Categories
Align Empowering Humanity

Non-Violence is the Most Effective Force of Change

Accord­ing to polit­i­cal sci­en­tist Eri­ca Chenoweth at Har­vard Uni­ver­si­ty, when just 3.5% of a pop­u­la­tion par­tic­i­pates in cohe­sive non-vio­lent activism, mas­sive change occurs. The abil­i­ty for rel­a­tive­ly small groups to affect change through non­vi­o­lence reveals the true pow­er of this approach.

“Nev­er doubt that a small group of thought­ful, com­mit­ted cit­i­zens can change the world; indeed, it’s the only thing that ever has.” — Mar­garet Mead

The world is full of good, decent peo­ple doing what is right when no one is look­ing. And those are not the sto­ries that typ­i­cal­ly get atten­tion on local or nation­al news. It’s the tragedies and dis­as­ters that grab atten­tion. Yet those events are out­liers. Most of the time, peo­ple are work­ing togeth­er. And we mustn’t for­get that it only takes a small per­cent of a pop­u­la­tion to gen­er­ate impres­sive outcomes.

Eri­ca Chenoweth, a polit­i­cal sci­en­tist at Har­vard Uni­ver­si­ty, exam­ined hun­dreds of non­vi­o­lent cam­paigns for change from the last 100 years, and found that, over­all, non­vi­o­lent cam­paigns were twice as like­ly to suc­ceed in achiev­ing their goals as vio­lent cam­paigns. Analy­sis regard­ing the results of vio­lent force showed vio­lence to effect change about a quar­ter of the times it was applied.28 This is a cru­cial reminder that most of the time the soft­er touch is the most effec­tive means of movement.

One of the main advan­tages to non­vi­o­lence is its wide­spread acces­si­bil­i­ty. Nobody needs to take up arms, to be trained in com­bat, or get in phys­i­cal shape for fight­ing. Non­vi­o­lence gar­ners sup­port­ers and par­tic­i­pants across all demo­graph­ics, and can there­fore also affect more sweep­ing change.

“Men, their rights, and noth­ing more; women, their rights, and noth­ing less.” — Susan B. Anthony

Chenoweth’s work hon­ors the vic­to­ries of peace­ful protests. One of the most influ­en­tial moments of non­vi­o­lence is the exam­ple of how Mohan­das Karam­c­hand (Mahat­ma) Gand­hi led India to inde­pen­dence in 1947. A trained lawyer turned activist, Gandhi’s guid­ing prin­ci­ple was what he called satya­gra­ha, a word derived from San­skrit (satya: “truth”, āgra­ha: “insis­tence” or “hold­ing firm­ly to”), mean­ing a hold­ing onto truth, or truth force. In this spec­i­fied form of polit­i­cal resis­tance, Gand­hi advo­cat­ed for India defin­ing its own des­tiny, rather than being sub­ject to oppres­sive and dehu­man­iz­ing British colo­nial rule. In his book, Indi­an Home Rule, Gand­hi pro­mot­ed a self-suf­fi­cient cit­i­zen, able to source one’s own food, shel­ter, cloth­ing, and not be sub­ject to the tax­es and over-rul­ing of racist for­eign interests. 

In 1930, Gand­hi led a 24-day march over 240 miles to the coastal vil­lage of Dan­di to pick up and eat the nat­u­ral­ly occur­ring salt from their deposits in a show of polit­i­cal resis­tance to the British salt monop­oly. Once Gand­hi lift­ed a fin­ger full of salt to his lips, he effec­tive­ly broke the salt laws in bypass­ing any tax or pay­ment to British con­trol of the spice. This sim­ple act set off a large-scale snow­ball effect of resis­tance as mil­lions of Indi­ans ral­lied against the British Raj salt laws, thus plac­ing pres­sure on the rul­ing elite as nev­er before experienced.

At the front lines of polit­i­cal resis­tance and change, Gand­hi met many vic­to­ries and set­backs along his fight for Indi­an sov­er­eign­ty. Ulti­mate­ly, the Indi­an Inde­pen­dence Act of 1947 con­sti­tut­ed an act of the Par­lia­ment of the Unit­ed King­dom that grant­ed India inde­pen­dence, which arrived in part due to Gand­hi and his demon­stra­tion of non­vi­o­lent resistance.

On anoth­er con­ti­nent, 8500 miles away and two decades lat­er, Mar­tin Luther King Jr. was inter­pret­ing satya­gra­ha him­self, this time for seg­re­gat­ed Amer­i­ca in his involve­ment with the Civ­il Rights Move­ment. Suf­fer­ing beat­ings, impris­on­ment, and ulti­mate­ly assas­si­na­tion, Dr. King’s long, dif­fi­cult non­vi­o­lent fight for black equal­i­ty in white Amer­i­ca result­ed in the Civ­il Rights Act, signed in 1964, which end­ed the pol­i­cy of segregation.

“Injus­tice any­where is a threat to jus­tice every­where. We are caught in an inescapable net­work of mutu­al­i­ty, tied in a sin­gle gar­ment of des­tiny. What­ev­er affects one direct­ly affects all indi­rect­ly.” … “His­to­ry is the long and trag­ic sto­ry of the fact that priv­i­leged groups sel­dom give up their priv­i­leges vol­un­tar­i­ly.” — Mar­tin Luther King Jr., Let­ter from Birm­ing­ham City Jail, 1963

The non­vi­o­lent move­ments described above occurred with the tremen­dous sac­ri­fice of the indi­vid­u­als asso­ci­at­ed with these decades-long acts of resis­tance. These dif­fer­ent, yet con­nect­ed, chap­ters of his­to­ry also depict a blue­print for how change occurs in the face of cen­turies-old oppres­sion. In the end, the force of love and truth pre­vailed, as we believe it always will. Com­mu­ni­ties, com­pa­nies, coun­tries, and all indi­vid­u­als are well served to remem­ber that peace is more effec­tive than vio­lence. With this aware­ness, we are all more incen­tivized to be respect­ful and prin­ci­pled when engag­ing conflict.

We believe that the key to unlock­ing a greater capac­i­ty for change in our per­son­al pat­terns, and in terms of pol­i­cy, comes from bet­ter under­stand­ing the under­ly­ing mech­a­nisms for peace. From our ear­li­est ages, we ben­e­fit from learn­ing con­flict res­o­lu­tion through means of empa­thy, shared resources, and com­mon respon­si­bil­i­ty. Inter­per­son­al prob­lem-solv­ing and diplo­ma­cy can be sig­nif­i­cant­ly improved with a com­mon com­mit­ment to teach­ing peace in edu­ca­tion­al set­tings as well as work­places. We won­der: What might the under­ly­ing mech­a­nisms for peace be and how might they dif­fer­en­ti­ate across dif­fer­ent com­mu­ni­ties and cul­tures? Plac­ing more thought into this kind of ques­tion will lead to a more bal­anced state of inter-per­son­al, as well as geo-polit­i­cal, relationships.

Ear­ly nuclear weapon test in New Mex­i­co, 1945
“The Trou­velot Astro­nom­i­cal Draw­ings”, Èti­enne Léopold Trou­velot, 1882
Load more