The
Sociology of Nonviolent Action:
The Social Construction of
Global Movements of Civil Disobedience
Four abstracts from a coming
dissertation
Stellan Vinthagen, stellan.vinthagen@padrigu.gu.se
PhD Student
and lecturer at Göteborg University
Member of
Transcend (A Peace and Development Network)
Member of
the Nonviolence Commission of IPRA (The International Peace Research Association)
This dissertation focus on a sociological understanding of the
mobilisation of collective and transnational participation in nonviolent action
– in confrontation with power relations and organised violence. It draws on
present studies within academic nonviolence research, social movement and
conflict resolution theories as well as the globalisation discourse. The dissertation tries to contribute to the
development of a multidimensional, relational, constructionist and dynamic
understanding of collective nonviolent action by bridging different weaknesses
within these research orientations.
The research is two folded. For the
first contemporary sociological theories – the communicative action theory of
Jürgen Habermas, the power theory of Michel Foucault, the habitus theory of
Pierre Bourdieu and the drama theory of Erving Goffman – are used in order to
reinterpret the dynamic of nonviolent conflict handling. For the second the
lack of research on transnational social movement convergence is counteracted
by empirical studies of the confrontational logics of non-armed movements
against global regimes during the 1990ies.
The conclusion of the dissertation
is that collective nonviolent action is dependent on the social construction of
a functional and dynamic social system, a nonviolent movement culture which
is able to sustain the multidimensional nonviolent activity. The problematic
social construction of an oppositional movement culture which institutionalise
nonviolent resistance and a parallel political-economical-cultural society,
while existing within a dominant system of power and violence, is discussed.
This problematic is central in the social construction of transnational
movements of nonviolent resistance.
1:
Nonviolent Resistance as Conflict Handling
A
sociological understanding of Gandhi’s nonviolent conflict theory (Satyagraha)
The text begins from the thesis of an existing lack of theory and
methodes within conflict resolution/management studies which handle power and
violence in conflict situations without the use of power and violence. The
conflict theory is derived from the writings of Mohandas K. Gandhi, developed
during the struggle against apartheid in South Africa and colonial oppression
in India, is proposed as a possible alternative that needs a reinterpretation
within contemporary sociological research and practical development within
democratic movements opposing violence and power relations.
The core of the theory is the
experimental attempt to unite means and ends in conflict management in a
practical and theoretical syntesis and simultaneously differ between the human
being and the social role inside a system of relations. The central concepts
from Gandhi in the development of nonviolent resistance – satyagraha – are truth
(satya), nonviolence (ahimsa) and suffering (tapasaya). These
concepts have in earlier research been understood mainly as ideological or
religious principles with little relevance to social theory. In this text the
core concepts are discussed with the help of sociological theory, mainly from
Jürgen Habermas’ theory on communicative rationality, Gene Sharp’s theory on
nonviolent action and Michele Foucault’s theory on power and Erving Goffman’s
theory on dramatic risk-behaviour.
1: The theory of communicative
action developed by Habermas makes it possible to understand Gandhi´s idea of
searching, experimenting and clinging to one´s understanding of
"truth" (Satyagraha). Satyagraha is possible to understand as a
social process facilitating dialogue and mutual agreements in conflict
situations while reducing influence of power and violence. A liberation of
communicative rationality is possible through the reduction of influence from
power relations, violence and enemy attitudes. The dialogue facilitation is
comparable to the approach of the trade unions where the power breaking of
strikes forces capital owners into negotiations. The combination of strikes and
dialogue orientation makes agreements and renegotiations of a work conditions
possible and democratic. Then escalations of strike efforts might create a
serious interest among capital owners that otherwise would not listen to the
arguments of workers. But then it is also sensible to withhold strikes during
negotiations as is the tradition within the trade union movement. I claim that
the dialogue orientation within nonviolent resistance is of a similar kind – a
practical method to create a dialogue interest among power holders. The
problematic question of absolute or relative truth in this conflict theory is
then discussed.
2: The consent theory of power from
Sharp makes it possible to understand Gandhi´s concept of nonviolent action as
both the constructive building of alternative social institutions and the
removal and obstruction of the support and obedience that power institutions
relie on. The consent theory suggests a fundamental dependence of “power
holders” on the external sources of the economic, political and cultural
resources necessary to administer power systems. The escalation of this
breaking of power in conflict situations is understood as potentially creating
space for dialogue with powerholders that otherwise wouldn´t be interested in
democratic agreements. With the help of Michel Foucault is the consent theory
made decentred as well as independent of its earlier voluntarism. The question
of coercion or persuasion in nonviolent conflict management is discussed.
3: The dramaturgical theory from
Goffman makes it possible to understand Gandhi´s idea of the role of suffering
in nonviolent struggle in conflicts where violence is used by one party. The
acts of nonviolent campaigners is understood as a communicative dramatization
of justice and unjustice, where the definitions of the conflict situation and
the involved roles are reinterpretated in practical behaviour. The peaceful
invasion of white-only beaches in apartheid South Africa by black activists
dressed for beach party and sun-bathing is interpreted as an example of this
dramatic risk-behaviour, displaying both apartheid injustice and post-apartheid
justice. When the conflict in this way is repeatedly enacted "as-if"
the participants where equals and friends in a respectful dispute, despite the
infliction of suffering, there is a possibility or even a social
"force" created for conflict transformation of earlier enemy
attitudes and stereotype pictures of the Other. The question of limits in
dramaturgical communication in changing violent behaviour is discussed.
The conclusion of this text is that
the conflict theory from Gandhi could be understood as a "power breaking,
trust- and dialogue facilitating conflict handling". There exist a double
approach consisting of "caring respect and persistent resistance".
The reason for this double approach is the attempt to manage different aspects
of a conflict at the same time; feelings, behaviour and principles. The main
theoretical and practical problem in this conflict theory is the possibilities
of uniting different contradictions between respect and resistance, or with
other words - power breaking, trust- and dialogue facilitation. Detailed
research of the practical management by nonviolent social movements of these
inherent contradictions is needed to explore the feasibility of Gandhi´s
conflict theory.
2:
Power as subordination –
Nonviolent
movements and the management of power in conflicts
The question what power is has for a long time been a controversy inside social science. This text offers the power discourse an argumentation for the reasonable view on power as a form of subordination.
This text discusses power and
nonviolent resistance seen from the tradition of Mohandas K. Gandhi. According
to Gene Sharp (1973) nonviolent resistance builds on a view on power where
leaders are seen to be dependent on their subordinates and the power resources which
thereby are released. Consent, obedience and co-operation are central concepts
which are intertwined in the power process. Obedience is viewed as an
“essentially voluntary” form of co-operation. Through breaking or dissolving
this subordination nonviolent activists are able to make peaceful and effective
resistance against a authoritarian elite. Social movement internal power
dynamic is seen as essentially democratic and constructive. Several researchers
has criticised this power theory for being simplified, not taking into account
the social construction of power.
Sharp’s proposition that
subordination is both created and broken through conscious and free choices, is
countered by different power theories which claim that power partly construct
the subjects and their choices. Michel Foucault and Pierre Bourdieu helps us to
understand possibilities for how this subordination is constructed through a
historic process of diffusion of various disciplinary techniques within modern
institutions – like the school, factory, hospital, asylum, military barracks
and other socialisation organisers – which is then becoming part of our
habitual everyday thinking and behaviour as a kind of power-impregnated
semi-conscious embodiment of practical knowledge (habitus). The result is a
subject part of power in such a integrated way that the individual becomes
unthinkable without reference to power relations.
However
the critique against the voluntarism in Sharp’s theory on power does not lead
to a need to abandon the theory on power as a form of subordination. Power can
be seen as a process of subordination and nonviolent resistance as a breaking
of this subordination, irrespective of the degree of conscious and free will
involved in the social process. But the conditions of resistance are changing
drastically.
Neither power nor nonviolent
resistance are primarily made possible through conscious choices. They are
complex social and cultural constructions which is not easily identified or
changed. Nonviolent resistance demands, as does power, the formation of new
social construction and behaviour which facilitates the liberation from
subordination. How this social construction shall be created is then an
important question for further research on nonviolent resistance.
Nonviolent
movements and the management of power in conflicts
Starting from the nonviolent resistance of social movements, made in the tradition from Mohandas K. Gandhi the problematic management of power is studied. Nonviolent resistance builds, implicit or explicit, on a view where power is a form of subordination which can be broken (Zunes 1999). Those who gets subordinated are participating in the construction of the power relation, irrespective of if they are conscious about that or not (Vinthagen 2000:a).
Nonviolent social movements tries to
manage conflicts through attempting to convince in a dialogue and through
creating competition to the institutions they want to abolish, at the same time
as they are organising the refusal, avoidance and hindrance of subordination.
These forms of action are done nonviolent out of moral or pragmatic reasons.
Nonviolent resistance is formed
through a strategic power struggle (Sharp 1973) but can’t be reduced to this
power breaking. In this text it is argued that truth-seeking or dialogue
facilitation is a further decisive approach in nonviolent resistance (Vinthagen
1998:a). Power breaking and dialogue/trust facilitation becomes thereby two
central approaches in nonviolent resistance which although exists in a
irreconcilable contradiction or ambivalence. Power breaking involves an
enforcing effectiveness and dialogue/trust facilitation an utopian
understanding.
The irreconcilable approach in
nonviolent resistance creates a new, exiting and constructive dynamic of
conflict management (Vinthagen 1998:a). However the problem is that the
contradictions creates continues dangers of new and serious forms of power
exercise inside the movement as well as in it’s relations with other conflict
parties.
The basic irreconcilable situation
between resistance and truth makes it necessary for a nonviolent movement to
try to find ways of managing power problems with e.g. power in the dialogue,
manipulation, paternalistic nonviolence and the creation of new forms of
subordination, like disciplinary nonviolence of the thoughts, speech, feelings
and behaviour of it’s activists. The dilemma of power is based on an attempt to
create genuine understanding and agreement in a conflict through a dialogue
which either is enforced or manipulated in order to “help” the counter-party –
to a “more enlighten” understanding of truth.
There seems to exist a number of
possibilities for nonviolent activists to counter these power tendencies but
the precondition for this “resistance against the power production of
resistance” is that activists acknowledge and identifies the power dilemma in
their approach. When the problem is acknowledged and identified there is a need
for creative research and praxis which could make the management of power
possible.
4:
Globalisation from below:
Social
Movements trying to influence Corporate Globalisation from above
This text is an attempt to construct a theoretical
framework of the confrontations against international regimes as WTO, IMF
and the World Bank, organised by transnational movement networks. It is based
on a theoretical inquire on social movement theory and contemporary
globalisation discourse, as well as empirical field studies of the protests
against the WB/IMF in Prague September 2000 and EU in Gothenburg June 2001, as
well as of social movements in India and Brazil and their convergence at the
World Social Forum in Brazil and European Social Forum in Italy.
Basically my text tries to
understand how social movements, through confrontational dramas at a
global arena strengthen existing everyday resistance on the local arena,
facilitating increased coordination of a transnational movement culture which
in the end might – as I would suggest – facilitate a negotiated New
International Economic Order.
Bangalore, Seattle, Washington,
Prague, Gothenburg, Genoa and similar events of confrontations since the
1990ies, represent a chain of confrontations enacted on temporary
global arenas, through the power dramaturgy between actors, framed
on a electronic global mass media stage. This is channeled by a transnational
movement convergence of a wide varity of social movements. These movements
are based in differing movement cultures, where discourses and practices
evolve, reconstructing local tradition and global process into political
maximalism, a politicising of both everyday life and the world. Convergence
on a global arena involves structuring fragile and heterogeneous alliances on common
problems through temporary political minimalism (heterogeneity of
issues and demands) and methodological maximalism (diversity of
tactics). This politics of the multitude celebrates difference in a
qualitatively new way, becoming the overriding “ideology of ideologies”, making
as the Zapatistas say “a world where several worlds are possible”. This
politics of the multitude is the dialectical opposite to the thatcherite slogan
of the 1980ies; “There Is No Alternative!”.
I understand the chain of symbolic
confrontations against corporate globalisation as being a transnationalisation
of civil society, not a united “global civil society”. There is still
“black holes” where the transnational movement culture is not present, like
vast areas of the Arab-Muslim world and central Africa.
My conclusion is that this chain of
events is as well a part of the globalisation process, but with the opposing
content of corporate globalisation, the re-politicising of the liberated market
forces. In a similar way to Polanyi I understand it as a second historical
movement reacting to the first historical movement of socially disembeded
capitalism. The latest wave of liberalisation of capitalism since the 1980ies
is now, since the 1990ies met by its counter part, globalisation from below.
These opposing flows of globalisation contest the role of society towards
economics, should economic practices be “free” from society or should it be
embedded in social structure and group needs?
Globalisation is thus understood as
having two directions at the same time – a economic-technological globalisation
from above driven by a market expansion and the convergence of different
resource strong elite groups and a socio-political globalisation from below
driven by a transnationalisation of civil society and the convergence of
different social movement cultures. This means that there is a struggle inside
globalisation, a matching of forces between actors trying to influence the
conditions of global social change, which gives us the global arena on which
confrontations are played out in open. This global arena becomes the arena of
politics since all relevant global actors are there – global regimes (like
WTO), transnational corporations (like McDonalds, KFC, CNN) and transnational
movementorganisations (like Attac). Even when hundreds of thousands are present
the struggle gets transformed into a global topic through global massmedia
representation. Even if media is not deciding the content of what actors say,
they surely decided how the actors need to behave in order to get heard (or
rather seen!). The interaction between media and social movements creates a
dramatisation of the political struggle in such a way that old political
traditions of movement politics is possible to understand as drama forms.
The
convergence of movements dramatic image-making on global arenas is both
functional and dysfunctional. The different action groups construct their own
kinds of politics and calls for their different activities. They construct
together a kind of political market place where different activists can
choose between different kinds of activities. There are big legal
demonstrations, research seminars, thematic discussion workshops, dialogue
meetings with politicians, mass civil disobedience, street riots and cultural
entertainment. Some activities are more popular than others, but there are
possibilities to take part in several on one and the same day.
Three
main kinds of political dramatic image-making are competing with each other on
the market place. The drama forms try to make politics in fundamental different
ways and therefor their dramatic image-making displays very different messages
to the global audience. But all of them are trying one and the same thing - to
create images that will mobilise participation in the movements.
1:
For the first, we have the majority drama, where big legal
demonstrations are physically trying to display a opinion poll. They are
through great numbers, participation of representatives and display of unity
trying to show that certain political demands are supported by the people. They
try to show that the multilateral regimes and professional politicians do not
have a necessary legitimacy. Their wish is to engage in a dialogue with a power
elite in the search for system reform. The typical example is the
demonstration of thousands of people in Cologne 1999 against the G8, where a
big ring of demonstrators where holding hands around the conference
building.
2:
For the second, we have the carneval drama, where activists try to
undermine established definitions, discourses and social roles/relationships
and creatively construct new ones. They use face masks, costumes and theater
equipment in order to become some one else and to make fun of conventional
understandings. The carneval tradition display for a short time the turning of
the world up side down, to show how the powerful are without power and that
another world is possible. The cultural creative activists of the carneval
drama try to engage ordinary people in breaking established norms and laws to
construct system change. The typical example is the nonviolent mass
civil disobedience done by thousands of people blocking the WTO building in
Seattle 1999.
3:
For the third, we have the David and Goliath drama, where activists try
to display the brutality of the existing system and our ability to defend
ourselves. They dress in thick clothes to protect their bodies and hoods
covering their faces. They are protecting themselves from the repression of the
state in order to be able to fight it on the streets. They are the
anonymous-angry-no-nonsens-civil-society. They use economic sabotage against
multinational company property and try to disturb the political meetings of a
power elite. They are prepared to use violence if necessary (stones, petrol
bombs, sticks), but only as a defence against the police. Their defence are by
choice only militant, not military, since they hope for the mass participation
of ordinary angry people that like them think "enough is enough".
Their goal is to create system withdrawal in order to create autonomous
zones for self-organising - or if they succeed to mobilise big numbers of
activists - the system break down.
The
organisation of peaceful confrontations are not working since these competing
dramas are practically accepted and since the David and Goliath drama is
involuntary functioning together with the agenda of the police and the mass
media.
When
there is no established culture of how to do organised and disciplined
nonviolent mass civil disobedience (like in US and Australia) the official call
for peaceful "demonstrations" turns into war dramas by the combined
efforts of police, Black Bloc activists and mass media.
There
exist a nonviolent tradition that the movement could learn from in order to
increase both the peaceful nature of demonstrations and the effectiveness of
resistance at global protest gatherings.