Gene Sharp: Nonviolence as a Political Tool

Gene Sharp provides an interesting viewpoint on nonviolence, a practical viewpoint. In his theory, Sharp attempts to quantify nonviolence through a differentiate of 198 different methods of nonviolence. From this he groups them into three distinct categories: nonviolent protests; noncooperation; and nonviolent intervention. These three categories each are distinct in their own ways; but all have one thing in common: they are nonviolent. A rudimentary definition of nonviolence, according to Sharp, is that nonviolent action is any action or inaction that does not incorporate physical force against another individual. This practical viewpoint brings out a characteristic of nonviolence that needs to be expanded on: nonviolence is one political tool to get social change and that nonviolent action has many different faces. I would equate nonviolent action to Congress passing a bill. I think this is one essential aspect of nonviolent action. It is not just that people believe that violence is bad or that violence is ineffective; but that by using nonviolent action they have decided that nonviolence is the best strategy to getting social change in that situation or for that issue.

There is one other thing I want to touch upon, that is Sharp’s view of power. Sharp’s view is similar to another theorist that we read about, Étienne de La Boétie. Their views are that power dynamics come from the bottom up. And if the people withdraw their support for the person in power; that person would become part of the masses. This is the concept of civil disobedience. I respect the idea of civil disobedience I believe we must be careful with it. Because if used the wrong way we could have anarchy, and I am not an advocate of anarchy which I have talked about in previous blogs. There must be a line so that we do not run that risk.

Satyagraha (Chapter 4)

I really like Gandhi’s concept of Satyagraha. Not as a nonviolent movement, but just as a way of thinking about life. Essentially, the belief that we alone can never know the whole truth and that only be having dialogue with others – specifically people who disagree with you – can you find the most just solution. If followed, it also helps make the world a smarter place. We can see the idiocy of people today from comments people make on the web. It seems that any news article or YouTube video turns into ridiculous arguments. Gandhi believed that you needed to take part in the system before you could judge if it was just/unjust. To expand on this idea, before people polarize themselves and start shouting at others with ludicrous comments maybe we can all just take a step back; reevaluate our position; discuss in intellectual and civil ways; and then come to a conclusion. As a society, we will come out better. I would say its’ almost like the saying “put your feet in someone else’s shoes.”

While I do think the basic principles of Satyagraha are things that we should keep in mind in all aspects of life and society, I do have to question the integrity of this theory as a way for political change directly. Bhikhu Parekh, as well as Gandhi, both saw that Satyagraha could not bring about the social change desired on its own. Parekh, in his book just lists Satyagraha’s flaws in his book; which I can see and agree with. While you see Gandhi integrate economic aspects into Satyagraha’s practical strategy. Gandhi’s Satyagraha is too idealistic; and that it should be used in conjunction with more practical viewpoints of nonviolence.