Reflection

As I have learned from our semester-long personal projects, Nonviolence is not only a strategy for large movements, but it is also a way of life for many. During times such as the civil rights movement, many chose nonviolence because it is a strategy, but also because they lived by this mentality. For my personal project, I chose the topic of "reflection". Over the semester, I would set aside time in my day to relax and think in-depth about certain concerns or issues that I currently had. I found that it not only affected my overall state of mind, but it led to better interaction with others, which has been considered a large part of nonviolence in the past.

Civil Disobedience

Civil disobedience is a subject that I find somewhat interesting. After many discussions of nonviolence and attempts for resolution, "disobedience" is a word that is not often seen. By no means am I saying that the use of civil disobedience is not a nonviolent strategy. After reading John Rawls, I have more of an understanding of what justifies civil disobedience according to him. I would definitely agree that an important justification of this disobedience deals with being public and well known. The initial plan is to bring about change to an unjust government, therefore accepting and making it known that you are currently breaking the law. According to Rawls, "Being completely open about one's acts and being willing to accept the legal consequences of one's conduct is a bond given to make good one's sincerity, for that one's deeds are conscientious is not easy to demonstrate to another or even before oneself." (Rawls Chapter 9)

Palestine Israel Nonviolence

Upon discussing the Palestine Israel conflict, it is often viewed as very violent. The media tends to cover much of the violence; terrorists, bombing, sometimes hatred. It is safe to say, however, that nonviolence and nonviolent action is not inexistent. Like many nonviolent movements in the past, there have been and currently are nonviolent marches, protests, strikes, and boycotts. On top of these actions, groups such as the Middle East Nonviolent Democracy exist, whose main goal is to educate and offer nonviolent training to youth. These strategies or tactics have proved to be successful in the past, and the fact that they are present during this conflict gives them a chance to resolve this conflict.

Common Strategy

After taking nearly an entire semester of Nonviolence: Theory and Practice, it is safe to say that I began falling into a habit of association when discussing nonviolence. Most of the nonviolent movements that are discussed or heard about seem to deal with issues that are widespread or well known, for example various international wars or civil rights movements. It is easy to forget or not realize, however, that nonviolent movements are occurring in everyday life, with many different issues. An example of this would be the various animal rights movements that are present in today's society. They are acting with complete nonviolence and are often very strategic. This is similar to strategy discussed in war, however it is much easier to not realize that nonviolent effort is present.

"Promises"

I had recently watched the documentary "Promises", about the Israeli-Palistinian conflict and it really got me thinking about the idea of social interaction. This film showed us that these people, especially the youth population, really only knew the negative or violent aspects of the other. These children are being raised in the middle of a war, living seperate, violent, hate-filled ways of life. When interviewed, the children initially wanted nothing to do with a more unified way of life. However, once an outside source was part of the equation, these children agreed to meet. They seemed somewhat shocked that they were able to intertwine and have fun so easily. By the end of the day the children had a much more open mind about their separate lives. They seemed to realize that they were all human beings and it was merely a war that was keeping them from living peaceful lives together. This type of interaction was able to essentially change a "segregated state of mind" into a more unifed, peaceful one. Also this dealt with only a small group, social interaction is a very powerful strategy.

Digital Resistance

When looking back at major efforts made or movements, there are certain characteristics that seem to apply to most. There are often leaders, groups that follow and support, media coverage, and specific locations that are key to the movement. This, of course, does not apply to every nonviolent movement, but many that we have looked at in class. We recently, however, discussed the idea of "digital resistance". This idea is one that I am not particularly "sold on" when dealing with nonviolent strategy. For example, we looked at a program called Second Life, where people can essentially "live a life" through a computer character. Along with personal activities, you can also do things such as protest and support certain causes. Outside of Second Life, there are other digital movements such as joining certain groups online or even just clicking to add a number on a website. I have a hard time grasping the actual accomplishments of this kind of movement. Are actions like these actually affecting the opposition? I had never even heard of Second Life until our class discussion, leading me to wonder how effective their character's protest actually is in the real world. Other examples of digital resistance could be hacking or redirecting online. This is also somewhat odd to me when viewed as a nonviolent act. Although no physical violence is being done, our society today views computer hacking as a very negative thing, regardless of the cause. Redirecting your opposition's website to porn for example, would negatively effect not only the company, but also the people that are trying to reach their website. After discussing the various definitions of violence and nonviolence, it is very difficult for me to view this as nonviolent.

Sharp and Burrows: Power

When thinking about the authors Sharp and Burrows, it is difficult for me to decide which side I really take between the two. More specifically, I find their thoughts on the center of gravity in society, or the "societal triangle" quite interesting. Both place the elites at the top of the triangle, with the people or numbers at the bottom. Sharp believes that "eliminating" part of the bottom, or people, will cause the entire triangle, or power, to topple over. Burrows, on the other hand, seems to think that the base of the triangle is not as important as the elite group and its surrounding elites. He claims that elites are reliant on other elites and not on the people power. When trying to apply these strategies or ideas to a personal situation, I would have to say that I agree with Sharp. A good example is a college or university. The elites would be the faculty and staff, and of course the numbers would lie in the students. When looking at a movement or the power on a campus, the students truly would have the power. Although college students are students for a reason, when it comes down to it, their tuition bills pay for the college and it's staff. Most often, students outnumber their professors. There are many situations where merely having the numbers and support show the power over the elites.