Introduction to Non-Violence | Page 2

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