Frank C.

Paulino ENGL 238: Black Writers in the US Montclair State University Seminar Paper Fall 2011

Strategic Violence and Nonviolence in the pursuit of social change

In the course of reading Malcolm Xs speech Message to the Grass Roots the idea of a violent revolution in opposition to nonviolent means is an important debate that contains many vital details that can help up in determining the correct approach when dealing with conflict as well as how best to bring about real social change. By analyzing this text in the context of the Civil Rights movements and how it stands in opposition to other views expressed mainly by Civil Rights leader Martin Luther King Jr. regarding a nonviolent approach to conflict, we can learn from the activities of past conflicts and evaluate how to blend the approaches as well as objectively and critically view the weaknesses inherent in both approaches while simultaneously looking at the strengths inherent in each of them. This debate about what the correct or valid approach to bring about change is still being debated today by many who question the effectiveness of a peaceful or nonviolent approach in any movement, be it sociological in nature like the fight to bring equal rights and liberties for blacks, women, homosexuals or any other oppressed or marginalized group, socio-economic in nature like the current Occupy Wall Street movement looking for more equality and rights in the economic sphere, or even primarily political in nature in the case of bringing about independence or freedom from oppression from a foreign country an oppressive government.

Both the violent and nonviolent approaches have their validity in the sense that they can achieve different goals depending on their use. This is all based on what ultimately the goal of the movement using the protest approach wants as a result. This is one of the main ideas that we can extract from reading Malcolm Xs speech Message to the Grass Roots where he advocates a total revolution in order to force about change in the system. The important part to note is Malcolm Xs expectations when he mentions the revolution. Revolution is bloody, revolution is hostile, revolution knows no compromise, revolution overturns and destroys everything that gets in its way (9 Malcolm X). This is why I stated that the decision between a violent and nonviolent movement lies ultimately in what the goals are. If ultimately the goal is to organize a revolution and completely separate from the nation creating a Black Nation then as Malcolm X states there must be bloodshed, for there are no revolutions without some kind of bloodshed. But is this necessarily true? We can have real meaningful social change while using what we have learned about all previous movements in order to perfect and improve a nonviolent approach based entirely on civil resistance, as has already been proven countless times, most importantly demonstrated during Civil Rights confrontations and boycotts. What we have to take a look is then what makes the violent approach that we have witnessed since the rise of humanity so appealing and powerful both in the context of the civil rights movement but also in many other revolutions and movements worldwide. To be able to appreciate if Malcolm Xs comments about the necessity of a Black Revolution, a worldwide movement to bring about equal rights for all colored individuals not only in America but around the world as well, we must look at the supposed effectiveness that makes a violent approach, like a revolution, as opposed to a nonviolent based approach like that proposed by other black civil rights leaders like Martin Luther King Jr. In reality Malcolms

approach cannot really be called a call to violence per se, more a call to self-defense and to not turn the other cheek. Instead of enduring and accepting suffering like King proposed he advocated a more active role in the attainment of human equality. The main reason for Malcolms complete refusal to follow the way of nonviolence as proclaimed by King and then endorsed by the white Americans was based on the complete hypocrisy of the fact that while the whites advised the blacks to attain their freedoms by nonviolent means all of the white freedoms were attained by fighting and rebellion. [Malcolm X] pointed out the contradictions between what whites advised blacks to do to get their freedom and what they did to attain their own. Patrick Henry did not practice the virtues of nonviolence. George Washington was no pacifist. When whites feel that their rights have been violated, they do not advocate turning the other cheek or kneeling down to pray. Because whites did not apply to themselves the same moral logic they urged upon blacks, Malcolm regarded them as the worst hypocrites on the planet (180 Cone). For this reason alone he refuses to bow down and become what he calls a house negro; someone that will let their own sense of worth to be dictated by the white man and what he allows them to become. Someone that instead of working for the betterment of their own race and the good of all blacks works more fervently and avidly to further the goals and shore up the powerbase of the white Americans. This attitude, where blacks themselves saw their own race as inferior by the simple fact that they refused to acknowledge their own place and equality but instead derived all their opinions from what the whites thought and what the whites were willing to give them, is what Malcolm perceived as one of the key issues in the whole racial equality issue. This sense of unworthiness you could call it was reinforced by the predominantly Christian religious beliefs held by blacks, which is based around nonviolent confrontation and pacifism. To keep you from fighting back, he gets these old religious Uncle Toms to teach you and me,

just like novocaine, suffer peacefully. Dont stop suffering just suffer peacefully (12 Malcolm X). Malcolm X instead advocated people to fight back and dont just sit back and take it, he was of the belief that this approach of pacifism would encourage retaliation or at least allows the whites to just ignore their plight and keep on as if nothing has happened. As a counter to Christianity Malcolm X presents us with his views of Islam and he takes this as his model for how people should act in order to call attention and affect the change that is needed, the revolution that will bring awareness and hopefully rights and freedom to blacks. There is nothing in our book, the Koran, that teaches us to suffer peacefully. Our religion teaches us to be intelligent. Be peaceful, be courteous, obey the law, respect everyone; but if someone puts his hand on you, send him to the cemetery (12 Malcolm x) Malcolm X wanted the Black community to stop blindly following and being oppressed, stop being sheep for the white men who preyed on them and to fight back. In this way it became not about starting violence but about not just blindly accepting it. This method of opposition in contrast with the completely nonviolent, pacifist, approach advocated by King has the advantage of being more impactful and causing more attention to be given to the issue at hand. This is so long as the action in response to the attack can be reasonably viewed as self-defense. Senseless attacks without a solid or large basis or popular support can turn against whoever is practicing it. This is why Malcolm X states that one of the main things even before taking into account the violent vs. non-violent approach to protesting is the issue of unity. Before the black movement can demand any sort of equality or proclaim the brash injustices heaped upon a whole segment of a population they must present a unified front where all can be seen as one voice asking for the same thing. Stop quarreling among themselves. Any little spat that they had, theyd settle it among themselves, go into a huddle dont let the enemy know that youve got a disagreement

(6 Malcolm X) This idea of presenting a unified front is useful not only in Malcolms approach but also in Kings approach as well, since the ultimate goal is to bring attention to a mass global, or in this context a national, issue. By presenting a unified front where everyone agrees more pressure can be placed on the government to bend over and accept the demands. The opposite of this is true when a group is fractured; the message that is being sent is one of division where many hands are all pulling in different directions, while if they all came together they could exert more force in a single direction. This can be seen for example in parenting. If parents show a divided front to their children one always undermining the others authority or contradicting the other parent the children will naturally side with those that more closely match and give in to their own interests. In this same way by presenting such a disparate range of opinions and airing all the disagreements in public the government and the whites in power can come in and as Malcolm X states subvert and infiltrate the civil rights movement in order to make it theirs, to appease and keep in check the movement. Tying this idea to current events like the Occupy Wall Street movement, by presenting a unified front and using the idea that they represent the 99% of the population in regards to the incredible disparity in wealth among the top 1% and the rest of the population instantly gave it more support and power since it is a group that represents and gives a sense of empowerment to a large number of people. It highlights that the issue at hand is not a marginalized minority issue but something that affects almost all of the population. In this same way Malcolm is trying to show that in order to be taken seriously a united front has to put pressure on the government so that nothing can be swept under the wrong and ignored, so that the issues cannot be hidden and so that if push comes to shove, they can see that they can strike as a fist not as a disparate group of individuals.

Despite the compelling arguments that Malcolm X makes in his speech about the necessity of a violent or self-defense oriented approach to the civil rights movement he does not address some of the pitfalls that this attitude can bring and the consequences that the possibility and the encouragement of violence brings. While it is true that the all-out revolution approach has worked for achieving the goals of many groups it is also one that can backfire and can result in more damage to the cause that is being fought for. This is what is argued primarily by the advocates of the nonviolent approach like Martin Luther King Jr. Violence engenders violence and forces the government to respond in kind to maintain societal order. A violent approach to the situation instead of creating an environment where a resolution can be reached that is beneficial for both parties will result instead only in engendering further feelings of hate and rejection towards the offending group, further widening the gap in this case between whites and blacks. In view of this we have to consider the nonviolent approach and how an effective application of this option can overcome the limitations that violence can engender. Nonviolence has some advantages to an all-out violent, or at least self-defense focused initiative. According to Maria Stephan and Erica Chenoweths article Why Civil Resistance Works there are two main reasons a nonviolent approach in movements is preferable and is found to work in more cases than not as opposed to the violent based manifestations or approaches. First, a campaign commitment to nonviolent methods enhances its domestic and international legitimacy and encourages more broad-based participation in the resistance, which translates into increased pressure being brought to bear on the target Second, whereas governments easily justify violent counterattacks against armed insurgents, regime violence against nonviolent movements is more likely to backfire against the regime (8-9 Stephan).

The crux of the nonviolent campaign though is in the idea that the opposing regime will bow to public pressure alone and protests, without the imminent threat of a loss of control and power backed by militant action. By going with the nonviolent approach we can receive the sympathy of the masses and be able to claim the moral high ground. The nonviolent approach can use the understanding of the system and the governmental unit itself to be able to put pressure on the right units and people in order to produce a result. With the smart use and application of pressure and the mobilization of the population against a regime one person individually can contribute only in a small way yet help immensely due to a cumulative effect of a large group. An example of this would be a boycott, like that organized in Montgomery in 1955 wherein the black civil rights movement dealt a crippling financial blow to the public transit system just by refusing to ride the citys busses while segmentation was still legal. This amount of pressure forced the government to reconsider its policies and so positive change was incited. This kind of strategic nonviolence is useful for getting a message across and getting public support easily in favor of a particular measure or response, in this case the eventual desegregation of public transportation. As mentioned before another benefit of a nonviolent approach is the acquisition of good will and public support specially when faced with violent opposition. In other words if the protesters follow a policy of nonviolence, any violent actions taken against them can be seen as something brutal and immoral. This was something that the civil rights movement took advantage of in order to gain a wider support base against the segregationists. By in essence taunting their oppressors, in nonviolent ways, civil rights activists spurred the segregationists to attack King and his followers violently. In turn, the inhumanity of the segregationists was that much more evident in contrast to the disciplined nonviolence of the protestors (49 Scholz).

At this point a distinction has to be made when talking about nonviolent movements and how to use different approaches in order to deal with conflict depending on the motivation for using the approach. While King believed in nonviolence and advocated it purely for religious and ethical reasons this kind of pacifist nonviolent approach is not the same as the strategic nonviolent resistance that is actually demonstrated in most of the manifestations. In Malcolm Xs Message to the Grassroots X denounces King for following the religious ideas of principled nonviolence, based on turning the other cheek to everything that is attempted, the reality is that most of the civil rights movement did not subscribe to nonviolent methods sorely or primarily due to religious implications but as a way to strategically garner support in the most efficient manner. Strategic nonviolent resistance can be distinguished from principled nonviolence, which is grounded in religious and ethically based injunctions against violence. [] the peaceful designation often given to nonviolent movements belies the often highly disruptive nature of organized nonviolent resistance. Nonviolent resistance achieves demands against the will of the opponent by seizing control of the conflict through widespread noncooperation and defiance (10 Stephan). As mentioned before the bus boycott in Montgomery is an excellent example of strategic nonviolence in action wherein despite the attempted reprisals for disruptions to the public transportation the economic impact on the city and the widespread disruptive behavior of the protesters forced the city to capitulate on their stance and give in to the demands. Another idea that separates those that follow the pacifist principled nonviolence versus those that use the strategic nonviolent approach is the acceptance of the possibility of violence as well as the understanding of the use and effectiveness of it in certain situations as opposed to being against all forms and manner of violent action. For example someone that practices strategic

nonviolence understands that in some cases like police work the threat of violent retribution is what keeps and promotes safety both in an international level as well as an interpersonal level. In the case of police forces, then, where the power is not misused, the threat or use of physical force and violence is an instrument of reason and justice, not hatred, and it serves to protect the harmony and reduce the total level of violence and suffering in the community (16 Marty). This is only one example where the use of violence must be considered instead of blindly opposed as advocated by many pacifists. We as a people are not at a point where we can all live peacefully and in harmony without the imminent threat of retribution always hanging. This same threat of retribution is what makes a strategic nonviolent approach at things even more successful. Something that has to be considered carefully in the argument for the necessity for violence in some situations it is that violence probably is more prone to abuse than absolute nonviolence, and that is a powerful argument for using violence with great caution and restraint, but it is not an adequate reason for needlessly sacrificing the innocent, which rigid adherence to nonviolence sometimes does. By this I mean that if we were to follow a strict policy of nonviolence, like that proposed in part by King and espoused by many religious folk we are putting people in dangerous situations from which they can suffer needlessly while having the capacity to defend themselves but at the same time being denied it. This ties back to what Malcolm X stated in his message, that the religious leaders and the whites were anesthetizing the population ordering them to accept the pain and you sit there and cause youve got all of that novocaine in your jaw, you suffer peacefully. Blood running all down your jaw, and you dont know whats happening. Cause someone has taught you to suffer peacefully (12 Malcolm X). In the end any social activist campaign or movement boils down to a public relations fight. The ultimate goals being trying to sway public and official opinion in your favor in order

to achieve whatever goals you need. With this idea in mind I think a mix of both Malcolm Xs and Martin Luther King Jrs opinions to be the right path in pursuing and achieving the goals necessary to bring about real and significant social change. A total commitment to a pacifist nonviolent approach cannot work if it is not tempered with the fire and drive to do what is needed in order to force an issue to be confronted. By this I do not mean go out and destroy public property or assault the police to make a point, but effective and strategic nonviolence requires that we admit the possibility of self-defense and the threat sometimes violence is needed to break out or put a stop to an oppressive situation. An example of this would be a dictatorship, or a matter of national independence, where no matter the public opinion or economic pressure placed an all-out violent approach is the only way. With this in mind, as I mentioned earlier, this violence or at least capacity for violence must be combined with primarily a strategic nonviolent approach. You must win public support in order to place pressure on whatever group is doing the oppression, This is what Malcolm X stated in regards to his comment about what the grass roots was and what it was trying to do, put pressure on the government to act by using strategic nonviolence. They were going to march on Washington, march on the Senate, march on the White House, march on the Congress, and tie it up, bring it to a halt; dont let the government proceed. They even said they was going out to the airport and lay down on the runway and dont let no airplanes land. Im telling you what they said. That was revolution. That was revolution. That was the black revolution (14 Malcolm X). This is in my opinion a more realistic view of how a group can force change on the government by demonstrating that in numbers they have power and they count, by using public opinion to sway people to their side and at the same time by forcing the issue and confronting the government not in complete pacifism but in a nonviolent way that accepts the idea of violence knowledge in the power that they hold. This march on

Washington mimics the intent of the Occupy Wall Street movement which by making public declarations and statements of outrage at the socio-economic injustices and oppression in the country received so much attention. By so publicly and in so great numbers amassing and calling attention to the issue at hand the government is both made aware of the situation and also made to respond in some way to the always present possibility of violence inherent in the demonstration. In any type of manifestation the implied threat to the government if the movement is large enough always lies in the sense that if the situation is not handled correctly the spark for violence can be ignited and a revolution the likes of which Malcolm X expounded upon can occur. It is for this reason I believe that studying the effective strategies used in both violent and nonviolent conflicts of the past can give us a sense of how to act and how to ultimately try and blend the best of both practices in a way in which we can based our approach to the situation which we are protesting against.

Works Cited Cone, James H. Martin and Malcolm on Nonviolence and Violence. Phylon (1960-) 49 3/4 (Autumn Winter 2001): 173-183. JSTOR. 30 Nov. 2011

Marty, William R. "Nonviolence, Violence, And Reason." Journal Of Politics 33.1 (1971): 324. America: History & Life. Web. 17 Dec. 2011.

Scholz, Sally J. "Political Solidarity And Violent Resistance." Journal Of Social Philosophy 38.1 (2007): 38-52. Academic Search Premier. Web. 17 Dec. 2011.

Stephan, Maria J.Chenoweth, Erica. "Why Civil Resistance Works." International Security 33.1 (2008): 7-44. Military & Government Collection. Web. 30 Nov. 2011.

X, Malcolm, and George Breitman. "Message to the Grassroots." Malcolm X Speaks: Selected Speeches and Statements. New York: Grove Weidenfeld, 1990. Print.