The idea that “violence works” is everywhere – so much so, the way this question was framed to me made that assumption. Can you tell me more about violence in social causes? Will you give your thoughts about the role violence plays in getting things done?
First, let’s take ten minutes to give that idea a closer look: the attention we give to violence in affecting social change is out of wack with reality.
As the speaker points out, history books focus on war. The news zeroes in on riots. We tend to discount/never hear about decades of nonviolent action that happened before, after, alongside, or without fighting.
When we talk about social causes in particular, “success” includes changing public opinion, showing the injustice of the opposition, and leaving the overall social landscape (not just the particular cause itself) better – or at least no worse – than before. Violence tends to undermine all of those goals. Worse, people are more likely to support extreme action in the future. On the flip side, nonviolence tends to be perceived as more effective, more legitimate, exposes injustice, and builds structures that support nonviolent solutions. I’m not saying it’s easy, or perfect, that it doesn’t hurt. But there’s no good reason to back up the perception that violence is better. (1)(2)
Why does it seem like violence is so prevalent, then? Making an impact in the public sphere is very different than making a splash on the “public screen”. We think the two are the same, but what’s actually effective might not make the TV news, and vice versa. Getting the most attention doesn’t equal changing the most minds, behaviors, or laws. So, our view of what “works” is warped. We shouldn’t give so much credit to the screen. (3)
Let’s take a step back. There’s danger in looking at violence vs. nonviolence dispassionately. We’re not talking about which car to buy here. We’re discussing when we think it’s justified, or necessary, to resort to hurting people. Although the topic is social causes, even then, lives may be at stake on both sides. The truth is, we should closely examine any declarations that violence is necessary to change some people’s minds… or that some things can’t be changed without violence. Let’s resist dehumanizing the “other side.” Let’s avoid talking in terms of good and evil, absolutes, when we’re talking about real people. If we talk and think in terms of evil, we tend to more readily endorse violence as the best solution. (4) That’s flat out wrong. It sets the stage for more and more violence. And if we’re in it for social causes, that’s exactly the kind of perception we want to change.
(1) When Will Collective Action Be Effective? Violent and Non-Violent Protests Differentially Influence Perceptions of Legitimacy and Efficacy Among Sympathizers (2013)
http://psp.sagepub.com/content/40/2/263
(2) Was it worth the effort? The outcomes and consequences of social movements (1998)
http://www.jstor.org/stable/223486
(3) From public sphere to public screen: democracy, activism, and the “violence” of Seattle (2002)
http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/07393180216559
(4) Fighting the Good Fight: The Relationship Between Belief in Evil and Support for Violent Policies (2013)
http://psp.sagepub.com/content/40/1/16.full
