Paper for the Symposium on Nonviolent Research November 28-30, 2002,

At The Centre for Peace Studies (CPS), University of Tromsø, Norway.

Earlier and present research on nonviolent action is suffering from two major flaws: the focus on state/national-regime change in an increasing global and market-dominated world and the focus on state organised wars, despite that this kind of war is disappearing. None of these research areas are unimportant, but they are less important problems in our contemporary world. The globalisation of the nation state change the conditions of nonviolent action in all states of the world, in some more than in others. The new wars are tormenting only some states but are on some level present in most states in their political-economical marginalised areas – e.g. in Harlem, New York. This one-sided kind of research focus on the state comes from problems dominating societies during early modernity and suits older theories developed in accordance with these problems.

Contemporary power relations and violence dynamics calls for the development of other research questions, theories and methodologies concerning the specific possibilities and constraints of transnational and local nonviolent action directed against various non-state actors.

Globalisation and new conditions of nonviolent action

Inside studies of international relations exist since some years a new dominating discourse on globalisation changing our understanding of the world and the nation states. Basically globalisation is shown by among others Manuel Castells to fundamentally change the role of the nation state and the capitalist market. The state is since the creation of the international system in the mid 1700-century based on mutual recognition of the sovereignty of each individual state. In international relation states makes inter-national agreements, i.e. between independent states. Now transnational processes of a multidimensional kind (ecological, financial, criminal, informational, trade, technical, political, tourism, refugees etc) pass borders as they please, beyond the sovereign control of the state. The state is not necessary disappearing but its role is definitely changing. Much will depend on the relative economical, administrative and cultural strength of the individual state. But even the hegemonic USA show frustration because of its lacking control of global processes.

In this global social change we have received new institutions of politics, so called “global regimes” (WTO, IMF, The World Bank, The International Criminal Court) which together makes up a patch-work of non-elected “governance without government”. We have also got a new kind of capitalism, a flexible network capitalism as Castells says, a kind of borderless market expansion. This market expansion is of course geographical in using the new possibilities created by the disappearance of the Cold War, but the expansion is a lot more borderless than so – it happens within the former bureaucratic mega companies, within the former private areas of the family, within the former public areas of civil society and even within the socialisation of personality (through the entertainment industry and needs-constructing media factories). The precarious conditions of work through wide spread flexibility of production creates a new social category of the “precariat” as Hardt & Negri says. The new capitalism is basically the opposite to the earlier mass production industry of mega-companies like Ford, which produced for the mass consumption where everyone where supposed to buy the same car, fridge and TV as everyone else. Now the creativity of production is targeting individual/group choice and temporary consumer trends of today, even within e.g. oppositional cultures of youth in black suburbs or anti-consumer cultures in global movements. Karl Marx would have been astonished to learn of the limitlessness of contemporary profit-creativity.

But globalisation also creates new kinds of social movements of contention. Movements of relevance for research on nonviolent action are today less preoccupied with the national state politics of political parties or trade unions. They are increasingly focusing on transnational relations, individual life-style and social life forms of local context.

This means that we in our research can’t afford to miss the new kinds of global/local nonviolent action being done, just because we are looking for actions against the national state apparatus. We need to try to understand both contemporary transnational and anti-capitalist nonviolent actions. The transnational movements orient their politics towards other regimes than the national state (global, regional, local). The contemporary anti-neo-liberal actors and methods are different than the classic national trade unions and political parties, with their (in liberal democracies) now well established workers strikes and citizens voting.

New wars and new conditions of nonviolent action

Mary Kaldor has shown that “new wars” are not organised by the centralised state bureaucracy but rather is a result of “collapsing states”. The new wars are basically the opposite of the traditional kind of professional, public and hierarchal “politics by other means” of the state organised military. The new wars are driven by a privatisation of the military and the target of the identity driven violence is the civilian population. Instead of trying to get legitimacy from the people they get control through a politics of fear and difference. The “war economy” makes former illegal activity as drugs, smuggling, prostitution, protection fees and theft the main sources of income, both for the sustained war, the creation of war-lords and for the daily livelihood of poor soldiers. Early important differences between war and peace or legitimacy/legality and criminality are systematically blurred. War/peace zones overlap and change constantly, well organised warlords becomes a kind of semi-authority even “after” war is ended, through their power politics and by being included in so called peace negotiations.

This has disturbing consequences for research and praxis of nonviolent action, since most of the nonviolence research being done have focused on civilian-based defence, nonviolent action/movement or social defence in national settings and in relation to a central power administration which needs legitimacy. If this foundation of nonviolent action is changed it means that we need to look for new openings. But before we are able to work really creatively exploring avenues for new nonviolent action against contemporary wars, we need to learn more of the problems these kinds of wars are posing. The problems facing nonviolent action will be sometimes be specific and different than the ones present researchers are posing in their studies. E.g. what point will there be to break state laws in doing nonviolent civil disobedience when the state is not the one conducting the war anyhow? Is there other power relations which the new warlords are dependent on that nonviolent activist might use in order to create pressure?