyptian Opposition to Great Britain + +Another similar example is that of the Egyptian protest against British +occupation of the country in 1919. People in all walks of life went on +strike. Officials boycotted the British mission under Lord Milner, which +came to work out a compromise. The mission was forced to return to +London empty handed, but finally an agreement was reached there with +Saad Zagloul Pasha, leader of the Egyptian movement, on the basis of +independence for the country, with the British retaining only enough +military control to safeguard their interest in the Suez Canal. After +the acceptance of the settlement in 1922, friction between Egypt and +Great Britain continued, but Egypt was not sufficiently united, nor were +the grievances great enough to lead to the same type of successful +non-cooperation practiced in 1919.[34] + +It must be recognized that in most cases such as those we have been +considering, violence would be used by the resisters if they had it at +their disposal. However, the occasional success of non-violence even +under such circumstances is proof of the possible expediency of this +method. When it has failed, it has done so because the resisters were +not sufficiently committed to their purpose to carry it out in the face +of possible death. It appears from this experience that complete +solidarity and commitment is required for the success of non-violent +methods when used in this way, just as they are if such methods are used +as a matter of principle. It must be recognized that the self-discipline +necessary for the success of a non-violent movement must be even more +rigorous than the imposed discipline of a military machine, and also +that there is a chance that the non-violent resisters will fail in their +endeavor, just as there is a virtual certainty that one side in a +military conflict will be defeated.[35] + +FOOTNOTES: + +[33] Case, _Non-Violent Coercion_, 330-339. The last sentence is quoted +from _The Christian Science Monitor_, April 7, 1920. + +[34] A. Fenner Brockway, _Non-Co-operation in Other Lands_ (Madras: +Tagore and Co., 1921), 25-39; Charles E. Mullett, _The British Empire_ +(New York: Holt, 1938), 622-627. + +Pacifist literature has also made much of the Hungarian independence +movement in the 1860's under Francis Deak, which refused to pay taxes to +the Austrian government, or to co-operate in other ways. However, it +would appear that outside pressures were as important in the final +settlement establishing the Dual Monarchy in 1867 as was the Hungarian +movement of non-cooperation. The pacifist writers generally follow the +account in Brockway, _Non-Co-operation_, 1-24. He in turn follows the +book of Arthur Griffith, _The Resurrection of Hungary_, published in +1904 in order to induce the Irish to use non-co-operation in their +struggle against the English. For some of the other factors involved see +A. J. P. Taylor, _The Hapsburg Monarchy 1815-1918_ (London: Macmillan, +1941), 101-151. + +[35] On the discipline required see Gregg, _Power of Non-Violence_, +266-294. Lewis, to prove the ineffectiveness of non-violence, quotes +Joad: "There have been only too many occasions in history in which the +meeting of violence by non-violence has led not to the taming of the +violent, but to the extinction of the non-violent." _The Case Against +Pacifism_, 184. + + + + +IV. NON-VIOLENT COERCION + + +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. + +FOOTNOTES: + +[36] Clarence Marsh Case, "Friends and Social Thinking" in S. B. +Laughlin (Ed.), _Beyond Dilemmas_ (Philadelphia: Lippincott, 1937), +130-137; Cadoux, _Christian Pacifism Re-Examined_, 24-25, and the chart +on page 45. + +[37] Case, _Non-Violent Coercion_, 330. John Lewis says, "Non-violence +can be as completely coercive as violence itself, in which case, while +it has the advantage of not involving war, it cannot be defended on +spiritual grounds." _Case Against Pacifism_, 110. + +[38] In his "Introduction" to Case, _Non-Violent Coercion_. + + +The Labor Strike + +The most common type of non-violent conflict is the ordinary labor +strike. In a strike, the workers withdraw their cooperation from the +employer until he meets their demands. He suffers, because as long as +they refuse to work for him it is impossible for him to produce the +goods or services upon the sale of which his own living depends. Usually +he is fighting for no principle during such a strike, so that he is apt +to calculate his monetary loss from it against the advantages he would +have to surrender in order to reach an agreement. When he concludes that +it would be cheaper to give in, it is possible for the management and +the strikers to arrive at a settlement. If the employer does feel that +the principle of control of an enterprise by its owner is at stake, he +may hold out longer, until he actually loses more by the strike than he +would by conceding the demands of the strikers, but even then he +balances psychological cost against monetary cost, and when the latter +overweighs the former he becomes receptive to a settlement. + +During the strike the workers are going through much the same process. A +strike from their point of view is even more costly than it is to the +employer. It is not to be entered upon lightly, since their very means +of sustenance are at stake. They too have to balance the monetary costs +of their continued refusal to cooperate against the gains that they +might hope for by continued resistance, and when the cost becomes +greater than the prospective gain they are receptive to suggestions for +compromise. They too may be contending for the principle of the right of +organization and control over their own economic destinies, so that they +may be willing to suffer loss for a longer period than they would if +they stood to gain only the immediate monetary advantages, but when +immediate costs more than overweigh ultimate psychological advantages, +they too will be willing to capitulate. + +In the meantime the strikers have to see to it that the employer does +not find someone else with whom he can cooperate in order to eliminate +his dependence upon them. Hence they picket the plant, in an attempt to +persuade others not to work there. If persuasion is not effective, they +may resort to mass picketing, which amounts to a threat of violence +against the persons who would attempt to take over their jobs. On +occasion the threat to their jobs becomes so great that in order to +defend them they will resort to violence against the strikebreaker. At +this point, the public, which is apt to be somewhat sympathetic toward +their demands for fair wages or better working conditions, turns against +them and supports the employer, greatly adding to his moral standing and +weakening that of the strikers, until the strikers, feeling that the +forces against them are too great, are apt to give way. The employer +will find the same negative reaction among the public if he tries to use +violence in order to break the strike. Hence, if he does decide to use +violence, he tries to make it appear that the strikers are responsible, +or tries to induce them to use it first. It is to their advantage not to +use it, even when it is used against them. Labor leaders in general +understand this principle and try to avoid violence at all costs. They +do so not on the basis of principle, but on the basis of expediency.[39] + +In the great wave of enthusiastic organization of labor that swept over +the United States in 1936 and 1937, American labor copied a variant of +the strike, which had been used earlier in Hungary and in France.[40] +Instead of leaving the property of the employer and trying to prevent +others from entering it to take their places, workers remained on a "sit +down strike" within the plants, so that the employer would have been +forced to use violence to remove them in order to operate the factory. +These strikes were based in part upon the theory that the worker had a +property right to his job, just as the employer did to his capital +equipment. Such strikes were for a time more successful than the older +variety, because strike-breaking was virtually impossible. However, it +was not long before public opinion forced the abandonment of the +technique. It was revolutionary in character, since it threatened the +old concept of private property. The fear of small property holders that +their own possessions would be jeopardized by the success of such a +movement, made them support the owners of the plants against the +strikers, who were then forced to give way. In this case the public's +fear of revolutionary change was greater than their dislike of violence, +so they even supported the use of physical force by the employers and +the police authorities to remove the strikers from the plants. The very +effectiveness of the method which labor was employing brought about its +defeat, because the public was not yet persuaded to accept the new +concept of the property right of the laborer to his job. + +FOOTNOTES: + +[39] A. J. Muste, _Non-Violence in an Aggressive World_ (New York: +Harper, 1940), 70-72. + +[40] Barthelemy de Ligt, _The Conquest of Violence: An Essay on War and +Revolution_ (New York: E. P. Dutton, 1938), 131-132. + + +The Boycott + +The boycott is a more indirect type of non-cooperation than the strike, +in most cases.[41] This word originated in Ireland in 1880 when a +Captain Boycott, an agent for an Irish landlord, refused the demands of +the tenants on the estate. In retaliation they threatened his life, +forced his servants to leave him, tore down his fences, and cut off his +food supplies. The Irish Land League, insisting that the land of Ireland +should belong to its people, used this method of opposition in the years +that followed. Its members refused to deal with peasants or tradesmen +who sided with the government, but they used acts of violence and +intimidation as well as economic pressure. The government employed +15,000 military police and 40,000 soldiers against the people, but they +succeeded only in filling the jails. The struggle might well have won +land for the Irish peasant, if Parnell, who had become leader of the +Irish movement, had not agreed to accept the Gladstone Home Rule Bill of +1886 in exchange for calling off the opposition in Ireland. The Bill was +defeated in Parliament and the Irish problem continued.[42] + +In later usage, the word "boycott" has been applied almost exclusively +to the refusal of economic cooperation. Organized labor in America used +the boycott against the goods of manufacturers who refused to deal with +unions, and it is still used in appeals to the public not to patronize +stores or manufacturers who deal unfairly with labor. + +The idea of economic sanctions, which played so large a part in the +history of the League of Nations in its attempts to deal with those who +disregarded decisions of the League, is essentially similar to the +boycott. In fact much of the thinking of the pacifist movement between +the two wars maintained that economic sanctions would provide a +non-violent but coercive substitute for war, in settling international +controversies.[43] + +FOOTNOTES: + +[41] "The boycott is a form of passive resistance in all cases where it +does not descend to violence and intimidation. The fact that it is +coercive does not place it beyond the moral pale, for coercion ... is a +fact inseparable from life in society." Case, _Non-Violent Coercion_, +319. + +[42] De Ligt, 114-117; Carleton J. H. Hayes, _A Political and Cultural +History of Modern Europe_ (New York: Macmillan, 1936), II, 496. + +[43] De Ligt, 218-241. + + +Non-Violent Coercion by the American Colonies + +The western world has repeatedly employed non-violent coercion as a +political as well as an economic technique. Strangely enough, many +Americans who are apt to scoff at the methods of the Indian independence +movement today forget that the American colonists used much the same +methods in the early stages of their own revolt against England. When +England began to assert imperial control over the colonies after 1763, +the colonists answered with protests and refusals to cooperate. Against +both the Stamp Act of 1765 and the Townshend Duties of 1767, they +adopted non-importation agreements whereby they refused to import +British goods. To be sure, the more radical colonists did not eschew +violence on the basis of principle, and the direct action by which they +forced colonial merchants to respect the terms of the non-importation +agreements was not always non-violent. The loss of trade induced British +merchants to go to Parliament on both occasions and to insist +successfully upon the repeal of the Stamp Act in 1766 and the Townshend +Duties in 1770. In the face of non-cooperation practiced by the vast +majority of the colonists, the British government had been forced to +give way in order to serve its own best interests.[44] + +In 1774, when the Continental Congress established the Continental +Association in order to use the same economic weapon again, the issues +in the conflict were more clearly drawn. Many of the moderate colonists +who had supported the earlier action, denounced this one as +revolutionary, and went over to the loyalist side. The radicals +themselves felt less secure in the use of their economic weapon, and +began to gather arms for a violent rebellion. The attempt of the British +to destroy these weapons led to Lexington and Concord.[45] What had been +non-violent opposition to British policy had become armed revolt and +civil war. It was a war which would probably have ended in the defeat of +the colonists if they had not been able to fish in the troubled waters +of international politics and win the active support of France, who +sought thus to avenge the loss of her own colonies to Great Britain in +1763. We have here an example of the way in which non-violent +resistance, when used merely on the basis of expediency, is apt to +intensify and sharpen the conflict, until it finally leads to war +itself.[46] + +FOOTNOTES: + +[44] Curtis Nettels says of the Stamp Act opposition, "The most telling +weapons used by the colonists were the non-importation agreements, which +struck the British merchants at a time when trade was bad." _The Roots +of American Civilization_ (New York: Crofts, 1938), 632. Later he says, +"The colonial merchants again resorted to the non-importation agreements +as the most effectual means of compelling Britain to repeal the +Townshend Acts." _Ibid._, 635. + +For a good account of this whole movement see also John C. Miller, +_Origins of the American Revolution_ (Boston: Little, Brown, 1943), +150-164, 235-281. + +[45] Miller, 355-411. + +[46] Case, _Non-Violent Coercion_, 308-309. + + +Irish Opposition to Great Britain After 1900 + +After centuries of violent opposition to British occupation, the Irish +tried an experiment in non-violent non-cooperation after 1900. Arthur +Griffith was inspired to use in Ireland the techniques employed in the +Hungarian independence movement of 1866-1867. His Sinn Fein party, +organized in 1906, determined to set up an independent government for +Ireland outside the framework of the United Kingdom. When the Home Rule +Act of 1914 was not put into operation because of the war, Sinn Fein +gained ground. In the elections of 1918, three fourths of the successful +Irish candidates were members of the party, so they met at Dublin as an +Irish parliament rather than proceeding to Westminster. In 1921, after a +new Home Rule Act had resulted only in additional opposition, the +British government negotiated a settlement with the representatives of +the "Irish Republic," which set up the "Irish Free State" as a +self-governing dominion within the British Commonwealth. The Irish +accepted the treaty, and the Irish problem was on its way to settlement, +although later events were to prove that Ireland would not be satisfied +until she had demonstrated that the new status made her in fact +independent. Her neutrality in the present war should dispel all +doubts.[47] + +FOOTNOTE: + +[47] Brockway, _Non-Co-operation_, 71-92; William I. Hull, _The War +Method and the Peace Method: An Historical Contrast_ (New York: Revell, +1929), 229-231; Hayes, _Modern Europe_, II, 498-501, 876-879, 952-953. + + +Strikes with Political Purposes + +British workers themselves have made use of strikes with political +significance. In 1920, transport workers refused to handle goods +destined to be used in the war against the Bolshevik regime in Russia, +and thus forced Britain to cease her intervention.[48] In 1926, the +general strike in Britain had revolutionary implications which the +Government and the public recognized only too well. Hence the widespread +opposition to it. The leaders of the strike were even frightened +themselves, and called it off suddenly, leaving the masses of the +workers completely bewildered.[49] + +In Germany, non-cooperation has also been used successfully. In 1920, a +general strike defeated the attempt of the militarists to seize control +of the state in the Kapp Putsch. In 1924, when the French Army invaded +the Ruhr, the non-violent refusal of the German workers to mine coal for +France had the support of the whole German nation. As the saying was at +the time, "You can't mine coal with bayonets." Finally the French +withdrew from their fruitless adventure.[50] + +FOOTNOTES: + +[48] Allen, _Fight for Peace_, 633-634; Huxley, _Ends and Means_, +169-170. + +[49] Berkman, _Communist Anarchism_, 247-248. + +[50] Oswald Garrison Villard's "Preface" to Shridharani, _War Without +Violence_, xiv-xv. + + +Non-Violence in International Affairs + +In the international field, we also have examples of the use of +non-violent coercion. Thomas Jefferson, during the struggle for the +recognition of American neutral rights by Britain and France, attempted +to employ the economic weapons of pre-revolutionary days. His embargo +upon American commerce and the later variants on that policy, designed +to force the belligerents to recognize the American position, actually +were more costly to American shippers than were the depredations of the +French and the British, so they forced a reversal of American policy. +The war against England that followed did not have the support of the +shipping interests, whose trade it was supposedly trying to protect. It +was more an adventure in American imperialism than it was an attempt to +defend neutral rights, so it can hardly be said to have grown out of the +issues which led to Jefferson's use of economic sanctions. The whole +incident proves that the country which attempts to use this method in +international affairs must expect to lose its own trade in the process. +The cause must be great indeed before such undramatic losses become +acceptable.[51] + +The same principle is illustrated in the attempt to impose economic +sanctions on Italy in 1935 and 1936. The nations who made a gesture +toward using them actually did not want to hinder Italian expansion, or +did not want to do so enough to surrender their trade with Italy. The +inevitable result was that the sanctions failed. + +The success of non-violent coercion is by no means assured in every +case. It depends upon (1) the existence of a grievance great enough to +justify the suffering that devolves upon the resisters, (2) the +dependence of the opposition on the cooperation of the resisters, (3) +solidarity among a large enough number of resisters, and (4) in most +cases, the favorable reaction of the public not involved in the +conflict. When all or most of these factors have been present, +non-violent coercion has succeeded in our western society. On other +occasions it has failed. But one who remembers the utter defeat of the +Austrian socialists who employed arms against Chancellor Dolfuss in 1934 +must admit that violent coercion also has its failures.[52] + +FOOTNOTES: + +[51] Louis Martin Sears, _Jefferson and the Embargo_ (Durham, N. C.: +Duke University, 1927); Julius W. Pratt, _Expansionists of 1812_ (New +York: Macmillan, 1925). + +[52] De Ligt, 131. For other statements concerning the virtual +impossibility of violent revolution today see De Ligt, 81-82, 162-163; +Horace G. Alexander, "Great Possessions" in Gerald Heard, _et. al._, +_The New Pacifism_ (London: Allenson, 1936), 89-91; Huxley, _Ends and +Means_, 178-179; Lewis, _Case Against Pacifism_, 112-113. + + + + +V. SATYAGRAHA OR NON-VIOLENT DIRECT ACTION + + +There is a distinction between those who employ non-violent methods of +opposition on the basis of expediency and those who refuse to use +violence on the basis of principle. In the minds of many pacifists the +movement for Indian independence under the leadership of Mohandas K. +Gandhi stands out as the supreme example of a political revolt which has +insisted on this principle, and hence as a model to be followed in any +pacifist movement of social, economic, or political reform. Gandhi's +Satyagraha, therefore, deserves careful analysis in the light of +pacifist principles. + +Western critics of Gandhi's methods are prone to insist that they may be +applicable in the Orient, but that they can never be applied in the same +way within our western culture. We have already seen that there have +been many non-violent movements of reform within our western society, +but those that we have examined have been based on expediency. +Undoubtedly the widespread Hindu acceptance of the principle of +_ahimsa_, or non-killing, even in the case of animals, prepared the way +for Gandhi more completely than would have been the case in western +society. + + +The Origins of Satyagraha + +Shridharani has traced for us the origins of this distinctive Hindu +philosophy of _ahimsa_. It arose from the idea of the sacrifice, which +the Aryans brought to India with them at least 1500 years before Christ. +From a gesture of propitiation of the gods, sacrifice gradually turned +into a magic formula which would work automatically to procure desired +ends and eliminate evil. In time the Hindus came to believe that the +most effective type of sacrifice was self-sacrifice and suffering, +accompanied by a refusal to injure others, or _ahimsa_.[53] Only the +warrior caste of _Kshatriyas_ was allowed to fight. In his +autobiography, Gandhi brings out clearly the pious nature of his home +environment, and the emphasis which was placed there upon not eating +meat because of the sacred character of animal life.[54] + +It is not surprising that a logical mind reared in such an environment +should have espoused the principle of non-killing. In his western +education Gandhi became acquainted with The Sermon on the Mount, and the +writings of Tolstoy and Thoreau, but he tells us himself that he was +attracted to these philosophies because they expressed ideas in which he +already believed.[55] + +In fact, the Hindese have long employed the non-violent methods of +resistance which Gandhi has encouraged in our own day. In 1830, the +population of the State of Mysore carried on a great movement of +non-cooperation against the exploitation by the native despot, during +which they refused to work or pay taxes, and retired into the forests. +There was no disorder or use of arms. The official report of the British +Government said: + + + "The natives understand very well the use of such measures to + defend themselves against the abuse of authority. The method most + in use, and that which gives the best results, is complete + non-co-operation in all that concerns the Government, the + administration and public life generally."[56] + + +In about 1900 there was a great movement of non-cooperation under the +leadership of Aurobindo Ghose against the British Government in Bengal. +Ghose wanted independence and freedom from foreign tribute. He called +upon the people to demonstrate their fitness for self-government by +establishing hygienic conditions, founding schools, building roads and +developing agriculture. But Ghose had the experience Gandhi was to have +later. The people became impatient and fell back on violence; and the +British then employed counter-violence to crush the movement +completely.[57] + +The term "Satyagraha" itself was, however, a contribution of Gandhi. It +was coined about 1906 in connection with the Indian movement of +non-violent resistance in South Africa. Previously the English term +"passive resistance" had been used, but Gandhi tells us that when he +discovered that among Europeans, "it was supposed to be a weapon of the +weak, that it could be characterized by hatred and that it could finally +manifest itself as violence," he was forced to find a new word to carry +his idea. The result was a combination of the Gujerati words _Sat_, +meaning truth, and _Agraha_, meaning firmness--hence "truth force," or +as it has been translated since, "soul force."[58] + +FOOTNOTES: + +[53] Shridharani, _War Without Violence_, 165-167. + +[54] M. K. Gandhi, _The Story of My Experiments with Truth_, translated +by Mahadev Desai and Pyrelal Nair (Ahmedabad: Navajivan Press, +1927-1929), the earlier portions of Vol. I. + +[55] _Ibid._, I, 322; Shridharani, 167. + +[56] Quoted by De Ligt, _Conquest of Violence_, 89. + +[57] _Ibid._, 89-90. + +[58] Gandhi, _Experiments with Truth_, II, 153-154. + + +The Process of Satyagraha + +Shridharani, who considers himself a follower of Gandhi, has given us a +comprehensive analysis of Satyagraha as a mass movement. He begins his +discussion with this statement of the conditions under which it is +possible: + + + "Satyagraha, as an organized mass action, presupposes that _the + community concerned has a grievance which practically every member + of that community feels_. This grievance should be of such large + proportions that it could be transformed, in its positive side, + into a 'Cause' rightfully claiming sacrifice and suffering from the + community on its behalf."[59] + + +This necessity for community solidarity is often overlooked by followers +of Gandhi who advocate reforms by means of non-violent direct action in +our western society. Given the grievance of British rule, Shridharani +believes that the Hindese were willing to accept Satyagraha first +because, unarmed under British law, no other means were available to +them, and then because they were predisposed to the method because of +the Hindu philosophy of non-violence and the mystic belief that truth +will triumph eventually since it is a force greater than the +physical.[60] + +The first step in Satyagraha is negotiation and arbitration with the +adversary. Under these terms Shridharani includes the use of legislative +channels, direct negotiations, and arbitration by third parties.[61] In +reading his discussion one gets the impression that under the American +system of government the later stages of Satyagraha would never be +necessary, since the Satyagrahi must first exhaust all the avenues of +political expression and legislative action which are open to him. If +any sizeable group in American society displayed on any issue the +solidarity required for successful use of this method, their political +influence would undoubtedly be great enough to effect a change in the +law, imperfect though American democracy may be. + +The second step in Satyagraha is agitation, the purpose of which is to +educate the public on the issues at stake, to create the solidarity that +is needed in the later stages of the movement, and to win acceptance, by +members of the movement, of the methods to be employed.[62] According to +Fenner Brockway, the failure of Satyagraha to achieve its objectives is +an indication that the people of India had not really caught and +accepted Gandhi's spirit and principles.[63] This means that on several +occasions the later stages of Satyagraha have been put into action +before earlier stages of creating solidarity on both purpose and method +have been fully completed. Despite Gandhi's tremendous influence in +India, the movement for Indian independence has not yet fully succeeded. +In view of the fact that so many of the people who have worked for +independence have failed to espouse Gandhi's principles whole-heartedly, +if independence be achieved in the future it will be difficult to tell +whether or not it was achieved because the Indian people fully accepted +these principles. Many seem to have done so only in the spirit in which +the American colonists of the eighteenth century employed similar +methods during the earlier stages of their own independence +movement.[64] + +Only after negotiation and arbitration have failed does Satyagraha make +use of the techniques which are usually associated with it in the +popular mind. As Shridharani puts it, "Moral suasion having proved +ineffective the Satyagrahis do not hesitate to shift their technique to +compulsive force."[65] He is pointing out that in practice Satyagraha is +coercive in character, and that all the later steps from mass +demonstrations through strikes, boycotts, non-cooperation, and civil +disobedience to parallel government which divorces itself completely +from the old are designed to _compel_ rather than to _persuade_ the +oppressors to change their policy. In this respect it is very similar to +the movements of non-violent resistance based on expediency which were +considered in the preceding section. + +FOOTNOTES: + +[59] Shridharani, 4. Italics mine. + +[60] _Ibid._, 192-209. + +[61] _Ibid._, 5-7. + +[62] _Ibid._, 7-12. + +[63] A. Fenner Brockway, "Does Noncooeperation Work?" in Devere Allen +(Ed.), _Pacifism in the Modern World_ (Garden City, N. Y.: Doubleday, +Doran, 1929), 126. + +[64] Nehru in his autobiography expresses strong differences of opinion +with Gandhi at many points. In one place he says: "What a problem and a +puzzle he has been not only to the British Government but to his own +people and his closest associates!... How came we to associate ourselves +with Gandhiji politically, and to become, in many instances, his devoted +followers?... He attracted people, but it was ultimately intellectual +conviction that brought them to him and kept them there. They did not +agree with his philosophy of life, or even with many of his ideals. +Often they did not understand him. But the action that he proposed was +something tangible which could be understood and appreciated +intellectually. Any action would be welcome after the long tradition of +inaction which our spineless politics had nurtured; brave and effective +action with an ethical halo about it had an irresistible appeal, both to +the intellect and the emotions. Step by step he convinced us of the +rightness of the action, and we went with him, although we did not +accept his philosophy. To divorce action from the thought underlying it +was not perhaps a proper procedure and was bound to lead to mental +conflict and trouble later. Vaguely we hoped that Gandhiji, being +essentially a man of action and very sensitive to changing conditions, +would advance along the line that seemed to us to be right. And in any +event the road he was following was the right one thus far; and, if the +future meant a parting, it would be folly to anticipate it." Jawaharlal +Nehru, _Toward Freedom_ (New York: John Day, 1942), 190-191. + +[65] Shridharani, 12. He lists and discusses 13 steps in the development +of a campaign of Satyagraha, pp. 5-43. + + +The Philosophy of Satyagraha + +It seems clear that Satyagraha cannot be equated with Christian +pacifism. As Shridharani has said, "In India, the people are not +stopping with mere good will, as the pacifists usually do, but, on the +contrary, are engaged in direct action of a non-violent variety which +they are confident will either mend or end the powers that be," and, +"Satyagraha seems to have more in common with war than with Western +pacifism."[66] + +Gandhi's campaign to recruit Indians for the British army during the +First World War distinguishes him also from most western pacifists.[67] +In an article entitled "The Doctrine of the Sword," written in 1920, +Gandhi brought out clearly the fact that in his philosophy he places the +ends above the means, so far as the mass of the people are concerned: + + + "Where the only choice is between cowardice and violence I advise + violence. I cultivate the quiet courage of dying without killing. + But to him who has not this courage I advise killing and being + killed rather than shameful flight from danger. I would risk + violence a thousand times rather than the emasculation of the race. + I would rather have India resort to arms to defend her honour than + that she should in a cowardly manner remain a helpless victim of + her own dishonour."[68] + + +Both pacifists and their opponents have noted this inconsistency in +Gandhi's philosophy. Lewis calls Gandhi "a strange mixture of +Machiavellian astuteness and personal sanctity, profound humanitarianism +and paralysing conservatism."[69] Bishop McConnell has said of his +non-violent coercion, "This coercion is less harmful socially than +coercion by direct force, but it is coercion nevertheless."[70] And C. +J. Cadoux has declared: + + + "The well-known work of Mr. Gandhi, both in India today and earlier + in Africa, exemplifies rather the power of non-co-operation than + Christian love on the part of a group; but even so, it calls for + mention ... as another manifestation of the efficacy of non-violent + methods of restraint."[71] + + +Gandhi's own analysis of his movement places much emphasis on the +mystical Hindu idea of self-inflicted suffering. In 1920, he said, +"Progress is to be measured by the amount of suffering undergone by the +sufferer."[72] This idea recurs many times in Gandhi's writings. The +acceptance of such suffering is not easy; hence his emphasis upon the +need of self-purification, preparation, and discipline. Because of the +violence used by many of his followers during the first great campaign +in India, Gandhi came to the conclusion that "before re-starting civil +disobedience on a mass scale, it would be necessary to create a band of +well-trained, pure-hearted volunteers who thoroughly understood the +strict conditions of Satyagraha."[73] + +FOOTNOTES: + +[66] _Ibid._, xxvii, xxx. + +[67] Speech at Gujarat political conference, Nov., 1917, quoted by Case, +_Non-violent Coercion_, 374-375. See also Shridharani, 122, note. + +[68] Quoted in Lewis, _Case Against Pacifism_, 107. A slightly different +version is reprinted in Nehru, _Towards Freedom_, 81. + +[69] Lewis, _Case Against Pacifism_, 99. He goes on to say, "He is +anti-British more than he is anti-war. He adopts tactics of non-violence +because that is the most effective way in which a disarmed and +disorganized multitude can resist armed troops and police. He has never +suggested that when India attains full independence it shall disband the +Indian army. The Indian National Congress ... never for one moment +contemplated abandoning violence as the necessary instrument of the +State they hoped one day to command." Pp. 99-100. + +[70] Francis J. McConnell, _Christianity and Coercion_ (Nashville: +Cokesbury Press, 1933), 46. + +[71] Cadoux, _Christian Pacifism_, 109. + +[72] _Young India_, June 16, 1920, quoted by Shridharani, 169. + +[73] Gandhi, _Experiments_, II, 509-513. + + +The Empirical Origins of Gandhi's Method + +Gandhi's autobiography brings out the origins of many of his ideas. We +have already noted the importance of his Hindu training. He arrived +empirically at many of his specific techniques. For instance, he +describes in some detail a journey he made by coach in 1893 in South +Africa, during which he was placed on the driver's seat, since Indians +were not allowed to sit inside the coach. Later the coachman desired his +seat and asked him to sit on the footboard. This Gandhi refused to do, +whereupon the coachman began to box his ears. He describes the rest of +the incident thus: + + + "He was strong and I was weak. Some of the passengers were moved to + pity and they exclaimed: 'Man, let him alone. Don't beat him. He is + not to blame. He is right. If he can't stay there, let him come and + sit with us.' 'No fear,' cried the man, but he seemed somewhat + crestfallen and stopped beating me. He let go my arm, swore at me a + little more, and asking the Hottenot servant who was sitting on the + other side of the coachbox to sit on the footboard, took the seat + so vacated."[74] + + +He had a similar experience in 1896 when his refusal to prosecute the +leaders of a mob which had beaten him aroused a favorable reaction on +the part of the public.[75] Gradually the principle developed that the +acceptance of suffering was an effective method of winning the sympathy +and support of disinterested parties in a dispute, and that their moral +influence might go far in determining its outcome. + +On his return to India after his successful campaign for Indian rights +in South Africa, Gandhi led a strike of mill workers in Ahmedabad. He +established a set of rules, forbidding resort to violence, the +molestation of "blacklegs," and the taking of alms, and requiring the +strikers to remain firm no matter how long the strike took--rules not +too different from those that would be used in a strike by an +occidental labor union.[76] Speaking of a period during this strike +when the laborers were growing restive and threatening violence, Gandhi +says: + + + "One morning--it was at a mill-hands' meeting--while I was still + groping and unable to see my way clearly, the light came to me. + Unbidden and all by themselves the words came to my lips: 'Unless + the strikers rally,' I declared to the meeting, 'and continue the + strike till a settlement is reached, or till they leave the mills + altogether, I will not touch any food.'" + + +Gandhi insisted that the fast was not directed at the mill owners, but +was for the purification of himself and the strikers. He told the owners +that it should not influence their decision, and yet an arbitrator was +now appointed, and as he says, "The strike was called off after I had +fasted only for three days."[77] The efficacy of the fast was thus borne +in on Gandhi. + +In the Kheda Satyagraha against unjust taxation, which was the first big +movement of the sort in India, Gandhi discovered that "When the fear of +jail disappears, repression puts heart into people." The movement ended +in a compromise rather than the complete success of Gandhi's program. He +said of it, "Although, therefore, the termination was celebrated as a +triumph of Satyagraha, I could not enthuse over it, as it lacked the +essentials of a complete triumph."[78] But even though Gandhi was not +satisfied with anything less than a complete triumph, he had learned +that when a people no longer fears the punishments that an oppressor +metes out, the power of the oppressor is gone.[79] + +FOOTNOTES: + +[74] _Ibid._, I, 268-269. + +[75] Of the incident he says, "Thus the lynching ultimately proved to be +a blessing for me, that is for the cause. It enhanced the prestige of +the Indian community in South Africa, and made my work easier.... The +incident also added to my professional practice." _Ibid._, I, 452-457. + +[76] _Ibid._, II, 411-413. + +[77] _Ibid._, II, 420-424. + +[78] _Ibid._, II, 428-440. + +[79] See the quotation from Gandhi in Shridharani, 29. + + +Non-Cooperation + +It will be impossible for us here to consider in detail the great +movements of non-cooperation on which Gandhi's followers have embarked +in order to throw off British rule. In 1919 and again in the struggle of +1920-1922, Gandhi felt forced to call off the non-cooperation campaigns +because the people, who were not sufficiently prepared, fell back upon +violence.[80] In the struggle in 1930, Gandhi laid down more definite +rules for Satyagrahis, forbidding them to harbor anger, or to offer any +physical resistance or to insult their opponents, although they must +refuse to do any act forbidden to them by the movement even at the cost +of great suffering.[81] The movement ended in a compromise agreement +with the British, but the terms of the agreement were never completely +carried out. Repressive measures and the imprisonment of Gandhi checked +the non-cooperation movement during the present war, at least +temporarily. + +FOOTNOTES: + +[80] Gandhi, _Experiments_, II, 486-507; Shridharani, 126-129. + +[81] The rules, first published in _Young India_, Feb. 27, 1930, are +given by Shridharani, 154-157. + + +Fasting + +Gandhi also made use of the fast in 1919, 1924, 1932, 1933, 1939, and +1943 to obtain concessions, either from the British government or from +groups of Hindese who did not accept his philosophy.[82] Of fasting +Gandhi has said: + + + "It does not mean coercion of anybody. It does, of course, exercise + pressure on individuals, even as on the government; but it is + nothing more than the natural and moral result of an act of + sacrifice. It stirs up sluggish consciences and it fires loving + hearts to action."[83] + + +Yet Gandhi believed that the fast of the Irish leader, MacSweeney, when +he was imprisoned in Dublin, was an act of violence.[84] + +In practice, Satyagraha is a mixture of expediency and principle. It is +firmly based on the Hindu idea of _ahimsa_, and hence avoids physical +violence. Despite Gandhi's insistence upon respect for and love for the +opponent, however, his equal insistence upon winning the opponent +completely to his point of view leads one to suspect that he is using +the technique as a means to an end which he considers equally +fundamental. He accepts suffering as an end in itself, yet he knows that +it also is a means to other ends since it arouses the sympathy of public +opinion. He regards non-cooperation as compatible with love for the +opponent, yet we have already seen that under modern conditions it is +coercive rather than persuasive in nature. Despite Gandhi's distinction +between his own fasts and those of others, they too involve an element +of psychological coercion. We are led to conclude that much of Gandhi's +program is based upon expediency as well as upon the complete respect +for every human personality which characterizes absolute pacifism. + +FOOTNOTES: + +[82] See the list given by Haridas T. Muzumdar, _Gandhi Triumphant! The +Inside Story of the Historic Fast_ (New York: Universal, 1939), vi-vii. + +[83] _Ibid._, 89. + +[84] _Ibid._, 90. Lewis quotes Gandhi thus: "You cannot fast against a +tyrant, for it will be a species of violence done to him. Fasting can +only be resorted to against a lover not to extort rights, but to reform +him." _Case Against Pacifism_, 109. + + +The American Abolition Movement + +The West also has had its movements of reform which have espoused +non-violence as a principle. The most significant one in the United +States has been the abolition crusade before the Civil War. Its most +publicized faction was the group led by William Lloyd Garrison, who has +had a reputation as an uncompromising extremist. Almost every school boy +remembers the words with which he introduced the first issue of the +_Liberator_ in 1831: + + + "I _will_ be as harsh as truth, and as uncompromising as + justice.... I am in earnest--I will not equivocate--I will not + excuse--I will not retreat a single inch--AND I WILL BE HEARD." + + +He lived up to his promise during the years that followed, and it is no +wonder that Parrington called him "the flintiest character amongst the +New England militants."[85] In the South they regarded him as an inciter +to violence, and barred his writings from the mails. + +Garrison's belief in "non-resistance" is less often stressed, yet his +espousal of this principle was stated in the same uncompromising terms +as his opposition to slavery. In 1838 he induced the Boston Peace +Convention to found the New England Non-Resistance Society. In the +"Declaration of Sentiments" which he wrote and which the new Society +adopted, he said: + + + "The history of mankind is crowded with evidences proving that + physical coercion is not adapted to moral regeneration; that the + sinful dispositions of men can be subdued only by love; that evil + can be exterminated from the earth only by goodness."[86] + + +Throughout his long struggle against slavery, Garrison remained true to +his principles of non-resistance. But his denunciations of slavery made +more impression on the popular mind, and aided in stirring up much of +the violent sentiment in the North which expressed itself in a crescendo +of denunciation of the slave owners. In the South, where anti-slavery +sentiment had been strong before, a new defensive attitude began to +develop. As Calhoun said of the northern criticism of slavery: + + + "It has compelled us to the South to look into the nature and + character of this great institution, and to correct many false + impressions that even we had entertained in relation to it. Many in + the South once believed that it was a moral and political evil; + that folly and delusion are gone; we see it now in its true light, + and regard it as the most safe and stable basis for free + institutions in the world."[87] + + +In the North the violent statements of the abolitionists aroused a +physically violent response. Mobs attacked abolition meetings in many +places, and on one occasion Garrison himself was rescued from an angry +Boston mob. This violence in turn aroused many men like Salmon P. Chase +and Wendell Phillips to espouse the anti-slavery cause because they +could not condone the actions of the anti-abolitionists.[88] Garrison +himself proceeded serenely through the storms that his vigorous writings +precipitated. + +Feelings rose on both sides, and many who heard and accepted the +Garrisonian indictment of slavery knew nothing of his non-resistance +principles.[89] Others, who did, came reluctantly to the conclusion that +a civil war to rid the country of the evil would be preferable to its +continuance. In time the struggle was transferred to the political +arena, where men acted sometimes on the basis of interest and not always +on the basis of moral principles. The gulf between the sections widened, +and civil war approached. + +As abolitionists themselves began to express the belief that the slavery +issue could not be settled without bloodshed, Garrison disclaimed all +responsibility for the growing propensity to espouse violence. In the +_Liberator_ in 1858 he said: + + + "When the anti-slavery cause was launched, it was baptized in the + spirit of peace. We proclaimed to the country and to the world that + the weapons of our warfare were not carnal but spiritual, and we + believed them to be mighty through God to the pulling down even of + the stronghold of slavery; and for several years great moral power + accompanied our cause wherever presented. Alas! in the course of + the fearful developments of the Slave Power, and its continued + aggressions on the rights of the people of the North, in my + judgment a sad change has come over the spirit of anti-slavery men, + generally speaking. We are growing more and more warlike, more and + more disposed to repudiate the principles of peace.... Just in + proportion as this spirit prevails, I feel that our moral power is + departing and will depart.... I will not trust the war-spirit + anywhere in the universe of God, because the experience of six + thousand years proves it not to be at all reliable in such a + struggle as ours.... + + "I pray you, abolitionists, still to adhere to that truth. Do not + get impatient; do not become exasperated; do not attempt any new + political organization; do not make yourselves familiar with the + idea that blood must flow. Perhaps blood will flow--God knows, I do + not; but it shall not flow through any counsel of mine. Much as I + detest the oppression exercised by the Southern slaveholder, he is + a man, sacred before me. He is a man, not to be harmed by my hand + nor with my consent.... While I will not cease reprobating his + horrible injustice, I will let him see that in my heart there is no + desire to do him harm,--that I wish to bless him here, and bless + him everlastingly,--and that I have no other weapon to wield + against him but the simple truth of God, which is the great + instrument for the overthrow of all iniquity, and the salvation of + the world."[90] + + +Yet Garrison's fervor for the emancipation of the slaves was so great +that when the Civil War came, he said of Lincoln and the Republicans: + + + "They are instruments in the hand of God to carry forward and help + achieve the great object of emancipation for which we have so long + been striving.... All our sympathies and wishes must be with the + Government, as against the Southern desperadoes and buccaneers; yet + of course without any compromise of principle on our part."[91] + + +Although Lincoln insisted that the purpose of the North was the +preservation of the Union rather than emancipation, eventually he did +free the slaves. It would seem that Garrison, for all his non-resistance +declarations, bore some of the responsibility for the great conflict. + +In this case, as in the case of Satyagraha, the demand for reform by +non-violent means was translated into violence by followers who were +more devoted to the cause of reform than they were to the non-violent +methods which their leaders proclaimed. + +FOOTNOTES: + +[85] Vernon Louis Parrington, _Main Currents in American Thought_ (New +York: Harcourt Brace, 1930), II, 352. + +[86] The "Declaration" is reprinted in Allen, _Fight for Peace_, +694-697. + +[87] Quoted in Avery Craven, _The Coming of the Civil War_ (New York: +Scribners, 1942), 161. + +[88] Jesse Macy, _The Anti-Slavery Crusade_ (New Haven: Yale University +Press, 1919), 69-70. + +[89] For the many elements in the abolition movement, see Gilbert Hobbs +Barnes, _The Antislavery Impulse, 1830-1844_ (New York: D. +Appleton-Century, 1933). + +[90] Wendell Phillips Garrison, _William Lloyd Garrison_ (New York: +Century, 1889), III, 473-474. + +[91] Letter to Oliver Johnson, quoted in Allen, _Fight for Peace_, +449-450. + + + + +VI. NON-RESISTANCE + + +The preceding section of this study dealt with those who rejected +physical violence on principle, and who felt no hatred toward the +persons who were responsible for evil, but who used methods of bringing +about reform which involved the use of non-physical coercion, and in +some cases what might be called psychological violence. These advocates +of non-violent direct action not only resisted evil negatively; they +also attempted to establish what they considered to be a better state of +affairs. + +This section will deal with true non-resistance. It is concerned with +those who refuse to resist evil, even by non-violent means, for the most +part basing their belief upon the injunction of Jesus to "resist not +evil." For them, non-resistance becomes an end in itself, rather than a +means for achieving other purposes. They are less concerned with +reforming society than they are with maintaining the integrity of their +own lives in this respect. If they have a social influence at all, it is +only because by exhortation or, more especially by the force of example, +they induce others to accept the same way of life. However, in their +refusal to participate directly in such evil as war, even non-resistants +do actually resist evil. + + +The Mennonites + +The Mennonites are the largest and most significant group of +non-resistants. For over four hundred years they have maintained their +religious views, and applied them with remarkable consistency.[92] Their +church grew out of the Anabaptist movement, which had its origins in +Switzerland shortly after 1520. The Anabaptists believed in the literal +acceptance of the teachings of the Bible, and their application as rules +of conduct in daily life. Since they did not depend for their +interpretations upon the authority of any priesthood or ministry, +differences grew up among them at an early date. The more radical wing, +from which the Mennonites came, accepting the Sermon on the Mount as the +heart of the Gospel, early refused to offer any physical resistance to +evil.[93] Felix Manz, who was executed for his beliefs in 1527, +declared, "No Christian smites with the sword nor resists evil."[94] +Hundreds of other Anabaptists followed Manz into martyrdom without +surrendering their faith. + +In a day before conscription had come into general use, the Anabaptists +suffered more for their heresy and their political views than they did +for their non-resistance principles. In their belief in rendering unto +Caesar only those things which were Caesar's and unto God the things +that were God's, they came into conflict with the authorities of both +church and state. The established church they refused to recognize at +all, and they came to regard the state only as a necessary instrument to +control those who had not become Christians. Far in advance of the times +they adopted the principle of complete separation of church and state, +which for them meant that no Christian might hold political office nor +act as the agent of a coercive state, although he must obey its commands +in matters which did not interfere with his duty toward God. On the +basis of direct scriptural authority, they placed the payment of taxes +in the latter category.[95] + +The modern Mennonites are descended from the followers of Menno Simons, +who was born in the Netherlands in 1496. In 1524 he was ordained as a +Catholic priest, but he soon came to doubt the soundness of that +religion, and found his way into Anabaptist ranks, where he became one +of the leading expounders of the radical principles, placing great +emphasis upon non-resistance. In his biblical language, he thus stated +his belief on this point: + + + "The regenerated do not go to war, nor engage in strife. They are + the children of peace who have beaten their swords into plowshares + and their spears into pruning hooks, and know of no war. They + render unto Caesar the things that are Caesar's and unto God the + things that are God's. Their sword is the sword of the Spirit which + they wield with a good conscience through the Holy Ghost."[96] + + +In time the followers of Menno Simons gained in influence, while +branches of the Anabaptist movement which did not follow the principle +of non-resistance died out. Here and there other non-resistant groups +such as the Hutterites and the Moravian Brethren continued.[97] + +Ultimately the Mennonites found their way into several parts of Europe, +from the North Sea to Russia, in their search for a home where they +might be free from persecution. The founding of Germantown in the new +Pennsylvania colony in 1683 marked the beginning of a migration which in +the years that followed brought the more radical of them to America.[98] +With the coming of conscription in Europe, those who held most strongly +to their non-resistant principles came to the United States to escape +military service. Those who remained in Europe gradually gave up their +opposition to war, but those in America have largely maintained their +original position.[99] + + +Today they still refrain from opposing evil, and believe in the +separation of church and state, which to them means a refusal to hold +office and, in many cases, to vote or to have recourse to the courts. +They pay their taxes and do what the state demands, as long as it is not +inconsistent with their duty to God. In case of a conflict in duty, +service to God is placed first. Since they do not believe that it is +possible for the world as a whole to become free of sin, they maintain +that the Christian must separate himself from it. They make no attempt +to bring about reform in society by means of political action or other +movements of the sort which we have considered under non-violent direct +action.[100] + +Since the term "pacifist" has come into general use to designate those +opposed to war, the Mennonites have usually made a distinction between +themselves as "non-resistants" and the pacifists, who, they claim, are +more interested in creating a good society than they are in following +completely the admonitions of the Bible. They also disclaim any +relationship to such non-resistants as Garrison or Ballou, even though +these men reached substantially the same conclusion about the nature of +the state, or with Tolstoy who even refused to accept the support of the +state for the institution of private property. The American +non-resistants they regard primarily as reformers of human society, and +Tolstoy as an anarchist who rejected the state altogether, rather than +accepting it as a necessary evil.[101] In so far as the Mennonites have +used social influence at all, it has been through the force of example, +and in their missionary endeavors to win other individuals to the same +high principles which they themselves follow. + +FOOTNOTES: + +[92] See the pamphlet by C. Henry Smith, _Christian Peace: Four Hundred +Years of Mennonite Peace Principles and Practice_ (Newton, Kansas: +Mennonite Publication Office, 1938). + +[93] C. Henry Smith, _The Story of the Mennonites_ (Berne, Ind.: +Mennonite Book Concern, 1941), 9-30. + +[94] John Horsch, _Mennonites in Europe_, (Scottdale, Pa.: Mennonite +Publishing House, 1942), 359. + +[95] Smith, _Story of the Mennonites_, 30-35. + +[96] Quoted by Horsch, 363. + +[97] _Ibid._, 365. + +[98] Smith, _Story of the Mennonites_, 536-539. + +[99] Smith, _Christian Peace_, 12-15. + +[100] Edward Yoder, _et al._, _Must Christians Fight: A Scriptural +Inquiry_ (Akron, Pa.: Mennonite Central Committee, 1943), 31-32, 41-44, +59-61, 64-65. + +[101] _Ibid._, 62-63; and for a full discussion of the attitude see Guy +F. Hershberger, "Biblical Non-resistance and Modern Pacifism" in +_Mennonite Quarterly Rev._, XVII (July, 1943), 115-135. + + +The New England Non-Resistants + +The Mennonites are undoubtedly right in making a distinction between +their position and that of the relatively large group of +"non-resistants" which arose in New England during the middle of the +nineteenth century. We have already noted the "Declaration of +Principles" written by Garrison and accepted by the New England +Non-Resistance Society in 1838. Despite the fact that Garrison insisted +that an individual ought not to participate in the government of a state +which used coercion against its subjects, his life was devoted to a +campaign against the evil of slavery. In the "Declaration" itself he +said: + + + "But, while we shall adhere to the doctrine of non-resistance and + passive submission to enemies, we purpose, in a moral and spiritual + sense, to speak and act boldly in the cause of GOD; to assail + iniquity in high places, and in low places; to apply our principles + to all existing civil, political, legal and ecclesiastical + institutions; and to hasten the time, when the kingdoms of this + world will have become the kingdoms of our LORD and of his CHRIST, + and he shall reign forever."[102] + + +Garrison was essentially a man of action; the real philosopher of the +non-resistance movement was Adin Ballou, a Universalist minister of New +England who devoted his whole life to the advancement of its principles. +In 1846 he published his _Christian Non-Resistance: In All Its Important +Bearings_, in which he set forth his doctrine, supported it with full +scriptural citations, and then presented a catalogue of incidents which +to his own satisfaction proved its effectiveness, both in personal and +in social relationships. + +Although Ballou listed a long series of means which a Christian +non-resistant might not use, he insisted that he had a duty to oppose +evil, saying: + + + "I claim the right to offer the utmost moral resistance, not + sinful, of which God has made me capable, to every manifestation of + evil among mankind. Nay, I hold it my duty to offer such moral + resistance. In this sense my very non-resistance becomes the + highest kind of resistance to evil."[103] + + +Nor did Ballou condemn all use of "uninjurious, benevolent physical +force" in restraining the insane or the man about to commit an injury to +another. He finally defined non-resistance as "simply non-resistance of +injury with injury--evil with evil." Rather, he believed in "the +essential efficacy of good, as the counter-acting force with which to +resist evil."[104] + +In applying his principle rigorously, Ballou, like the Mennonites, came +to the conclusion that the non-resistant could have nothing to do with +government. If he so much as voted for its officials, he had to share +the moral responsibility for the wars, capital punishment, and other +personal injuries which were carried out in its name. He insisted: + + + "There is no escape from this terrible moral responsibility but by + a conscientious withdrawal from such government, and an + uncompromising protest against so much of its fundamental creed and + constitutional law, as is decidedly anti-Christian. He must cease + to be its pledged supporter, and approving dependent."[105] + + +Like the Mennonites, he saw that the reason that governments were +unchristian was that the people themselves were not Christian; but +unlike the Mennonites he maintained that they might eventually become +so, and that it was the duty of the Christian to hasten the day of their +complete conversion. "This," he said, + + + "is not to be done by voting at the polls, by seeking influential + offices in the government and binding ourselves to anti-Christian + political compacts. It is to be done by pure Christian precepts + faithfully inculcated, and pure Christian examples on the part of + those who have been favored to receive and embrace the highest + truths."[106] + + +The Mennonites believed that man was essentially depraved; Ballou +believed that he was perfectible.[107] + +FOOTNOTES: + +[102] Allen, _Fight for Peace_, 696. + +[103] Ballou, _Christian Non-Resistance_, 3. + +[104] _Ibid._, 2-25. + +[105] _Ibid._, 18. + +[106] _Ibid._, 223-224. + +[107] Perhaps this is the point at which to insert a footnote on Henry +Thoreau, whose essay on "Civil Disobedience" is said to have influenced +Gandhi. Although he lived in the same intellectual climate that produced +Garrison and Ballou, he was not a non-resistant on principle. For +instance, he supported the violent attack upon slave holders by John +Brown just before the Civil War. He did come to substantially the same +conclusions, however, on government. He refused even to pay a tax to a +government which carried on activities which he considered immoral, such +as supporting slavery, or carrying on war. On one occasion he said, +"They are the lovers of law and order who observe the law when the +government breaks it." Essentially, Thoreau was a philosophical +anarchist, who placed his faith entirely in the individual, rather than +in any sort of organized social action. See the essay on him in +Parrington, II, 400-413; and his own essay on "Civil Disobedience" in +_The Writings of Henry David Thoreau_ (Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 1906), +IV, 356-387. + + +Tolstoy + +Many people regard the writings of Count Leo Tolstoy as the epitome of +the doctrine of non-resistance. Tolstoy arrived at his convictions after +a long period of inner turmoil, and published them in _My Religion_ in +1884. In the years that followed, his wide correspondence introduced him +to many others who had held the same views. He was especially impressed +with the 1838 statement of Garrison, and with the writings of Ballou, +with whom he entered into correspondence directly.[108] + +However, he went further than Ballou, and even further than the +Mennonites in his theory, which he formulated fully in _The Kingdom of +God is Within You_, published in 1893. He renounced the use of physical +force completely even in dealing with the insane or with children.[109] +He severed all relations with government, and went on to insist that the +true Christian might not own any property. He practiced his own +doctrines strictly. + +Tolstoy had quite a number of followers, and a few groups were +established to carry out his teachings. These groups have continued to +exist under the Soviet Union, but their present fate is obscure. His +works greatly influenced Peter Verigin, leader of the Dukhobors, who +shortly after 1900 left Russia and settled in Canada in order to find a +more hospitable environment for their communistic community, and to +escape the necessity for military service.[110] + +However, Tolstoy's theory is so completely anarchistic that it does not +lend itself to organization. Hence his chief influence has been +intellectual, and upon individuals. We have already noted the great +impact that his works made on Gandhi, while he was formulating the ideas +which were to result in Satyagraha. + +Neither in the case of Gandhi, nor of Peter Verigin, however, were +Tolstoy's doctrines applied in completely undiluted form. The Mennonites +also disclaim kinship with him on the grounds that he sought a +regeneration of society as a whole in this world.[111] + +For most men the doctrine of complete anarchism has seemed too extreme +for practical consideration, but it would seem that Tolstoy arrived at +the logical conclusion of a system of non-resistance based on the +premise that man should not combat evil, nor have any relationship +whatever with human institutions which attempt to restrain men by means +other than reliance upon the force of example and goodwill. + +FOOTNOTES: + +[108] Aylmer Maude, _The Life of Tolstoy,_ (New York: Dodd, Mead, 1910), +II, 354-360, where the letters to and from Ballou are quoted at length. +See also Count Leo N. Tolstoy, _The Kingdom of God is Within You_, +translated by Leo Wiener (Boston: Dana Estes & Co., 1905), 6-22. + +[109] In a letter to L. G. Wilson, Tolstoy said: "I cannot agree with +the concession he [Ballou] makes for employing violence against +drunkards and insane people. The Master made no concessions, and we can +make none. We must try, as Mr. Ballou puts it, to make impossible the +existence of such people, but if they do exist, we must use all possible +means, and sacrifice ourselves, but not employ violence. A true +Christian will always prefer to be killed by a madman, than to deprive +him of his liberty." Maude, _Tolstoy_, II, 355-356. + +[110] J. F. C. Wright, _Slava Bohu: The Story of the Dukhobors_ (New +York: Farrar and Rinehart, 1940), 99. + +[111] Hershberger says of him: "He identified the kingdom of God with +human society after the manner of the social gospel. But since he +believed in an absolute renunciation of violence for all men, Tolstoy +was an anarchist, repudiating the state altogether. Biblical +nonresistance declines to participate in the coercive activities of the +state, but nevertheless regards those as necessary for the maintenance +of order in a sinful society, and is not anarchistic. But Tolstoy found +no place for the state in human society at all; and due to his faith in +the goodness of man he believed that eventually all coercion, including +domestic police, would be done away." _Mennonite Qu. Rev._, XVII, +129-130. + + + + +VII. ACTIVE GOODWILL AND RECONCILIATION + + +The term "resistance" has occurred frequently in this study. As has been +pointed out, this word has a negative quality, and implies opposition to +the will of another, rather than an attempt to realize a positive +policy. The preceding section dealt with its counterpart, +"non-resistance," which has a neutral connotation, and implies that the +non-resister is not involved in the immediate struggle, and that for him +the refusal to inflict injury upon anyone is a higher value than the +achievement of any policy of his own, either positive or negative. + +Non-violent coercion, Satyagraha, and non-violent direct action, on the +other hand, are definitely positive in their approach. Each seeks to +effectuate a specified change in the policy of the person or group +responsible for a situation which those who organize the non-violent +action believe to be undesirable. However, even in such action the +negative quality may appear. Satyagraha, for instance, insofar as it is +a movement of opposition or "resistance" to British rule in India is +negative, despite its positive objectives of establishing a certain type +of government and economic system in that country. + +The employment of active goodwill is another approach to the problem of +bringing about desired social change. Its proponents seek to accomplish +a positive alteration in the attitude and policy of the group or person +responsible for some undesirable situation; but they refuse to use +coercion--even non-violent coercion. Rather they endeavor to convince +their opponent that it would be desirable to change his policy because +the change would be in his own best interest, or would actually maintain +his own real standard of values. + +Many of those who would reject all coercion of an opponent practice such +positive goodwill towards him, not because they are convinced that their +action will accomplish the social purposes which they would like to +achieve, but rather because they place such an attitude toward their +fellowmen as their highest value. They insist that they would act in the +same way regardless of the consequences of their action, either to the +person towards whom they practice goodwill or to themselves. They act on +the basis of principle rather than on the basis of expediency. In this +regard they are like many of the practitioners of other methods of +non-violence; but unlike them they place their emphasis on the positive +action of goodwill which they _will_ use, rather than upon a catalogue +of violent actions which they will not use. + +To those who practice the method of goodwill all types of education and +persuasion are available. In the past they have used the printed and +spoken word, and under favorable circumstances even political action. +They hope to appeal to "that of God in every man," to bring about +genuine repentance on the part of those who have been responsible for +evil. If direct persuasion is not effective, they hope that their +exhibition of love towards him whom others under the same circumstances +would regard as an enemy may appeal to an aspect of his nature which is +temporarily submerged, and result in a change of attitude on his part. +If it does not, these advocates of goodwill are ready to suffer the +consequences of their action, even to the point of death. + + +Action in the Face of Persecution + +The practice of positive goodwill is open to the individual as well as +to the group. Since he does what he believes to be right regardless of +the consequences, he will act before there are enough who share his +opinion to create any chance of victory over the well organized forces +of the state or other institutions which are responsible for evil. The +history of the martyrs of all ages presents us with innumerable examples +of men who have acted in this way. Socrates is of their number, as well +as the early Christians who insisted upon practicing their religion +despite the edicts of the Roman empire. Jesus himself is the outstanding +example of one who was willing to die rather than to surrender +principle. It cannot be said of these martyrs that they acted in order +to bring about reforms in society. They suffered because under the +compulsion of their faith they could act in no other way, and at the +time of their deaths it always looked as though they had been defeated. +But in the end their sacrifices had unsought results. The proof of their +effectiveness is declared in the old adage that "the blood of the +martyrs is the seed of the church." + +If we seek examples from relatively recent times, we may find them in +the annals of many of the pacifist sects of our own day. Robert Barclay, +the Quaker apologist of the late seventeenth century, stated the +position which the members of the Society of Friends so often put to the +test: + + + "But the true, faithful and Christian suffering is for men to + profess what they are persuaded is right, and so practise and + perform their worship towards God, as being their true right so to + do; and neither to do more than that, because of outward + encouragement from men; nor any whit less, because of the fear of + their laws and acts against it."[112] + + +The early Quakers suffered severely under the laws of England in a day +when religious toleration was virtually unheard of. George Fox himself +had sixty encounters with magistrates and was imprisoned on eight +occasions; yet he was not diverted from his task of preaching truth. It +has been estimated that 15,000 Quakers "suffered" under the various +religious acts of the Restoration.[113] But they continued to hold the +principles which had been stated by twelve of their leaders, including +Fox, to King Charles shortly after his return to England: + + + "Our principle is, and our practice always has been, to seek peace + and ensue it; to follow after righteousness and the knowledge of + God; seeking the good and welfare, and doing that which tends to + the peace of all. + + * * * * * + + "When we have been wronged, we have not sought to revenge + ourselves; we have not made resistance against authority; but + whenever we could not obey for conscience sake, we have suffered + the most of any people in the nation...."[114] + + +These sufferings did not go unheeded. Even the wordly Samuel Pepys wrote +in his diary concerning Quakers on their way to prison: "They go like +lambs without any resistance I would to God they would either conform or +be more wise and not be catched."[115] + +In Massachusetts, where the Puritans hoped to establish the true garden +of the Lord, the lot of the Quakers was even more severe. Despite +warnings and imprisonments, Friends kept encroaching upon the Puritan +preserve until the Massachusetts zealots, in their desperation over the +failure of the gentler means of quenching Quaker ardor, condemned and +executed three men and a woman. Even Charles II was revolted by such +extreme measures, and ordered the colony to desist. After a long +struggle the Quakers, along with other advocates of liberty of +conscience, won their struggle for religious liberty even in +Massachusetts. There can be little doubt that their sufferings played +an important part in the establishment of religious liberty as an +American principle.[116] + +In our own day the conscientious objector to military service, whatever +his motivation and philosophy, faces a social situation very similar to +that which confronted these early supporters of a new faith. For the +moment there is little chance that his insistence upon following the +highest values which his conscience recognizes will bring an end to war, +because there are not enough others who share his convictions. He takes +his individual stand without regard for outward consequences to himself, +because his conviction leaves him no other alternative. But even though +his "sufferings" do not at once make possible the universal practice of +goodwill towards all men, they may in the end have the result of helping +to banish war from the world. + +FOOTNOTES: + +[112] Robert Barclay, _An Apology for the True Christian Divinity; being +an Explanation and Vindication of the Principles and Doctrines of the +People Called Quakers_ (Philadelphia: Friends' Book Store, 1908), +Proposition XIV, Section VI, 480. + +[113] A. Ruth Fry, _Quaker Ways: An Attempt to Explain Quaker Beliefs +and Practices and to Illustrate them by the Lives and Activities of +Friends of Former Days_ (London: Cassell, 1933), 126, 131. + +[114] Quoted by Margaret E. Hirst, _The Quakers in Peace and War: an +Account of Their Peace Principles and Practice_ (New York: George H. +Doran, 1923), 115-116. + +[115] Quoted in Fry, _Quaker Ways_, 128-129. + +[116] Hirst, 327; Rufus M. Jones, _The Quakers in the American Colonies_ +(London: Macmillan, 1923), 3-135. + + +Coercion or Persuasion? + +A man who is willing to undergo imprisonment and even death itself +rather than to cease doing what he believes is right knows in his own +heart that coercion is not an effective means of persuasion. The early +Quakers saw this clearly. Barclay stated his conviction in these words: + + + "This forcing of men's consciences is contrary to sound reason, and + the very law of nature. For man's understanding cannot be forced by + all the bodily sufferings another man can inflict upon him, + especially in matters spiritual and super-natural: 'Tis argument, + and evident demonstration of reason, together with the power of God + reaching the heart, that can change a man's mind from one opinion + to another, and not knocks and blows, and such like things, which + may well destroy the body, but never can inform the soul, which is + a free agent, and must either accept or reject matters of opinion + as they are borne in upon it by something proportioned to its own + nature."[117] + + +And William Penn said more simply, "Gaols and gibbets are inadequate +methods for conversion: this forbids all further light to come into the +world."[118] + +Other religious groups who went through experiences comparable to those +of the Friends came to similar conclusions. The Church of the Brethren, +founded in 1709 in Germany, took as one of its leading principles that +"there shall be no force in religion," and carried it out so faithfully +that they would not baptize children, on the ground that this act would +coerce them into membership in the church before they could decide to +join of their own free will. The Brethren have refused to take part in +war not only because it is contrary to the spirit of Christian love, and +destroys sacred human life, but also because it is coercive and +interferes with the free rights of others.[119] + +For the person who believes in the practice of positive goodwill towards +all men, the refusal to use coercion arises from its incompatibility +with the spirit of positive regard for every member of the human family, +rather than being a separate value in itself. In social situations this +regard may express itself in various ways. It may have a desirable +result from the point of view of the practitioner, but again we must +emphasize that he does what he does on the basis of principle; the +result is a secondary consideration. + +FOOTNOTES: + +[117] Barclay, _Apology_, Prop. XIV, Sec. IV, 470. + +[118] Fry, _Quaker Ways_. 59-60. + +[119] D. W. Kurtz, _Ideals of the Church of the Brethren_, leaflet +(Elgin, Ill.: General Mission Board, 1934?); Martin G. Brumbaugh in +_Studies in the Doctrine of Peace_ (Elgin, Ill.: Board of Christian +Education, Church of the Brethren, 1939), 56; the statement of the +Goshen Conference of 1918 and other statements of the position of the +church in L. W. Shultz (ed.), _Minutes of the Annual Conference of the +Church of the Brethren on War and Peace_, mimeo (Elgin: Bd. of Chr. Ed., +Church of the Brethren, 1935); and the pamphlet by Robert Henry Miller, +_The Christian Philosophy of Peace_ (Elgin: Bd. of Chr. Ed., Church of +the Brethren, 1935). + + +Ministering to Groups in Conflict + +One expression of this philosophy may be abstention from partisanship in +conflicts between other groups, in order to administer impartially to +the human need of both parties to the conflict. + +In this connection much has been made of the story of the Irish Quakers +during the rebellion in that country in 1798. Before the conflict broke +into open violence the Quarterly Meetings and the General National +Meeting recommended that all Friends destroy all firearms in their +possession so that there could be no suspicion of their implication in +the coming struggle. During the fighting in 1798 the Friends interceded +with both sides in the interests of humanity, entertained the destitute +from both parties and treated the wounds of any man who needed care. +Both the Government forces and the rebels came to respect Quaker +integrity, and in the midst of pillage and rapine the Quaker households +escaped unscathed. But Thomas Hancock, who told the story a few years +later, pointed out that in their course of conduct the Friends had not +sought safety. + + + "It is," he said, "to be presumed, that, even if outward + preservation had not been experienced, they who conscientiously + take the maxims of Peace for the rule of their conduct, would hold + it not less their duty to conform to those principles; because the + reward of such endeavor to act in obedience to their Divine + Master's will is not always to be looked for in the present life. + While, therefore, the fact of their outward preservation would be + no sufficient argument to themselves that they had acted as they + ought to act in such a crisis, it affords a striking lesson to + those who will take no principle, that has not been verified by + experience, for a rule of human conduct, even if it should have the + sanction of Divine authority."[120] + + +It is in this same spirit that various pacifist groups undertook the +work of relief of suffering after the First World War in "friendly" and +"enemy" countries alike, ministering to human need without distinction +of party, race or creed. The stories of the work of the American Friends +Service Committee and the _Service Civil_ founded by Pierre Ceresole are +too well known to need repeating here.[121] It should not be overlooked +that in this same spirit the Brethren and the Mennonites also carried on +large scale relief projects during the interwar years. + +FOOTNOTES: + +[120] Thomas Hancock, _The Principles of Peace Exemplified in the +Conduct of the Society of Friends in Ireland During the Rebellion of the +year 1798, with some Preliminary and Concluding Observations_ (2nd ed., +London, 1826), 28-29. All the important features of the story are +summarized in Hirst, 216-224. + +[121] Lester M. Jones, _Quakers in Action: Recent Humanitarian and +Reform Activities of the American Quakers_ (New York: Macmillan, 1929); +Rufus M. Jones, _A Service of Love in War Time_ (New York: Macmillan, +1920); Mary Hoxie Jones, _Swords into Plowshares: An Account of the +American Friends Service Committee 1917-1937_ (New York: Macmillan, +1937); Willis H. Hall, _Quaker International Work in Europe Since 1914_ +(Chambery, Savoie, France: Imprimeries Reunies, 1938). On _Service +Civil_, see Lilian Stevenson, _Towards a Christian International, The +Story of the International Fellowship of Reconciliation_ (Vienna: +International Fellowship of Reconciliation, 1929), 27-31, and Alan A. +Hunter, _White Corpuscles in Europe_ (Chicago: Willett, Clark, 1939), +33-42. + + +The Power of Example + +A social group that acts consistently in accordance with the principles +of active goodwill also exerts great influence through the force of its +example. A study of the Quaker activities in behalf of social welfare +was published in Germany just before the First World War, by Auguste +Jorns. She shows how, in relief of the poor, education, temperance, +public health, the care of the insane, prison reform, and the abolition +of slavery, the Quakers set about to solve the problem within their own +society, but never in an exclusive way, so that others as well as +members might receive the benefits of Quaker enterprises. Quaker methods +became well known, and in time served as models for similar undertakings +by other philanthropic groups and public agencies. Many modern social +work procedures thus had their origins in the work of the Friends in a +relatively small circle.[122] + +FOOTNOTE: + +[122] Auguste Jorns, _The Quakers as Pioneers in Social Work_, trans. by +Thomas Kite Brown (New York: Macmillan, 1931). + + +Work for Social Reform + +The activity of Quakers in the abolition of slavery both in England and +America, especially the life-long work of John Woolman in the colonies, +is well known. Here too, the first "concerned" Friends attempted to +bring to an end the practice of holding slaves within the Society +itself. When they had succeeded in eliminating it from their own ranks, +they could, with a clear conscience, suggest that their neighbors follow +their example. When the time came, Quakers were willing to take part in +political action to eradicate the evil. The compensated emancipation of +the slaves in the British Empire in 1833 proved that the reform could be +accomplished without the violent repercussions which followed in the +United States.[123] + +Horace G. Alexander has pointed out that the person who voluntarily +surrenders privilege, as the American Quakers did in giving up their +slaves, not only serves as a witness to the falsehood of privilege, but +can never rest until reform is achieved. + + + "The very fact," he says, "that he feels a loyalty to the + oppressors as well as to the oppressed means that he can never rest + until the oppressors have been converted. It is not their + destruction that he wants, but a change in their hearts."[124] + + +Such an attitude is based upon a faith in the perfectibility of man and +the possibility of the regeneration of society. It leads from a desire +to live one's own life according to high principles to a desire to +establish similar principles in human institutions. It rejects the +thesis of Reinhold Niebuhr that social groups can never live according +to the same moral codes as individuals, and also the belief of such +groups as the Mennonites that, since the "world" is necessarily evil, +the precepts of high religion apply only to those who have accepted the +Christian way of life. Instead, the conviction of those who hold this +ideal that it is social as well as individual in its application leads +them into the pathways of social reform, and even into political +action. + +FOOTNOTES: + +[123] Henry J. Cadbury, _Colonial Quaker Antecedents to British +Abolition of Slavery_, An address to the Friends' Historical Society, +March 1933 (London: Friends Committee on Slavery and Protection of +Native Races, 1933), reprinted from _The Friends' Quarterly Examiner_, +July, 1933; Jorns, 197-233. + +[124] Horace G. Alexander in Heard, _et al._, _The New Pacifism_, 93. + + +Political Action and Compromise + +The Quakers, for instance, have been noted for their participation in +all sorts of reform movements. Since every reform in one sense involves +opposition to some existing institution, Clarence Case has been led to +call the Quakers "non-physical resistants;"[125] but since their real +objective was usually the establishment of a new institution rather than +the mere destruction of an old one, they might better be called +"non-violent advocates." They were willing to advocate their reforms in +the public forum and the political arena. Since, as Rufus Jones has +pointed out, such action might yield to the temptation to compromise +with men of lesser ideals, there has always been an element in the +Society of Friends which insisted that the ideal must be served in its +entirety, even to the extent of giving up public office and influence +rather than to compromise.[126] In Pennsylvania the Quakers withdrew +from the legislature when it became necessary in the existing political +situation to vote support of the French and Indian war, but they did so +not because they did not believe in political action, in which up to +that moment they had taken part willingly enough, but rather because +under the circumstances of the moment it was impossible to realize their +ideals by that means.[127] + +Ruth Fry, in discussing the uncompromising attitude of the Friends on +the issue of slavery, has well described the process of Quaker reform: + + + "One cannot help feeling that this strong stand for the ultimate + right was far more responsible for success than the more timid one, + and should encourage such action in other great causes. In fact, + the ideal Quaker method would seem to be patient waiting for + enlightenment on the underlying principle, which when seen is so + absolutely clear and convincing that no outer difficulties or + suffering can affect it: its full implications gradually appear, + and its ultimate triumph can never be doubted. Any advance towards + it, may be accepted as a stepping stone, although only methods + consistent with Quaker ideals may be used to gain the desired end. + Doing anything tinged with evil, that good may come, is entirely + contrary to their ideas."[128] + + +She goes on to say, "As ever, the exact line of demarcation between +methods aggressive enough to arouse the indolent and those beyond the +bounds of Quaker propriety was indeed difficult to draw."[129] + +In such a statement we find a conception of compromise which is +different from that usually encountered. In it the advocate of the ideal +says that for the time being he will accept less than his ultimate goal, +provided the change is in the direction in which he desires to move, but +he will not accept the slightest compromise which would move away from +his goal. + +FOOTNOTES: + +[125] Case, _Non-Violent Coercion_, 92-93. + +[126] Rufus M. Jones, _The Quakers in the American Colonies_, 175-176. + +[127] Jones, _Quakers in the Colonies_, 459-494; Isaac Sharpless, _A +Quaker Experiment in Government_ (Philadelphia: Alfred J. Ferris, 1898), +226-276. + +[128] Fry, _Quaker Ways_, 171-172. + +[129] _Ibid._, 177. + + +The Third Alternative + +The logical pursuit of such a principle leads even further than the type +of compromise which Ruth Fry has described, to the establishment of a +new basis of understanding which may not include any of the principles +for which the parties in conflict may have been striving, and yet which +brings about reconciliation. + +Eric Heyman, speaking in religious terms, has said of this process of +discovering a new basis of understanding through the exercise of +positive goodwill, even toward an oppressor: + + + "That is the way of God, and it is therefore the way of our + discipleship as reconcilers; the way of non-resistance to evil, of + the total acceptance of the consequences of evil in all their lurid + destructiveness, in order that the evil doer may be reconciled to + God.... The whole consequences of his presence, whether small or + great must be accepted with the single realisation that the whole + process of the world's redemption rests upon the relationship which + the Christian is able to create between himself and his oppressor. + This course has nothing in common with resistance; it is the + opposite of surrender, for its whole purpose and motive is the + triumphing over evil by acceptance of all that it brings.... The + resistance of evil, whether by way of violence or 'non-violence' is + the way of this world. Resignation to evil is the way of weak + surrender, and yields only a powerless resentment; at its best it + is non-moral, at the worst sheerly immoral. Acceptance of evil is + the triumphant answer of the redeemer. In the moment of his + acceptance he knows of a certainty that he has overcome the + world."[130] + + +This process of finding a new basis of relationship has been called "a +third alternative, which produces no majority rule and no defeated +minority."[131] The Quakers have long used this method in arriving at +decisions within their own meetings. They refuse to make motions and +take votes which produce clearcut divisions within the group, but insist +that no action shall be taken until all divergent points of view have +been expressed, and a statement drawn up which embodies "the sense of +the meeting" and is acceptable to all. As Elton Trueblood has said, "The +overpowering of a minority by calling for a vote is a kind of force, and +breeds the resentment which keeps the method of force from achieving +ultimate success with persons."[132] Douglas Steere has described the +process in these words: + + + "This unshakable faith in the way of vital, mutual interaction by + conciliatory conference is held to be applicable to international + and interracial conflict as it is to that between workers and + employer, or between man and wife. But it is not content to stop + there. It would defy all fears and bring into the tense process of + arriving at this joint decision a kind of patience and a quiet + confidence which believes, not that there is no other way, but that + there is a 'third-alternative' which will annihilate neither + party."[133] + + +M. P. Follett, twenty years ago, wrote a book entitled _Creative +Experience_, in which she supported this same conclusion on the basis of +scientific knowledge about the nature of man, society and politics. +Speaking of the democratic process she said: + + + "We have the will of the people ideally when all desires are + satisfied.... The aim of democracy should be integrating desires. I + have said that truth emerges from difference. In the ballot-box + there is no confronting of difference, hence no possibility of + integrating, hence no creating; self-government is a creative + process and nothing else.... Democracy does not register various + opinions; it is an attempt to create unity."[134] + + +It might be said that in so far as democracy has succeeded, it has done +so because of its adherence to this principle. The division of a society +into groups which are unremittingly committed to struggle against each +other, whether by violent or non-violent means, until one or the other +has been annihilated or forced to yield outwardly to its oppressors for +the time being, will inevitably destroy the loyalty to a common purpose +through which alone democracy can exist. + +The contrast between the British and American attitudes toward the +abolition of slavery presents us with a case in point. In Great Britain, +the Emancipation Act contained provisions for the compensation of the +slave owners, so that it became acceptable to them. In the United States +the advocates of abolition insisted that since slavery was sin there +could be no recognition of the rights of the owners. Elihu Burritt and +his League of Universal Brotherhood were as much opposed to slavery as +the most ardent abolitionists, yet of the League Burritt declared: "It +will not only aim at the mutual pacification of enemies, but at their +conversion into brethren."[135] Burritt became the chief advocate of +compensated emancipation in the United States. Finally the idea was +suggested in the Senate and hearings had been arranged on the measure. + + + "But," Burritt said, "just as it had reached that stage at which + Congressional action was about to recognize it as a legitimate + proposition, 'John Brown's raid' suddenly closed the door against + all overtures or efforts for the peaceful extinction of slavery. + Its extinction by compensated emancipation would have recognized + the moral complicity of the whole nation in planting and + perpetuating it on this continent. It would have been an act of + repentance, and the meetest work for repentance the nation could + perform."[136] + + +The country was already too divided to strive for this "third +alternative," and, whether or not slavery was one of the prime causes of +the Civil War, it made its contribution to creating the feeling which +brought on the conflict. In the light of the present intensity of racial +feeling in the United States, it can hardly be said that the enforced +settlement of the war gave the Negro an equal place in American society +or eliminated conflict between the races. + +One of the virtues of the method of reconciliation of views in seeking +the "third alternative" is that it can be practiced by the individual or +a very small group as well as on the national or international scale. +James Myers has described its use within the local community in the +"informal conference." In such a conference, the person or group +desiring to create better understanding or to eliminate conflict between +elements of the community calls together, without any publicity, +representatives of various interests for a discussion of points of view, +with the understanding that there will be no attempt to reach +conclusions or arrive at any official decisions. James Myers' experience +has indicated that the conferences create an appreciation of the reasons +for former divergence of opinion, and a realization of the possibilities +of new bases of relationship which have often resulted in easing +tensions within the community and in the solution of racial, economic +and social conflicts.[137] + +Even on the international level, individuals may make some contribution +toward the elimination of conflicts, although, in the face of the +present emphasis upon nationalism, and the lack of common international +values to which appeal may be made, their labors are not apt to be +crowned with success. As in all the cases which we have been +considering, however, concerned individuals and groups may act in this +field because they feel a compulsion to do so, regardless of whether or +not their actions are likely to be successful in producing the desired +result of reconciliation, and the discovery of the third +alternative.[138] + +FOOTNOTES: + +[130] Eric Heyman, _The Pacifist Dilemma_ (Banbury, England: Friends' +Peace Committee, 1941), 11-12. + +[131] Carl Heath, "The Third Alternative" in Heard, _et al._, _The New +Pacifism_, 102. + +[132] D. Elton Trueblood, "The Quaker Method of Reaching Decisions" in +Laughlin, _Beyond Dilemmas_, 119. + +[133] Douglas V. Steere, "Introduction" to Laughlin, _Beyond Dilemmas_, +18. + +[134] M. P. Follett, _Creative Experience_ (New York: Longmans, Green, +1924), 209. + +[135] Quoted in Allen, _Fight for Peace_, 428. + +[136] Quoted in _Ibid._, 437. + +[137] James Myers, _"Informal Conferences" a New Technique In Social +Education_, Leaflet (New York: Federal Council of Churches of Christ in +America, 1943). + +[138] See George Lansbury, _My Pilgrimage for Peace_ (New York: Holt, +1938); Bertram Pickard, _Pacifist Diplomacy in Conflict Situations: +Illustrated by the Quaker International Centers_ (Philadelphia: Pacifist +Research Bureau, 1943). + + + + +VIII. CONCLUSIONS + + +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. + + * * * * * + + ADVERTISEMENT + + + INTRODUCTION TO + NON-VIOLENCE + + PUBLICATIONS OF THE + PACIFIST RESEARCH BUREAU + + 1. Five Foot Shelf of Pacifist Literature 5c + 2. The Balance of Power 25c + 3. Coercion of States: In Federal Unions 25c + 4. Coercion of States In International Organizations 25c + 5. Comparative Peace Plans** 25c + 6. Pacifist Diplomacy in Conflict Situations 10c + 7. The Political Theories of Modern Pacifism 25c + 8. Introduction to Non-Violence 25c + 9. Economics for Peace* 25c +10. Conscientious Objectors in Prison* 25c + + * _In Preparation_ +** _Out of Print_ + + * * * * * + + + + + +End of Project Gutenberg's Introduction to Non-Violence, by Theodore Paullin + +*** END OF THIS PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK INTRODUCTION TO NON-VIOLENCE *** + +***** This file should be named 18493.txt or 18493.zip ***** +This and all associated files of various formats will be found in: + http://www.gutenberg.org/1/8/4/9/18493/ + +Produced by Mark C. Orton, Martin Pettit and the Online +Distributed Proofreading Team at http://www.pgdp.net + + +Updated editions will replace the previous one--the old editions +will be renamed. + +Creating the works from public domain print editions means that no +one owns a United States copyright in these works, so the Foundation +(and you!) can copy and distribute it in the United States without +permission and without paying copyright royalties. Special rules, +set forth in the General Terms of Use part of this license, apply to +copying and distributing Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works to +protect the PROJECT GUTENBERG-tm concept and trademark. Project +Gutenberg is a registered trademark, and may not be used if you +charge for the eBooks, unless you receive specific permission. If you +do not charge anything for copies of this eBook, complying with the +rules is very easy. You may use this eBook for nearly any purpose +such as creation of derivative works, reports, performances and +research. They may be modified and printed and given away--you may do +practically ANYTHING with public domain eBooks. Redistribution is +subject to the trademark license, especially commercial +redistribution. + + + +*** START: FULL LICENSE *** + +THE FULL PROJECT GUTENBERG LICENSE +PLEASE READ THIS BEFORE YOU DISTRIBUTE OR USE THIS WORK + +To protect the Project Gutenberg-tm mission of promoting the free +distribution of electronic works, by using or distributing this work +(or any other work associated in any way with the phrase "Project +Gutenberg"), you agree to comply with all the terms of the Full Project +Gutenberg-tm License (available with this file or online at +http://gutenberg.org/license). + + +Section 1. General Terms of Use and Redistributing Project Gutenberg-tm +electronic works + +1.A. By reading or using any part of this Project Gutenberg-tm +electronic work, you indicate that you have read, understand, agree to +and accept all the terms of this license and intellectual property +(trademark/copyright) agreement. If you do not agree to abide by all +the terms of this agreement, you must cease using and return or destroy +all copies of Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works in your possession. +If you paid a fee for obtaining a copy of or access to a Project +Gutenberg-tm electronic work and you do not agree to be bound by the +terms of this agreement, you may obtain a refund from the person or +entity to whom you paid the fee as set forth in paragraph 1.E.8. + +1.B. "Project Gutenberg" is a registered trademark. It may only be +used on or associated in any way with an electronic work by people who +agree to be bound by the terms of this agreement. There are a few +things that you can do with most Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works +even without complying with the full terms of this agreement. See +paragraph 1.C below. There are a lot of things you can do with Project +Gutenberg-tm electronic works if you follow the terms of this agreement +and help preserve free future access to Project Gutenberg-tm electronic +works. See paragraph 1.E below. + +1.C. The Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation ("the Foundation" +or PGLAF), owns a compilation copyright in the collection of Project +Gutenberg-tm electronic works. Nearly all the individual works in the +collection are in the public domain in the United States. If an +individual work is in the public domain in the United States and you are +located in the United States, we do not claim a right to prevent you from +copying, distributing, performing, displaying or creating derivative +works based on the work as long as all references to Project Gutenberg +are removed. Of course, we hope that you will support the Project +Gutenberg-tm mission of promoting free access to electronic works by +freely sharing Project Gutenberg-tm works in compliance with the terms of +this agreement for keeping the Project Gutenberg-tm name associated with +the work. You can easily comply with the terms of this agreement by +keeping this work in the same format with its attached full Project +Gutenberg-tm License when you share it without charge with others. + +1.D. The copyright laws of the place where you are located also govern +what you can do with this work. Copyright laws in most countries are in +a constant state of change. If you are outside the United States, check +the laws of your country in addition to the terms of this agreement +before downloading, copying, displaying, performing, distributing or +creating derivative works based on this work or any other Project +Gutenberg-tm work. The Foundation makes no representations concerning +the copyright status of any work in any country outside the United +States. + +1.E. Unless you have removed all references to Project Gutenberg: + +1.E.1. The following sentence, with active links to, or other immediate +access to, the full Project Gutenberg-tm License must appear prominently +whenever any copy of a Project Gutenberg-tm work (any work on which the +phrase "Project Gutenberg" appears, or with which the phrase "Project +Gutenberg" is associated) is accessed, displayed, performed, viewed, +copied or distributed: + +This eBook is for the use of anyone anywhere at no cost and with +almost no restrictions whatsoever. You may copy it, give it away or +re-use it under the terms of the Project Gutenberg License included +with this eBook or online at www.gutenberg.org + +1.E.2. If an individual Project Gutenberg-tm electronic work is derived +from the public domain (does not contain a notice indicating that it is +posted with permission of the copyright holder), the work can be copied +and distributed to anyone in the United States without paying any fees +or charges. If you are redistributing or providing access to a work +with the phrase "Project Gutenberg" associated with or appearing on the +work, you must comply either with the requirements of paragraphs 1.E.1 +through 1.E.7 or obtain permission for the use of the work and the +Project Gutenberg-tm trademark as set forth in paragraphs 1.E.8 or +1.E.9. + +1.E.3. If an individual Project Gutenberg-tm electronic work is posted +with the permission of the copyright holder, your use and distribution +must comply with both paragraphs 1.E.1 through 1.E.7 and any additional +terms imposed by the copyright holder. Additional terms will be linked +to the Project Gutenberg-tm License for all works posted with the +permission of the copyright holder found at the beginning of this work. + +1.E.4. Do not unlink or detach or remove the full Project Gutenberg-tm +License terms from this work, or any files containing a part of this +work or any other work associated with Project Gutenberg-tm. + +1.E.5. Do not copy, display, perform, distribute or redistribute this +electronic work, or any part of this electronic work, without +prominently displaying the sentence set forth in paragraph 1.E.1 with +active links or immediate access to the full terms of the Project +Gutenberg-tm License. + +1.E.6. You may convert to and distribute this work in any binary, +compressed, marked up, nonproprietary or proprietary form, including any +word processing or hypertext form. However, if you provide access to or +distribute copies of a Project Gutenberg-tm work in a format other than +"Plain Vanilla ASCII" or other format used in the official version +posted on the official Project Gutenberg-tm web site (www.gutenberg.org), +you must, at no additional cost, fee or expense to the user, provide a +copy, a means of exporting a copy, or a means of obtaining a copy upon +request, of the work in its original "Plain Vanilla ASCII" or other +form. Any alternate format must include the full Project Gutenberg-tm +License as specified in paragraph 1.E.1. + +1.E.7. Do not charge a fee for access to, viewing, displaying, +performing, copying or distributing any Project Gutenberg-tm works +unless you comply with paragraph 1.E.8 or 1.E.9. + +1.E.8. You may charge a reasonable fee for copies of or providing +access to or distributing Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works provided +that + +- You pay a royalty fee of 20% of the gross profits you derive from + the use of Project Gutenberg-tm works calculated using the method + you already use to calculate your applicable taxes. The fee is + owed to the owner of the Project Gutenberg-tm trademark, but he + has agreed to donate royalties under this paragraph to the + Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation. Royalty payments + must be paid within 60 days following each date on which you + prepare (or are legally required to prepare) your periodic tax + returns. Royalty payments should be clearly marked as such and + sent to the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation at the + address specified in Section 4, "Information about donations to + the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation." + +- You provide a full refund of any money paid by a user who notifies + you in writing (or by e-mail) within 30 days of receipt that s/he + does not agree to the terms of the full Project Gutenberg-tm + License. You must require such a user to return or + destroy all copies of the works possessed in a physical medium + and discontinue all use of and all access to other copies of + Project Gutenberg-tm works. + +- You provide, in accordance with paragraph 1.F.3, a full refund of any + money paid for a work or a replacement copy, if a defect in the + electronic work is discovered and reported to you within 90 days + of receipt of the work. + +- You comply with all other terms of this agreement for free + distribution of Project Gutenberg-tm works. + +1.E.9. If you wish to charge a fee or distribute a Project Gutenberg-tm +electronic work or group of works on different terms than are set +forth in this agreement, you must obtain permission in writing from +both the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation and Michael +Hart, the owner of the Project Gutenberg-tm trademark. Contact the +Foundation as set forth in Section 3 below. + +1.F. + +1.F.1. Project Gutenberg volunteers and employees expend considerable +effort to identify, do copyright research on, transcribe and proofread +public domain works in creating the Project Gutenberg-tm +collection. Despite these efforts, Project Gutenberg-tm electronic +works, and the medium on which they may be stored, may contain +"Defects," such as, but not limited to, incomplete, inaccurate or +corrupt data, transcription errors, a copyright or other intellectual +property infringement, a defective or damaged disk or other medium, a +computer virus, or computer codes that damage or cannot be read by +your equipment. + +1.F.2. LIMITED WARRANTY, DISCLAIMER OF DAMAGES - Except for the "Right +of Replacement or Refund" described in paragraph 1.F.3, the Project +Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation, the owner of the Project +Gutenberg-tm trademark, and any other party distributing a Project +Gutenberg-tm electronic work under this agreement, disclaim all +liability to you for damages, costs and expenses, including legal +fees. YOU AGREE THAT YOU HAVE NO REMEDIES FOR NEGLIGENCE, STRICT +LIABILITY, BREACH OF WARRANTY OR BREACH OF CONTRACT EXCEPT THOSE +PROVIDED IN PARAGRAPH F3. YOU AGREE THAT THE FOUNDATION, THE +TRADEMARK OWNER, AND ANY DISTRIBUTOR UNDER THIS AGREEMENT WILL NOT BE +LIABLE TO YOU FOR ACTUAL, DIRECT, INDIRECT, CONSEQUENTIAL, PUNITIVE OR +INCIDENTAL DAMAGES EVEN IF YOU GIVE NOTICE OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH +DAMAGE. + +1.F.3. LIMITED RIGHT OF REPLACEMENT OR REFUND - If you discover a +defect in this electronic work within 90 days of receiving it, you can +receive a refund of the money (if any) you paid for it by sending a +written explanation to the person you received the work from. If you +received the work on a physical medium, you must return the medium with +your written explanation. The person or entity that provided you with +the defective work may elect to provide a replacement copy in lieu of a +refund. If you received the work electronically, the person or entity +providing it to you may choose to give you a second opportunity to +receive the work electronically in lieu of a refund. If the second copy +is also defective, you may demand a refund in writing without further +opportunities to fix the problem. + +1.F.4. Except for the limited right of replacement or refund set forth +in paragraph 1.F.3, this work is provided to you 'AS-IS' WITH NO OTHER +WARRANTIES OF ANY KIND, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO +WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTIBILITY OR FITNESS FOR ANY PURPOSE. + +1.F.5. Some states do not allow disclaimers of certain implied +warranties or the exclusion or limitation of certain types of damages. +If any disclaimer or limitation set forth in this agreement violates the +law of the state applicable to this agreement, the agreement shall be +interpreted to make the maximum disclaimer or limitation permitted by +the applicable state law. The invalidity or unenforceability of any +provision of this agreement shall not void the remaining provisions. + +1.F.6. INDEMNITY - You agree to indemnify and hold the Foundation, the +trademark owner, any agent or employee of the Foundation, anyone +providing copies of Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works in accordance +with this agreement, and any volunteers associated with the production, +promotion and distribution of Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works, +harmless from all liability, costs and expenses, including legal fees, +that arise directly or indirectly from any of the following which you do +or cause to occur: (a) distribution of this or any Project Gutenberg-tm +work, (b) alteration, modification, or additions or deletions to any +Project Gutenberg-tm work, and (c) any Defect you cause. + + +Section 2. Information about the Mission of Project Gutenberg-tm + +Project Gutenberg-tm is synonymous with the free distribution of +electronic works in formats readable by the widest variety of computers +including obsolete, old, middle-aged and new computers. It exists +because of the efforts of hundreds of volunteers and donations from +people in all walks of life. + +Volunteers and financial support to provide volunteers with the +assistance they need, is critical to reaching Project Gutenberg-tm's +goals and ensuring that the Project Gutenberg-tm collection will +remain freely available for generations to come. In 2001, the Project +Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation was created to provide a secure +and permanent future for Project Gutenberg-tm and future generations. +To learn more about the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation +and how your efforts and donations can help, see Sections 3 and 4 +and the Foundation web page at http://www.pglaf.org. + + +Section 3. Information about the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive +Foundation + +The Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation is a non profit +501(c)(3) educational corporation organized under the laws of the +state of Mississippi and granted tax exempt status by the Internal +Revenue Service. The Foundation's EIN or federal tax identification +number is 64-6221541. Its 501(c)(3) letter is posted at +http://pglaf.org/fundraising. Contributions to the Project Gutenberg +Literary Archive Foundation are tax deductible to the full extent +permitted by U.S. federal laws and your state's laws. + +The Foundation's principal office is located at 4557 Melan Dr. S. +Fairbanks, AK, 99712., but its volunteers and employees are scattered +throughout numerous locations. Its business office is located at +809 North 1500 West, Salt Lake City, UT 84116, (801) 596-1887, email +business@pglaf.org. Email contact links and up to date contact +information can be found at the Foundation's web site and official +page at http://pglaf.org + +For additional contact information: + Dr. Gregory B. Newby + Chief Executive and Director + gbnewby@pglaf.org + + +Section 4. Information about Donations to the Project Gutenberg +Literary Archive Foundation + +Project Gutenberg-tm depends upon and cannot survive without wide +spread public support and donations to carry out its mission of +increasing the number of public domain and licensed works that can be +freely distributed in machine readable form accessible by the widest +array of equipment including outdated equipment. Many small donations +($1 to $5,000) are particularly important to maintaining tax exempt +status with the IRS. + +The Foundation is committed to complying with the laws regulating +charities and charitable donations in all 50 states of the United +States. Compliance requirements are not uniform and it takes a +considerable effort, much paperwork and many fees to meet and keep up +with these requirements. We do not solicit donations in locations +where we have not received written confirmation of compliance. To +SEND DONATIONS or determine the status of compliance for any +particular state visit http://pglaf.org + +While we cannot and do not solicit contributions from states where we +have not met the solicitation requirements, we know of no prohibition +against accepting unsolicited donations from donors in such states who +approach us with offers to donate. + +International donations are gratefully accepted, but we cannot make +any statements concerning tax treatment of donations received from +outside the United States. U.S. laws alone swamp our small staff. + +Please check the Project Gutenberg Web pages for current donation +methods and addresses. Donations are accepted in a number of other +ways including checks, online payments and credit card donations. +To donate, please visit: http://pglaf.org/donate + + +Section 5. General Information About Project Gutenberg-tm electronic +works. + +Professor Michael S. Hart is the originator of the Project Gutenberg-tm +concept of a library of electronic works that could be freely shared +with anyone. For thirty years, he produced and distributed Project +Gutenberg-tm eBooks with only a loose network of volunteer support. + + +Project Gutenberg-tm eBooks are often created from several printed +editions, all of which are confirmed as Public Domain in the U.S. +unless a copyright notice is included. Thus, we do not necessarily +keep eBooks in compliance with any particular paper edition. + + +Most people start at our Web site which has the main PG search facility: + + http://www.gutenberg.org + +This Web site includes information about Project Gutenberg-tm, +including how to make donations to the Project Gutenberg Literary +Archive Foundation, how to help produce our new eBooks, and how to +subscribe to our email newsletter to hear about new eBooks. |