defenition paper

It is challenging to make the distinction between violence and nonviolence. As human beings living in a society I believe we have a feeling for what is violence and what is not, but there seem to be grey areas that challenge ones ability to define boundaries. For the purposes of this paper I have chosen to focus on incidents where violence and nonviolence have been used, and in particular, instances where one became the other. I would argue that an action is violent if it has an outwardly destructive nature, be it physical, psychological or emotional; and nonviolent actions are those which exercise temperance and restraint in their resistance
The first incident I would like to explore is the WTO riots of 1999 in Seattle, Washington. This is a good conflict to explore because it is an instance of nonviolent protests becoming eclipsed if not replaced by violent protests. Day one of the WTO summit was met with a variety of nonviolent resistance tactics: signs, marches, speeches, and physical barricades. These tactics can be classified as nonviolent on the grounds that they were not outwardly destructive, that is to say that they were not harming people physically, mentally or emotionally, they were not destructive to institutions, and they were not damaging to public or private property. That is where I see the line drawn. One could argue that by shutting down intersections in the financial district of Seattle was damaging to businesses in the area. This would certainly be true, however, if you look at anything in too great of detail I believe that you could make a case for all nonviolent means of protest to be classified as violent.
In response to the above-mentioned factors, the Mayor was compelled to use more police force, and to call in the National Guard. These actions further ramped up the violence as protestors acted in retaliation to the violence of the police, and police in turn reacted to the violence of the protestors, turning this conflict from nonviolent protest to violent protest.
To further illustrate the boundaries of my definition I would like to briefly explore Gandhi’s tactic of food strikes. Some would argue that food strikes are a nonviolent action. I side with George A. Coe’s assertion, and find them to be violent. The argument has been made that by making one’s suffering more apparent one can draw attention to all the suffering inflicted on them by the other party. This however is not a viable means of protest because it involves committing acts of violence on one’s self. By increasing the suffering done by one party to another you are committing the very same acts done by the other, on yourself, one loses the moral ground. Choosing to commit these acts against ones’ self in the name of resistance changes the act from being self-directed (in the case of religious fasting) to being directed outward and against an opponent. Under this definition actions such as food strikes would be constituted as violent as they are a destructive action, actively and purposely denying one’s self the nutrition needed to survive, and inflicting significant personal harm.
I have thus far alluded to possible boundaries for the definition of nonviolence, now I will explore this definition in detail. Definitions of nonviolence typically touch on living in harmony with one’s surroundings, the brotherhood of man, attempting to cause no harm etc. For the sake of my definition though I will continue to address the issue of violence versus non-violence in relations to acts of protest. Non-violent protests are characterized by acts that are not physically destructive. The actions may be illegal, acts of civil disobedience, but they remain physically passive, such as sit-ins and marches during the civil rights movement. Colored people were not permitted by law to patronize certain businesses, thus it was against the law for Blacks to sit in “white only” businesses. Though they were beaten and humiliated they refrained from taking physical actions against their tormentors. This is an example of how nonviolence is not necessarily law-abiding.
Nonviolent protests also often include actions that could be carried out under normal circumstances without creating a confrontation, such as boycotting consumer goods. I may not purchase goods from company ‘X’ for any number of acceptable reasons: I do not need the product; I cannot afford it, etc. However, I also might not purchase the product for any number of political reasons: company ‘X’ does not use sustainable methods to produce their products, they abuse human rights, etc. Boycotts are nonviolent because they are not directly physically harmful. I agree whole heartedly with Dr. Martin Luther King’s observation that “the pacifist position [was not] sinless but [the] lesser evil in the circumstances (1958).” I think this is a vital distinction to make; resistance, by definition, must cause harm. For the sit in to be successful the authorities must be angered, and as a result the participants must unfortunately be degraded and often harmed; for the boycott to be effective the company must suffer great enough economic losses to compel them to give in. Nonviolent resistance, as King says, ultimately tries to bring about a “change of heart” in the opponent, but this requires them to feel “a sense of shame (1958).” Nonviolent actions are those that exercise temperance and restraint, and justifiably hold a higher moral ground in their resistance.
By reflecting upon previous implementations of violent and nonviolent tactics we are able to create guidelines for defining violent and nonviolent action. Through the exploration of the 1999 WTO riots we have defined outwardly destructive actions as violent. Through a critique of Gandhi’s fasting tactic we have found the line between self-inflicted violence and nonviolence to be trickier to draw, but that it is drawn at actions that are significantly self-destructive. Through the examination of nonviolent protests, and Dr. King’s work we have explored nonviolence. As a result we find ourselves with two definitions: actions are violent if they are outwardly destructive, or if they are significantly self-destructive; and nonviolent actions are those which exercise temperance and restraint and justifiably hold a higher moral ground in their resistance.

Bibliography
George Coe. (1932). "What is Violence?" The World Tomorrow. Vol. 15. Oct. 19. Pg. 378 - 80. Reprinted in Sibley. (1963) The Quiet Battle. Pg. 46-51. Boston MA: Beacon Press.
King, M.L. Jr. (1958). "Pilgrimage to Nonviolence" in Stride Toward Freedom. New York, New York: Harper and Bros. pg. 90 -- 107. Reprinted in Lynd and Lynd. (eds). (1995) Nonviolence in American: A Documentary History Maryknoll, New York: Orbis Books. Pg. 209 - 220.