Beyond Moderation: The Politics of Nonviolence in a Violent World by Isak Tranvik Department of Political Science Duke University Approved: ___________________________ Jack Knight, Advisor ___________________________ Ruth Grant ___________________________ Alexander Kirshner ___________________________ Jeff Spinner-Halev Dissertation submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy in the Department of Political Science in the Graduate School of Duke University 2020 ABSTRACT Beyond Moderation: The Politics of Nonviolence in a Violent World Isak Tranvik Department of Political Science Duke University Approved: ___________________________ Jack Knight, Advisor ___________________________ Ruth Grant ___________________________ Alexander Kirshner ___________________________ Jeff Spinner-Halev An abstract of a dissertation submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy in the Department of Political Science in the Graduate School of Duke University 2020 Copyright by Isak Tranvik 2020 Abstract This dissertation challenges the long-standing albeit usually implicit association between political moderation and nonviolent political action. For the three figures I examine here—Mohandas Gandhi, Martin Luther King Jr., and Václav Havel— nonviolence is not a middle way between resignation and the kind of violent resistance many democratic theorists now endorse. Gandhi, King, and Havel each reject violent forms of resistance on the grounds that it marks a continuation instead of a break from a world built on and sustained by state or state-sanctioned violence. Put bluntly, violent forms of resistance are not too radical for Gandhi, King, and Havel; they are not radical enough. I ultimately argue that Gandhi, King, and Havel’s uncompromising commitment to nonviolent political action means that they are better described as zealots than political moderates. They exceed the bounds of normal politics as they ardently pursue their cause. What motivates and sustains their zealous politics? I contend that Gandhi, King, and Havel’s zealotry is underpinned by what feminist and womanist theorists have called relationality—to be human, Gandhi, King, and Havel, believe, is to be constituted by the needs of the concrete and particular other. As a result, Gandhi, King, and Havel are compelled to respond when they witness someone harmed by state or state- sanctioned violence, even when doing so carried enormous costs and even if the iv likelihood of mitigating the harm is minimal, at best. Crucially, Gandhi, King, and Havel not only understand themselves as inextricably related to those who are harmed, but to the perpetrators of harm as well. Hence their embrace of nonviolent political action; they are unwilling to harm those who harm others. I do not think democratic theorists should be in the business of arguing that those subject to state or state-sponsored violence should refuse to respond in kind. As such, I am not proposing that Gandhi, King, and Havel offer a new normative model of resistance. That said, I contend that Gandhi, King, and Havel give democratic theorists reason to re-examine the role of zealotry in pluralistic political communities. In brief, Gandhi, King, and Havel show that not all zealots introduce, entrench, or exacerbate injustice. Pluralistic political communities, then, should make room for zealots like Gandhi, King, and Havel. And doing so requires considering the ontology—I am principally concerned with conceptions of human being or social ontology, here—of the various zealots who exceed the bounds of normal politics when ardently pursuing their cause. I introduce a negative standard of ontological exceptionalism to help democratic theorists distinguish between zealots that introduce, entrench, or exacerbate injustices and those who, like Gandhi, King, and Havel, seem to have the opposite effect. v Contents Abstract ......................................................................................................................................... iv Acknowledgements .................................................................................................................. viii 1.Introduction ................................................................................................................................ 1 1.1 Nonviolence and Political Moderation .......................................................................... 5 1.2 The Politics of the Impossible ....................................................................................... 13 1.3 Relationality and a Different Kind of Politics ............................................................. 20 1.4 A Pundit, a Preacher, and a Playwright ...................................................................... 30 1.5 Chapter Overview .......................................................................................................... 35 2. Gandhi on the Atman, Social Service, and Satyagraha ........................................................ 41 2.1 Gandhi and Democratic Theory ................................................................................... 45 2.2 Religion and Modern Politics ....................................................................................... 53 2.3 Realizing the Atman ....................................................................................................... 59 2.4 Self-Renunciation and Constructive Nonviolence ..................................................... 64 2.5 Limitations and Objections ........................................................................................... 74 2.6 Conclusion ....................................................................................................................... 78 3. King on the Neighbor, Love, and Civil Disobedience ...................................................... 80 3.1 Utopia and Realism ........................................................................................................ 85 3.2 A Theologian of the Cross ............................................................................................. 95 3.3 Neighborly Ethics ......................................................................................................... 102 3.4 Neighborly Politics ....................................................................................................... 110 vi 3.5 Limitations and Objections ......................................................................................... 116 3.6 Conclusion ..................................................................................................................... 118 4. Havel on the “Dissident,” Radical Responsibility, and Anti-Political Politics ............. 121 4.1 The Limitations of Normal Politics ............................................................................ 126 4.2 Identity as Radical Responsibility .............................................................................. 135 4.3 “Living Within the Truth” as Small-Scale Work ...................................................... 141 4.4 Parallel Polis .................................................................................................................. 147 4.5 Limitations and Objections ......................................................................................... 152 4.6 Conclusion ..................................................................................................................... 154 5. Conclusion ............................................................................................................................. 156 5.1 Making Sense of Zealots .............................................................................................. 164 5.2 Ontology and Political Legitimacy ............................................................................ 171 5.3 A Negative Standard of Ontological Exceptionalism.............................................. 177 5.4 Limitations and Objections ......................................................................................... 186 5.5 Conclusion ..................................................................................................................... 192 References .................................................................................................................................. 193 Biography ................................................................................................................................... 213 vii Acknowledgements There are too many people to thank and not enough space to thank them all. Moreover, I lack the words to express my gratitude to all who have helped me along the way. What follows, then, is surely incomplete and inadequate. Thanks to the political theory faculty at Duke and UNC for their wisdom and support over the last six years, especially Michael Gillespie, Ruth Grant, Alex Kirshner, and Jack Knight. A special thanks goes to Jack for his patience and to Alex for allowing me to present versions of several chapters in his seminars—and for providing invaluable feedback too many times to count. I’d also like to thank Jeff Spinner-Halev for treating me like I was one of his graduate students. Although he is not a faculty member at Duke or UNC, Harry Boyte has been hugely helpful, both intellectually but also as an exemplar of public work. Also, thanks to Luke Bretherton, Nora Hanagan, Mike Lienesch, Richard