A Paradox of Nonviolence

I believe that nonviolence theory contains a fundamental paradox. Meditation
on this paradox, as on a Zen Koan1, may lead to new insight. A Koan admits of
no logical solution. For example, "What is the sound of one hand clapping?"
and "When the Many is reduced to the One, to what is the One to be reduced?"

The ancient Greek philosopher Epimenides showed how self-reference can lead
to paradox. Epimenides said, "All Cretans are liars", but Epimenides was a
Cretan, so was he lying or telling the truth when he made that statement? An
even simpler formulation of the liar paradox is, "This statement is false."
If we assume it to be true then by its own admission it must be false and
vice versa. In attempting to determine the truth or falsity of this sentence
we find ourselves oscillating back and forth indefinitely. It is a paradox.

In 1931 the mathematician Kurt Godel2 showed that any formal system which is
not inconsistent and is capable of referring to its own propositions, must
contain propositions which are undecidable within that system. This may sound
like gobbledygook but it's really fairly simple. A formal system is any
system of belief which can be set down in precise language. A proposition is
any sentence of this system in whose truth or falsity we might be interested.
An inconsistent system is a fairly useless one in which all propositions can
be shown to be true and can also be shown to be false. An undecidable
proposition is one whose truth or falsity cannot be determined. A paradox is
one kind of undecidable proposition. Please note that a paradox is not the
same as an inconsistency. You might want to try reading the first sentence of
this paragraph again and see if it makes more sense now.

Like other early 20th century discoveries which relate to limitations on our
knowledge of the world, (e.g. relativity and quantum mechanics) the
consequences of Godel's have been slow to percolate to other fields and
indeed it is still not clear exactly how it applies to everyday belief
systems.

I suggest that in any system of belief, the most we can hope for is (a) that
it is not inconsistent, and (b) that the paradoxes are few and well known.
For this reason I will attempt to illuminate a major paradox of nonviolence
theory.

Any theory is a system of belief. A theory of nonviolent struggle is a system
of belief about how people should act toward one another while attempting to
change a society. A society is, among other things, a system of belief about
how people should act toward one another in general. Thus any theory of
nonviolent struggle is a system of belief about systems of belief and is
capable of referring to itself among those social systems it discusses. The
popularity of the expression "the means is the end"3, amongst nonviolence
supporters, indicates that they are more conscious than most of this
circularity. This is all well and good. Self-reference alone does not
constitute a paradox.

Many social change theories, including nonviolent ones, have a sort of
unspoken law which is:

I must act to convince others of the (social) truth as I currently understand
it.

Certain theories of nonviolent struggle4, of which I am a supporter, also
take the following as an axiom. "Axiom" is just a fancy word for "first
principle" or "initial belief".

The Axiom of Doubt
While the truth is something that we can collectively make progress towards,
I can never be sure that the beliefs I currently hold are true or that
others' beliefs are false.

This fundamental doubt leads to a limitation on the kinds of acts which I may
use in attempting to convince others of my beliefs. That is, I may not use
violent acts. Now there is endless discussion on what constitutes a violent
act, but there is much common ground. For instance killing someone without
their permission is a violent act in most people's book. There are also more
positive theories of nonviolence in which we simply try to find the most
effective ways of acting to collectively approach the truth. Violent means
are simply seen to be ineffective in comparison with many others. I am also
in sympathy with those whose nonviolence is based on a mystic understanding
which is impossible to formalise. Nevertheless I hope you will agree that the
Axiom of Doubt gives at least one reason not to engage in violent acts for
social change since violence against an opponent, when successful, tends to
remove all of their beliefs entirely from circulation.

It is when the Axiom of Doubt is seen to apply to nonviolence, and
particularly to itself, that the paradox is exposed. The Axiom tells us that
we must be willing to accept that it itself may be false and that its
opposite might be true. The opposite of the Axiom of Doubt would be:

It is possible for me to be absolutely certain that the beliefs I currently
hold are true and that others' beliefs are false.

A person who believed this would be justified in using any means, including
violent ones, to convince others of such true beliefs, that is unless they
have other beliefs which restrain them. Unfortunately this has been the
dominant view for most of western history. Think of all the religious and
ideological wars, inquisitions and witch hunts. Even when other restraining
beliefs have existed they have often been conveniently ignored, for example
"Thou shalt not kill". Nonviolence theory has several other axioms which
independently establish the undesirability of violence. "The means is the
end"3 is such an axiom in abbreviated form.

The paradox is that the Axiom of Doubt must allow for the possibility that
this dominant view may be correct. Gandhi himself said that it is better for
oppressed people to struggle nonviolently than for them to struggle violently
but that any struggle is better than no struggle at all5. That is, people
should act based on the truth as they understand it at the time, even if it
does not include the Axiom of Doubt.

We could attempt to eliminate the paradox by saying that the Axiom of Doubt
applies to all beliefs except one, namely itself, but in my opinion this is a
petty move and severely undermines the force of the axiom. The experience of
mathematicians is that when a paradox is pushed under the rug in such a
manner it will eventually pop up again in some unexpected place. I believe
instead that the paradox of the Axiom of Doubt should be made more obvious.

The Axiom of Doubt (explicitly paradoxical version)
While the truth is something that we can collectively make progress towards,
I must allow that the beliefs I currently hold, including this axiom, may be
false and that others' beliefs may be true.

Since Godel demonstrated his famous theorems I believe we no longer need run
from paradoxes or try to eliminate them, since this may in any case be
impossible. Instead, we should actively search for them and illuminate them
as best we can. If paradoxes must appear in any belief system what better way
of making them obvious than to take them as a starting point? We at least
have the precedent of the Zen Buddhists6 in this regard.
Dave Keenan

References
1. Reps, Paul. Zen Flesh, Zen Bones. New York: Doubleday, Anchor Books.
2. Hofstadter, Douglas R. Godel, Escher, Bach: An Eternal Golden Braid.
Peguin Books, 1980.
3. Gandhi, M.K. Hind Swaraj or Indian Home Rule. p71. Revised edn. Ahmedabad:
Navajivan, 1962.
4. Gandhi, M.K. Young India. 23-Mar-1921. in Gandhi, M.K. The Collected Works
of Mahatma Gandhi. vol XIX p466. New Delhi: Publications Division, Government
of India, 1958-1984.
5. Gandhi, M.K. Young India. 11-Aug-1920. in Gandhi, M.K. The Collected Works
of Mahatma Gandhi. vol XVIII p132.
6. Watts, Alan W. The Spirit of Zen. London: HarperCollins, 1958.