Pacifism
Pacifism
Pacifism has had both a broad and a narrow connotation. In the former sense, it has often been used—particularly in continental Europe just before and after World War i—to designate those outlooks centering their attention on the need for international reconciliation and peacemaking machinery. Thus many tendencies in thought werepacifist, the word being employed to describe a whole spectrum of ideas and activities that might conceivably be peacemaking in character. From this point of view, Jean Jaures, the French socialist leader, and men like Woodrow Wilson were pacifists; and organizations like the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace were pacifistic.
While this broad usage of the term is still to be found, pacifism has generally come to be connected with all those ideas, attitudes, and movements which repudiate the use of violence, particularly war, under any circumstances. The pacifist in this sense will argue that war, whether defensive or aggressive, is always ethically illegitimate and, in the long run, inefficacious for the attainment of desirable goals. Often, this conception also embraces the notion that forms of nonviolent power can be discovered and ought to be used to counter external aggression and internal exploitation and injustice. Various forms of nonviolent resistance or nonviolent coercion are thus associated with pacifism. From the viewpoint of political theory, it would be aligned with those doctrines which stress consent rather than force as the basis for political authority.
History
Although pacifism, in the narrow sense, is a modern concept, the general outlook that it designates has a long history. In the seventh and sixth centuries B.C., Jeremiah developed certain attitudes toward Babylonian aggression that can legitimately be described as pacifist. A little later, in China, Lao-tze advocated positions that were very close to a kind of anarchist pacifism. In Greek thought, certain of the Cynics and Stoics came close to a pacifist outlook; and some of the Essenes in the Hebrew tradition apparently repudiated the utilization of war and all violence, whether personal or group.
The spirit of the Gospels, so some modern scholars, notably MacGregor (1936), have argued, cannot be reconciled with violence, whether personal or political. Evil is to be overcome only by good. True, the New Testament does not explicitly exclude warmaking for the believer; but it does lay down principles that clearly point in this direction.
Although the attitude of the early Christians is still a matter of controversy, many of the best modern authorities, for example, the Scottish scholar C. J. Cadoux (1940), contend that for at least the first century few, if any, Christians would enter the Roman army. In part, at least, their refusal was based on a religious repudiation of the violent acts that soldiers had to perform, whether in battle or as executioners. As late as a.d. 295, Maximilianus underwent martyrdom primarily because, as a Christian, he said he could not be a soldier. By the early part of the fourth century, however, the strong pacifist strain in Christian thought began to die out. Thus the Council of Aries, A.D. 314, decreed that those Christians who gave up their arms in time of peace should be excommunicated. During the Middle Ages, according to orthodox doctrine, laymen could participate in “just” wars. Both regular and secular clergy, however, were supposed to refrain from the shedding of blood. This dualistic ethic was challenged by certain heretics who sought to revive the attitudes of early Christian apologists.
The beginning of modern pacifism may be discerned in a number of the early Anabaptists and in religious groups (like the Mennonites) having similar theological beliefs. During the sixteenthcentury religious struggle in France, the Roman Catholic Etienne de la Boetie argued strongly for tactics of nonviolent resistance against tyranny. Since all rule depends on willingness of men to obey, he maintained, withdrawal of obedience could lead to the collapse of any tyranny. In the seventeenth century, the British Quakers sought to implement pacifism in politics by establishing a disarmed commonwealth in Pennsylvania; and for about two generations that colony, unlike the others, was free of Indian warfare.
Eighteenth-century and early nineteenth-century pacifism was affected by the decline in the religious basis of social and political doctrine. Rationalistic and utilitarian near-pacifism came to the forefront in the writings of the early anarchist William Godwin. Godwin stressed the irrational and immoral character of the appeal to force, even for the ends of justice. Revolutionary violence, he held, was a contradiction in terms. Similar views were reflected in the political poetry of Shelley, who in the Masque of Anarchy urged British workers to revolt against exploitation through a “folded arms” strike. After Shelley, the anarchist pacifist strain was reflected in men like Thoreau, Benjamin Tucker, Tolstoy (1908), and Barthelemy de Ligt (1934). Tolstoy, however, grounded his pacifism primarily on an anarchist interpretation of the Christian Gospels. Writing with great literary power, he had a considerable impact on early twentieth-century thought. [SeeAnarchism.]
Perhaps the greatest pacifist figure of the twentieth century has been Mohandas K. Gandhi, who combined in his views and practices both religious and utilitarian notes. Religiously, he was inspired by certain Hindu scriptures (for example, the Upanishads and the Bhagavad-Gita), the New Testament, and the writings of Tolstoy. His experiences as a lawyer and man of affairs seemed to suggest that sheer retaliation in group conflict does not in the long run accomplish desirable objectives. On the other hand, even adamant opponents will often respond favorably to acts animated by love and in which the actors willingly undergo suffering for a cause. Notions of this kind became the basis for what Gandhi called the doctrine of Satyagraha(“truth power” or “firmness in truth”). Gandhi insisted that Satyagraha was applicable in political as well as in personal relations; and he sought to demonstrate this proposition in his leadership, 1919-1947, of the nonviolent resistance to British rule in India. His theory and example were also important in such movements as the struggle of the American Negro for racial integration, the South African natives’ battle for equality, and the achievement of political independence by Ghana in 1957. [SeeIndian Political Thought.]
The impact of World War I on the development of twentieth-century pacifism was considerable. Utter disillusionment with war as an institution led to such phenomena as the “Oxford oath” in which, during the 1920s and 1930s, thousands of young Britons pledged themselves never to fight again “for king and country.” The Peace Pledge Union sought to provide a register of all those who subscribed to the promise. Elsewhere, and particularly in the United States, there were similar tendencies. Pacifist attitudes were encouraged by public exposes of the role of munitions manufacturers in encouraging conflict and also by a widespread belief that economies based on private profit tended to make for war and violence.
Political experience just before and during World War II led many pacifists to re-evaluate their views and some to change them. However, for not a few the period between 1939 and 1945 was primarily a challenge that demanded from them greater intellectual clarity and more nearly adequate proposals for pacifist alternatives. Throughout the war, Gandhi’s personal view was that India should oppose any Japanese invasion only by nonviolent resistance; he also thought that Hitler and the National Socialists could, and ought to be, counteracted in the same way. For pacifists of Gandhi’s type, World War II in its methods and results had the effect of strengthening their convictions. For leaders like Martin Niemoeller, who had been unsympathetic before, war experiences helped create a postwar pacifist outlook.
After World War n, potentialities for widespread destruction through nuclear arms led some to become nuclear pacifists. Certain scientists and engineers in Germany, the Soviet Union, Great Britain, the United States, and elsewhere, disturbed by the possible social consequences of some types of research, pledged themselves to refuse to labor in those areas.
Pacifists have also been active in the effort to gain legal recognition for conscientious objectors to war and in the struggle against military conscription. Between World War I and World War H, recognition was broadened in Great Britain and the United States. After World War n, the constitution of the German Federal Republic recognized the right of objection; and in 1962, after a long struggle, some legal status was accorded to French objectors.
While pacifism remained the ideology of a minority in the 1950s and 1960s, the ubiquity of violence and the radical increase in the destructive power of modern weapons tended to dramatize its propositions by sheer contrast. In a world of monumental violence, its doctrine of nonviolent power took on new meaning and added significance.
Foundations and emphases
Aside from the fact that all pacifists eschew violence for any purpose, pacifism has no uniform or authoritative theory or ideology. To illustrate the range of pacifist views, a rough classification of schools of thought may be useful:
(1) The scriptual text school bases its beliefs on certain texts of the New Testament, and since it believes that the Bible is divinely inspired, these texts become authoritative. Groups like the Mennonites have tended to espouse this position.
(2) Another viewpoint bases its attitude on what it regards as the spirit of Biblical or other scriptual ethics. Jewish pacifists cite the spirit of Hebrew prophecy, while those in the Christian tradition root their beliefs in their interpretation of the New Testament. For sects like the Religious Society of Friends, all religious tradition is subject to constant reappraisal through the Inner Light possessed by each individual. Those of the Hindu pacifist tradition claim support in the spirit of the Bhagavad-Gita and the Upanishads.
(3) The just war school is largely, although not exclusively, confined to Roman Catholics. Using as its criterion the traditional Catholic definition of the “just war,” it concludes that no modern war can possibly satisfy the standards laid down by that definition—declaration by a public authority, conduct by methods that discriminate between combatants and noncombatants, promise of producing a better situation after the war than before it, etc. Hence a pacifist position is not only justified but required. Many “just war” pacifists cite certain encyclicals and other messages of Pope Pius xii and Pope John xxm to buttress their position.
(4) The utilitarian school, in its several versions, maintains that war and violence, on the whole and in the long run, work against the implementation of desirable social and political values, whatever the short-run effects may appear to be and whatever the proclaimed objectives of the struggle. Many anarchist pacifists are utilitarians, as are most socialist pacifists. Often the views of those who state their positions in traditional religious language have a large measure of the utilitarian in them: Gandhi is a good example. In the twentieth century the percentage of utilitarian pacifists has probably increased considerably.
But no classification can do justice to the many elements that may constitute the groundwork for any individual pacifist outlook.
An important distinction running through all pacifist thought is that between the personal and the political emphasis. Many think of the pacifist ethic as primarily relevant to personal relations or applicable to individual attitudes to the state (refusal of direct war service, for example) but not particularly relevant for group or state relations. Thus, some feel that they have a peculiar “vocation” for pacifism but do not think that the imperative is a universal one. Others think of political relations as inevitably bound up with violence and therefore largely “unredeemable.”
By contrast, political pacifists, whatever the foundations for their beliefs (religious or utilitarian), tend to think not merely in personal terms but also in terms of nonviolence for group relations. Hence, political pacifism is concerned about such issues as principles of group conciliation, nonviolent coercion, the nature of a pacifist society, and pacifist methods for resisting military invasion. Generally speaking, the political pacifist emphasis has become central in modern discussion, and the remainder of this article will refer primarily to it.
Implications and problems
Pacifist thought has been much affected by development of the sociology of conflict, penology and criminology, and psychological approaches to the study of human behavior. C. M. Case’s researches into the phenomena of nonviolent coercion (1923) helped direct attention to alternatives to violent power; and in the 1930s Richard Gregg (1930) commented on such questions as nonviolent treatment of criminals and the mentally ill, as well as on the phenomena of nonviolent action in general. Both Case and Gregg envisioned the possibilities of a largely nonviolent police system. Pitirim Sorokin (1954) has surveyed exemplifications of what he calls “altruistic love” and has appeared to confirm the judgment of pacifists that violent conduct, whether personal or political, is not only immoral but also “impractical.”
Studies such as those of Case, Gregg, and Sorokin served as a challenge to examine sociological and political particulars in the pacifist case. They also called attention to certain implications and problems for application of the doctrine.
One such problem is to define more clearly the circumstances under which physical force might be legitimate; for while some pacifists repudiate the utilization of physical force altogether, many recognize a distinction between force (applied discriminately and with no irremediable injury) andviolence (forms of force, or contexts within which force is used, that result in indiscriminate and irremediably injurious action).
Another question involves the attempt to understand psychological and social factors involved in conflict resolution. Galtung (1959), in a sociological interpretation, contends that for the pacifist the doctrine involves two fundamental norms: (a) act so that a solution acceptable to all parties can be attained; and (b) act so that the short-run and long-run application of violence will be reduced. As an instance of (b), the pacifist eschews direct or indirect use of violence. To implement norms of this kind obviously requires understanding based not only on enlarged academic knowledge but also on broadened experience.
Pacifists, guided by thinkers like John Dewey and Aldous Huxley, tend to stress the interpenetration of means and ends in politics. Specifically, political pacifism emphasizes the possibilities of using nonviolent power against both domestic and foreign tyranny and exploitation. Nonretaliatory, nonviolent resistance, it is maintained, can either change the attitude of a tyrant or an invader or deprive him of his instruments and resources (and therefore of his power).
Although the systematic analysis of nonviolent resistance as a technique is relatively recent, utilization of such methods as the strike, boycott, and civil disobedience is very old. In ancient Rome the boycotts of the plebs resulted in revolutionary changes in Roman life. Indian history reveals numerous instances of noncooperation with rulers or even complete withdrawal of protesting groups from the territory of the prince (thus depriving him of an economic base for his government). Modern examples include the experience of colonial Pennsylvania with nonviolence; the Hungarian struggle for autonomy under the leadership of Francis Deák, which led to the dual monarchy in 1867; Norwegian nonviolent resistance against the Germans in World War ii; eastern European demonstrations against communist control (in some cases Russian soldiers refused to fire on their unarmed opponents, even when ordered to do so); and the American Negro struggle for equality and integration through sit-ins and other forms of nonviolent direct action.
The use of nonviolent resistance is subject to a number of hazards, as Case and others have pointed out. One is that in the atmosphere of tension and conflict, violence might break out. Another is that the hardships entailed by nonviolent, non-retaliatory action could lead to discouragement and abandonment of the campaign. Modern pacifist thinkers, aware of these difficulties, have encouraged more thorough analysis of nonviolent resistance movements with a view to discovering under what circumstances they are most likely to be effective. All stress the need for careful planning, organization, and discipline.
The pacifist outlook strongly supports development of world organization and law but, in general, distrusts those views which would conceive of peace as being imposed by force. States cannot be coerced by violent power, it is argued, without risk of war; and police action for implementation of law must confine itself to discriminate and nonviolent coercion of individuals. Even in a world state, moreover, nonviolent resistance would still need to be employed on occasion; for imbalances of power, exploitation, and tyranny would still be more than mere possibilities. Some thinkers call for greater imagination in sketching out the institutions of a pacifist world order; and most would argue that it cannot simply duplicate the national state, which has been molded to so large a degree by domestic and international violence.
In seeking to cast light on the political implications of their doctrine, pacifists have frequently called for more research. While recognizing that general academic, political, and social research might prove helpful, they have remained unsatisfied by it. In World War n, therefore, they organized the Pacifist Research Bureau in Philadelphia, which published studies on such themes as the political theories of pacifism and the problem of coercion of states. More recently, at the University of Michigan, the Center for the Study of Conflict Resolution has engaged in similar types of research. The Institute for Peace Research at the University of Oslo has undertaken some parallel studies. Pacifist research activity in India, and in the United States at Harvard University under the direction of Pitirim A. Sorokin, might also be mentioned.
Evaluation
Pacifism has been subjected to criticism on several different grounds. Some contend that in the world as it is, it is an impossible and perhaps even an immoral principle. So long as evil men exist and power politics flourishes, it is maintained, righteousness may have to be vindicated through use of violence, including war. About the time of World War II, John Lewis (1940) developed a criticism from the Marxist point of view. And after World War II, it was frequently contended that pacifist influence had led to British military unpreparedness in the 1930s and hence to the impossibility of deterring Hitler from war. Critics like Reinhold Niebuhr (1940) stress the reality of power in human affairs and accuse pacifists of blindness to it. According to such critics, justice always requires power.
Countercriticisms include the following arguments: While the full implementation of pacifist goals is indeed difficult, the statement of the ideal is itself a factor in helping to attain the goal. Nonviolent treatment of the mentally ill is now no longer deemed to be impossible, although severe restraint used to be regarded as indispensable. Modern war must always defeat the ends of justice because of its utterly indiscriminate character. Pacifists by no means ignore power but rather seek to develop nonviolent forms of it. Britain, moreover, did not follow a pacifist policy before World War II but rather one based on indifference, partial financial assistance to Hitler, preservation of thestatus quo at almost any cost, and insensitivity to the economic basis for acceptance of National Socialism by Germany. Finally, apologists claim that tyrannies arise not because men have accepted pacifism—with its stress on economic justice, absence of a psychology of subordination, repudiation of violence, and planning for nonviolent resistance—but rather because they have rejected it.
Mulford Q. Sibley
[See alsoCivil Disobedience; Militarism; Peace.]
bibliography
Allen, Devere (editor) 1929 Pacifism in the Modern World. New York: Harper.
Bondurant, Joan V. 1958 Conquest of Violence. Princeton Univ. Press.
Cadoux, C. J. 1940 Christian Pacifism Re-examined. Oxford: Blackwell.
Case, Clarence M. 1923 Non-violent Coercion. New York: Century.
Galtung, Johan 1959 Pacifism From a Sociological Point of View. Journal of Conflict Resolution 3:67-84.
Gandhi, Mohandas K. (1924) 1954 Autobiography: The Story of My Experiments With Truth. Washington: Public Affairs Press. ? Translated from the Gujarati edition. A paperback edition was published in 1962 by Beacon Press.
Gregg, Richard B. (1930) 1959 The Power of Nonviolence. 2d rev. ed. Nyack, N.Y.: Fellowship Publications. ? The first draft of the entire book was published in India as Gandhiji’s Satyagraha: Or, Nonviolent Resistance.
Hershberger, G. F. 1944 War, Peace and Nonresistance. Scottdale, Pa.: Herald Press.
lee, Umphrey 1943 The Historic Church and Modern Pacifism. Nashville, Tenn.: Abingdon-Cokesbury.
Lewis, John 1940 The Case Against Pacifism. London: Allen & Unwin.
Ligt, BarthÉlemy de (1934) 1937 The Conquest of Violence: An Essay on War and Peace. Rev. and enl. London: Routledge; New York: Dutton. ? First published as De overwinning van het geweld. The English version was translated from the revised and enlarged 1935 French edition.
Macgregor, George H. C. (1936) 1953 The New Testament Basis of Pacifism. London: Fellowship of Reconciliation.
Miller, William R. 1964 Nonviolence: A Christian Interpretation. New York: Association Press.
Niebuhr, Reinhold 1940 Christianity and Power Politics. New York: Scribner.
Oppenheimer, Martin; and Lakey, George 1965 A Manual for Direct Action. Chicago: Quadrangle.
Paullin, Theodore 1944 Introduction to Non-violence. Ithaca, N.Y.: Pacifist Research Bureau.
Schwarz, Ernst (1952) 1959 Path to Freedom Through Nonviolence: A Study of the East-West Conflict and the Methods of Nonviolent Resistance. Vienna: Sensen. ? First published as Wege zur gewaltlosen Befreiung.
Sharp, Gene 1959 The Meanings of Non-violence: A Typology (Revised). Journal of Conflict Resolution3:41-66.
Sibley, Mulford Q. 1944 The Political Theories of Modern Pacifism. Ithaca, N.Y.: Pacifist Research Bureau.
Sibley, Mulford Q. (editor) 1963 The Quiet Battle: Writings on the Theory and Practice of Non-violent Resistance. Garden City, N.Y.: Doubleday.
Sorokin, Pitirim A. 1954 The Ways and Power of Love: Types, Factors, and Techniques of Moral Transformation. Boston: Beacon.
Tolstoy, Leo (1908) 1948 The Law of Love and the Law of Violence. New York: Field. ? Translated from the French by Mary Koutouzow Tolstoy.
Weinberg, Arthur M.; and Weinberg, L. S. (editors) 1963 Instead of Violence: Writings by the Great Advocates of Peace and Nonviolence Throughout History. New York: Grossman.