Problems with Nonviolence "Training"

I have frequently encountered three significant problems with nonviolence
"training" in Australia and abroad.  They fall into three broad categories -
intellectual, spiritual and organizational.  (1) Intellectual.  The term
"training" is a manifestation of a way of thinking that has resulted in
inappropriate educational techniques, rigid definitions, and attitudes that
often result in prescribed behavior, or worse, the perception that prescribed
behavior is the goal of nonviolence education.  (2) Spiritual or
Psychological.  Sometimes people are motivated to work for social change by
negative feelings within themselves.  I believe such motivation is misplaced
and mostly inappropriate.  In my experience, this is not spoken of openly by
nonviolence educators.  (3) Organizational.  The organizational context for
teaching nonviolence is not appropriate.  This article discusses these
problems and suggests some possible ways of dealing with them.

It is not my intention to imply that it is only others that are guilty of the
things I am discussing in this paper.  My familiarity with many of these
difficulties comes from reflection on my own behavior as well as observation
of what is going on around me.

Prescribed Behavior
The word "training" traditionally implies prescribed behavior where a person
is required to act as prescribed by someone other than themselves.  This is
especially true in the military where a person is specifically trained, and
even brainwashed, to ignore their natural "higher" feelings.  That's what
they did to me when I was in the military and it's what happens to animals
that are domesticated and exploited by humans.  The term needs to be
replaced.

The difficulties created by the use of the term are incidental compared to
the damage done by inappropriate attitudes, rigid definitions and techniques
that have grown out of "training" oriented thinking.  Many of the educational
efforts that I have participated in, and observed over the years, seem to
have led some people (particularly those not involved) to justifiably
conclude that prescribed behavior is what is being taught.  For example, a
narrow fixation on certain kinds of interpersonal games, role plays,
attitudes about community, attitudes about children, a rigid definition of
nonviolence (the list goes on and on) can be prescriptive processes that
leave the impression that one must pretty well learn to behave, think and
feel as the "trainers" do before they can work effectively for social change.
Even if this were desirable, it would never happen.

This may be part of the reason that Gene Sharp (a leading international
nonviolence theoretician) states openly and provocatively, that people do not
need to change themselves in any way in order to effectively use techniques
for nonviolent struggle.  I believe, however, that action based on Gene
Sharp's perspective will result in "the baby being thrown out with the bath
water". The "baby", in this case, is the fundamental source of nonviolent
power - the calm, courageous, clear individual.  Most of us need to do lots
of work on ourselves in order to overcome fear, to replace "hype" energy with
calm energy, and to exchange inner confusion for inner clarity.  Often,
however, this inner work can't be done because of inappropriate motivation.

Appropriate Motivation
Sometimes people are more motivated to work for social change by negative
feelings about themselves, perhaps with the belief that if the world changed
around them then their inner problems would be resolved.  I believe such
motivation is misplaced in the sense that the effort is not directed at the
most relevant difficulty being felt.  Although working hard in the social
change movement may serve to distract people from negative feelings about
themselves, it does little, if anything, to resolve the inner problem.  What
it does do, is cause lots of conflict, and sometimes burnout, based on
misunderstandings, uncertainty and confusion.  Organizational image,
efficiency, effectiveness, and goals are also seriously damaged by this
inappropriate motivation.

Where confusion and uncertainty dominate, actions undertaken are often
ineffective and inappropriate.  Individuals with such negative inner feelings
may choose not to act or to rely on someone else who may or may not be just
as confused and uncertain as they are.  All these cases are likely to have a
poor result and the latter produces prescribed behavior.  The situation tends
to perpetuate itself because the confused, uncertain individual is distracted
(by working hard in the social change movement) from the need to do the inner
work that is necessary.  By inner work I mean such things as extended efforts
to improve self esteem, daily meditation or prayer, methods of dealing with
emotional and chemical addictions, physical fitness that leads to improved
feelings of well being and so forth.

Perhaps worse, these things are not spoken of openly by nonviolence
educators.  I am not suggesting that those who have involved themselves in
promoting and facilitating the understanding of nonviolence, need to take
responsibility for the inner needs of others.  I am saying, however, that
those who have chosen to offer themselves as nonviolence educators, have a
responsibility to work on themselves before they can advise others to do so. 
A person cannot teach or recommend something they do not know themselves.  At
the very least, the inner work needs to be done simultaneously with education
about nonviolence but it would be better if it were a prerequisite.

A group or a leadership can work to create a supportive environment within
which individuals can do the necessary work on themselves.  But, only when
educators are clear enough, fearless enough and calm enough to suggest to
others that inner clarity, fearlessness, and calm are prerequisites for
effective and efficient social change work.

Although changing the terminology and drawing attention to the need for inner
growth will go a long way toward solving the nonviolence education problems
in Australia, it is not enough.  Nonviolence education must be appropriate
for the context within which it is taking place.

The Context of Nonviolence Education 
The existing organizational context for teaching nonviolence is not
appropriate. By this I mean the nonviolence educational network should be
seen as a trusted part of a larger social change network - not as a separate
entity.  It has led to the perception of many, that a small group of people
are attempting to dictate to others, what nonviolence is and how it works. 
The intermittent focus of the existing informal nonviolence "training"
network, has been to offer workshops of various kinds and direct action
"training" for specific issues.  This may be easier for people who are
already overworked, but it is inadequate for the current needs of the social
change movement as a whole.  The existing system does not cater to the
diverse thinking and feeling about nonviolence and its potential in the grass
roots of today, and it will probably get worse in the future.  Left as it is,
it will continue to perpetuate the perception that a few people around the
country, who have done nonviolent "training" in the past, think they have a
monopoly on the understanding of nonviolence.

An alternative to the current context is to put at least some of the energy
presently going into "training", into developing non-competitive network
structures that support an on-going interactive process between all groups
who have a common focus on nonviolence (without interfering with any group's
autonomy).  The structure should not be part of organizations focused on
specific social change issues, but it should exist to facilitate a
cooperative relationship between them.  Coalitions have proven to be
inadequate for this purpose because they interfere with group autonomy.  A
facilitated network is a structure that can meet the requirements.

The Facilitated Network 
The facilitated network performs various facilitation functions that make
cooperation possible between groups that might normally be isolated from each
other.  Each member group makes a formal commitment to the use of nonviolent
means in all activities and to the exploration of the meaning of nonviolence,
its uses and potential.  This provides the opportunity for nonviolence
teachers to carry out education in a more appropriate context.  To those not
involved directly in the informal nonviolence education process, the
facilitated network is an alternative organizational structure with the
potential to organize influence more effectively than a coalition, but
without most of the problems.  It does this without interfering with the
autonomy of its members.

A facilitated network can be initiated by a meeting of informal
representatives from those organizations who are interested to form it.  The
meeting should produce a list of agreements (similar to meeting agreements
created for facilitated meetings) that allow initial decisions to be made
about a basic charter, which in turn, defines membership with its fundamental
commitment to nonviolence, the restricted use of the network's name, the
day-to-day functions of the network, and the duties of a network facilitation
group.

The network facilitation group should be a small, gender-balanced group
chosen from the general meeting and charged mainly with the communication,
group dynamic and promotional tasks that are necessary to help the network
function effectively and efficiently.  Other task groups may be formed for a
long or short term, depending on operational needs, but, neither have any
authority other than that specifically and temporarily vested by the general
meeting.  They can make no decisions that are binding upon the general
meeting, which, in turn can make no decisions that are binding on the
autonomous members.  Members can only be presented with a set of agreements
proposed by the general meeting - which they can agree to or not.  Also, the
general meeting makes no decisions that relate directly to social change
issues.

Decisions about social change issues can only be made by an alliance that
forms under the umbrella of the network's charter. The network itself does
not organize actions on social change issues or reach out to the public. 
Rather, it provides the communication, focus and continuity necessary for
alliances to form around social change issues where there is a common
interest. Although an alliance can make use of the communication facilities
set up by the network, in all other respects, it is a separate entity -
except when part or all of it acts in a way that is not consistent with the
basic principles of the charter.  In such a case, some members of the
alliance may simply refuse to cooperate with those who are behaving
inappropriately, but, if this does not resolve the problem, it may become a
topic for debate at a general meeting, where a consensus decision could expel
a member group.  This, along with new members having to be endorsed by at
least two existing members and approved by all members, acts to protect the
network from the destructive forces that have often been seen in coalitions.

A facilitated network is better than a coalition for organizing collective
influence because it maximizes the potential for all persons or groups
interested in a common issue, to participate in a cooperative process where
much larger numbers agree on: common goals, the problems encountered in
trying to reach those goals, the solutions to those problems, a plan to
implement those solutions, and the responsibility to carry out that plan. 
The Brisbane Peace Network is an example of a facilitated network.  A copy of
its charter is available on request.
Jerry D. Smith
PO Box 5566 West End 4101