Nonviolence: An Introduction The editors of Peace Dossier, the series of attractive and readable ten-page papers from the Victorian Association for Peace Studies, have clearly decided to give solutions as much space as problems. Recent issues have discussed alternative defence, peace education, and how to achieve Australia's security. The latest Peace Dossier by Thomas Weber and Robert Burrowes is no exception. It is an introduction to nonviolence, conceived as "an umbrella term for describing a range of methods for dealing with conflict which share the common principle that physical violence, at least against other people, is not used." This Dossier is well organised, informative and thought-provoking. It is plain that the authors are advocates of what they call (following Gene Sharp) 'ideological-strategic' nonviolence; that is, nonviolence is central to their worldviews, and they are committed to a long-term nonviolent revolution. First a summary (which is no substitute for the real thing); then a few of my thoughts. A summary The second half of this Dossier is about ideological-strategic nonviolence. The first half sets this in context by: * explaining some of the advantages of nonviolence over violence; * classifying nonviolence according to Gene Sharp's two dimensions: pragmatic versus ideological and tactical versus strategic; * arguing that thus far Australian nonviolent actions, such as on the Franklin River and at Pine Gap, have been tactical-pragmatic; * describing some of the hot issues debated by activists: whether violence against property is acceptable, whether secrecy is advisable, and whether it is important to cultivate relations with the police. Underlying these debates is a deeper one about means and ends. The second half begins by contrasting how a pragmatic-tactical activist like Saul Alinsky and ideological-strategic thinkers like Aldous Huxley and Gandhi approach the end-means debate. Weber and Burrowes then describe the two principal avenues to an ideological commitment to nonviolence: Christianity and Gandhi. They outline how to analyse 'the violence inherent in existing structures', whether in our interpersonal relations, in our group processes, or in big political structures like the state and capitalism. They say that 'nonviolence theorists' seek both to undermine and replace such structures. For example by "the creation of a vast network of cooperative organisations which will ultimately supplant capitalist control of the production process and ... undermine patriarchy and state power." They argue that nonviolence can empower the exploited and oppressed, and that at its best nonviolent struggle can achieve more than just a win, but a clearer vision of the truth for both parties. By contrast violence begins when minds have closed. Burrowes and Weber explain how Melbourne's Rainforest Action Group is attempting an ideological-strategic struggle to halt the destruction of the world's rainforests. One of the distinguishing features of their struggle is its attempt to achieve 'high levels of cooperation between activists and unionists', both because the Group believes that such an alliance is necessary to achieve a major restructuring of Australia's timber industry and to avert polarisation. Finally Burrowes and Weber lean on the thinking of Martin Buber, Gandhi and Arne Naess to suggest that nonviolence as a philosophy is founded upon the essential unity of humanity: "it is ethically wrong and existentially or spiritually self-defeating to treat another with less dignity than is warranted by a shared humanity or divine inheritance." Some thoughts In Australia today nonviolent civil disobedience is one of the hallmarks of nonviolent campaigning. This Dossier does not say much about when, how and for what purposes this tactic should be used. This is a pity, because we have to tread a fine line between civil disobedience as an expression of deeply felt dissent and civil disobedience as a publicity stunt; and because there are times when I feel groups engage in it as a glamorous substitute for the low-key but essential activities of research, education, persuasion and negotiation. I would also encourage the authors to write a follow-up on their vision of a nonviolent society. I think that social movements are over-driven by fear and desperately need plausible visions worth working for. In so far as nonviolence is an ideology, it seems to have much in common with feminism and anarchism. For example, the authors want "no hierarchy, decisions by consensus, systematic efforts to deal with gender and other power imbalances within the group, and a genuine commitment to skill-sharing." I can appreciate that someone could make nonviolence a central part of their worldview. I have more difficulties when it becomes the major tool of social analysis, where it seems to me that Burrowes and Weber tend to label 'what they don't like' as 'inherently violent'. It is not enough to observe that the state 'represents violence in concentrated or organised form' to persuade me that we should dispense with it. The absence of the state may mean, as it has before, the dispersal of disorganised arbitrary violence. Likewise Burrowes and Weber label hierarchy and majority voting as 'inherently violent'. Yet there are obvious circumstances where both seem to me necessary. The authority given to the captain of a ship enables him/her to make a vital quick decision. In my experience consensus decision-making breaks down in groups which are not small, well-bonded and trustful; society will have to change beyond recognition before we can avoid working in big un-bonded groups altogether. At a deeper level, I find it hard to see anything inherently violent in hierarchy, provided that the individuals who endow X with authority can hold X accountable and have workable humane ways of subsequently removing X's authority. The Dossier begins with the following words of Theodore Roszak: "People try nonviolence for a week, and when it 'doesn't work' they go back to violence, which hasn't worked for centuries." It is none too clear to me that violence 'hasn't worked'. Violence among humans has a long history. It seems that Papua New Guinea's many tribes preserved their autonomy at the price of enduring low-key inter-tribal warfare; similar evidence exists for nomadic societies in Saudi Arabia and Central South America. On what basis do we say that these societies didn't work? Are we to say that their people were spiritually deficient because they rejected the ultimate unity of humanity? I need no persuading that violence on the scale that we confront it today does not work for anyone. But I do need persuading that we either can or should root violence out of the human experience altogether. This of course raises the ancient but still vital debate over violence, nature and nurture. I would have liked this Dossier to address this issue rather than to dismiss it with a glib quotation. Conclusion As you can see this Dossier gave me plenty to think about. Read it; it will do the same for you. StJohn Kettle