CARAS IYK-OPARAODU 17/sms10/007 PCS 304 ASSIGNMENT We have ten variants of Non Violence, briefly itemize them discussing in details their distinguishing characteristics. ANSWERS -Non-violent resistance and direct action -Non-resistance -Active reconciliation -Moral resistance -Selective non-violence -Passive resistance -Peaceful resistance -The concept of Satyagraha -Non-violent revolution -Pacifism Non-violent resistance and Direct action Nonviolent resistance (NVR or nonviolent action) is the practice of achieving goals such as social change through symbolic protests, civil disobedience, economic or political noncooperation, satyagraha, or other methods, while being nonviolent. This type of action highlights the desires of an individual or group that feels that something needs to change to improve the current condition of the resisting person or group. Political acts of nonviolent resistance can have revolutionary ends. Civil disobedience need not be nonviolent, although the extent and intensity of the violence is limited by the non-revolutionary intentions of the persons engaging in civil disobedience. For example, Lang argues, the violent resistance by citizens being forcibly relocated to detentions, short of the use of lethal violence against representatives of the state, could plausibly count as civil disobedience but could not count as nonviolent resistance. Major nonviolent resistance advocates include Gandhi, Henry David, Leo Tolstoy, Alice Paul, Martin Luther KingJr., Daniel Berrigan, Philip Berrigan, and many others. The Singing Revolution in Baltic states led to the Dissolution of the Soviet Union in 1991. Recently, nonviolent resistance has led to the Rose Revolution in Georgia and the Baltic Revolution Tunisia. Current nonviolent resistance includes the Jeans Revolution in Belarus, the Black Lives Matter movement in the United States initially and now internationally, the fight of the Cuban dissidents, and internationally the Extinction Rebellion and School strike for climate. Many movements which promote philosophies of nonviolence or pacifism have pragmatically adopted the methods of nonviolent action as an effective way to achieve social or political goals. They employ nonviolent resistance tactics such as: information warfare, picketing, marches, vigils, leafletting, samizdat, satyagraha, protest art, protest music and poetry, community education and consciousness raising, lobbying, tax resistance, civil disobedience, boycotts or sanctions, legal/diplomatic wrestling, Undergrounds Railroads, principled refusal of awards/honors, and general strikes. Nonviolent action differs from pacifism by potentially being proactive and interventionist. A great deal of work has addressed the factors that lead to violent mobilization, but less attention has been paid to understanding why disputes become violent or nonviolent, comparing these two as strategic choices relative to conventional politics. Non-resistance Nonresistance (or non-resistance) is the practice or principle of not resisting authority, even when it is unjustly exercised. At its core is discouragement of, even opposition to, physical resistance to an enemy. It is considered as a form of principled non-violence or pacifism which rejects all physical violence, whether exercised on individual, group, state or international levels. Practitioners of nonresistance may refuse to retaliate against an opponent or offer any form of self-defense. Nonresistance is often associated with particular religious groups. Sometimes non-resistance has been seen as compatible with, even part of, movements advocating social change. An example is the movement led by Mohandah Gandhi in the struggle for Indian independence . While it is true that in particular instances (e.g., when threatened with arrest) practitioners in such movements might follow the line of non-resistance, such movements are more accurately described as cases of nonviolent resistance or civil resistance. Moral resistance Sometimes people consciously and deliberately violate laws, break rules, or flout moral norms in order to serve what they regard as a higher moral end. For example, a person might violate immigration laws and sneak into another country in order to find work to support his or her family (violating a law). A doctor might write a false or exaggerated diagnosis so that a patient’s insurance will cover tests or treatments the doctor thinks are necessary (breaking rules). Moral resistance is personal in the sense that people engage in it in order to do right by people they love or care about. The hypothetical doctor in my example undoubtedly came to care about the disability applicant even in their brief interaction. Moral resisters aren’t motivated by abstract ideology or principles of justice, nor is their aim to help anonymous strangers, such as fellow citizens or future generations. Their resistance might be clandestine or it might be open, but either way, their immediate purpose is to act decently and compassionately to others, not to overturn a rule or overthrow the system. Nevertheless, even though moral resistance is motivated by personal relationships and begins as a private act, it borders on and merges into the political. Someone who violates a law or rule for a higher moral end implicitly (and sometimes explicitly) contrasts moral law with formal law and rejects the legitimacy of formal authority. Moral resistance takes place in the context of unequal power relations. Moral resistance warrants study for at least three reasons. First, it is an important part of human experience. Moral identity is a key component of self-worth and ultimately happiness. Moral resistance expresses the other side of human nature, the concern. Second, powerlessness is part of the human condition and it contributes to unhappiness. Humans are not omnipotent. We regularly confront our lack of control over situations and other people, even apart from situations of slavery, colonialism, for others wellbeing. And last, moral resistance offers a window into the early formation of political resistance. Passive resistance Passive resistance is a method of nonviolent protest against laws or policies in order to force a change or secure concessions; it is also known as nonviolent resistance and is the main tactic of civil disobedience. Passive resistance typically involves such activities as mass demonstrations, refusal to obey or carry out a law or to pay taxes, the occupation of buildings or the blockade of roads, labor strikes, economic boycotts, and similar activities. Possibly originating with the Quakers, it was adopted by Africans, Indians, and U.S. civil-rights and anti–Vietnam War protesters. Among its most articulate advocates have been Gandhi, who maintained that action needs to be accompanied by love and a willingness to search for the truth, and Martin Luther King Jr., who called for tough-mindedness and tenderheartedness. Two of the most massive examples of passive resistance were the Solidarity movement in Poland (1980–81) and the Velvet Revolution in Czechoslovakia (1989). Opponents of passive resistance as a means of forcing a change in policy have criticized it for potentially fostering a general disrespect for law that could result in anarchy. In Summary, passive resistance is a way of opposing the government without using violence especially by refusing to obey laws. The concept of Satyagraha Satyagraha,(Sanskrit and Hindi: “holding onto truth”) concept introduced in the early 20th century by Mahtma Gandhi to designate a determined but nonviolent resistance to evil. Gandhi’s satyagraha became a major tool in the Indian struggle against British imperialism and has since been adopted by protest groups in other countries. According to this philosophy, satyagrahis practitioners of satyagraha achieve correct insight into the real nature of an evil situation by observing a nonviolence of the mind, by seeking truth in a spirit of peace and love, and by undergoing a rigorous process of self-scrutiny. In so doing, the satyagrahi encounters truth in the absolute. By refusing to submit to the wrong or to cooperate with it in any way, the satyagrahi asserts that truth. Throughout the confrontation with evil, the satyagrahi must adhere to nonviolence, for to employ violence would be to lose correct insight. Satyagrahis always warn their opponents of their intentions; satyagraha forbids any tactic suggesting the use of secrecy to one’s advantage. Satyagraha seeks to conquer through conversion: in the end, there is neither defeat nor victory but rather a new harmony. Satyagraha draws from the ancient Indian ideal of ahimsa (noninjury), which is pursued with particular rigour by Jains , many of whom live in Gujarat, where Gandhi grew up. In developing ahimsa into a modern concept with broad political consequences, as satyagraha, Gandhi also drew from the writings of Leo Tolstoy and Henry David Thoreau, from the Bible, and from the Bhagavad-Gita, on which he wrote a commentary. Gandhi first conceived satyagraha in 1906 in response to a law discriminating against Asians that was passed by the British colonial government of the Transvaal in South Africa. In 1917 the first satyagraha campaign in India was mounted in the indigo-growing district of Champaran. During the following years, fasting and economic boycotts were employed as methods of satyagraha in India, until the British left the country in 1947. Critics of satyagraha, both in Gandhi’s time and subsequently, have argued that it is unrealistic and incapable of universal success, since it relies upon a high standard of ethical conduct in the opponent, the representative of evil, and demands an unrealistically strong level of commitment from those struggling for social amelioration. Nonetheless, satyagraha played a significant role in the civil rights movement led by Martin Luther King Jr., in the United States and has spawned a continuing legacy in South Asia itself. Non-violent revolution A nonviolent revolution is a revolution using mostly campaigns with civil resistance, including various forms of nonviolent protest, to bring about the departure of governments seen as entrenched and authoritarian. While many campaigns of civil resistance are intended for much more limited goals than revolution, generally a nonviolent revolution is characterized by simultaneous advocacy of democracy, human rights, and national independence in the country concerned. In some cases a campaign of civil resistance with a revolutionary purpose may be able to bring about the defeat of a dictatorial regime only if it obtains a degree of support from the armed forces, or at least their benevolent neutrality. An effective campaign of civil resistance, and even the achievement of a nonviolent revolution, may be possible in a particular case despite the controlling government taking brutal measures against protesters; the commonly held belief that most revolutions which have happened in dictatorial regimes were bloody or violent uprisings is not borne out by historical analysis. Nonviolent revolutions in the 20th century became more successful and more common, especially in the 1980s as Cold War political alliances which supported status quo governance waned.[citation needed] In the 1970s and 1980s, intellectuals in the Soviet Union and other Communist states, and in some other countries, began to focus on civil resistance as the most promising means of opposing entrenched authoritarian regimes. The use of various forms of unofficial exchange of information, including by samizdat, expanded. Two major revolutions during the 1980s strongly influenced political movements that followed. The first was the 1986 People Power Revolution, in the Philippines from which the term 'people power' came to be widely used, especially in Hispanic and Asian nations. Three years later, the Revolutions of 1989 that ousted communist regimes in the Eastern Bloc reinforced the concept (with the notable exception of the notoriously bloody Romanian Revolution), beginning with the victory of Solidarity in that year’s Polish legislative elections. The Revolutions of 1989 provided the template for the so-called color revolutions in mainly post-communism states, which tended to use a color or flower as a symbol, somewhat in the manner of the Velvet Revolution in Czechoslovakia. In December 1989, inspired by the anti-communist revolutions in Eastern Europe, the Mongolian Democratic Union (MDU) organized popular street protests and hunger strikes against the communist regime. In 1990, dissidents in the AzerbaijanSoviet Socialist Republic started civil resistance against the government, but were initially crushed by Red Army in the Black January massacre. Recent nonviolent revolutions include the Orange Revolution in Ukraine, which was highlighted by a series of acts of civil disobedience, sit-ins, and general strikes organized by the opposition movement. Pacifism Pacifism is opposition to war, militarism or violence. The word pacifism was coined by the French peace campaigner Emile Arnaud (1864–1921) and adopted by other peace activists at the tenth Universal Peace Congress in Glasgow in 1901. A related term is ahimsa (to do no harm), which is a core philosophy in Indian religions such as Hinduism, Buddhism, and Jainism. While modern connotations are recent, having been explicated since the 19th century, ancient references abound. In modern times, interest was revived by Leo Tolstoy in his late works, particularly in The kingdom of God is within you. MohandasGandhi (1869–1948) propounded the practice of steadfast nonviolent opposition which he called "satyagraha", instrumental in its role in the Indian Independence Movement. Pacifism covers a spectrum of views, including the belief that international disputes can and should be peacefully resolved, calls for the abolition of the institutions of the military and war, opposition to any organization of society through governmental force (anarchist or liberation pacifism), rejection of the use of physical violence to obtain political, economic or social goals, the obliteration of force, and opposition to violence under any circumstance, even defence of self and others. Historians of pacifism Peter Brock and Thomas Paul Socknat define pacifism "in the sense generally accepted in English-speaking areas" as "an unconditional rejection of all forms of warfare". Philosopher Jenny Teichman defines the main form of pacifism as "anti-warism", the rejection of all forms of warfare. Teichman's beliefs have been summarized by Brian Orend as "... A pacifist rejects war and believes there are no moral grounds which can justify resorting to war. War, for the pacifist, is always wrong." In a sense the philosophy is based on the idea that the ends do not justify the means. Peaceful resistance Peaceful resistance is a method of conducting conflicts and achieving social, political or economic changes. All the participants in peaceful resistance may adhere to a temporary nonviolence discipline only for the particular struggle. In contrast to passive resistance, there is a relatively wide spread recognition of nonviolence methods as being naturally better than violence and that they are the methods to be used in the struggle. Nonviolent method of resistance may more likely achieve the following results: Reliance on established governmental procedures, Violent resistance and Verbal persuasion UN without supporting actions. Selective nonviolence It is characterized by refusal to participate in violent conflicts particularly international wars. In certain other situations the same persons would be willing to use violence to achieve their objectives, in selective non-violence practitioners resort to violence if it better serves to achieve a goal, this means to them it’s a means to an end, it originated from gene sharp and evolved into the sharpian school of thought. Another term by which selective nonviolence can be called is relative passivism as opposed to the Ghandian school of thought which is absolute passivism. Active reconciliation It refers to the non-violence of the group favoring the use of active good will and reconciliation which is based upon principle. It refers not only to outward actions but to personal reconciliation and improvement of one’s own life before attempting to change others. Its practitioners seek to accomplish a positive alteration in the attitude and policy of the group or person responsible for some undesirable situation but they never use coercion not even non-violent coercion (bribery, blackmail etc.)