The Philosophy of Non-Violent Protest - Essay Example

The Philosophy of Non-Violent Protest Introduction The concept of non-violent protest or “civil disobedience” is based on the premise of using non-violent means to effect socio-political change. The concept of civil disobedience has its roots in the philosophical writings of Henry David Thoreau and in 1848, Thoreau gave an infamous lecture entitled “The Rights and Duties of the Individual in Relation to Government” advocating the principle of civil disobedience. Thoreau’s civil disobedience model has continued to influence political leaders in contemporary history and prime examples include Dr Martin Luther King, Mahatma Gandhi and Cesar Chavez, who adopted Thoreau’s philosophy to effect significant social and political change (Powers et al, 1997, p.360). Indeed, academic commentators have suggested that whilst Dr Martin Luther King, Mahatma Gandhi and Cesar Chavez each signify different points in history; the consistent underlying thread in the approach of these leaders was the principles of Thoreau, which culminated in implementing significant social change. For example, Gandhi argues that Thoreau was a significant influence on the Indian independence movement and arguably the “chief cause for the abolition of Slavery in America” (In Glassman, 2008, p.30). The focus of this paper is to critically evaluate the philosophy of non-violent protest. To this end, I shall undertake a comparative analysis of Chavez, Gandhi and Martin Luther King’s application of non-violent protest and consider to what extent the approach of these leaders can be traced to Thoreau’s civil disobedience model. 2. Civil Disobedience Model It is submitted that in considering the contemporary legacy of the non-violent protest philosophy; it is imperative to consider the principal teachings of Thoreau. Firstly, the central premise of Thoreau’s civil disobedience principle was that the system of government was not always conducive to individual interests however acknowledging one’s individual rights as a subject in challenging government through non-violent means was more effective than anti-government violence. Moreover, in considering the government model, Thoreau referred to the government system at the time and highlighted the fact that the government had essentially imposed an infrastructure geared towards self interest, which in turn was not advantageous to the public and not always full of integrity. As such, Thoreau highlighted that: “Governments show thus how successfully men can be imposed on, even impose on themselves for their own advantage” (Thoreau in Levin, 2005, p.265). As such, Thoreau’s observation of the government system at the time suggested that the framework “does not keep the country free. It does not settle the West. It does not educate” (Thoreau in Levin, 2005, p.265-66). However, rather than denounce the government and idea of government per se; Thoreau’s civil disobedience model points to using the power of the people to effect a “better government” (Thoreau in Levin, 2005, p.266). In reinforcing this agreement, the essence of civil disobedience is the fact that every man has a conscience and autonomy and therefore: “I think we should be men first, and subjects afterward. It is not desirable to cultivate a respect for the law, so much as for the right. The only obligation which I have a right to assume is to do at any time what I think right. It is truly enough said, that a corporation has no conscience; but a corporation of conscientious men is a corporation with a conscience” (Thoreau in Levin, 2005, p.266) Accordingly, Thoreau’s model suggests an interrelationship between law and the individual beyond the government imposed model regulating society. As such, civil disobedience is justified on grounds of “respecting the law”. This in turn lends itself to a justifiable foundation for challenging government authority to affect social change to preserve the civil liberties and freedom of the masses; a philosophy that has been instrumental in the non-violent methods utilised by Gandhi, Dr King and Chavez. 3. Gandhi, Dr King and Chavez As highlighted above, the Gandhi, Dr King and Chavez were seminal leaders in effecting significant social change in the twentieth century and were all influenced by the Civil disobedience model (Powers et al, 1997). If we consider Gandhi, his central mantra in advocating non-violent resistance was the concept of “Satyagraha”, which meant “the force which is born of Truth and Love” (In Nojeim, 2004, p.94). As such, the method of resistance was Satyagraha, where truth was the essence of the soul and therefore Gandhi advocated that the individual should use the pure internal soul force as a method of resistance (Nojeim, 2004, p.94). Moreover, whilst Gandhi’s Satyagraha clearly has roots in Thoreau’s concept of the individual, conscience and respect for the law; it is arguable that Gandhi’s non-violent philosophy went beyond the Thoreau civil disobedience model in seeking to heal tensions and societal conflicts (Nojeim, 2004, p.94). For example, in propounding the virtues of Satyagraha, Gandhi asserted that: “Satyagraha seeks not to defeat adversaries, but rather to win them over through a loving, yet firm and uncompromising, adherence to the truth. Satyagraha also calls for adhering to pure means, which must be founded on an open pursuit of the truth” (In Nojeim, 2004, p.94). Additionally, Gandhi asserted that “to find truth completely is to realise oneself and one’s destiny; that is to become perfect” (In Nojeim, p.94). Accordingly, the essential element of Satyagraha is refraining from using violence or physical force on grounds that this only serves to perpetuate conflict. To this end, Gandhi’s Satyagraha concept clearly mirrors Thoreau’s concept against using violence in protest as Gandhi comments that Satyagraha: “does not wish the destruction of his antagonist; he does not vent anger on him; but has only compassion for him…. A satyagrahi cannot perpetuate tyranny on anyone… he does not strike at anyone. Moreover, we do not bear malice towards the government. When we set its fears at rest, when we do not desire to make armed assaults on the administrators, nor to unseat them from power, but only to get rid of their injustice, they will at once be subdued to our will (In Nojeim, 2004, p53). Similarly, Martin Luther King asserted that “if we are to have peace in the world, men and nations must embrace the non-violent affirmation that ends and means must cohere”(Nojeim, 2004, p.189). However, whilst adopting the same Thoreau concept of non-violence, Nojeim suggests that non-violence was not the way of life in the same way for King as it was for Gandhi (2004, p.95). For example, Nojeim highlights how “although he made several attempts, King did not conduct fasts as a method of political resistance to the same extent that Gandhi did” (2004, p.95). Additionally, the central objective of Gandhi’s non-violent protest philosophy was to turn the Indian masses against the British government to end British rule in India, which mirrors Thoreau’s arguments of using civil disobedience towards implementing an effective government for the masses. On the other hand, King wanted non violent tactics to liberate African Americans as opposed to undermining the US government as such (Nojeim, 2004, p.85). Accordingly, this highlights the point that whilst Both Gandhi and King respected and adopted Thoreau’s teachings, their leadership style and differing objectives resulted in variations of the application of civil disobedience. Notwithstanding, both King and Gandhi shared the fundamental belief in non-violence to resolve social and political conflict to bring a fair outcome, which is the root of Thoreau’s ethos. For example, irrespective of the constant challenges faced by Dr King in the civil rights movement; whilst serving prison time in Birmingham, Alabama in 1963 Dr King wrote: “one who breaks an unjust law must do so openly, lovingly, and with a willingness to accept the penalty. I submit that an individual who breaks a law that conscience tells him is unjust, who willingly accepts the penalty of imprisonment in order to arouse the conscience of the community over its injustice, is in reality expressing the highest respect for the law” (In Glassman, 2008, p.31). As such, King’s philosophy was rooted in non-violent resistance for the purpose of long term solutions. This was also Gandhi’s objective, however the differing approaches to civil disobedience also highlights the cultural and religious differences between both leaders. For example, Satyagraha was distinctly spiritual in relating to the interrelationship between self and the truth, which derived from Hindu teachings (Glassman, 2008). In contrast, King’s non-violent resistance was rooted in “nothing less than Christianity in action… the Christian way of life in solving problems of human relations” (In Nojeim, 2004, p.190). Whilst less conspicuous in comparison to Gandhi and King, Cesar Chavez utilised non violence and followed the Gandhi and King teachings, by asserting that “non-violence is not inaction. It is not for the timid or the weak. It is hard work, it is the patience to win” (In Garcia, 1997). Cesar Chavez was a Mexican Immigrant to the US and his work is recognised as a leading example of labor leadership and as a civil rights activist who co-founded the National Farm Worker’s Association (NFWA), which developed into the United Farm Workers. Chavez’s work as an activist is often hailed as being instrumental in improving conditions for laborers, with eight US states celebrating Cesar Chavez day as a national holiday in acknowledgement of his contribution to social welfare of laborers in the agricultural industry (Dalton, 2003). Teaching was a central aspect of Chavez’s activism and an underlying ethos of Chavez was the education of laborers: “we got to train people. We got to give people the opportunities to do work” (Garcia, 1997). Garcia comments that “Chavez believed that if you gave every man and woman their sense of self, built up their self esteem, built up their self responsibility, they could then rise to the level of leadership” (Garcia, 1997). A prime example of this was the fact that Chavez became a member of the Latino self-help Community Service Organisation (CSO), where he rose to national director. However, he wanted to particularly address the need to build up self esteem and self sufficiency in farm workers. The reluctance of the CSO to do this culminated in Chavez’s resignation, which triggered the inception of the NFWA. In highlighting his goals to assist farmers with particular reference to immigrant farmers, Haro comments that Chavez was driven by “a very definite need and proceeded then to develop a strategy to sell that need to a community that for the most part was completely disenfranchised and maybe not even ready for this” (in Garcia 1997). However, to create a recognisable and meaningful framework that would take farmer’s rights seriously, Chavez was instrumental in acknowledging the importance of marketing and brand value. For example, Chavez created a union emblem of a black eagle against a white and red background, which became recognised on a national basis (Garcia, 1997). Moreover, Chavez’s dedication to the union has been hailed as a prime example of entrepreneurial leadership and vision as offered union officials a stake in the business. Garcia highlights that “he put a company together in which you offered the same kind of wages but you were going to get stock options… and those stock options were that you would succeed at the end in bringing some kind of mew environment for the farm workers” (Garcia 1997). Additionally, in adopting a visionary approach in combining leadership skills, social enterprise method in his civil rights activism of an enfranchised workforce, Haro posits that “what he was able to offer them, and which I think is a very clever turn on being an entrepreneur, is it would profit them in the long run if they would join with him…. The payoff would obviously be very, very good for them”(In Garcia 1997). As such, whilst utilising Thoreau’s concept of civil disobedience, Chavez ultimately became the embodiment of Bennis’ proposition regarding leadership that “a leader is, by definition an innovator. He does things other people haven’t done or don’t do. He does things in advance of other people. He makes new things and makes old things new” (Bennis, p.143). To this end, the distinguishing factor of Chavez’s non-violent philosophy was to use civil disobedience to not only effect social change, but incorporate civil disobedience into business strategy management. Moreover, it is submitted that Bennis’ leadership paradigm is imperative in highlighting the core ingredients of leadership and the role of self perspective in acquiring leadership skills. This proposition in turn is utilised to highlight the importance of effective leadership in long term business growth and strategy as exemplified by Chavez’s work in combining entrepreneurial vision with socially conscious objectives. 4. Conclusion The above analysis demonstrates that whilst Dr King, Gandhi and Chavez had different objectives and differing leadership styles, their adherence to non-violent protests highlights the universality of Thoreau’s philosophies regarding civil disobedience, particularly as the three leaders utilised civil disobedience to trigger radical social change. For example, Dr King argued that “if we are to have peace on earth, our loyalties must become ecumenical rather than sectional. Our loyalties must transcend our race, tribe, our class and our nation: and this means we must develop world perspective” (Dr King in Nojeim, 2004, p.288). Accordingly, the sentiment of Dr King clearly resonates and the examples provided by these leaders bring the debate regarding civil disobedience to the fore in the current global political framework with the war on terror Bibliography Bennis, W. (1990). On becoming a leader. Arrow Books Limited Dalton, F. J. (2003).The Moral Vision of Cesar Chavez. Maryknoll, N.Y. Orbis Books Garcia, R. (1997) Cesar Chavez: A Triumph of Spirit, University of Oklahoma Press Glassman, B. ( 2008). Citizenship. Rosen Publishing Group Henry David Thoreau, Jonathan Levin (2005). Walden and Civil Disobedience. Spark Educational Publishing. Nojeim, M. (2004).Gandhi and King: the power of non-violent resistance. Greenwood Publishing Group. Powers, R., Vogele, W., Kruegler, C., & McCarthy, R. (1997), Protest, power, and change: an encyclopaedia of non-violent action. Taylor & Francis. Read More