PACS 316/PHIL 329: Violence, Nonviolence, and War Winter 2011

Home , Adam Curle, The Unconquerable World

Monday and Wednesday, 1:00 p.m.–2:20 p.m. Conrad Grebel University College, Room 1300 Prof. Nathan C. Funk

Office: CGUC, Room 2130A Office hours: Mon 2:30 pm-3:30 pm, Phone: 519-885-0220, ext. 24295 Thurs 9:30 am-10:30 am, E-mail: [email protected] and by appointment

Source: http://regentsprep.org/Regents/global/themes/conflict/ Course Description images/Breaking-down-Berlin-Wall-1989.jpg

This course explores debates concerning the relative merits of violent and nonviolent strategies for pursuing high-value social and political goals, with particular emphasis on the need to engage and evaluate claims pertaining to the efficacy and contemporary relevance of nonviolent action. Students will critically examine a range of views, including political realism and just war theory as well as pacifism and various forms of nonviolent resistance. The following questions will guide our inquiry:  Why have war and organized violence often been regarded as necessary evils or even as social goods?  What interests and functions has war served? What are the moral, human, environmental, and financial costs of war?  Under what circumstances can nonviolent methods of defending or advancing social and ethical values succeed in the face of determined opposition? To what extent can nonviolent strategies of social change or defence be substituted for violent strategies? Is social learning possible?

Course Objectives

By the end of the term, students in this course should be able to:  Identify functions and dysfunctions of violence in contemporary societies and in world politics.  Explain various moral and ethical positions pertaining to the use of violent sanctions by states and by non-state political movements.  Demonstrate mastery of key concepts linked to nonviolence.  Evaluate strategies for replacing organized violence with nonviolent action in instances of acute social and political conflict.  Articulate a personal political philosophy or ethic concerning matters of war, violence, and peaceful change. Course Requirements and Evaluation Criteria

15% Participation: Fifteen percent of your final grade will be based on the quality of your participation in class. Participation presupposes both attendance and preparation. It manifests through thoughtful engagement with class discussions and small-group activities.

20% Six Short Reading Responses: Twenty percent of your grade will be based on six short reading responses. These one- to two-page papers must be completed by the beginning of class on six out of eleven days for which readings are assigned. Each of your six reading responses should show engagement with all assigned readings, by providing one to three substantive “talking points” per chapter or article assigned.

Reading responses are intended to encourage active engagement with PACS 316 readings, while also providing you with an opportunity to “bring something to the table” by identifying themes you consider worthy of affirmation, deliberation, clarification, or debate. Please precede each talking point in your reading response with a single, italicized or bold-faced word or phrase that conveys the overall character of your response (for example, Affirm: …, Question: …, Qualify: …, Clarify: …, Wow!: …, Had no idea: …, Confused by this: …, Inspired by this: …, Not sure: …). The commentary provided should go beyond mere summarization or reaction to the author‟s writing style; each point should engage key claims or conceptual arguments from a particular author. Please include a reference to relevant page numbers for each entry.

Evaluation of reading responses will be based on a simple five-point scale. You are expected to submit your response papers electronically via the appropriate UW-ACE drop box (or by hard copy in the case of technological failure); please do not e-mail or fax response papers. Because these assignments are intended to elicit your thinking before class discussions, late reading responses cannot be accepted. If you submit more than six response papers, only your six best marks will be counted. (Note: Simple web browser incompatibilities are among the most common sources of technical difficulty for UW-ACE users.) Criteria for evaluation include: clarity of communication, substance (do the talking points address one or two peripheral issues, or do they go “to the heart of the matter” and engage central themes?), and scope (is there evidence of serious reading, or could the points have been composed after reading only one or two paragraphs?).

40% Course Project: Forty percent of your final grade will be based on a major course project. There are two options for completing this assignment. You are required to commit to one of these options by the third week of class:  Option 1: Two Essays. Write two essays that apply concepts from class to a contemporary case of violent or potentially violent conflict. The first essay (5-6 pages; worth 20%) will analyze actual debates about perceived “pros and cons” of violence and nonviolence within a particular context of acute political conflict, in an effort to 1) trace specific stances to particular actors and constituencies, 2) clarify how these views developed, and 3) identify obstacles to and opportunities for nonviolent change efforts. The second essay (6-8 pages, worth 20%) will evaluate the applicability and/or limitations of nonviolent action or intervention methods to the conflict in question, taking into account your previous analysis of the conflict environment, prevailing views, and experiences associated with any previous nonviolent social change campaigns. Each essay should be typed and double-spaced, with one-inch margins and regular-size, 12-point font. More specific guidelines for these assignments will be presented in class; you may find it helpful to read from some of the resources identified in this syllabus under “Further reading” as you seek a specific focus. Due February 9 and March 30.

2  Option 2: Digital Project. Up to three students or groups may complete this option. Rather than write traditional essays, students selecting Option 2 are expected to prepare one 5-7 minute electronic report suitable for uploading to Youtube, the Power of Peace Network, or a similar online forum. Team projects organized by students with diverse insights and experiences are welcome, provided that there is consultation with the course instructor over team composition and topic before the initiation of collaborative work. Meetings with “Digital T.A.” Eric Kennedy ([email protected]) are strongly encouraged. In addition to an electronic submission that must be turned in by March 30 and screened in class on March 30 or April 4, each project should include a 2-3 page report that offers the following: . title of project; . name(s) of student(s) submitting the project; . a crisp statement of the project‟s intended purpose; . an explanation of the topic‟s importance and relation to PACS 316 themes; . a description of 1) the primary audience for the report, 2) the means of distribution, and 3) possible uses (e.g., education, persuasion/advocacy); . an account of how responsibilities were divided and shared (if the project has involved more than one person); . a brief summary of the learning that resulted from the project; . a statement concerning how you would deal with any intellectual property issues raised by the project in the event of a “real world” release; and . additional thoughts and reflections about the significance and value of the project.

25% Take-Home Final Exam: The term will conclude with a comprehensive, take-home final examination. This exam will be in essay format, and will invite you to demonstrate 1) mastery of major course concepts and themes, and 2) ability to put a wide range of course materials (lectures, readings, class discussions, and videos) to work while articulating your own views and judgments.

Final exam questions will be provided during one of our final class sessions; your work will be due no later than Monday, April 11 at 4:30 p.m. (Conrad Grebel Reception Desk).

Late Policy

Deadlines matter. They keep us on track, enable us to be productive, and help us to meet our educational goals. There are times, however, when even the most organized and disciplined person faces difficult obstacles and unexpected challenges. If this happens, it is your responsibility to take the initiative and demonstrate commitment to getting the job done in a timely manner. Students who contact Prof. Funk well in advance of a due date to discuss realistic complications that may postpone completion of work often receive favourable consideration.

Although exceptions may occasionally be made to account for exceptional circumstances, a penalty will be applied to assignments that arrive late without prior clearance. The standard deductions for late work are as follows:  One day to one week late: -5% (A becomes A-, B- becomes C+, etc.)  Eight days to two weeks late: -10% (A becomes B, B- becomes C-, etc.)  Fifteen days to three weeks late: -15% (A becomes B-, B- becomes D+, etc.)  More than three weeks late: -20% (A becomes C, B- becomes D-, etc.)

Please do not make the mistake of failing to submit an assignment. The penalties for late work are not insignificant, but up until final exam time late truly is much better than never. 3 Appropriate Use of Laptops (and Other Gadgets)

Laptops, iPads, smartphones and related devices are amazing tools, with remarkable capabilities. Among other things, they allow us to download PowerPoint slides, maintain a portable work station, keep neatly typed lecture notes, and stay in touch with friends.

Because activities that provide entertainment for an individual (e.g., movie trailers, party photos, status updates) often prove distracting for others, there is a need to follow basic rules of electronic etiquette in a classroom setting. Whether you are sitting with friends or by yourself, please consider the impact of your electronic activities on those who are attempting to listen to lectures, watch class films, and participate in discussions. All students are expected to comply with a simple principle: if it might distract someone sitting beside you or near you, don’t do it. Further details concerning the PACS 316 policy on laptops and other gadgets will be discussed on the first day of class.

UW Policies on Academic Integrity

Academic Integrity: In order to maintain a culture of academic integrity, members of the University of Waterloo community are expected to promote honesty, trust, fairness, respect and responsibility. (Check www.uwaterloo.ca/academicintegrity/ for more information.)

Grievance: A student who believes that a decision affecting some aspect of his/her university life has been unfair or unreasonable may have grounds for initiating a grievance. Read Policy 70, Student Petitions and Grievances, Section 4, www.adm.uwaterloo.ca/infosec/Policies/policy70.htm. When in doubt please be certain to contact the department‟s administrative assistant who will provide further assistance.

Discipline: A student is expected to know what constitutes academic integrity (check www.uwaterloo.ca/academicintegrity/) to avoid committing an academic offence, and to take responsibility for his/her actions. A student who is unsure whether an action constitutes an offence, or who needs help in learning how to avoid offences (e.g., plagiarism, cheating) or about “rules” for group work/collaboration should seek guidance from the course instructor, academic advisor, or the undergraduate Associate Dean. For information on categories of offences and types of penalties, students should refer to Policy 71, Student Discipline, www.adm.uwaterloo.ca/infosec/Policies/policy71.htm. For typical penalties check Guidelines for the Assessment of Penalties, www.adm.uwaterloo.ca/infosec/guidelines/penaltyguidelines.htm.

Appeals: A decision made or penalty imposed under Policy 70 (Student Petitions and Grievances) (other than a petition) or Policy 71 (Student Discipline) may be appealed if there is a ground. A student who believes he/she has a ground for an appeal should refer to Policy 72 (Student Appeals) www.adm.uwaterloo.ca/infosec/Policies/policy72.htm.

Students with Disabilities

A note from the Office for Persons with Disabilities (OPD):

The Office for Persons with Disabilities (OPD), located in Needles Hall, Room 1132, collaborates with all academic departments to arrange appropriate accommodations for students with disabilities without compromising the academic integrity of the curriculum. If you require academic accommodations to lessen the impact of your disability, please register with the OPD at the beginning of each academic term.

4 Additional Considerations

As we progress through the course, please remember:  In academics as in life more generally, what we get from an experience depends on what we put into it. Preparation for class (completing reading and writing assignments on time, tracking world events) is the basis for effective learning.  When we come to class prepared to participate and pose questions, we transform the classroom environment, making active and collaborative learning possible. We discover that learning is a communal rather than a solitary endeavor, and that each one of us is a resource for everyone else in the learning process.  The subject matter covered by this course is inevitably open to multiple interpretations. This means that you will not always agree with ideas presented in course readings, lectures, and discussions. In such cases, disagreement is often a good thing, so long as it motivates you to develop an enhanced understanding where you stand in relation to others. What matters most is not whether or not we all agree, but whether or not we are willing to engage one another with respect and integrity.  Collaborative learning requires not only preparation and self-expression, but also a commitment to active listening. Active listening is a communication skill that we develop as we begin to hear not only words, opinions, and ideas, but also the experiences and the awareness behind them. When we practice active listening, we cease to merely debate and begin to sharpen the focus of our deliberations. We clarify divergent perceptions and develop deeper understanding of contrasting perspectives. We become a clear mirror, reflecting back what we have heard and asking questions to learn rather than to score rhetorical points. In the process, we test and refine our own ideas and those held by others.

Required Texts

1) Robert L. Holmes and Barry L. Gan, eds. Nonviolence in Theory and Practice, 2nd ed. Long Grove, IL: Waveland Press, 2001.

2) PACS 316 Course Packet. Available for purchase at Kinko‟s, 170 University Ave. West. In the course schedule (see below), Course Packet readings are preceded by an “*.”

Course texts will be made available at the reserve desk in Porter Library. Selections preceded by a “+” will be provided to students through UW-ACE or an internet URL.

5 Source: www.columbia.edu/itc/law/witt/raw_images/lect28/13_rosa_parks.jpg

Course Schedule

PART I: INTRODUCTION

Week 1 (Jan. 5): Meeting One Another and Defining Our Purpose

* * *

Week 2 (Jan. 10 and 12): Confronting the Problem of Violence

Assigned reading:  *John Howard Yoder, “Refining Our Typology on the Ethics of War,” in Christian Attitudes to War, Peace, and Revolution (Grand Rapids, MI: Brazos Press, 2009), pp. 27-41.  *Gene Sharp, “Seeking a Solution to the Problem of War,” in Social Power and Political Freedom (Boston, MA: Porter Sargent Publishers, 1980), pp. 263-284.  *Sarah DeGue and James A. Mercy, “Introduction: Nonkilling Public Health,” in Violence and Health, ed. Joám Evans Pim (Honolulu, Hawai„i: Center for Global Nonkilling and the World Health Organization, 2009), pp. 11-22.

Further reading: -Earl Conteh-Morgan, Collective Political Violence: An Introduction to the Theories and Cases of Violent Conflicts (New York: Routledge, 2004). -Michael Cranna and Nils Bhinda, The True Cost of Conflict (New Press, 1995). -Veena Das, Arthur Kleinman, Margaret Lock, Mamphela Ramphele, and Pamela Reynolds, eds., Remaking a World: Violence, Social Suffering, and Recovery (Berkeley, CA: University of California Press, 2001). -Elizabeth Kandel Englander, Understanding Violence (Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 1997). -Douglas P. Fry, “The Cross-Cultural Peacefulness-Aggressiveness Continuum,” in The Human Potential for Peace: An Anthropological Challenge to Assumptions about War and Violence (New York: Oxford University Press, 2006), pp. 57-70. -Ronald J. Glossop, Confronting War, 4th ed. (Jefferson, NC: McFarland & Co., 2001). -Chris Hedges, War Is a Force That Gives Us Meaning (New York: Public Affairs, 2002). -Carolyn Nordstrom, A Different Kind of War Story (Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 1997). -Samuel Peleg, “Who Participates in Protracted Conflicts and Why? Rediscovering the Group and Its Needs,” in The Understanding and Management of Global Violence, ed. Harvey Starr, pp. 105-125 (New York: St. Martin‟s Press, 1999). -Charles Tilly, The Politics of Collective Violence (New York: Cambridge University Press, 2003). -Jennifer Turpin and Lester R. Kurtz, eds., The Web of Violence: From Interpersonal to Global (Chicago: University of Illinois Press, 1997).

* * *

Source: www.rollins.edu/history/Web%20Pictures/Tiananmen%20Square%202.jpg 6 PART II: TRADITIONAL ARGUMENTS ABOUT POLITICAL VIOLENCE

Week 3 (Jan. 17 and 19): War as an Instrument of Politics

Assigned reading:  *Steven Forde, “Classical Realism,” in Traditions of International Ethics, ed. Terry Nardin (New York: Cambridge University Press, 1992), pp. 62-84.  *Thomas Hobbes, “Relations Among Sovereigns,” in Classic Readings of International Relations, ed. Phil Williams, Donald M. Goldstein, and Jay M. Shafritz (Belmont, CA: Wadsworth Publishing Col, 1994), pp. 28-30.  *Jonathan Schell, “People‟s War,” in The Unconquerable World (New York: Metropolitan Books, 2003), pp. 63-99.

Deadline for declaring intent for Course Project (Option 1 or Option 2): The Leviathan, by Thomas Hobbes Jan. 19 (Source: Wikipedia)

Further reading: Source:http://ebooks.adelaide.edu.au/ -Roger Boesche, The First Great Political Realist: Kautilya and His Arthashastra h/hobbes/thomas/h68l/ (Oxford: Lexington Books, 2002). -Thomas Hobbes, The Leviathan (Baltimore: Penguin Books, 1968). -Michael E. Howard, Clausewitz (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1983). -Niccolo Machiavelli, The Prince and the Discourses (New York: Modern Library, 1950). -Hans Morgenthau, “Six Principles of Political Realism,” in Classic Readings of International Relations, ed. Phil Williams, Donald M. Goldstein, and Jay M. Shafritz (Belmont, CA: Wadsworth Publishing Col, 1994), pp. 34-38. -Sunzi, The Art of War (Toronto: Oxford University Press, 1971). -Max Weber, Politics as a Vocation (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1965).

* * *

Week 4 (Jan. 24 and 26): Just War Doctrine

Assigned reading:  *Paul Christopher, “Saint Augustine and the Tradition of Just War,” in The Ethics of War and Peace: An Introduction to Legal and Moral Issues, 2nd ed. (Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice-Hall, 1999), pp. 29-46.  *Brian Orend, “A Sweeping History of Just War Theory,” in The Morality of War (Peterborough, ON: Broadview Press, 2006), pp. 9-30.

Further reading: -Terry Nardin, The Ethics of War and Peace: Religious and Secular Perspectives (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1996). -Brian Pakins and Michael Dockrill, The Ethics of War (London: Gerald Duckworth & Co., 1979). -Gerald W. Schlabach, Just Policing, Not War: An Alternative Response to World Violence (Collegeville, MN: Liturgical Press, 2007). -Sharon K. Walsh and Evelyn D. Asch, Just War: A Wadsworth Casebook in Argument (Boston, MA: Wadsworth, 2004). -Michael Walzer, Just and Unjust Wars: A Moral Argument with Historical Illustrations (New York: Basic Books, 1977).

* * *

Week 5 (Jan. 31 and Feb. 2): Pacifism and Moral Objections to Violence

Assigned reading:  +Ted Grimsrud, “Core Convictions of Engaged Pacifism,” The Conrad Grebel Review, Vol. 28, No. 3 (Fall 2010), pp. 22-38 (available online).  Holmes, Nonviolence in Theory and Practice. o General Introduction (pp. xvii-xxii) o Part I (“Origins”) . “Preview” (pp. 1-3) . “Nonviolence in Eastern Philosophy and Religion” (pp. 4-22) . “Judaism, Christianity, and Islam” (pp. 23-40) . “From Apology and Crito”) (Plato, pp. 41-47) o Part IV (“Pacifism”) . “Preview” (pp. 173-175) . James (pp. 176-185)

Further reading: -Hagen Berndt, Non-Violence in the World Religions: Vision and Reality (London: SCM Press, 2000). -Robert L. Holmes, On War and Morality (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1989). -Glenn D. Paige, “Political Science: To Kill or Not to Kill,” Social Alternatives, Vol. 19, Issue 2 (May 2000). -Daniel L. Smith-Christopher, ed., Subverting Hatred: The Challenge of Nonviolence in Religious Traditions (Cambridge, MA: The Boston Research Center for the 21st Century, 1998). -David R. Smock, Perspectives on Pacifism: Christian, Jewish, and Muslim Views on Nonviolence and International Conflict (Washington, DC: United States Institute of Peace, 1995).

* * *

Source: www.blueofthesky.com/publicart/works/images/nonviolence/main.jpg

8 PART III: DEVELOPMENTS IN THE THEORY AND PRACTICE OF NONVIOLENCE

Week 6 (Feb. 7 and 9): Philosophical Bases of Nonviolence

Assigned reading:  Holmes, Nonviolence in Theory and Practice. o Part I (“Origins”) . Thoreau (pp. 48-63) o Part II (“Three Modern Philosophers of Nonviolence: Tolstoy, Gandhi, and King”) . Preview (pp. 65-68) . Tolstoy (pp. 69-76) . Gandhi (pp. 77-84) . King (pp. 101-113) o Part III (“Women and Nonviolence”) . “Preview” (pp. 115-118) . Bacon (“Women,” pp. 129-135)

First essay due (Option 1) on Feb. 9

Further reading: -Joan V. Bondurant, Conquest of Violence: The Gandhian Philosophy of Conflict (Berkeley, CA: University of California Press, 1965). -Mohandas K. Gandhi, An Autobiography: The Story of My Experiments with Truth (Boston: Beacon Press, 1957). -______, Non-Violent Resistance (New York: Schocken Books, 1951). -Richard Gregg, The Power of Nonviolence (Canton, ME: Greenleaf Books, 1959). -Martin Luther King, Jr., Why We Can't Wait (New American Library, 1963). -Thomas Merton, ed., Gandhi on Non-Violence: A Selection of Writings from Mahatma Gandhi (New York: New Directions, 1964). -Krishnalal Shridharani, War Without Violence (Bombay: Bharatiya Vidya Bhavan, 1962).

* * *

Leo Tolstoy (Source: Wikipedia) Corazon Aquino (Source: http://onlinewomeninpolitics.files.wordpress.com/2 009/08/coryaquino.jpg)

Mohandas K. Gandhi (Source: nonviolence.ourproject.org )

9 Week 7 (Feb. 14 and 16): Principles and Methods of Nonviolent Action

Assigned reading:  Holmes, Nonviolence in Theory and Practice. o Part IV (“Pacifism”) . L. Norman (“Peace through Strength,” pp. 214-218) o Part V (“The Practice of Nonviolence”): . “Preview” (233-236) . C. Khong (“Learning True Love,” pp. 241-243) . G. Sharp (“Nonviolent Action” and “The Technique,” pp. 247-255) . J. Duvall (“Liberation without War,” pp. 256-260)

Further reading: -Nicholas F. Gier, The Virtue of Nonviolence: From Gautama to Gandhi (Albany, NY: State University of New York Press, 2004). -Vaclav Havel, Open Letters: Selected Writings 1965-1990, selected and edited by Paul Wilson (New York: Random House, 1991). -Gene Sharp, Gandhi as a Political Strategist, with Essays on Ethics and Politics (Boston: Porter Sargent Publishers, 1979). -______, The Politics of Nonviolent Action: Part One: Power and Struggle (Boston: Porter Sargent Publishers, 1973). -______, The Politics of Nonviolent Action: Part Two, The Methods of Nonviolent Action (Boston: Porter Sargent Publishers, 1973). -______, There are Realistic Alternatives (Boston, MA: The Albert Einstein Institution, 2003). Available in PDF form at www.aeinstein.org. -Thomas Weber, “Nonviolence Is Who? Gene Sharp and Gandhi,” Peace and Change, Vol. 28, No. 2 (April 2003), pp. 250- 270.

* * *

Feb. 21 and 23: No Class (Reading Week)

* * *

Week 8 (Feb. 28 and Mar. 2): Dynamics of Nonviolent Action

Source: http://www.nonviolenceinternational.net/ Assigned reading:  Holmes, Nonviolence in Theory and Practice. o Part VI (“Examples of Nonviolence”) . “Preview” (pp. 305-308) . Flinders/Easwaran (“Nonviolent Soldier of Islam,” 309-317) . R. Deats (“The Philippines,” pp. 318-322) . Center for the Study of Conflict (“South Africa,” pp. 328-331) . K. Epler (“Cesar Chavez,” pp. 340-343)  *James Satterwhite, “Christian Peacemaker Teams as an Alternative to „Redemptive Violence.‟” Peace and Change, Vol. 31, No. 2 (April 2006), pp. 222-243.

Further reading: -Peter Ackerman and Christopher Kruegler, Strategic Nonviolent Conflict: The Dynamics of People Power in the Twentieth Century (Westport, CT: Praeger, 1994). -Robert Burrowes, The Strategy of Nonviolent Defense: A Gandhian Approach (New York: SUNY Press, 1996). -Robert C. Johansen, “Radical Islam and Nonviolence: A Case Study of Religious Empowerment and Constraint among Pashtuns,” Journal of Peace Research, Vol. 34, No. 1 (February 1997), pp. 53-71. -Gene Sharp, The Politics of Nonviolent Action: Part Three, The Dynamics of Nonviolent Action (Boston: Porter Sargent Publishers, 1973). 10 * * *

Christian Peacemaker Teams (Source: www.cpt.org/images/boat.jpg)

Aung San Suu Kyi (Source: www.erdinc.info/blog/images/asskfym.jpg)

PART IV: CONTEMPORARY DEBATES

Week 9 (Mar. 7 and 9): Does Nonviolence Really Work?

Assigned reading:  *Michael Walzer, “Afterword: Nonviolence and the Theory of War,” in Just and Unjust Wars: A Moral Argument with Historical Illustrations, 3rd ed. (New York: Basic Books, 2000), pp. 329- 335.  *Maria J. Stephan and Erica Chenoweth, “Why Civil Resistance Works: The Strategic Logic of Nonviolent Conflict,” International Security, Vol. 33, No. 1 (Summer 2008), pp. 7-44.  *Michael N. Nagler, “„Work‟ Versus Work,” in Is There No Other Way? The Search for a Nonviolent Future (Berkeley, CA: Berkeley Hills Books, 2001), pp. 102-146.

Further reading: -Peter Ackerman and Jack DuVall, A Force More Powerful: A Century of Nonviolent Conflict (New York: Palgrave, 2000). -Peter Ackerman and Christopher Kruegler, Strategic Nonviolent Conflict (Westport, CT: Praeger Publishers, 1994). -Ronald M. McCarthy and Gene Sharp, Nonviolent Action: A Research Guide (New York: Garland Publishing, 1997). -Brian Orend, “Evaluating the Pacifist Alternative,” in The Morality of War (Peterborough, ON: Broadview Press, 2006), pp. 244-266. -Kurt Schock, “Nonviolent Action and Its Misconceptions: Insights for Social Scientists,” PS: Political Science and Politics, Vol. 36, No. 4 (October 2003), pp. 705-712. -Ralph Summy, “Nonviolence and the Case of the Extremely Ruthless Opponent,” in Essays on Peace: Paradigms for Global Order, ed. Michael Salla, et al. (Rockhampton, Australia: Central Queensland University Press, 1995), pp. 159-184.

* * *

11 Week 10 (Mar. 14 and 16): Is War an Appropriate Response to Terrorism?

Assigned reading:  *Jean Bethke Elshtain, “How to Fight a Just War,” in Worlds in Collision: Terror and the Future of Global Order, ed. Ken Booth and Tim Dunne (New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2002), pp. 263- 269.  *Andrew Fiala, “The Democratic Peace Myth: From Hiroshima to Baghdad,” in Between Global Violence and the Ethics of Peace: Philosophical Perspectives, ed. Edward Demenchonok (Malden, MA: Wiley-Blackwell, 2009), pp. 77-99.

Further reading: -Alia Brahimi, Jihad and Just War in the War on Terror (Toronto: Oxford University Press, 2011). -Neta C. Crawford, “Just War Theory and the U.S. Counterterror War,” Perspectives on Politics, Vol. 1, No. 1 (March 2003), pp. 5-25. -Jean Bethke Elshtain, Just War Against Terror: The Burden of American Power in a Violent World (New York: Basic Books, 2003). -Matthew Evangelista, Law, Ethics, and the War on Terrorism (Cambridge, UK: Polity Press, 2008). -Eileen P. Flynn, How Just Is the War on Terror? A Question of Morality (Mahwah, NJ: Paulist Press, 2008). -Thomas Hastings, Nonviolent Response to Terrorism (Jefferson, NC: McFarland, 2004). -Atsuhiro Katano, “Christian Pacifism after 9/11: A Mennonite Perspective,” Peace Movements and Pacifism after September 11, eds. Shin Chiba and Thomas J. Schoenbaum (Northampton, MA: Edward Elgar Publishing, 2008), pp. 97-110.

* * *

Week 11 (Mar. 21 and 23): Can Nonviolence Help Transform Deep-Rooted Conflicts?

Assigned reading:  Holmes, Nonviolence in Theory and Practice. o Part V (“The Practice of Nonviolence”) . Tenzin (“Satyagraha,” pp. 270-282 o Part VI (“Examples of Nonviolence”) . Solomonow (“Living Truth,” pp. 358-360) . Awad (“Nonviolent Resistance,” pp. 361-72)

Further reading: -Adam Curle, Another Way: Positive Response to Contemporary Violence (Oxford: John Carpenter Publishing, 1995). -Aung San Suu Kyi, Freedom from Fear and Other Writings, ed. Michael Aris (Penguin, 1995). -Marc Gopin, “Religion, Violence, and Conflict Transformation,” Peace and Change, Vol. 22, No. 1 (January 1997), pp. 1-31. -Mahendra Kumar, Violence and Nonviolence in International Relations (Delhi, India: Thomson Press, 1975). -Alberto L‟Abate, “Nonviolent Interposition in Armed Conflicts,” www.gmu.edu/academic/pcs/labate.htm. -James Satterwhite, “Forestalling War in Kosovo: Opportunities Missed,” www.nonviolentpeaceforce.org/research/forestalling_war_in_kosovo.htm. -Rebecca Spence and Jason McLeod, “Building the Road as We Walk It: Peacebuilding as Principled and Revolutionary Nonviolent Praxis,” Social Alternatives 21 (Autumn 2002), pp. 61-64. -Stephen Zunes, Lester R. Kurtz, and Sarah Beth Asher, eds., Nonviolent Social Movements: A Geographical Perspective (Malden, MA: Blackwell, 1999).

* * *

12 Week 12 (Mar. 28 and 30): Is There a Responsibility to Protect?

Assigned reading:  +International Coalition for the Responsibility to Protect, “Frequently Asked Questions about R2P” (New York: World Federalist Movement – Institute for Global Policy, 2007), available online at http://www.responsibilitytoprotect.org/files/R2Pcs%20Frequently%20Asked%20Question.pdf.  +Doug Hostetter, “Responsibility to Protect: Development of the Concept, and a Critique,” The Conrad Grebel Review, Vol. 28, No. 3 (Fall 2010), pp. 39-56 (available online).  *Iain Atack, “Humanitarian Intervention, Cosmopolitanism and Pacifism,” in The Ethics of Peace and War: From State Security to World Community (New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2005), pp. 125-140.

Major project (Second essay/Option 1 or Digital Project/Option 2) due on Mar. 30

Further reading: -Bellamy, Alex J., Responsibility to Protect: The Global Effort to End Mass Atrocities (Cambridge, UK: Polity Press, 2009). -Conrad Grebel Review, special issue on International Criminal Court and the Responsibility to Protect, Vol. 28, No. 3 (Fall 2010). -Cunliffe, Philip, Critical Perspectives on the Responsibility to Protect: Interrogating Theory and Practice (New York: Routledge, 2011). -International Commission on Intervention and State Sovereignty, The Responsibility to Protect (Ottawa: IDRC Books, 2002). -Pattison, James, Humanitarian Intervention and the Responsibility to Protect: Who Should Intervene? (Toronto: Oxford University Press, 2010).

* * *

Week 13 (Apr. 4): How Can We Work for a More Peaceful Future?

Assigned reading:  *Martin Luther King, Jr., “The World House,” in Where Do We Go from Here: Chaos or Community? (Boston: Beacon Press, 1967), pp. 167-191.

Further reading: -Mark Juergensmeyer, Gandhi‟s Way: A Handbook of Conflict Resolution, 2nd ed. (Berkeley: University of California Press, 2005). -Mary King, Mahatma Gandhi and Martin Luther King, Jr.: The Power of Nonviolent Action (UNESCO, 1999). -Lester Kurtz and Jennifer Turpin, “Untangling the Web of Violence,” in The Web of Violence: From Interpersonal to Global, ed. Jennifer Turpin and Lester Kurtz (Chicago: University of Illinois Press, 1997), pp. 207-232. -William H. Shannon, Seeds of Peace: Contemplation and Nonviolence (New York: Crossroad, 1996). -Jonathan Schell, The Unconquerable World (New York: Metropolitan Books, 2003). -Tod Schneider, Transcending Violence (Victoria, BC: Trafford Publishing, 2002). -David Steele, et al., “Use Cooperative Conflict Resolution,” in Just Peacemaking, 2nd edition, ed. Glen Stassen (Cleveland, OH: The Pilgrim Press, 1998), pp. 63-86. -Paul Wehr, Justice Without Violence (Boulder, CO: Lynne Rienner Publishers, 1996).

Take-Home Final Exam Due by 4:30 p.m. on Monday, April 11 at the Conrad Grebel Reception Desk

Handle with care…