Sharp: Nonviolence as a political tool

Sharp gives a very interesting perspective on nonviolence. He talks about nonviolence existing on a continuum of communication starting at simple talking to the opponent and ending at violence and destruction. The dichotomy between violence and nonviolence is really destroyed by Sharp as nonviolence is presented in a way that makes it a more extreme move, closer on the spectrum to violence than simply being opposite to it. Nonviolence, Sharp argues, is very similar to war in that it takes strategy and demands participants to have courage, struggle, and make personal sacrifices for the larger cause. It is acknowledged that nonviolent action is certainly a form of coercion similar to war.

The other very interesting thing that is pointed out, is the fact that nonviolent action is really not as uncommon as we think. Throughout reading, I started thinking that maybe nonviolence is something that we see all the time. The Civil Rights Movement, the anti-Apartheid movement, and all of the other examples we are given of nonviolence is only the massive scale models to follow. Existing on this spectrum between simply asking authority for requests to staging a violent war against this authority, nonviolence is everywhere. Labor strikes, boycotts, anytime someone doesn't participate in something for political reasons, whether it be resisting a military draft or refusing to shop at Wal-Mart because of cooperate policies, is an example of nonviolent action. Sharp also points out that we do not have to break any laws to participate in nonviolence, in the example of a labor strike, a strike may be perfectly legal, or a boycott may be perfectly legal, but the very action of refusing to cooperate for political reasons makes the action nonviolent.

The other point that Sharp made was that nonviolence often has different messages of bringing about change. These were divided into three categories: conversion, accommodation, and nonviolent coercion. This is a very important thing to acknowledge because it shows how nonviolence can work in very different ways. In addition these three categories can show how the goals of nonviolence can change over time. With conversion, the goal is to "enlighten" the opponent and convince them to support your side. Accommodation is an intermediary where the opponent may not agree with the nonviolent protestors, but may choose to allow requested changes because it is in their best interest or because they acknowledge the power of the resistance. The most forceful is the coercion goal where the goal is literally to remove the person from power. I find that in many cases, the goals of a nonviolence resistance movement can change over time as the conflict escalates.