Introduction to Non-Violence | Page 3

Theodore Paullin
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
Continue reading on your phone by scaning this QR Code

 / 38
Tip: The current page has been bookmarked automatically. If you wish to continue reading later, just open the Dertz Homepage, and click on the 'continue reading' link at the bottom of the page.