POWER, ETHICS, and the POSSIBILITY of NONVIOLENCE by Mark Stanislaus Balawender
Total Page：16
File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb
POWER, ETHICS, AND THE POSSIBILITY OF NONVIOLENCE By Mark Stanislaus Balawender A DISSERTATION Submitted to Michigan State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Philosophy - Doctor of Philosophy 2015 ABSTRACT POWER, ETHICS AND THE POSSIBILITY OF NONVIOLENCE By Mark Stanislaus Balawender In this project I focus on the question, What makes nonviolence an ethical form of political action? The shift to an instrumental understanding of nonviolence in the civil resistance literature has made it difficult to conceptualize nonviolence using a moral framework. I look first at classical explanations for the moral character of nonviolence that come from Gandhi, Clarence Case and Richard Gregg before moving to the strategic conceptualization that gets developed by Gene Sharp and is under developed today by authors in the civil resistance literature like Erica Chenoweth and Kurt Schock. In discussing Sharp’s theory of power, I rely on the philosophical literature on power, specifically, Foucault and Steven Lukes. In developing my own conception of nonviolence I draw heavily on Arendt and Habermas. I also carry out a historical analysis of Poland’s nonviolent Solidarity movement (1980-89). My method has been to investigate what is incomplete about what I call the moral and the strategic paradigms of nonviolence in order to highlight what a more complete theory of nonviolence must do. In my analysis I argue that the moral paradigm, which understands nonviolence through the idea of conversion, lacks a conceptualization of the power inherent to nonviolent acts and is, itself, inconsistent about whether nonviolence operates coercively (Ch 2). Gene Sharp’s strategic reconceptualization argues that nonviolence is a more effective technique for political change than violence and that it actually forces the opposition to change. His theory of nonviolent power, however, relies on a voluntarist notion of consent that is inadequate in the face of contemporary social theory. The civil resistance literature in general focuses on the disruptive acts like strikes and boycotts, but does not have a category for nonviolent action that is not disruptive (Ch 3). Thus, the dissertation argues that nonviolence involves both disruptive acts (between the movement and its opposition) and communicative action (within the movement itself). In order to generate the disruptive capability that is recognized as nonviolent power by the civil resistance literature, I argue that participants within a movement must take a communicative stance toward each other, develop a public sphere, and must participate in developing shared political understandings. The voluntary, collective nature of nonviolent disruptive acts, like strikes, requires public will formation. My analysis of Solidarity shows that disruptive acts both originate in communicative action and are used to protect or expand the space for communicative action against attempts at suppression. For this reason I argue that disruptive acts and communicative action have what I call, a co-generative relationship in nonviolence. (Ch 4) I use Arendt and Habermas’s political theory to argue that nonviolence is a form of communicative power that gets developed outside of constitutionally democratic frameworks. It is ethical because it involves the effective and rational exercise of agency, through discourse alternating with action. Nonviolence makes private and public autonomy possible for movement participants in contexts of irresolvable conflict because it is powerful and can disrupt or replace existing institutions and legislation. (Ch 5) My ethical conception of nonviolence attempts to address the issues that arise from conceptualizing nonviolence in a universalistic moral framework (which fails to incorporate power) and in a purely instrumentalist framework (which fails to distinguish violence from nonviolence). ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS There are so many people to thank for the privilege of being able to do philosophy. It certainly would not have been possible for me to finish without the support of my family, friends and the academic community here at MSU. Thank you to my committee: Dick, Steve, Todd, and Christian. Dick, I am going to miss our long conversations about nonviolence and our worries about the world. This project is certainly as much yours as it is mine, and whether it’s to create hope or even, possibly, cautious optimism, I hope we can continue our work together. Steve, thank you for your feedback and especially for a community to call home for the last few semester at the RCAH. Being welcomed there has certainly helped with what could sometimes be a lonely experience. Thank you Dwight and Matt, my writing partners the last few years. It’s been so helpful to go through this process with you and a pleasure to work together. Though you moved to Iowa last summer, Matt, our writing partnership seemed to get stronger on the home stretch of these last few chapters. I also need give credit to Joe Stramondo, himself a nonviolent activist: The central idea for this dissertation arose in conversation we had walking around at the NASSP conference many years ago. Finally, and most importantly, I need to sincerely thank my family. Leah and Ryan always remind me that the problems of philosophy are not so intractable and about what is really important in life. Mom and Dad, we couldn’t have done it with out you two. You have always supported our work, but in the last few years we’ve leaned on you heavily to help professional and family life balance out for us. Finally, thank you to my wonderful partner: Jeni, you’ve never iv wavered in your support for me through all the ups and downs. Your own passion and work ethic has always been my inspiration. v TABLE OF CONTENTS CHAPTER 1: Introduction......................................................................................................... 1 CHAPTER 2: Issues With the Moral Paradigm of Nonviolence and the Shift to the Strategic Paradigm...................................................................................................................................19 Introduction..................................................................................................................... 19 Part 1 Pacifism and the Moral Paradigm of Nonviolence...............................................23 Other accounts of the Moral Paradigm of Nonviolence........................................27 Part 2 Criticism and Issues with the Moral Paradigm of Nonviolence: Ambiguity about Nonviolence as a Form of Power.................................................................................... 34 Part 3 The Strategic Paradigm of Nonviolence: Gene Sharp..........................................42 Part 4 Defining Nonviolence: The dilemma of defining effective nonviolence.............48 Conclusion: Defining Violence and Nonviolence........................................................... 59 CHAPTER 3 Issues of Power in the Strategic Paradigm......................................................... 64 Introduction..................................................................................................................... 64 Part 1................................................................................................................................69 Estienne de la Boetie..............................................................................................69 Sharp’s Theory of Power....................................................................................... 71 Part 2................................................................................................................................77 Structural and Post Structural Criticisms of Boétian Theories of Political Power 77 Agency, structural constraint, and Power.............................................................. 87 Part 3................................................................................................................................92 A Power-To Theory of Power............................................................................... 93 Inconsistencies in the strategic literature’s focus on disruption.............................96 Problem of distinguishing violence and nonviolence.......................................... 101 Chapter Conclusion....................................................................................................... 104 CHAPTER 4: Solidarity and the Co-Generative Relationship Between Disruption and Communicative Action........................................................................................................... 106 Introduction................................................................................................................... 106 Recap/theoretical outline..................................................................................... 108 Timeline............................................................................................................... 114 Part 1..............................................................................................................................116 1970 and burning the party building, setting the context of hopelessness...........116 AntiPolitics...........................................................................................................118 Reimagining Politics............................................................................................125 Bibuła (underground press)..................................................................................129