Introduction to Non-Violence | Page 5

"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