Is Violence Ever an Acceptable Means of Social Change?

    In Ben Case’s article “Beyond Violence and Nonviolence”, he discusses how the violence-nonviolence dichotomy is archaic and needs to be updated by movements. He quotes Ghandi’s philosophy of satyagraha, saying “In this view, nonviolence is valued over political victory, since enacting violence in order to achieve a material goal would not be a victory at all” (Case). I have never heard this before, but it seems very morally strong in that violence on the part of movements can overshadow the actual purpose of said movements. For example, without getting political, the George Floyd protests earlier this year. Many protestors turned to violence and looting to get their point across, but in doing so, hurt many innocent people and their businesses. Some people even used this movement as rationale to loot for personal gain. With such evidence on the table, it seems that violence is not justified and can often hurt the movement more than help. Case also cites Erica Chenoweth and Maria Stephan’s book Why Civil Resistance Works: The Strategic Logic of Nonviolent Conflict: “Nonviolent movements are almost twice as likely as violent ones to achieve ‘maximalist’ political goals (overthrowing a leader, ousting a foreign occupation or seceding from a territory”. 

    However, Malcolm X famously said “We only mean vigorous action in self-defence, and that vigorous action we feel we’re justified in initiating by any means necessary”. Any movement for human rights gets into more of a grey area. I believe this is because sometimes, people just don’t listen to nonviolent protests, and thus the movement must resort to violence just to be heard. I still think that violence should be avoided at all costs, but I feel that society is more to blame for the movement turning violent than the movement itself. Everyone deserves to be heard as equals, and if strategic nonviolence is not being heard, what more can one do before turning to violence? This can be tied in with Peter Gelderloos’ How Nonviolence Protects the State: “Nonviolence, in its current manifestations, is based on falsified histories of struggle. It has implicit and explicit connections to white people’s manipulations of the struggles of people of color” (5). He also states “If our movements are to have any possibility of destroying oppressive systems such as capitalism and white supremacy and building a free and healthy world, we must spread these criticisms and end the stranglehold of nonviolence over discourse while developing more effective forms of struggle” (6). Gelderloos is not condemning the use of violence, but nor is he endorsing it. He believes that nonviolence is illogical and basically will not get the job done, but we shouldn’t be so quick to jump to violence either. A middle ground form of a movement that can still convey its message would be much more effective.

Works Cited

Case, B. (n.d.). Beyond Violence and Nonviolence. Roar.

Gelderloos, P. (2007). How Nonviolence Protects the State. ACTIVE DISTRIBUTION.

M. (1965, February 14). Confronting White Oppression. Retrieved November 02, 2020, from http://www.speeches-usa.com/Transcripts/malcolm_x-oppression.html