tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19785125.post6564406663018904706..comments2024-01-03T07:56:32.311-05:00Comments on quaker oats live: why does nonviolent direct action work?Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07488876505679035140noreply@blogger.comBlogger8125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19785125.post-48601113998702610332008-11-18T23:16:00.000-05:002008-11-18T23:16:00.000-05:00Hey Marshall,I did get your last comment--I don't ...Hey Marshall,<BR/><BR/>I did get your last comment--I don't have time right now to give an adequate answer. Maybe remind me over Christmas break...<BR/><BR/>But I guess the main thing I'm trying to say is that early Friends practiced nonviolent direct action even though that wasn't their purpose. Their purpose was obedience to God, but that led them to live in such a way that status hierarchies were broken down, etc. All people we equal, even if not all roles were the same. They had a healthy respect for government, for systems of organization, for "society," as their name suggests. But this was a society not based on some people being better than others, even if the system was hierarchical in some ways. This hierarchy did not extend to the persons themselves but only to the role, which others submitted to willingly because we need some system to hold us together, and some people to enforce it.<BR/><BR/>I think this is a pre-nonviolent-direct-action step, where they weren't consciously doing this but that was the effect that came about through their obedience. Now people practice this for the purpose of effectiveness, which is great--but I think you're definitely right that the goal of the early Friends wasn't effectiveness, but faithfulness.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07488876505679035140noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19785125.post-5926935136418102832008-11-15T23:35:00.000-05:002008-11-15T23:35:00.000-05:00Marshall,You are quite right according to wikipedi...Marshall,<BR/><BR/>You are quite right according to wikipedia. I was ignoring the "direct action" part as unimportant.<BR/><BR/>I am not sure I can define what I mean by nonviolence to my own satisfaction but will try (I am going beyond what wikipedia says): Nonviolence is a way of waging conflict or a way of resisting evil that refuses to use violence and is based on love. This definition then puts most of the burden on the words violence and love. It is not adequate to simply say that violence is anything that causes pain or harm to another because real learning or growth often involves a painful shattering of illusions (Dying to ones illusions!). For example, the civil rights movement caused all sorts of pain and aggravation to the racists of Mississippi before that evil was finally overcome. <BR/><BR/>It also gets slippery to say that violence is defined by one's intent, i.e. it is violent to attempt to coerce or dominate another. This leads us to love. By adding in the notion that nonviolence must be based on love (rather than violence) I think I have a workable framework/definition. <BR/><BR/>Thus the examples that Cherice gave do fit within my understanding of nonviolence.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19785125.post-2936013856277953512008-11-15T22:57:00.000-05:002008-11-15T22:57:00.000-05:00Hello, Barry,You write that I "properly point out ...Hello, Barry,<BR/><BR/>You write that I "properly point out that nonviolence and early quakerism are not the same." In fact, I never made that point. Like our host Cherice, I was writing not about nonviolence, but about <I>nonviolent direct action</I>.<BR/><BR/>I don't wish to impose, but if you have the time, kindly look at what Cherice posted, at the top of this page, and what I posted in response, a little below, and verify that "nonviolent direct action" is what both she and I were writing about. Then take a careful look at the definition/description that Wikipedia provides of what the term "nonviolent direct action" means, <A HREF="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Direct_action" REL="nofollow">here</A>. I hope you will agree that "nonviolent direct action" is a different thing from simple nonviolence. Yes, the practices of early Quakerism — capital-Q, not small-q — were nonviolent. But they were not <I>nonviolent direct action</I>.<BR/><BR/>Cherice, I've read a lot of early Quaker literature, and I've never found any statement there about a "system of unjust hierarchy". If you can point me to such a statement, I will be grateful. If you cannot, then I ask you, please, to consider that you may be to some degree projecting certain twenty-first-century ideas and concerns back onto a seventeenth-century movement that did not actually share them.<BR/><BR/>So far as I can tell, the early Friends did not have a sense that "obedience to God required them to treat all people equally." The letters they wrote to their leaders Fox and Nayler are full of flowery, grandiose language that they did not use in addressing one another. After Nayler's fall, Fox visited him in prison and required him, Nayler, to kiss his, Fox's, foot. None of this was "treating all people equally". The early Friends were definitely committed to the humbling of worldly pride and worldly vanity, but that was not the same as the sort of across-the-board equality that the secular United States believes in today.<BR/><BR/>I would also ask, Cherice (if this is not asking too much of you), that you too look at the Wikipedia page I've linked to above, and then ask yourself if the early Friends' refusal to doff their hats (not a refusal to <I>tip</I> their hats, by the way) was really "an example of ... nonviolent direct action, as we call it today...." I'd be interested in your conclusion.<BR/><BR/>With respect and affection toward you both (and I hope that comes through, despite the disagreement!),<BR/>MarshallAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19785125.post-38264142139573344242008-11-15T15:09:00.000-05:002008-11-15T15:09:00.000-05:00Hi Marshall,Thank you for your comments. I agree ...Hi Marshall,<BR/><BR/>Thank you for your comments. I agree with you that Quakers were not doing this as a form of protest for the sake of protest, but in obedience to God--but I think this obedience to God was something that required them to treat all people equally. They were quite happy to cooperating with the system of order, which they saw as the ideal for which their government(s) strove, but this did not mean cooperating with a system of unjust hierarchy. I see a difference between people being leaders, fulfilling a certain role, and people thinking because of this role they are better humans. Quakers are subject to those in offices which are just and help keep order and encourage human rights for all.<BR/><BR/>Even if early Friends did not do civil disobedience as a strategy to bring about social change as their first desired end, their obedience to God made this end possible.<BR/><BR/>Their refusal to tip their hats was an act of obedience to God, but it is still an example of how and why nonviolent direct action, as we call it today, can and does work, whether we do it in obedience to God or for practical purposes.<BR/><BR/>Thanks again for your comments, Marshall! I think they help me clarify what I'm trying to say, and I think we're saying the same thing: although early Friends didn't have social change as their goal, their actions can be emulated--and my query still remains: how are we doing similar things in our culture? How are we listening and trying to act in obedience to God in ways that may not be comfortable or popular, and that may bring about resistance from the established, hierarchical system? What are some symbolic acts we could do/refuse to do that would help us to live more obediently in relation to the injustice we see around us?Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07488876505679035140noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19785125.post-15329478839030381092008-11-15T10:16:00.000-05:002008-11-15T10:16:00.000-05:00Thanks, Marshall -- your comment was extremely hel...Thanks, Marshall -- your comment was extremely helpful for those of us who are history-challenged (unfortunately that is most of us).<BR/><BR/>I want to make one small point of clarification. You properly point out that nonviolence and early quakerism are not the same. I want to note that the practices of early quakerism that you discuss are examples of nonviolence. While nonviolence tactics in todays world are often driven by practical considerations rather than spiritual ones, there is nevertheless a great deal of overlap between the practice of Quakerism (early or recent) and nonviolence.Barry Clemsonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12233555803400593383noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19785125.post-18861988318343663012008-11-15T09:34:00.000-05:002008-11-15T09:34:00.000-05:00Hi, Cherice,I think you describe nonviolent direct...Hi, Cherice,<BR/><BR/>I think you describe nonviolent direct action, as a modern philosophy, very well. However, as described, it is not what the early Friends did, and this is very clear from the historical record.<BR/><BR/>The early Friends did not "refuse to coöperate with the system". There were specific points where they <I>could not</I> coöperate, because of their duty to God, but on all other points they coöperated, and they were outspoken and explicit about their desire to coöperate.<BR/><BR/>They wrote letters and open proclamations reaffirming their loyalty to the government. When the government did fundraising for the relief of people in distress, they gave above and beyond what they were asked. They took Christ's directive to render unto Caesar, and Paul's directive to be subject to the governing authorities and not resist authority, with utmost seriousness. Those who did not pay taxes were eldered and if need be disowned for it, which was a very different approach from what we see in liberal meetings nowadays.<BR/><BR/>All this is evidence that they were happy to coöperate with the system.<BR/><BR/>They did not "give power to a mass group of people", they gave power to God. Thus their decision-making was not by obedience to group consensus, as we see in so many Friends meetings today, but by obedience to the spirit of Christ as it manifested in Scripture and in their gathered meetings.<BR/><BR/>They did not "attack symbols of hierarchical power, not people". They showed respect and obedience to the offices of government: judges, Protector, Parliament and King; but they criticized individuals who did not execute the duties of those offices righteously. Their speeches and writings made it painstakingly clear that they were condemning the unrighteousness of individuals and not the offices those individuals held.<BR/><BR/>When they refused to tip their hats to people of a higher station, they were not "refusing to capitulate with a system of hierarchy". They were practicing obedience to God, who had spoken against vanity (a quite different thing from hierarchy), and who had, in their reading of Scripture and of their own hearts, commanded a different way of acting. They were perfectly happy to capitulate to the system of hierarchy on any and all matters not contrary to God's will, for example by going meekly and obediently to prison as they were told.<BR/><BR/>I apologize for contradicting you on so many points, but I feel these distinctions are important. Nonviolent direct action has its virtues, but it is not Quakerism as Quakerism was originally understood and practiced.<BR/><BR/>All the best,<BR/>Marshall MasseyAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19785125.post-14142563748577282932008-11-12T18:46:00.000-05:002008-11-12T18:46:00.000-05:00This is a great post. Very insightful discussion.I...This is a great post. Very insightful discussion.<BR/><BR/>I believe we have to do two things at once. First, we have to work on ourselves so that we become truly nonviolent people. For me at least this has been so far a 45 year journey that was jump-started by participation in the 1964 Mississippi Freedom Summer.<BR/>Second, we have to work on the world around us. I am convinced that most Americans are trapped in what I call the John Wayne Syndrome. This mindset says that one can fight evil (the way of the warrior) or one can submit to evil (the way of the coward) and there are no other alternative. Nonviolence is not a possibility for one caught in the John Wayne Syndrome. <BR/>My own work is to write fiction that illustrates the power of nonviolence. I am trying to be quietly subversive to the John Wayne Syndrome.Barry Clemsonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12233555803400593383noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19785125.post-91815772571989167502008-11-12T02:12:00.000-05:002008-11-12T02:12:00.000-05:00Cherice, what a great blog! I think we still do w...Cherice, what a great blog! I think we still do what we can for nonviolence--a lot of it is verbal action--but we are fully on board with Jesus' way. I was influenced by Gandhi, and extremely so by MLK. Thanks for challenging us again. <BR/><BR/>I suppose Barack Obama cannot be the ultimate spokesperson for nonviolent direct action, since he will represent millions of people who don't know Jesus, or don't sanction His nonviolence. I don't believe the Christian should force her/his will on the nonbeliever. We should be more like the early Christians who would die being nonviolent than the post-Constantinian nationalized church--therefore I think our nonviolent direct action must be our own, and should influence but not try to force our nation's nonChristians and violent Christians to be nonviolent. But I think we should try to influence Obama to be a witness for the love of Jesus, and carry it to the state as much as is possible.<BR/><BR/>Gr. RalphAnonymousnoreply@blogger.com