Strategic Nonviolent Defense

This article was particularly intriguing in the way it defined the “two major conceptions of ‘nonviolent defense.’” Civilian base nonviolent defense seems a bit dodgy. Firstly, it isn’t pure because the article explains that this type of defense is used because it can get results, not necessarily because the advocates are interested or buy into nonviolent action. For this reason it seems that it is much less effective than social nonviolence. Civilain based defense seems to be used more as a weapon that can be called upon to make change or wage war nonviolently. This I feel is not true though. It cannot be used to make any changes. To take something that isn’t deserved or rightfully yours cannot be taken nonviolently.

Social nonviolence however takes a much different view. The concern isn’t having an available weapon or for personal gain, but more so to make changes on a social level such as freedom and equality. It is more concerned about the livelihood of a group of individuals. It is much more community oriented and makes the connection that violence is not simply, “‘Overt physical damage, or the threat of such damage, to actually persons.’” This type of nonviolence embraces the enemy as an entity that isn’t against us or evil. It takes a stance much more toward loving your enemy so they see the mutuality between us and them, me and you, enemy and ally. Civilian based defense has a huge problem to overcome and this is that by isolating and hating the enemy, there can never be a mutual ground on which to agree and find peace.