« Beating the CyberBully | Home | Legal weapons against school bullies and cyberbullying »
Is non-violent resistance really effective against bullies?
By Ben | January 7, 2009
The success of Mahatma Gandhi and non-violent protest or non-violent resistance is often cited as absolute proof that such non-violent methods can defeat oppression and stop bullies. That idea is often linked to the assertions that the world was a simpler place back when people came together face to face, a small group of committed people can change the world and there’s nothing we can’t accomplish.
As much as I almost always try non-violent techniques first, I disagree strongly. You’re better off thinking of non-violent protest as a method, a strategy or a tactic; not as a philosophy.
Let’s examine non-violent protest as if its truth as a philosophy can be tested against history.
Gandhi-ji was successful against the British and I wouldn’t argue that any other tactic he could have employed would have succeeded. But his success only proves that in that particular circumstance, lead by that unique individual spirit, the tactic of non-violent protest was successful in getting the British to leave India. Do you think that non-violent resistance would have been effective in India in 1857? Or that it would help the Indian people now against Pakistan (or vice versa) or against the Muslim terrorists who recent launched their attacks in Mumbai?
I remember Martin Luther King, Jr. and the civil rights movement. I was actually in Chicago when he led the march and rally. Do you think he would have succeeded in leading a march in Chicago in 1920 or New York in the 1830’s (read about the mass atrocities and killings during the riots there)? Do you think the movement would have succeeded integrating schools in the South without the Federal troops willing to shoot?
Gandhi and Dr. King were in the right places at the right times for the methods they chose. Would either have even gotten obituaries in the newspapers if they tried non-violent protest in Hitler’s Germany, Stalin’s Russia, Mao’s China, Bosnia, Rwanda or Darfur, or against the Ayatollah or Sadam Hussein, just to name a few?
The wisdom and lessons of history are clear, whether we like them or not. They’re found in the great literature of the world, as well as in the facts we know:
- The world was never a simpler place. Try living your life on a self-sufficient farm, especially when the locusts or drought or flood or fire comes. Or when a conquering horde comes over the hill to kill all the men and take the women and children into slavery. That was dealing with problems face to face. Remember in the Iliad what happened to mighty Hector’s wife and son. No unemployment insurance, retirement funds or welfare.
- A small group of people can change the world. Usually that’s what has happened, whether they start a Renaissance or a dictatorship or they’re called the Founding Fathers or Mothers.
- Although there are many things we’ve accomplished through science and technology in the physical, material world, there are many things we can’t accomplish in the organic, living world. We will never have world peace. We will never have a global society that encourages and makes possible everyone’s individual freedom. Power is a reality of human nature, not freedom (as much as we Americans value it). Protecting me and mine against you and yours, or people grabbing what they want is a reality of human nature.
- In response to a question about peaceful, non-violent protest being effective when facing Chinese soldiers with machine guns, the Dali Lama said, about two years ago, that had we stood there and prayed and chanted and reasoned, they simply would have shot us all. Similarly, the Quakers in Pennsylvania were barred from holding office because their peaceful methods did not protect the colonists they served from Indian attacks.
- History shows that, for the most part, those who succeed practicing non-violence live in caves, deserts, misty mountains or monasteries. Usually, they live on practically nothing or are supported and taken care of by people who brave the world in which violence is a probability. For example, Gandhi could live poor and politically active because, in part, he was supported by the efforts and money of one of the richest women in India.
To think that we can have sustainable world peace is to indulge in childhood, magical thinking – very 60’s and 70’s.
So what can we do? Keep working at it; be strong, skillful and resilient in your efforts; think strategically, being right isn’t enough.
Start with your personal world. Deal effectively and individually with the bullies you find, whether they be face to face or cyberbullies, bullies at work, home or school. Help make laws against those behaviors, but if you want society or the government to actively guarantee security, you will create Big Brother and you won’t like the consequences.
Think of non-violent protest and reasoning as initial tactics to employ. Sometimes they’ll be effective. Bullies will show you if non-violent protest enough to stop them. But if non-violent resistance doesn’t stop a bully, you have to be more clever and firm. History actually shows that usually the best way to prepare for peace is to be strong enough to wage war successfully, despite the seductively catchy bumper sticker to the contrary. Remember, no method succeeds everywhere and every when.
Prepare yourself to be ecstatic and joyful in the world the way it is, whether you decide to change it or not. That joy and ecstasy are signs of the saints. As much as the world is full of all the awful things we can think of, it’s also full of beauty, grace, love and nobility. Fill yourself with joy in the face of the full range of life.
If you can’t be happy until the world is totally peaceful and all the problems are solved, you’ll have a lousy life. That would be a waste of your potential for wonder, awe and joy, as well as for effecting change … even knowing that change won’t last beyond your life span.
Topics: Bullies at Home, Bullies at School, Coaching, Consulting, Hostile Workplace, Parenting Bully-Proof Kids Book, Public Speaking, Stop Bullies Book, Stop Bullies CD, parenting |
February 9th, 2009 at 10:32 am
Greetings;
I would like to respond to this entry “Is Non-Violent Resistance Really Effective Against Bullies?” First I want to say that I appreciate this blog and you addressing the problem of bullying in schools and workplaces. It’s an issue that I’ve written about on my blog also. However I disagree with much of the content of this entry. By critizing the use of non-violent resistance to bullying you seem to be advocating the use of violence as a tool to stop bullying. Although bullying is certainly an act of violence, using violence to confront the bully will probably get a person is as much or more trouble than the bully will ever face.
I question the logic you use in trivilizing the use of non-violence. The efforts made by Ghandi and Martin Luther King Jr. did not work because they were living in a time and place more receptive to peaceful resolution of conflict, as you suggest. The world and human nature was just as violent then as it is now, and has been for eons. I believe that there are and have been many times in human history when non-violent resistance is the only resistance that has any chance of succeeding. The reason many people refuse to use violence or seek revenge, is that a violent or punitive response limits options and reduces the chances of success. The abnormality in human history was not Ghandi’s successful resistance to British rule of India (keep in mind that other large British colonies such as Canada and Australia got their freedom by peaceful means also), but the US Revolutionary War. Certainly that war was a choice the US made, not a necessary step to obtaining freedom from Britain. Most colonists did not support the war effort. Many were neutral and many supported the British, so going to war agains the British was not a democratic act. A large pecentage became refugees after the war and had to leave, either moving to Canada, to the frontier, or returning to Europe. The Revolutionary War, like all wars, was enormously destructive to the people of that time. It established a tradition of the US using military violence to solve our problems with other countries, a tradition that still has a harmful effect on us and the rest of the world today.
You wrote that the Quakers were barred from holding office in Pennsylvania because their peacful methods did not protect the colonists from Indian attacks. Actually the Quaker founder of Pennsylvania, William Penn worked to establish peaceful relationships with the Indians by being respectful of their rights and cultures. According to Juhnke and Hunter in “The Missing Peace: The Search for Nonviolent Alternatives in United States History,” (Pandora Press, 2001), “He (Penn) learned the Indian languages and dealt with them honestly and respectfully in clearing title to the land” (Page 25). Much of the Indian violence against colonists in other parts of the colonies was a result of belligerance and disrespect from the European settlers.
It’s not entirely clear what you define as a non-violent response, compared to a violent response. A pacifist response is not necessarily a passive response. A pacifist can be assertive, can and should speak out against bullying, publicize the nature of the bullying and the subsequent injury, and also can and should seek accountability and justice. However as a pacifist I think it would be wrong for me to seek revenge, or to try to intentionally deprive the bully of employment. Using violence is certainly counterproductive to resolving the bullying problem. Concerning the problem of using non-violent resistance in conflicts between nations I would suggest that you consult “How to Stop a War, ” by Dunnigan and Martel which points out that most of the wars fought never resolve the issue, or issues that caused the war, or “The Politics of Non-Violent Action” by Gene Sharp which documents hundreds of historically proven peaceful ways of resolving conflict. Thanks again for your blog.
Sincerely;
Leonard Nolt
http://www.leonardnolt.blogspot.com
LeonardNolt@AOL.com
February 11th, 2009 at 11:52 am
Hi Leonard,
Thanks for your thoughtful response. It’s always fun to dialog with someone who has thought a lot and is very articulate.
I don’t mean to diminish non-violent methods at all. As I said, I almost always try them first.
I think that the underlying disagreement we have is that I think it’s disastrous to view non-violence as a philosophy. That limits your options tremendously.
I view both non-violent resistance and push-back (even physical pushback) as tools or tactics.
As I point out in figures 1 and 3 in “How to Stop Bullies in Their Tracks” (pages 129 and 134), I encourage people faced with bullies to start near the bottom of a staircase of tactical responses with peaceful methods and then go up the staircase in increasing firmness (even to physical resistance) until the bully stops. The bully will show you how far you have to go.
As for examples, I’m thrilled when conflicts can be resolved by peaceful means. But, do you really think:
* The American Indians would have gotten the colonists to leave by peaceful means?
* Gandhi would have gotten the British to leave 100 years earlier by peaceful means?
* The Irish could have gotten the British to leave in the 1700 and 1800 Hundreds by peaceful means?
* The Dalai Lama could have gotten the Chinese to leave by peaceful means?
* That Rwanda’s ethnic violence could have been solved by peaceful means until after tremendous bloodshed?
Best wishes,
Ben
March 16th, 2009 at 12:34 pm
I read your page on the internet. I completely disagree. with the notion that bullying can be stopped by peaceful means. The only way to stop a bully is by stronger physical violence. As a smaller weaker person all my life I am a ” bully magnet .” I am a 69 yrs old man and you would think that at my age it would have stopped but it worsens as you get older. I am presently being bullied by a younger stronger man who has threatened me with physical violence. It is a shame that my social life has to be foregone by avoiding the situation. The bully has won. They always win unless stopped. That is unless the victim can fight back physically. Since they never can the bully will always get away with it. I do not have a compt., I use the one in the library but I would be interested in and watch out for your comment.
March 19th, 2009 at 1:50 pm
Hi Frank,
I think we agree: non-violent resistance might be effective in special circumstances but usually it’s not effective. It’s never effective against relentless bullies.
It sounds like you’re in one of those situations where non-violent methods won’t stop him. And there’s no one to stand with you. I’m not sure what you can do since individual situations require tactics designed specifically for those situations.
I’ll hallucinate and guess that you’re in an environment where physical violence is king - might makes right. In that case you need to change your whole environment. You would need a complete change of people. You need people who stand together against bullies. Their combined strength is more than his.
I know it’s hard to change so much, especially at 69. So don’t wait any longer. Your future depends on you.
Best wishes,
Ben
August 3rd, 2009 at 10:03 pm
[…] and rational, or with the Golden Rule. Real-world bullies take your use of the Golden Rule as a sign of weakness and an invitation to bully you more. Real bullies don’t have the empathy to stop abusing you because your feelings are hurt or […]