After reading the texts from this week, think about how the political ideas of Gandhi and King fit into the dichotomy between “conscientious nonviolence” and “pragmatic nonviolence” that Stiehm presents. Do you see them aligning clearly with one or the other category? (With both? With neither?) In other words, do you find Stiehm’s distinction useful for understanding Gandhi and King, or would you prefer a different conceptual/theoretical approach?
Discuss with reference to specific aspects of the texts from this module by Gandhi and King, citing your sources as appropriate.
You are NOT expected to draw on outside sources; the texts from this module are sufficient.
Stiehm’s dichotomy between “conscientious nonviolence” and “pragmatic nonviolence” provides a valuable framework for analyzing the political ideas of Gandhi and King. However, Gandhi’s and King’s perspectives on nonviolence are nuanced and cannot be fully classified into either category.
Gandhi’s philosophy of nonviolence, or “ahimsa,” was rooted in his Hindu faith and moral convictions. He believed in the power of nonviolent resistance to bring about social change. Still, he also recognized that violence might sometimes be necessary for self-defense or the defense of others. In his essay “Non-violence and Self-defense,” Gandhi writes, “I do believe that where there is only a choice between cowardice and violence, I would advise violence…I would rather have India resort to arms in order to defend her honor than that she should, in a cowardly manner, become or remain a helpless witness to her own dishonor.”
King also believed in the power of nonviolent resistance, but his approach was more pragmatic. He recognized that nonviolent action could effectively achieve social change but acknowledged that it was only sometimes the most practical or viable option. In his “Letter from Birmingham Jail,” King writes, “Nonviolent resistance is not a method for cowards; it does resist…But the nonviolent resister does not seek to humiliate or defeat the opponent but to win his friendship and understanding. The end result of nonviolence is redemption and reconciliation.”
Stiehm’s distinction between “conscientious nonviolence” and “pragmatic nonviolence” is based on the idea that nonviolence can be practiced for either principled or strategic reasons. According to Stiehm, “conscientious nonviolence” involves a deep commitment to nonviolence as a moral principle. In contrast “pragmatic nonviolence” is a strategy adopted for its instrumental value in achieving political goals.
When considering the political ideas of Gandhi and King, it is clear that they both espoused a principled commitment to nonviolence. Gandhi, for example, saw nonviolence as a “universal law” that should be applied to all aspects of life (Gandhi, 2010, p. 79). For him, nonviolence was not just a means to achieve political ends but a way of life grounded in the idea of ahimsa, or non-harm.
Similarly, King saw nonviolence as a moral principle grounded in the Christian faith. In his “Letter from Birmingham Jail,” King wrote that nonviolent resistance was “not a method for cowards; it does resist” but that it was also “the most potent weapon available to oppressed people in their struggle for freedom” (King, 1963).
However, while both Gandhi and King were committed to the principle of nonviolence, they also recognized the strategic value of nonviolence in achieving political goals. Gandhi, for example, used nonviolence to mobilize the masses and create political pressure on the British colonial government in India. King also saw nonviolence as a way to expose segregation’s moral contradictions and create a crisis that would force political leaders to take action.
In this sense, Gandhi and King can be seen as practicing a form of “pragmatic nonviolence” in addition to their commitment to “conscientious nonviolence.” Their commitment to nonviolence as a moral principle was always at the forefront of their political strategies.
After Analyzing, Stiehm (1968) distinguishes “conscientious nonviolence” and “pragmatic nonviolence.” Conscientious nonviolence is an absolute moral principle that must be upheld at all costs; pragmatic nonviolence refers to strategic approaches used when they are believed to be the most efficient means for achieving specific goals. By studying Gandhi’s and Martin Luther King Jr.’s political ideologies, we can determine how they fit within this dichotomy and assess its usefulness for understanding their doctrines. Gandhi’s political principles can be seen to align closely with principled nonviolence. In his writings, he emphasizes the significance of nonviolence as an overarching moral principle rather than simply a tactical approach. For example, Gandhi once wrote, “Nonviolence is the law of our species as violence is the law of brutes” (Gandhi excerpts, p.2). Furthermore, Gandhi emphasizes nonviolence as “the greatest weapon at man’s disposal,” more vital even than even “the mightiest weapon devised by man” (Gandhi excerpts, p. 1). These statements demonstrate Gandhi’s commitment to nonviolence as an overarching moral and spiritual principle that should guide human action regardless of immediate effects
King’s political ideas demonstrate both principled and pragmatic nonviolence. For example, in his “Letter from Birmingham Jail,” King emphasizes the value of nonviolent direct action as a tool for social change, asserting that it “seeks to create such an emergency that a community which has long refused to negotiate is forced to confront this issue” (MLK – Letter from Birmingham Jail, p. 5). This suggests King views nonviolence as a strategic approach towards achieving specific objectives similar to Stiehm’s concept of pragmatic nonviolence. King acknowledges both the moral and spiritual advantages of nonviolence in his “Pilgrimage to Nonviolence,” noting that it “avoids both external physical violence as well as internal spiritual violence” and helps us “to understand the enemy’s point of view, hear his questions, know his assessment of ourselves” (King – Pilgrimage to Nonviolence, p. 4). Thus, while King recognizes its strategic value, nonviolence also shapes his worldview and is an essential aspect of his moral compass.
In conclusion, Stiehm’s distinction between principled and pragmatic nonviolence can help us better comprehend Gandhi and King’s political ideologies as it captures key aspects of their philosophies. King’s ideas also exhibit elements of both types of nonviolence, providing a more nuanced understanding of the concept. While Stiehm’s dichotomy provides an accessible starting point in comprehending their perspectives on nonviolence, further conceptual/theoretical exploration may be needed to appreciate all complexities involved and better understand how moral conviction meets strategic action in their approaches towards social change initiatives.
Gandhi’s model of nonviolence has a bit of both conscientious nonviolence and pragmatic non violence in his methods. His conscientious path is shown through his moral clarity about issues such as Indians leading India, the force of the soul, and uniting castes and religion under an independent and non violent India. (Gandhi, 17). He is doing these things because he believes they are the right way to be done by a moral and ethical standard. His pragmatic side however is shown through one of his main ideas that the support of the masses is what keeps the British in power and if that support were to be taken away, British power would fail. Obviously in order to gain independence from the British they need the masses to be committed, but violent uprisings would be hard to persuade and easily squashed by the highly equipped British. So in this case, non violence is the most effective way to change the hearts of the masses of Indian people. This also fits in with the Stiehm’s idea of pragmatic non violence being radical democracy because so many people will be using their voices for such a revolutionary change. (Stiehm, 28).
Martin Luther King Jr follows a clear path of conscientious nonviolence in his fight against segregation during the Civil Rights Movement. This is seen through his emphasis on love and civil disobedience, but is most strongly shown through his religious background. King was the pastor of a Memorial Baptist Church, he studied theology in school, and he was a lifelong devout Christian. He spent his life reading, studying, and preaching Christian morals and ethics. This is one of the strongest indicators that he was choosing his path of non-violence because it was the right thing to do, not because it was the fastest, easiest, or most successful. Also, while outlining important aspects of nonviolence, King declares that “A basic fact about nonviolent resistance is that it is based on the conviction that the universe is on the side of justice.” (King, 95). His analysis of this point is very spiritually based which proves how his devotion to God leads his conscious decision of nonviolence. Conscientious nonviolence believes that conflict can be solved by increasing communication and understanding between the two rival ideologies (Stiehm, 27) which King demonstrates while writing a letter that defends his movement from jail to critical clergyman; proof of increasing communication to reach understanding. As further evidence, we can look at another Civil Rights leader Malcolm X who did chose violence and he was very successful. This in turn proves that King was very consciously choosing nonviolence for moral reasons.
I do find Stiehm’s distinction useful for understanding Gandhi and King but only because this question is very ‘classroom based’. As someone who has participated in non-violent protests, conscientious or pragmatic non violence doesn’t seem to play an important role in the real world. Though Stiehm brings up the concern that these can cause tensions, tensions are inevitable when people have different ways of solving things; and a variety of solutions is a good thing. Overall, King and Gandhi are herded into the same group as leaders of nonviolent movements who have chosen their respective methods for whichever reasons; either way, they were successful in staying nonviolent and achieving their desired change.
Gandhi and King had similar thoughts on nonviolent resistance. They both are morally bound to ‘love’ being the answer to the situation. Naturally that would be the case seeing that King was inspired by Gandhi’s work on nonviolence resistance, and King being a Christian man whose whole make up is about love because God is love. Violence in their eyes were never the solution to the problem, violence could not produce peace or the outcome they were looking for. Their attack on evil was to “overcome evil with good”, the method by which the oppressor is forced to confront what he has been doing. By consistently being forced to see what they have been participating in, it tugs on their conscience and wakes them up to see how unjust they have been acting and a change comes from this.
Stiehm has two theories about nonviolence resistance: one conscientious and the other pragmatic nonviolence. According to Stiehm, conscientious nonviolence resistance is “drawn from a religious or ethical injunction prohibiting injury. It is based on upon a directive addressed to an individual; prescribes a particular kind of behavior rather than a particular goal”. (Stiehm, pg. 24) While pragmatic nonviolence resistance is all business. “It is less concerned with meeting exacting ethical requirements as to means than it is with waging effective goal-oriented struggle against a stronger opponent”. (Stiehm, pg.25) one (conscientious nonviolence) is about morals and the second (pragmatic nonviolence) is not about morals.
Based on Stiehm’s theories of nonviolent resistance, conscientious nonviolence fights both Gandhi and Kings concept of nonviolent resistance. “It is important to reiterate that the goal of conscientious nonviolence is to create new awareness in its foe. When it does so it claims to have worked a conversion. A conversion is accomplished by changing the opponent’s perception of what is”. (Stiehm, pg. 25) This lines up with King’s and Gandhi’s take on it. From King “A second basic fact that characterizes nonviolence is that it does not seek to defeat or humiliate the opponent, but to win his friendship and understanding. The nonviolent resister must often express his protest through noncooperation or boycotts, but he realizes that these are not ends themselves; they are merely means to awaken a sense of moral shame in the opponent. The end is redemption and reconciliation. (King, pilgrimage, pg. 90) From Gandhi “You setthis armed robber downas anignorantbrother;youintendtoreason withhim at asuitable opportunity;you argue thatheis, after all,afellow man;you do notknow what prompted himtosteal. You, therefore, decide that, whenyou can, youwill destroy the man’s motiveforstealing. Whilstyou arethus reasoning with yourself,the mancomes againtosteal Instead of being angry withhim, youtake pity onhim.Youthink that this stealing habit must beadisease with him. Henceforth, you, therefore, keep your doorsandwindows open;you change your sleeping-place,and youkeep your thingsin amanner most accessibletohim.Therobber comes again,and isconfused,as allthisis newto him;nevertheless,hetakes away your things.But hismindisagitated.Heinquiries aboutyou in thevillage,hecomestolearn aboutyour broadandloving heart,herepents,hebegs your pardon, returns you your things,andleaves off the stealing habit.Stiehm’s concept can be useful to some extent I don’t think it really depicts accurately what Gandhi and King’s concepts are.
In Stiehm’s writing “nonviolence is two” she argues the term “nonviolent resistance” being a reference to a single and coherent theory is not true, rather the term encompasses two theories. The two theories being Conscientious non-violence and pragmatic non-violence. Conscientious non-violence is engaging in nonviolence based on principle, usually drawn from a religious or ethical injunction prohibiting injury. Stiehm describes in page 24 as “the urge to attain or maintain moral purity which brings about commitment to this type of nonviolence. Pragmatic non-violence is less concerned with meeting ethical requirements, it sees it as an efficient way of achieving goals. Characterized as a “symbolic violence”.
Gandhi views non-violence as both an end in itself and a means to an end, therefore he absorbs both theories to a degree. However, if it has to be one or the other it would be conscientious non-violence. This is because for Gandhi it is much more than a political strategy but a sort of universal principle. In Hind Swaraj, in which Gandhi writes about the question of Indian Independence, he rejects any method that is not non-violent. The work contains a debate/discussion format, during the conversation, on page 28, he responds to a suggestion of achieving independence by violence with: “we want English rule without the Englishman”. Even if the other means were just as or more effective, using these methods would be wrong and would eventually create the unjust society fought against.
Martin Luther King Jr as we saw in “Pilgrimage to non-violence” was inspired by Gandhi. Though in the second reading, Letter from Birmingham jail, he seems to be leaning more towards pragmatic non-violence than Gandhi. In the letter he defends his approach on the basis of potential effectiveness, making it a document for pragmatic non-violence. Furthermore he goes on to explain the mechanism: “Nonviolent direct action seeks to create such a crisis and establish such creative tension that a community that has consistently refused to negotiate is forced to confront the issue. It seeks so to dramatize the issue that it can no longer be ignored.”
In conclusion MLK and Gandhi don’t solely follow just one of the theories but a combination of both with certain leans. It would be quite a claim to say either of them don’t follow or use one of the two theories. Stiehm’s approach is particularly useful in understanding the justification for an individual’s non-violence code, and these two great men are no exception.
Gandhi falls into the category of conscientious nonviolence. He believes that there must be nonviolence throughout the process and there should be no compromise on that premise. “To arm India on a large scale is to Europeanise it. Then her condition will be just as pitiable as that of Europe.” (Hind Swaraj, pg 77) Gandhi also has a clear line drawn between the expected qualities of a passive resistor and how each person has to find those qualities within themselves in order to offer to the cause. “After a great deal of experience, it seems to me that those who want to become passive resisters […] have to observe perfect chastity, adopt poverty, and follow truth. And cultivate fearlessness.” (Hind Swaraj, pg 96) Lastly, Steihm states that conscientious nonviolence: “assumes that social conflict represents no more than a failure of communication between individuals and their consciences.” (Nonviolence is Two, pg 24) And this is highlighted specifically in the argument Gandhi makes for why it isn’t the individual Englishmen, or even the nation as a whole that is bad, but the result of the society it has constructed. “They are enterprising and industrious, and their mode of thought is not inherently immoral.” (Hind Swaraj, pg 38)
Dr. King falls into the category of pragmatic nonviolence. Dr. King sees that if it weren’t for the possibility of nonviolence then there would be no other form of resistance except for violence. “If his repressed emotions do not come out in these nonviolent ways, they will come out in ominous expressions of violence. This is not a threat; it is a fact of history.” (Letter from Birmingham, pg 4) Additionally, though there is some comment as to the individual experience of nonviolent direct action, the priority is placed on the experience of the collective struggle. ““And if there is a victory, it will be a victory not merely for fifty thousand Negroes, but a victory for justice and the forces of light.” (Stride Toward Freedom, pg 91) Lastly, Steihm states that pragmatic violence: “is charged with scrutinizing and criticizing all of society.” (Nonviolence is Two, pg. 27) This direct critique of society is seen within almost the entirety of the Letter from Birmingham, but perhaps best summarized in this quote: “Individuals may see the moral light and voluntarily give up their unjust posture; but, as Reinhold Niebuhr has reminded us, groups are more immoral than individuals.” (pg 2)
Overall, while at first I was really confused by Steihm’s distinction and their abstract explanations, it totally made sense once you study it in active discourse and are able to compare the two.
Taking into consideration the text of Stiehm about nonviolence, I consider that Mahatma Gandhi matches the position of “conscientious nonviolence” as characterized by an ethical and religious belief that prohibits injury of another (Stiehm, 1968, p.2) and prescribes a particular kind of behavior rather than a particular goal which is to create new awareness in its foe, but without defining a limit of time for gaining their objectives. Thus, this manifestation results in perfectionism, chiliasm, and anarchistic individualism, based on pacific and passive behavior. Gandhi introduced the philosophic concept of “ahimsa,” promoting no violence and respect for life. Besides, he tried to make conscience of the masses’ thoughts with moral autonomy and civil disobedience, avoiding coercion to the opponent. It is instead the action of a single individual (also by a group following a unanimous decision) (Stiehm, 1968, p.6).
On the other hand, Martin Luther King matches the position of “pragmatic nonviolence” due to his objectivity in his goals while guiding a spontaneous and unarmed populace: the minority group of Afro-Americans in a goal-oriented struggle against a stronger opponent (Stiehm, 1968, p.3), using coercion in front of a more powerful opponent, despite he believed in the civil disobedience as the path for eliminating social evil, such as social and collective transformation (reform) like Gandhi (King, 2010, p.84). An organized group assisted him in a previously unstructured struggle. But although it is a peaceful mass movement, it may later give way to violent disorders and confuse the protesters.
As a result, I find Stiehm’s distinction useful for understanding Mahatma Gandhi and Martin Luther King, due to the exposed concepts in which their ideas fit, mainly in their pacifist convergence of nonviolent resistance against evil totalitarianism, in a courageous confrontation.
In “Nonviolence is Two,” Judith Stiehm distinguishes between “conscientious nonviolence” and “pragmatic nonviolence.” Conscientious nonviolence is characterized by a deep moral commitment to nonviolence as a way of life, while pragmatic nonviolence is motivated by practical considerations, such as the desire to avoid violent retaliation or achieve a particular political goal. Mohandas Gandhi and Martin Luther King Jr. both embraced nonviolence as a fundamental principle in their struggle for social and political change. However, their approaches to nonviolence reflect different emphases that do not fit neatly into either category.
Gandhi’s advocacy of nonviolence was rooted in his religious and philosophical beliefs. He believed that nonviolence was not only a practical strategy for political change, but also a way of life that involved cultivating love, compassion, and forgiveness. In Hind Swaraj, Gandhi argued that nonviolence required not only the renunciation of physical violence but also the rejection of materialism, consumerism, and other forms of exploitation. He saw nonviolence as a holistic way of living that encompassed both personal and political spheres.
King, on the other hand, was more pragmatic in his approach to nonviolence. He believed that nonviolence was the most effective means of achieving social change in a democratic society. In “Pilgrimage to Nonviolence,” he described his decision to adopt nonviolence as a strategic choice, based on his analysis of the political and social conditions of the time. He saw nonviolence as a means of appealing to the conscience of the majority, exposing the injustices of the system, and creating a “crisis” that would force those in power to negotiate. In his “Letter from Birmingham Jail,” King emphasized the importance of nonviolence as a means of creating tension and forcing a response from those in power. He argued that nonviolent direct action was necessary to “dramatize” the injustices of segregation and to create a sense of urgency for change. However, he also acknowledged the moral dimension of nonviolence, stating that it was not just a tactic but a way of life that involved a commitment to love and reconciliation.
Overall, Gandhi’s approach to nonviolence aligns more closely with conscientious nonviolence, while King’s approach reflects elements of both conscientious and pragmatic nonviolence. Stiehm’s distinction between conscientious and pragmatic nonviolence can be useful for understanding different approaches to nonviolence, but it is important to recognize the complex and multifaceted nature of nonviolence as a political strategy and way of life.
After reading Steihm’s essay, I have gained a deeper and more thorough understanding of what non-violence encompasses as a tactic for means meeting ends. For the sake of the argument, as Steihm puts it, non-violence is most easily separated into two categories; “conscientious nonviolence” and “pragmatic nonviolence.” She gives two very detailed explanations of these two types of nonviolence. The first is more of a moral obligation to non-violence. She states “It is based upon a directive addressed to an individual; it prescribes a particular kind of behavior rather than a particular goal. One’s impulse to practice this kind of nonviolence, then, is identical with one’s impulse to live one’s concept of morality. It is the urge to attain or maintain moral purity which brings about commitment to this type of nonviolence.” (Steihm, 24) A practice that relies on a person’s conscious efforts to maintain morality when it comes to pressuring coercion in a conflict and maintaining one’s true moral purity throughout the conflict. This description, I feel, is most analogous to the part in Gandhi’s chapter of Brute Force. “It is perfectly true that they used brute force, and that it is possible for us to do likewise, but, by using similar means, we can get only the same thing that they got. You will admit that we do not want that. Your belief that there is no connection between the means and the end is a great mistake. Through that mistake even men who have been considered religious have committed grievous crimes. Your reasoning is the same as saying that we can get a rose through planting a noxious weed. If I want to cross the ocean, I can do so only by means of a vessel; if I were to use a cart for that purpose, both the cart and I would soon find the bottom.” (Hind Swaraj, 81) With this form of true consciousness to non-violent approaches, Gandhi explains that to get the freedom India truly desires, they cannot use the same force, tactics, and techniques as the Englishmen did, as that is not the path that would bring true morals and pure freedom. The true freedom that India wants and needs. It is more of a mindset and lifestyle that the Indian people have conscientiously chosen and only by using that conscientious choice of non-violence could they achieve the ends of their freedom through many adversaries and with much patience, their conscientious nonviolence prevailed over the brute forces of Englishmen.
On the other end of the spectrum, Steihm explains pragmatic non-violence. This, as she says, is “all business.” (Steihm, 25) Describing pragmatic non-violence as a type that “Appears periodically as a more or less spontaneous response by an unarmed populace or by a minority group to a situation regarded as intolerable. This tradition is reflected in peaceful mass movements.” (Steihm, 24) Although, not as a spontaneous response, but rather a necessary and direct response that correlates to this concept would be what MLK describes in his “Letter from Birmingham Jail.” King states, “You deplore the demonstrations that are presently taking place in Birmingham. But I am sorry that your statement did not express a similar concern for the conditions that brought the demonstrations into being. I am sure that each of you would want to go beyond the superficial social analyst who looks merely at effects and does not grapple with underlying causes. I would not hesitate to say that it is unfortunate that so-called demonstrations are taking place in Birmingham at this time, but I would say in more emphatic terms that it is even more unfortunate that the white power structure of this city left the Negro community with no other alternative.” The means of no other alternative but to conduct peaceful demonstrations is what Steihm explains as pragmatic non-violence. “It is less concerned with meeting exacting ethical requirements as to means that is with waging effective goal-oriented struggle against a stronger opponent or minimally against an opponent capable of inflicting severe damage if the conflict should become violent. In this case conflict is often accepted as inevitable and even as desirable.” (Steihm, 25)
Gandhi and King had a few things in common when it came to nonviolence. I find Judith Stiehm’s distinction to be helpful. Stiehm emphasizes the crucial difference between Gandhi’s and King’s nonviolence, pointing out that principled nonviolence is driven by a moral rejection of violence and coercion, while pragmatic nonviolence is driven by the conviction that it is the most effective way to accomplish certain goals. Judith Stiehm makes a distinction between “pragmatic nonviolence” and “conscientious nonviolence” in her book “Nonviolence is Two.” Conscientious nonviolence is said to be founded on a request made to a specific person. Nonviolence is more than just pledging not to harm the other person directly. Gandhi’s activism against the British Empire was motivated by this idea, which helped India achieve its independence also. He assisted in directing India toward liberty and acted as a model for nonviolent campaigns for human rights and social change in countries all over the world. while facing harsh conditions and impossible challenges, Gandhi remained determined in his commitment to nonviolence throughout his life.
While pursuing his studies to become a pastor and a Christian leader, King first became aware of Gandhi’s philosophy of nonviolence. Gandhi’s remarks were compared by King to those of Jesus. Jesus instructs his disciples to love your enemies in the Bible. King had a strong commitment to the Christian notion of compassion. This concept, operating through the Gandhian method of nonviolence, was something he acknowledged. This enlightened him to the possibility that the liberation struggle could be won through nonviolence. “Pragmatic nonviolence expects conflict and does not require conversion of the opponent; his compliance is thought to be quite satisfactory. Social right, then, is determined by a nonviolent power struggle, a competition, or a trial by ordeal; for this reason, coercion is considered quite within the bounds of nonviolence,”(Judith Stiehm, pg 27). This support that the king is part of the pragmatic nonviolence since he was the one leading a more vulnerable and powerless group more powerful one. Therefore, the nonviolent strategy does not instantly alter the oppressor’s heart. It first affects the minds and souls of those who are dedicated to it. It restores their sense of self-respect and awakens courage and power they were not aware they possessed.
In conclusion, Stiehm’s distinction between conscientious nonviolence and pragmatic nonviolence reflects Gandhi and King’s ideas and beliefs on nonviolence. it can help better understand why Non-violence is a weapon of the strong and not use force to fight injustice.
The term “conscientious nonviolence” is often times used to assume or refer to a single coherent theory about the proper way to manage conflict (Stiehm, 23) – the “moral” way if you will. Principled nonviolence is undertaken for moral reasons – as previously stated, namely that is wrong to use violence. This train of thought can be traced back to Gandhian tradition. Stiehm defines and derives “conscientious nonviolence” from a religious or ethical injunction that prohibits injury (Stiehm, 24), i.e., violent behavior because of its morals. “Pragmatic nonviolence” on the other hand, is undertaken because it is believed that it will be more effective than its alternatives, namely simple outward violence.
Martin Luther King Jr. was a theologian who often reflected on his understanding of violence and both – morally and practically – abided to his belief and commitment to nonviolence. In his book, Stride Toward Freedom (1958), King stated as follows, “My study of Gandhi convinced me that true pacifism is not nonresistance to evil, but nonviolent resistance to evil” (King, Stride, 86) and clearly stated that unlike violence, the purpose of nonviolent behavior was to form amicable relations between the opposing sides without necessarily seeking to defeat or humiliate its opponent.
Personally, “conscientious nonviolence” and “pragmatic nonviolence” are terms and ideals that do align as I find a similar line of reasoning: violence is wrong. After reading the provided texts and Stiehm’s provided dichotomy between the two, I remain with my initial thoughts on the terms, that the line of reasoning behind King and Gandhi’s ideals are extremely similar. The distinction, to be fully honest, is not entirely clear as provided by Stiehm, but does imply that the motive for which nonviolent action is undertaken is a significant and perhaps casual factor in its outcome, therefore I do find Stiehm’s definition helpful in finding the dichotomy between the two terms.
From what I gathered in this weeks readings, I believe that both Gandhi and King were more closely aligned with conscientious non-violence. This has to do with their concepts of religion with King being strictly Christian and Gandhi drawing from Hinduism but also mentioning Christian teachings and ideology. This seems to be in close relation to Steihm’s view that, “Conscientious non-violence is drawn from a religious or ethical injunction prohibiting injury” (Steihm, 24). In my mind, Steihm’s “two strand” thought process can’t fully encompass what Gandhi and King sought to accomplish with their attempts at creating political and social change. Given what we’ve learned about revolution in the previous readings, I believe that the form of non-violence that these two undertook was revolutionary in that it was not standard to respond with what would normally be seen as inaction. As Gandhi mentions the “love-force” (Gandhi, 85) he speaks about it being a sword, and not something to be wielded by cowards. King makes reference to Gandhi’s use and gives the native word “satyagraha” (King, 84). In doing so, King on his “pilgrimage” reaches the same conclusion that Gandhi did that the only way to fight evil is with love. From my own religious beliefs I subscribe to the same concept and line of thought, “turning the other cheek” as referenced from the Bible. From this I was able to better understand King’s references and difficulty with coming to terms with what non-violence entails. I was also able to draw some concepts that were new to me from Gandhi to better understand that non-violence is not equal to passivity. In this sense, Gandhi and King blur the line between Steihm’s separation of conscientious and pragmatic non-violence. From this, I currently understand non-violence as being a culmination of both the secular and spiritual and that the concept itself could not have precipitated out of one or the other on its own and therefore should not be understood or perceived as such. Combining this concept with a term paper from another class written on a research article titled, Violent Inaction: The Necropolitical Experience of Refugees in Europe, I have been able to gain a better understanding of how inaction or non-violence can be used as a form of political movement. Inaction and non-violence don’t mean anti-action or anti-violent but rather I believe Steihm’s conception of non-violence is taken from the symbiotic relationship (Stiehm, 28) and moved into a single animal. As humans, we are complex and have the desire to separate things, especially when it comes to secular and spiritual thought. But, I believe it would be a disservice to ourselves and limit our perception of what is possible in terms of non-violence (among other things). With that, I think that what Gandhi proposed with love being a weapon encompasses the concept and marries the two schools of pragmatism and conscientiousness. One can be fiercely non-violent, not harming others physically but willing to destroy and violate people’s views and perceptions, not through coercion or shame but with truth. It would be like turning a light on while someone is having a nightmare, they are oppressed by an evil and though they do not ask for the light it is given to them.
When diving into the texts of both Mahatma Gandhi and Dr.King, rather than seeing distinct sectionalism over the preferred method of nonviolence, as presented by Steihm; there is a precise merging of both ideals. As seen in how the activists provide examples to explain their actions and the methods chosen; a concurrent dynamic exists as each figure dabbles in both the conscientious and pragmatic to form an inclusive and general perspective. Instead of strictly emphasizing one side, they use one to complement and reinforce the other; in turn, making both a whole. Exactly as Stheim noted in her work that the two in conjunction with each other not only have the potential to formulate a satisfying result but aid in increasing flexibility(pg.28). In the Hindi Swaraj excerpt, the editor reveals how morality and a means to an end play hand-in-hand with the example of a thief and his victims. In essence, when locals find themselves the subject of a robber’s actions(English occupation), it is tempting to usurp vengeance in either the form of individual or mass frustration to regain standing. However, in doing so they run the risk of provoking a similar response from the robber(s) to fight back against their angered victims. In a sort of “fight fire with fire” scenario, nothing is really achieved and instead others unrelated to one victim’s misfortune become subjects of it themselves. Instead, taking the radical route of love can people shock the conscience of the robber with nonresistance which can eventually lead to the self-revoking of their original actions(pg.44-45). An example heavily inclined toward the conscientious approach that seeks to change the mind of an opponent, but nevertheless, discusses the pragmatism of how it can only be achieved through the use of fair means; that does not agitate another into propagating escalation. Not every situation requires the same means to achieve an end. And, preparing to face increased robbery(oppression) through the route of pragmatic nonviolence, can those exhibiting love and soul force hope to change the mind of the oppressor( English); in a conscientious approach. Even in Dr.King, these same ideals are maintained as he consistently puts emphasis on the ethics and morality of not only his Christian values but also how they relate to Gandhi’s preaching of nonviolence and conscientiousness. On page 17 of his Pilgrimage to nonviolence, King discusses how nonviolence is bound to its goal of enlightenment to the oppressor, and in this process resisters realize the spiritual charge of this stance that trumps the absence of physical resistance. Dr.King further explores how the necessary nonviolent pragmatic means of civil disobedience are necessary for the circumstances presented to their movement by the shortcomings of false promises. In his Letter from Birmingham Jail, King explains how every lie they have been given has resulted in the critiqued demonstrations which seek to openly demand freedom, as it is well known “Freedom is never voluntarily given by the oppressor”. The general theme that can be taken away from both of these activists is how both of these ideals of conscientiousness and pragmatism are what makeup nonviolence as a movement. One acts as the subtler underlying tone that the ideas are founded on while the other is the realistic carrying out of its goals(i.e. demonstrations, boycotts, etc.) The first emboldens followers with the need to embrace morality and the second is the bundle of these feelings in action.
Gandhi emphasizes the interconnections between means and ends and states that if a nonviolent society is the goal, it cannot be achieved through violent means. In the case of India, he recommended to avoid the use of arms to achieve independence because using the political arms of the British would make Indians British. The emphasis on the relation between means and ends makes him a pragmatic nonviolent theorist, because he’s not rejecting violence just because of its moral or religious implications, he’s doing it because this would not guarantee the social change that was being sought.
I find that references to the soul, spirits or metaphysics in political theory are unnecessary, but both Gandhi and M.L. King Jr. agree that the term passive aggressive is not a good term because there is nothing passive about political non-violence. Both often reference to personal sacrifices (in contrast to body-force or body injuries), and collective social disobedience as key elements of political nonviolence.
Considering the above, Stiehm’s distinction between political nonviolence is useful because it provides a conceptual frame for the term and helps understand the distinction between avoiding violence just because violence is morally wrong and avoiding violence as a political strategy to achieve major social changes.
Martin Luther King Jr’s ideas have been misrepresented and misunderstood in many ways, this has to do with the misperception about passive aggressive action and nonviolence. Since he dedicates almost an entire chapter to what love is, it can be confused and placed in what Stiehm calls conscientious non-violence, but I think he’s in fact pragmatic just as Gandhi because he explains that nonviolence is not a method for cowards, it’s not a method that is used when we are afraid of using violence, but instead, it’s a political strategy on its own and it requires the same discipline and preparedness as armed violence does. Most importantly, nonviolent political action seeks to create tension, the kind of tension that cannot be ignored and opens the door to political negotiation, so just like Gandhi would stress out the importance of means and ends, Martin Luther King emphasizes the importance of a non-violent approach because for him this will is the kind of approach that brings about big social and political transformations and provokes immediate reactions.
Motivation is key for Judith Stiehm, as it can be seen, “Pragmatic nonviolence expect conflict and does not require conversation of the opponent” (27). Gandhi makes some reference to human interconnection which is basis for the idea that the enemies can become allies someday but not through violent means, this peaceful approach can induce the reader so see him more a conscious non-violent, but he was not. In regards to Martin Luther King Jr., his emphasis on conflict and the idea that nonviolent political action not only expects conflict but should seek it, place him in a the pragmatical classification of nonviolent political action.
I believe that the political ideas of Gandhi and King can fit in both conscientious nonviolence and pragmatic violence, as they both for lack of a better term have excelled in both aspects and have numerous statements and ideas that could be assigned to either nonviolence practice that Steihm presents.
To backtrack and start with King first, one statement that stands out is from the assigned reading, Pilgrimage to Nonviolence, states, “it does resist. If one uses this method because he is afraid or merely because he lacks the instruments of violence, he is not truly nonviolent.” (King 90) Which connects directly to pragmatic violence where one is not inherently fearful of violence or the use of it, as within pragmatic nonviolence, one expects or anticipates violence to occur. However, this statement could also be considered conscientious nonviolence, as it is prescribing a particular type of behavior towards an individual who heeds King’s call for change. King could also be considered conscientious because he considers himself and his wider range of followers or believers in the movement as a being equally bound to all other humans. King’s use of conscientious violence can also be shown within his Letter from Birmingham Jail where he states, “I have never yet engaged in a direct-action movement that was ‘well timed’ according to the timetable of those who have not suffered unduly from the disease of segregation.” (King 2) which connects directly to Steihms description of conscientious nonviolence which is as follows, “Fourth, this form of nonviolence is not time oriented. It fixes no limits within which something must occur in order to judge that nonviolence has been successful.”(Steihm 24) As King himself explained that he has never engaged in a well-timed movement according to a timetable of the oppressors, in other words explaining that the time for change is now, and he will not continue to wait as he has been told by moderates, which he perceives as a nice way of saying never. There of course are lots of other examples like the fact that it was a group of people that continued to convert those initially against the movement to join their ranks, all of which could be drawn and connect to either practice that Steihm explains are of great difference, yet when you use both of them like King it can be obvious that even those there are drastic differences in what Steihm lists as the two forms of nonviolence, the use of both is the most effective.
The same could be said for Gandhi who appears more of a conscientious nonviolence practice at a glance yet when you delve into his theories and ideas of how social change and politics are intertwined, it becomes more of a combination of both conscientious and pragmatic violence as well. As Gandhi states in Hind Swaraj, “This civilisation takes note neither of morality nor of religion” (Ghandi 37) when describing England he is showing his conscientious nonviolence practice as Steihm explains that “One’s impulse to practice this kind of nonviolence, then, is identical with one’s impulse to live one’s concept of morality.”(Steihm 24) As England’s rule over India is full of oppressive moments, they are limiting the morality of the Indian people who desire to be free. Infact, violence was expected in the Indian’s plight for independence, although they proceeded to not react to violence with violence, instead reacted with more non-violence, they were faced with moments that violent actions occurred in the English’s attempt to subdue their movement, yet the Indian spirit pursued. This is still a form of pragmatic non-violence as Ghandi knew that the moment the English would use violence to attempt to eradicate the movement, that they were in the winning seat and more people would flock to their movement as they were the majority or in other words, the ones that prevailed in the question of Indian sovereignty and freedom.
Once again, I believe Steihm’s descriptions of conscientious and pragmatic nonviolence are necessary to analyze historical events like the American Civil Rights Movement or the Indian Independence Movement, yet it is evident that the use of both practices are evident in both of these events. It is not to say that these nonviolence practices are similar, yet, the use of both is evident and could be the purpose of why both had exceptional success in achieving their purpose or ultimate goal.
Stiehm presents us with a great compare and contrast of the two types of non-violence actions: Conscientious Non-Violence, which “assumes that social conflict represents no more than a failure communication between the individuals and their consciences” (Page 24) and that that “harmony can be realized without resorting to either coercion or violence” (Page 29); and Pragmatic Non-Violence, in which “conflict is often accepted as inevitable and even as desirable” (Page 25) and “the advocacy of nonviolence is based upon the belief that it is the most socially economic way of conducting a trial of strength: (Page 29).
Taking these definitions into consideration, I believe that Both Gandhi and MLK fall into the Conscientious Non-Violence theory that Stiehm suggests. However, there are some elements in their writing that can fall into the Pragmatic theory. For example, Gandhi cites that “passive resistance is a method of securing rights by personal suffering; it is the reverse of resistance by arms.” (Page 90, Gandhi); BUT, a few pages before he cited that “India can fight like Italy only when she has arms.” (Page 77, Gandhi) Stiehm mentions that Pragmatic non-violence “is rooted in an ethic responsibility which does not permit one to achieve moral certainty through unquestioning obedience but which holds (…) the actions of others which one might have influenced as well as one’s own actions” (Page 27, Stiehm). This confuses my a bit, but I think it is reinstated that he goes more with Conscientious Non-Violence when saying “passive resistance is the guiding force of the people. Any other rule is foreign rule” (Page 96, Gandhi). In conclusion, and counting that Gandhi was proposing everyone “cease to co-operate with our rulers” (Page 95), I believe he leans more toward the Conscientious Theory.
As for MLK, he explained that his “fifth point” was that nonviolent resistance “avoids not only external physical violence but also internal violence of spirit: (Page 92, MLK’s Pilgrimage to Nonviolence), and this shouts for Stiehm’s Conscientious non-Violence. However (and I do love that MLK cites Gandhi here) he also stated that “nonviolent resistance is not a method for cowards: it does resist (…) Gandhi often said that if cowardice is the only alternative to violence, it is better to fight” (Page 90, same book); which indicates that even though he leans towards Conscientious nonviolence, there are also some Pragmatic elements here. However, I do want to touch also the point about communication: MLK stated that “the purpose of direct action is to create a situation so crisis-packed that it will inevitably open the door to negotiation (Letter from Birmingham Jail, Page 2), and this ties directly to Stiehm’s Conscientious theory that it believes that lack of communication is one of the culprits of conflict, and MLK is suggesting conversation and negotiation.
All in all, I believe both of them lean more towards Conscientious rather than the Pragmatic, even when he seemed to have some Pragmatic elements in their thoughts and taking into account the historical facts that actually happen (theory vs. practice) and all the violence that their non-violent actions ironically brought (majorly from the authorities), then I am not sure how we can box their thoughts into either of the two Non-Violence theories. I am more eager to know the meaning, their motives, and the consequences of their actions rather than put them into a theory vs. practice box.
In “Nonviolence is Two,” Judith Stiehm presents two distinct categories of nonviolence, conscientious and pragmatic. Conscientious nonviolence refers to a moral commitment to nonviolence that is grounded in deeply held values and principles, while pragmatic nonviolence is a strategic approach that seeks to achieve specific goals through nonviolent means.
Both Gandhi and King were proponents of nonviolence, but their approaches to nonviolence were different. Gandhi’s nonviolence was rooted in his philosophical and religious views, which made him dislike the usage of violence to bring about social and political change. In his book Hind Swaraj, Gandhi emphasizes that violence is inherently wrong, and that nonviolence is the only way to achieve true freedom and independence. In ‘Hind Swaraj’ Gandhi argues, “your belief that there is no connection between the means and the end is a great mistake. Through that mistake, even men who have been considered religious have committed grievous crimes. Your reasoning is the same as saying that we can get a rose through planting a noxious weed (Gandhi ch.16 pg. 81)”. Gandhi’s commitment to nonviolence was conscientious because it was based on his strongly held views about the inherent value of nonviolence.
On the other hand, King was more pragmatic in his approach to nonviolence. He firmly believed in the virtues of nonviolence, but he also understood that it might be an effective means of achieving specific goals. In his Letter from Birmingham Jail, King writes, “Nonviolent direct action seeks to create such a crisis and establish such creative tension that a community that has consistently refused to negotiate is forced to confront the issue. It seeks so to dramatize the issue so that it can no longer be ignored… I must confess that I am not afraid of the word “tension.” I have earnestly worked and preached against violent tension, but there is a type of constructive nonviolent tension that is necessary for growth (King, pg. 8)”. King’s commitment to nonviolence was both conscientious and pragmatic, as he believed in the moral value of nonviolence but also saw it as a tactic for achieving social and political change.
Overall, I find Stiehm’s distinction between conscientious and pragmatic nonviolence useful for understanding the different approaches of Gandhi and King to nonviolence. However, I believe it’s crucial to recognize that Gandhi’s and King’s nonviolent strategies were intricate and multifaceted, and they can’t be cleanly divided into either of Stiehm’s categories. Gandhi’s commitment to nonviolence was certainly conscientious, but he also recognized the strategic value of nonviolence. Similarly, while King was more pragmatic in his approach to nonviolence, he also saw it as a deeply moral and principled approach to social and political change.
All in all, while Stiehm’s distinction between conscientious and pragmatic nonviolence might help us appreciate the many nonviolent strategies used by Gandhi and King, it’s critical to note that their strategies were more nuanced and sophisticated than this dichotomy portrays. In the end, Gandhi and King both regarded nonviolence as a formidable tool for achieving social and political change, but also recognized the highly moral and tenacious nature of nonviolence as a method of resolving disputes.
In my personal opinion I believe the understanding of both of their concepts and why they chose to implement them is very important. One is strictly business while the other stems from a moral compass. I think questioning if they align is a hard question to answer. Both theories have different goals that use the same method of non-violence. No, I would not say they align, but it is hard to say they don’t. The main difference I see is the moral difference. Pragmatic non-violence is not worried about meeting ethical requirements. It’s about finding a political or economical advantage.Pragmatic non-violence is not above using coercive and illegal techniques.Well as conscientious nonviolence is as simple as it sounds it’s drawn from a religious or moral standpoint. Violence a scene as something that occurs due to the lack of communication or effort thereof. Nonviolence takes patience, empathy and a moral compass. Martin Luther King’s statement stuck with me, “ Living through the actual experience of the protest, nonviolence became more than a method to which I gave intellectual assent; it became a commitment to a way of life. Many of the things that I had not cleared up intellectually concerning nonviolence were now solved in the sphere of practical action” The major difference to me and these viewpoints is one is a way of life, to see peace, and love. While others see conflict as a selfish interest and see lives as a pon.
I do believe stems distinction was useful to understand both concepts, as the comparison makes the biggest difference on how one sees violence. There are two very different ideas related to what and why conflict occurs and how each theory interprets it differently. Pragmatic nonviolence expects conflict, while pragmatic nonviolence deems to to be avoidable or resolved through increasing communication. Stated by stiehm in the text, “The first theory provides spiritual satisfaction, a feeling of certainty, and logical consistency (once certain) a priori assumptions are accepted); unfortunately, it does not satisfactorily address the problem of directing action. The second version focuses on techniques to achieve particular goals, but
Is impoverished with regard to the aesthetics of either logic or spirit.” The different thought processes each comes up with drives a different source of action, yet within the same compressed idea.
Martin Luther King and Gandhi were two leaders that used nonviolent protest to reach their goal of freedom. Stiehm’s theories of nonviolence are called “conscientious nonviolence” and “pragmatic nonviolence.” Conscientious nonviolence is from a religious or ethical command that prohibits injury. This theory supposes that moral behavior as well as conscience are valuable. “The basic ethical precept is that conscience is inviolable. Therefore, one ‘must obey one’s own conscience, and one must neither tempt nor coerce another to violate his” (Stiehm, 24). This theory is all about conscience and how self-discipline plays a part in the practice of nonviolence.
The second theory is pragmatic nonviolence, this theory proposes that the idea of nonviolence is all about business. This theory is less ethical, and more goal-oriented since there is a belief that your opponent is stronger. “Conflict is often accepted as inevitable and even as desirable” (Stiehm, 25). This type of nonviolence is seen as strategic and is the best method in the current circumstance.
Both Martin Luther King and Gandhi align with both of these theories. Both Gandhi and King support the idea that nonviolence becomes with suffering and sacrifice. King claims that “nonviolent resistance is not a method for cowards” (King, 90). King believes in the idea of self-discipline he believes that nonviolence comes with discipline. This can be tied back to the theory of conscientious nonviolence. Also, King focuses on the method of attacking the systematic problem instead of an individual. He believes that nonviolence is valuable because it attacks systematic problems rather than people. She emphasizes dad but used in nonviolence you can make individual people notice the injustices it’s happening to the point that they can become your allies. On the other hand, King also fits a bit into the idea of pragmatic nonviolence since he states, “the white power structure of this city left the Negro community with no other alternative” (King, 1963,1). He later talks about how the community had no other alternative but to prepare for direct action since they were not being victims of broken promises.
“We know through painful experience that freedom is never voluntarily given by the oppressor; it must be demanded by the oppressed. Frankly, I have never yet engaged in a direct-action movement that was “well timed” according to the timetable of those who have not suffered unduly from the disease of segregation. For years now I have heard the word “wait” (King, 1963,2). King strongly believes in the idea of direct action which can be tied back with pragmatic nonviolence which is a more strategic method. He has the idea of creating nonviolent tension or conflict that opens a door for negotiation.
Lastly, I find Steihm’s distinction useful for understanding Gandhi and King both of the theories she uses can explain or describe both Gandhi’s and King’s thoughts. There is also a relationship between these two theories that show very similar ways of nonviolent thought. Ultimately, these theories can be used individually and together in ways to approach nonviolence.
Yes, I do see the alignment between both Gandhi and Dr. King. Apart from the two terms conscientious nonviolence and pragmatic nonviolence however, I believe the alignment is deeply rooted in the self – government and identity of both the Indian’s and the African American soul. In essence, Dr. King in my opinion is the prime example of conscientious nonviolence and in the article by Judith Stiehm, best describes the ideal individual to have a particular kind of behavior rather than a goal (Stiehm 24). Notwithstanding, Dr. King was the epiphany of peace, moral identity and conscientious religious with the empowerment of an ethical code of conduct. In short, Ganhdi elaborated on the swords of ethics which consisted of the notions of self-knowledge, duty, morality, master over the mind and the senses (Gandhi 67). Although, both readings target two different cultures, both wish to attain freedoms through a conscientious nonviolence approach. A conscience approach that reflects a sense of value and overall moral behavior. Dr. King while in Birmingham Alabama jail became a prime example of an imprisoned nonviolent individual who actively fought for equity.
Moreover, the approach pragmatic nonviolence outlined by Stiehm declares it as all business, less concerned with meeting exacting ethical requirements (Stiehm 26). In my opinion Dr. King and Gandhi both illuminated their paths with their enlightened conscientious nonviolence theories. They embodied the techniques of freedom and at the same time inflicting severe damage to both their opponents. This strategic plan brought and conquered freedom and in other words revolution. Both suffered and focused on their message through nonviolence while reflecting a justification of conscious morality. This conscious morality waged war it needed against the slavery of their era. More importantly, Dr. King and Ganhdi embodied a true essence of nonviolence by empowering the symbolism of freedom. Lastly, I agree with Steihm when she notes that, “nonviolent resistance is a “higher” form of democracy since “quality” is measured by the “voter’s tenacity and capacity to suffering…” (Sheihm 26).
Political non-violence according to Judith Stiehm can be distinctly categorized into two different forms they are conscientious non-violence and pragmatic non-violence. Conscientious non-violence according to Stiehm “is drawn from a religious or ethical injunction prohibiting injury” (Stiehm 24). This essentially means that the choice to remain nonviolent is because of a commitment to a moral imperative rather than the idea that non-violence will help the political cause. Since this concept is related to morality Stiehm believes that it is a desire for moral purity in the face of political challenges that would drive individuals to be conscientiously nonviolent. The second form of non-violence that she describes is pragmatic non-violence, which is concerned “with waging effective goal-oriented struggle against a stronger opponent” (Stiehm 25). Pragmatic non-violence is mainly concerned with creating the best form of resistance against an opponent that would certainly be able to overpower in violent conflict. Therefore, pragmatic non-violence differs from conscientious non-violence because it does not have moral implications in mind but rather what will lead to the best outcome for the resisting party in other words it is all business and does not worry about ethics as much as results. These categories can be useful when looking at the actions of monumental nonviolent movements led by Martin Luther King Jr. and Mahatma Gandhi.
Mahatma Gandhi had a very distinct and strong commitment to remaining nonviolent in what can mostly be described as pragmatic non-violence if seen through the lenses of Judith Stiehm. Gandhi can be described as pragmatic because he kept his commitment to non-violence not because of any moral sense but because he knew that if the Indian people resorted to violence they would sacrifice their unique culture and replace it with a British civilization. Ghandi saw violence as a tool that the British empire used and felt that if his people resorted to similar violence then they would be using a British tool to create their new political structure one that can never be uniquely Indian but rather a British government. Gandhi also felt that nonviolent resistance was a great way to challenge the power of the colonial British. He believed that since the population was overwhelmingly Indian and not British simply resisting the colonial law would have the best results which is a pragmatic approach. Therefore, Ghandi’s form of nonviolent resistance can be categorized as pragmatic.
The philosophy of Martin Luther King Jr. fits more into the category of conscientious non-violence. This is because he studied many different religious groups and was himself a devoted Christian and that certainly played a role in his nonviolent approach to civil disobedience. It is his opinion that love is an extremely powerful force and that Jesus was full of love so the best way to protest politically was through nonviolent fashion. He stated “the love ethic of Jesus above mere interaction between individuals to a powerful and effective social force on a large scale” (Pilgrimage, King 84), referencing the fact that Gandhi was the first person to elevate the love displayed by Jesus and use it on a scale that impacted the entire society instead of just personal relationships. Therefore, King has a very conscientious approach to his non-violence because of his ethical belief that love should be spread and everyone should have as much love in their heart as Jesus.
After reading the texts of Gandhi and Martin Luther King Jr, I have seen both political ideas of Gandhi and Martin Luther king Jr, in both theories of ‘’conscientious nonviolence’’ and ‘’pragmatic nonviolence.’’ As both leaders have contributed heavily to both way of thinking in relation to nonviolence, I’ve seen the both leaders in correlation of both theories in their own respective amount of details.
Gandhi is coherently aligned with ”conscientious nonviolence”, as its defined as ‘’to practice nonviolence, then we must first attune oneself to one’s own conscience through self discipline and introspection, and then make ones adversary conscious of his conscience.’’(Gandhi 1997) Gandhi has instilled the conscience of such mind through how one must confine oneself through movements that highlight the approach of nonviolent action. Gandhi had briefed how India must become a different civilization that’s strong, and prominent based on their people. Gandhi has strongly endured to the people to permeate to such an idea of thought in characterization towards a sentimental value. ”The latter (making one’s opponent conscious) can be done by appeal either to reason or to emotion.” (Stiehm) Such thought enforces the idea of the idea of Gandhi trait of process.
Within Martin Luther King Jr, thoughts, I strongly see how King’s trait of thought truly does align clearly within Stiehm’s evaluation of ‘’pragmatic nonviolence’’ in many ways of action that was committed during the tenure of Martin Luther King, for example such as boycotting the city buses to commend boycotts, in where interrelations amongst all correlate towards Agape in where its ‘’recognition of the fact that all life is interrelated.’’ (King 1958) It pursues the willingness to sacrifice many interests of a whole, deferred point of view. Martin Luther King Jr, had mentioned that the desire to get what’s right, is what truly matters. Such characterization can easily be admitted if someone has to be extremely violent due to it can demonstrate one’s true passion for what’s truthful.
From what I’ve analyzed, I clearly see Stiehm’s idea of “conscientious nonviolence” and “pragmatic nonviolence” strongly in the words, and characterization of Gandhi and Martin Luther King Jr, based on the readings that were provided. Both leaders have desperately envisioned a new life for many, and such action had been initiated due to the significance of those two. Such significance is due to the reasoning of nonviolent political movements that tend to have meant more than many other symbolic movements.
The philosophy of nonviolence was the focal point of Mahatma Gandhi’s teachings on empathic emancipation as he led his nation to independence. His entire life and work werebased on this concept. Gandhi attached his viewpoint to the pursuit of truth to achieve nonviolence. According to Mahatma Gandhi, nonviolence requires an individual to restrain oneself from physical violence that could harm others and emotional violence that could harm oneself. Similarly, Martin Luther King’s fight for the rights and freedoms of black American society was centred around the paradigms of the nonviolence philosophy. King frowned upon using violence as a conflict resolution strategy because he believed violence only leads to more violence. Although King’s conviction in non-violence originated from his deep roots in his Christian faith, he believed this was the best way to end racial segregation and discrimination in America. This paper highlights Stiehm’sunderstanding of Gandhi’s and King’s positions on conscientious and pragmatic nonviolence.
Conscientious nonviolence comes from the ethical or religious injunction prohibiting people from harming others. It is usually addressed to a specific person and focuses on behavioural change instead of a long-term goal (Stiehm 24). Conscientious nonviolence is drawn from the concept of morality. Martin Luther King Jr. aligns more with this type of nonviolence concept because of his religious history. King was a highly moral, spiritual Christian who followed the teachings of Jesus Christ’s social philosophy. For King, nonviolence was necessary to eradicate America from the social injustice it suffered. He did not subscribe to the idea that the black race should respond to white oppression with violence. He firmly believed that violence would only lead to more violence, creating a vicious circle of devastating violence against humanity. However, King was not born with the ideology of conscientious nonviolence. He learned about nonviolentresistance from Gandhi and other nonviolence advocates and adopted it in his fight against racial discrimination. As Stiehmhighlights, conscientious nonviolence is all about creating awareness towards the enemy (Stiehm 25). Its goal is to win over the foe through ‘conversion.’ This is the approach that King Jr. took because he believed that violence could not be used to effectively resolve disputes in a large society like the United States. Through his belief in Christian morality, King believed that nonviolence could open the eyes of white supremacists to the evils of segregation that plagued the black American population.
Mahatma Gandhi neither subscribed to a conscientious nor pragmatic type of nonviolence. He was more open to philosophical and religious traditions. He developed his unique version of nonviolence by combining existing philosophical principles with his rational thoughts. He is one of the earliest proponents of nonviolence because Indian religious traditions practice nonviolence (ahinsa) (Parel 42). While the two major religions of India, Buddhism and Jainism, played a crucial role in developing the nonviolent ideology, Gandhi also considered social reforms and active politics as necessary aspects of the nonviolent ideology. His concept of nonviolence was both conscientious and pragmatic. It was conscientious because it had fundamental aspects of Buddhism and Jainism. Conversely, it was pragmatic because it was goal-oriented (Stiehm 27). It had the goal of ending the colonial oppression of Indians.
In conclusion, several influential characters throughouthistory propagated the philosophy of nonviolence. However, the two major proponents were Martin Luther King Jr. and Mahatma Gandhi. King Jr. was more aligned with conscientious nonviolence. Given his religious affiliation and strict adherence to moral principles, he used nonviolence to convince white supremacists to forego racial segregation. On the other hand, Gandhi was neither oriented to the conscientious nor pragmatic ideology. He developed his belief in nonviolence from India’s religious traditions, existing philosophical principles, and rational thoughts. Both characters were huge proponents of nonviolence.
From my point of view, conscious nonviolent resistance and pragmatic nonviolent resistance, despite being clearly different, precisely that difference makes them lack what the other has. Therefore, in practice, one needs the other so much so that they can finally become closely related. Because the morality and calm of the proceeding of one emotionally and morally drives the cause, however, a resistance without results due to the lack of objectivity and action could justify any violent action that seeks peace and justice as its purpose. Because the first is characterized by the search for harmony without reaching violence, without reaching coercion, which is also contrary to conscience. While the pragmatic resistance considers the conflict is something very typical of the human being, and necessary. But many times advocating for nonviolence leads advocates, observers, and activists like Martin Luther King and Gandhi among others to fail to distinguish between the two types of nonviolent resistance.
I believe that Martin Luther King Jr. as a theologian and believer shared his message of nonviolence and true pacifism. When Mr. King argue on his Pilgrimage to Non-violence “We speak of a love which is expressed in the Greek word agape. Agape means understanding, redeeming goodwill for all men. It is an overflowing love which is purely spontaneous, unmotivated, groundless, and creative. It is not set in motion by any quality or function of its object. It is the love of God operating in the
human heart. (King 93) In which it consisted of fighting against evil through the power of love. So also the inclination of this activist operates morally and practically. Furthermore, what Gandhi professed was basically leaning towards the same self-righteous stance of conscious nonviolence and that King with a bit of pragmatic nonviolent resistance brought a path to social reform that they had been seeking. As Sthiem argues, “theories work to cancel each other’s deficits” (29). That is, one perspective complements the other to achieve effective results. Even for Mr. King, he stated that Gandhi was an inspiration and guide in his fight. Gandhi in his nonviolent form of Satyagraha expounded “truth-force” or “love-force.” When Gandhi stated “I believe in it as much as I believe in two and two being four. The force of love is the same as the force of the soul or truth.” (89) King first learned of Gandhi’s concept of nonviolence as a seminary student. As a Christian, he connected the Hindu thinker’s words to the Biblical appeal of Jesus.
Both promoted nonviolence and were assassinated for their ideas. It is pertinent to bear in mind that Gandhi was the father of India’s independence from the British Empire and Luther King fought against racial discrimination and for equal rights between blacks and whites in the United States. And that their perspectives of nonviolent resistance had such an impact that it produced fear in the opponents of his revolutionary and powerful ideas.
Stiehm’s distinction between conscientious and pragmatic nonviolence highlights the tension between using nonviolence as a moral principle versus using it as a strategic tactic. Conscientious nonviolence sees nonviolence as a moral imperative that should guide all aspects of life, while pragmatic nonviolence sees nonviolence as a means to achieve specific and practical political and social goals. Throughout the texts provided this week, we can take a look at the varied approaches to which Gandhi and King chose to spiritually or physically manifest their nonviolent desires and peaceful attempts at insisting on and cultivating necessary change.
Gandhi’s philosophy of nonviolence was intensely founded in his personal religious beliefs and his comprehensive commitment to moral principles. For Gandhi, nonviolence was not simply a tactic, but a guiding light for how one should live their life. He saw nonviolence as a philosophical imperative and a way of resisting oppression without compromising one’s moral integrity. Such aforementioned ideas appear to closely resemble and suggest an ideological alignment with the conscientious nonviolence approach. King, on the other hand, viewed nonviolent/passive resistance as a means of achieving specific political and social goals. As a minister, King also found revelation within his religion and showcased an acute awareness and a loyal, deep commitment to the principles of nonviolence; whilst also recognizing the strategic and advantageous value of nonviolent resistance in achieving any definitive goals. Illustrating that King may align more closely with the pragmatic nonviolence approach. However, it is important to note that both Gandhi and King saw nonviolent resistance as a powerful tool for social and political change, regardless of their approach. They both recognized that nonviolence could mobilize people, create social and political pressure, and ultimately achieve concrete political and social gains.
In summary, Stiehm’s distinction between conscientious and pragmatic nonviolence is useful for understanding the tension between moral principles and strategic goals in nonviolent resistance. However, Gandhi’s and King’s political ideas cannot easily be categorized as either one or the other. Instead, their ideas suggest a complex relationship between nonviolence as a moral imperative and nonviolence as a strategic tactic for achieving social and political change that can ultimately only appear as suggestions that mirror such distinctions.
Analyzing both Mahatma Gandhi’s and Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.’s works, it can be said that both leaders practiced conscientious non-violence and pragmatic non-violence. Rather than isolating these two different approaches of non-violence, Gandhi and King reaped the value elicited by each method. The essence of conscientious non-violence is its ability to “…mobilize the human resources of emotion, intuitions, empathy, and inspiration” (Stiehm, 29), while the core of pragmatic non-violence stems from the use of “…common sense, social science, and technical knowledge” (Stiehm, 29). As Gandhi explicitly illustrates the importance of the ‘force of love and pity’ towards the perpetrator, in this case, the robber, and the harm in the exercise of brute force to exemplify that “…only fair means can produce fair results…” (Gandhi, 84) he essentially embodies conscientious non-violence within his argument. However, Gandhi is not blinded by love towards his perpetrator, instead, he understands that as a passive resister, if we do not agree with certain laws, we do not become compliant we simply go against the unjust law. He states that “[i]f man will only realize that it is unmanly to obey laws that are unjust, no man’s tyranny will enslave him…” (Gandhi, 92). Essentially, by going against a law that is demeaning it takes away the power given to the authoritarian. Gandhi reasons with his readers that as long as men obey ‘unjust’ laws, they will remain slaves to the oppressor. By siding with logic, Gandhi demonstrates the use of pragmatic non-violence.
Similarly, Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. illustrates his practice of conscientious non-violence when he dissects the meaning of love, agape, and the prominence of agape in his fight against injustice. King states in his analysis, Stride Toward Freedom, that “[t]he [n]egro must love the white man [] because the white man needs his love to remove his tensions, insecurities, and fears” (King, 94). To his understanding, love or agape isn’t a weakness it’s the key to promoting justice. Nonetheless, while he understood the importance of non-violence and grace, he judiciously stated in the Letter from Birmingham Jail that “[t]he [n]egro has many pent-up resentments and latent frustrations. He has to let them out…If his repressed emotions do not come out in these nonviolent ways, they will come out in ominous expressions of violence. That is not a threat; it is a fact of history” (King, 4). His argument stems from the pragmatic non-violence approach.
Stiehm’s dichotomy between “conscientious nonviolence” and “pragmatic nonviolence” provides a useful framework for understanding the political ideas of Gandhi and King, and the ways in which they approached the use of nonviolence as a means of resisting unjust systems of power.
Gandhi’s philosophy of nonviolence, or satyagraha, was rooted in a deeply spiritual and philosophical worldview that emphasized the importance of individual conscience and moral duty. For Gandhi, nonviolence was not simply a tactic or strategy, but rather a way of life that required a deep commitment to truth, nonviolence, and self-sacrifice. As he wrote in Hind Swaraj, “The sword is no match for the pen. Neither can the pen be used to advantage without the tongue. The tongue is mightier than the sword, but the tongue must be sharpened by the pen.” (Gandhi, Hind Swaraj 65) In other words, Gandhi saw nonviolence as a way of challenging and transforming unjust systems of power through the power of words, ideas, and moral persuasion.
Similarly, King’s approach to nonviolent resistance was rooted in a deep moral commitment to justice and a rejection of violence as a means of achieving it. Like Gandhi, King saw nonviolence as a transformative force that could challenge and change unjust systems of power. However, while Gandhi’s approach to nonviolence was largely grounded in his religious and philosophical beliefs, King’s approach was more pragmatic, emphasizing the strategic value of nonviolence as a means of achieving political goals. In his “Letter from Birmingham Jail,” King wrote that “nonviolent resistance is not a method for cowards; it does resist” (King 89). For King, nonviolence was not simply a matter of passive resistance, but rather an active and strategic approach to challenging unjust systems of power.
While Gandhi’s emphasis on conscience and individual responsibility contrasts with King’s emphasis on strategic efficacy and the need for collective action, both approaches share a commitment to nonviolence as a means of challenging and transforming unjust systems of power. As Gandhi wrote in Hind Swaraj, “Satyagraha is soul force or love force. It is the force which is born of truth and love or nonviolence.” (Gandhi, Hind Swaraj 38) This soul force, or love force, is a transformative power that can challenge and change even the most entrenched systems of power.
In light of these similarities and differences, Stiehm’s distinction between conscientious and pragmatic nonviolence offers a useful lens through which to view the political ideas of Gandhi and King. While both saw nonviolence as a means of resisting and challenging unjust systems of power, their approaches differed in important ways. Gandhi’s emphasis on conscience and individual responsibility contrasts with King’s emphasis on strategic efficacy and the need for collective action. Ultimately, however, both approaches share a commitment to nonviolence as a transformative force capable of challenging and changing unjust systems of power.
The difference between “conscientious nonviolence” and “pragmatic nonviolence” lies in the morals and ethics of both. As Steihm discusses, conscientious nonviolence plays to the morality of not using violence often propagated within the Christian church (Steihm p. 23). This form of nonviolence prioritizes using means besides violent warfare to achieve goals to abide by the ethics of doing no harm to others. This is a philosophy Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. avidly supported and utilized in his movement for racial equality. However, conscientious nonviolence requires a level of pacifism that crosses into delusional optimism. This optimism denies the true nature of man which includes man’s capabilities for evil. Steihm highlights how this form of nonviolence centers its belief around the ability of man to connect to and transform another man’s conscience by appealing to his emotions (Steihm p. 27). This dismisses the reality of man which is the ability to commit evil acts without regard for conscience or any emotional involvement. Though Dr. King is a passivist, he recognizes mans nature and does not delude himself into believing solely optimism and conscientious nonviolence will mend social injustices. As Dr. King includes in Pilgrimage to Nonviolence, false idealism does not solve social issues but rather keeps us farther from a solution under the false pretense that simple communication and conscience connection will bridge these gaps (p. 87). Therefore, Dr. King teeters on the line between conscientious nonviolence and pragmatic nonviolence. He fully recognizes that conscientious nonviolence is a solution in an ideal world, but in reality pragmatic nonviolence may also be necessary.
Pragmatic nonviolence removes the emotion from nonviolence and uses means such as intellectual warfare and symbolic violence during conflict (Steihm p. 26). For instance, the Cold War was a series of bluffs from both the Soviet Union and the US, both trying to manipulate the other to succumb to their terms and conditions without ever having to fire a shot. This is nonviolent because no violence was included, but it does not avoid conflict like conscientious nonviolence seeks to. Ghandi does not perfectly fit into either pragmatic nonviolence or conscientious nonviolence. Ghandi willingly acknowledges the shortcomings of man and does not seek to transform the conscience of any man in order to achieve nonviolence. Ghandi also does not attempt to wage intellectual warfare through manipulation and coercion. Instead, Ghandi focuses on observing and coming to truths that allow for communication without ego. Once ego is removed, solutions come much faster. Therefore, Steihm’s interpretations provide a foundation for understanding Dr. King, but not for understanding Ghandi’s points of view.
After reading all the texts this week, I’ve found them to be very compelling. Stiehm’s take on “conscientious nonviolence” and “pragmatic nonviolence” gives a much better outlook on Gandhi’s and Martin Luther King Jr.’s views. According to Judith Conscientious nonviolence is drawn from a religious or ethical injunction prohibiting injury. It is based on a directive addressed to an individual; it prescribes a particular kind of behavior rather than a particular goal. (pg24) Meanwhile, pragmatic nonviolence is trying to attain its ends either through persuasion, which involves increasing communication, or through coercion. (Gandhi pg26) I think Gandhi and Martin Luther King Jr. both align with the same category of conscientious and pragmatic nonviolence. For example, Gandhi grew up in India, which was under British leadership at the time, and faced a lot of oppression. He also believed in nonviolent resistance, which also had a lot to do with his spiritual beliefs. and self-sacrifice, and morality as a way to bring about change for independence and the economy. An example of conscientious nonviolence was when Gandhi spoke about a thief who broke into a home. When only violence was applied to the thief, his behavior did not improve, but when daya was applied, it did. One of the aims of non-violence is the moral regeneration of the culprit ‘in the majority of cases (pg. Gandhi 84). Gandhi was also big on pragmatic nonviolence. He believed in satyagraha, which means “truth, and that it was non-violent but instead was meant to be revolutionary. Satyagraha was based on the truth, and Gandhi was a firm believer in speaking and living the truth at all times. He even mentioned in a comment that but satyagraha is not a subject for research—you must experience it, use it, and live by it’. (Gandhi pg73)
Similar to Gandhi, Martin Luther King Jr. was also an example of conscientious nonviolence because, being deeply rooted in his Christian faith, he too was against violence. King believed nonviolence was the way to seek peace and justice. In his letter he mentioned how “the last few years I have consistently preached that nonviolence demands that the means we use must be as pure as the ends we seek.” ( King pg.6). King also mentions how discovering Gandhi impacted him. “It was in this Gandhian emphasis on love and nonviolence that I discovered the method for social reform that I had been seeking for so many months”. (King, p. 85) Meanwhile, his pragmatic nonviolence approach was done through noncooperation or boycotts. (King Pg90)
Overall, I do find Stiehm’s approach between “conscientious nonviolence” and “pragmatic nonviolence” very useful for a better understanding of Gandhi and King. Both King and Gandhi are aligned in both categories and cannot be categorized in just one. They may come from different backgrounds, but they both wanted to impact their communities. They both used marches and boycotts to bring attention. They both were firm believers in nonviolent approaches and respect for others. This is why they fall into both categories.
Stiehm discusses an important dichotomy in the field of nonviolent resistances: conscientious nonviolence and pragmatic nonviolence. The former is characterized by the use of nonviolent resistance as a moral obligation while the latter is characterized as using nonviolent resistant because it is the most effective form of resistance available at the moment. I would place Gandhi and King in the category of “conscientious nonviolence” but I do think that some aspects of King’s form of resistance could also be placed in the “pragmatic nonviolence” category.
I placed Gandhi in this category because as can clearly be seen in his writing, maintaining nonviolent resistance is more important than his goal of overthrowing the British Empire. Lines from his work like, “Everybody admits that sacrifice of self is infinitely superior to sacrifice of others” (Page 91) and “If India copies England, it is my firm conviction that she will be ruined” (Page 33), show how important nonviolence is to Gandhi rather than just a tool he thinks would be effective. He refuses to change his tactics even when there is pressure to do so, saying “by using similar means [violence], we can get only the same thing that they got” (Page 81). He strongly believes that the only way to achieve a free and better India is to reject the violent tactics of the British and stay loyal to nonviolent resistance even if there are times where this resistance might seem futile.
I put King in the same category as Gandhi because it can be seen in his writing and his resistance tactics how much inspiration he took from Gandhi. King’s own descriptions of what nonviolent resistance should look like further supports his placement in “conscientious nonviolence”. In his book “Stride Toward Freedom”, lines like , “nonviolent resistance is a willingness to accept suffering without retaliation”(Page 91), “At the center of nonviolence stands the principle of love”(Page 92), and “It[Nonviolent resistance] is based on the conviction that the universe is on the side of justice” (Page 95). All these lines sound almost exactly how Stiehm describes conscientious resistance as in her writing, King is willing to undergo suffering and jailing in order to stay loyal to his form of resistance.
Despite King’s clear devotion to nonviolence, his Letter from Birmingham Jail shows that these tactics did have some strategic planning behind them which could be considered “Pragmatic Nonviolence”. He writes “Nonviolent direct action seeks to create such a crisis and establish such creative tension that a community that has consistently refused to negotiate is forced to confront the issue” (Page 2). This statement shows that nonviolent resistance was specifically used in order to create a tension without placing any of the fault on the peaceful protestors. While I would still describe King’s resistance as mostly conscientious, it can be argued that there are times where nonviolent resistance is used as a pragmatic measure which makes Stiehm’s dichotomy imperfect and perhaps needing of a third category where resistance could have both conscientious and pragmatic aspects.
Stiehm’s definitions of pragmatic and conscientious nonviolence provide a useful foundation for examining Gandhi and King’s political ideologies. However, it is not a clear-cut case of aligning one or the other with these thinkers.
Conscientious nonviolence is a principled commitment to nonviolence as a means of achieving justice and equality. Conscientious nonviolence, in Stiehm’s understanding, entails a willingness to endure violence in the pursuit of these goals, with the hope that the moral power of nonviolence will finally win against injustice. On the other hand, pragmatic nonviolence entails the deliberate application of peaceful methods to accomplish a particular objective, without necessarily endorsing nonviolence as a broader philosophy.
Steihm believed that these two theories worked together by balancing out each other’s differences, “The first mobilize the human resources of emotion, intuition, empathy, and inspiration; the second throws into the fray common sense, social science and technical knowledge” (Steihm, 1968). Nevertheless, the theories not only support one another in prepping the resister for conflict, but they also operate as additional sources of fulfillment after conflict is resolved. At that point, one might either rejoice because nonviolence was successful or derive inner joy in defeat from knowing that one has acted well directly against the challenge.
Gandhi and King both advocated for nonviolence, yet their strategies were significantly different from one another. Gandhi supported conscientious nonviolence and saw it as an integral part of his larger philosophy of self-realization and spiritual transformation. Gandhi believed that nonviolence was more than just a strategy; it was a fundamental moral ideal that demanded complete dedication, even in the face of persecution and violence. He felt that nonviolent resistance might ultimately result in the establishment of a just and peaceful society by having the ability to transform both the oppressor and the oppressed.
King, on the other hand, was more pragmatic in his approach to nonviolence. While he was dedicated to the idea of nonviolence, he also understood the value of taking calculated risks to accomplish specific objectives. He believed that peaceful resistance was a valuable weapon for rallying public opinion and exerting political pressure. This approach can be displayed through King’s practice of peaceful protests and large, public congregations speaking against the United State’s unjust government.
After analyzing the differences between Gandhi’s and King’s approaches, Steihm offers a helpful distinction. Rather than the discussion simply being conceptual or theoretical, it transforms into a more definitive discussion, making it less about “what if” and more about “what is/was”.
Gandhi and Martin Luther King Jr. were the two greatest advocates of nonviolent resistance, and their nonviolent beliefs continue to exert an influence on society today. Their political philosophies integrate into Stiehm’s distinction between “conscientious nonviolence” and “pragmatic nonviolence.” In addition to determining if Stiehm’s difference is useful for comprehending their methods of pacifism.
The contrast made by Stiehm may be helpful in comprehending Gandhi and King because it draws attention to the fact that both individuals used nonviolent strategies that were both sincere and practical. In “Steihm 1968”, he describes both categories of nonviolence, “Conscientious nonviolence” is drawn from a religious or ethical injunction prohibiting injury.” and pragmatic nonviolence “it is less concerned with meeting exacting ethical requirements as to means that it is with waging effective goal-oriented…” [1] Both Gandhi and Martin Luther King Jr. fall within Stiehm’s definition of “conscientious nonviolence.” These two individuals had a strong religious and intellectual backgrounds, and they both had strong ethical convictions about the virtue of pacifism. Gandhi and King both firmly felt that pacifism must be used to bring about changes in society and politics, and their acts were motivated by these convictions. “Moreover, he came perilously close to identifying the Kingdom of God with a particular social and economic system a tendency which should never befall the Church.” [2]
Yet to achieve their objectives, each Gandhi and King also employed pragmatist, tactical nonviolence. Gandhi, for instance, orchestrated large demonstrations, boycotts, and acts of civil noncompliance to apply stress on the British Empire, while Martin Luther King Jr. did likewise to raise awareness of the equal rights movement and to exert stress on the government of the United States. As is mentioned in “Gandhi Excerpts”, “Formerly when people wanted to fight with one another, they measured between them their bodily strength; now it is possible to take away thousands of lives by one man working behind a gun from a hill.” [3] This suggests that both individuals combined moral and practical nonviolent strategies to accomplish their objectives.
To conclude, Stiehm’s definition of “conscientious nonviolence” includes Gandhi and Martin Luther King Jr. But, in an attempt to achieve their objectives, they both used pragmatist nonviolence. Stiehm’s difference is helpful for comprehending their nonviolence ideologies, but in order to properly understand their motives and views, it is crucial to also examine their respective nonviolence ideologies from a larger, societal, and political perspective.
Gandhi and Martin Luther King both captivated the tactics of political non-violence and had extensive successes. Gandhi viewed political non-violence to be the only appropriate choice in overcoming the British Empire’s reign over India. Ghandi argued that the route of achieving independence through political violence would emulate the British Empire and would not result in the sovereignty that India would cherish. Martin Luther King studied Gandhi’s work and saw non-violence as a tool for radical change in the face of radical injustice and an extreme view of political action but in the interest of love.
With how goal oriented both Gandhi and King were, their belief systems align more with Stiehm’s pragmatic non-violence. However, as Stiehm herself concedes, splitting non-violence into a dichotomy is not always black and white. While Gandhi and King lean towards pragmatic non-violence, there certainly are elements of conscientious non-violence in their ethical and moral arguments. Gandhi mentions non-violence as the most efficient means for achieving not only independence, but a way to preserve the unique identity of India. Gandhi argued the path of violence to achieve political ends will result in India resembling the British Empire in their tools and techniques: “We want English rule without the Englishmen, you will want the tiger’s nature but not the tiger, that is to say you will make India English if you use violence to achieve your ends” (28).
While Gandhi is often focused on the efficacy of non-violence in a pragmatic sense, conscientious non-violence can be seen in his thoughts on the challenges of non-violence. Gandhi argues that non-violence is more difficult to carry out than violence, and that those who commit to non-violence rather than violence are often demanded of more. The implication that violence could be an easier option signals the conscientious non-violence lingering in Gandhi’s work. Similarly, King intertwines morals and ethics in many of his arguments promoting non-violence. King’s conscientious non-violence is very apparent in his arguments for love as the fundamental principle that non-violent resistance relies on.
In my opinion, I do think that Stiehm’s dichotomy of non-violence is helpful in understanding the motivations of influential political actors. However, I think it is important not to attempt to confine any intellectual or their arguments to one variety when both are so intertwined.
When we speak about nonviolence, there are typically two approaches. Conscientious nonviolence and pragmatic nonviolence are the two approaches we focus on in this week’s readings. According to Stiehm, conscientious nonviolence “variety which can most aptly be described as pacific or passive” (Stiehm, 1). This is a belief that coincides with religion and categorically frowns upon and prohibits harming another. This emphasises and encourages human harmony. Pragmatic nonviolence is the opposite. This is where conflict is seen as normal and the rejection of violence as an effective way of challenging power. These usually are in the form of “peaceful mass movements (some of which later give way to violent disorder)” (Stiehm, 2). Failure to distinguish both nonviolence categories, can easily confuse anyone. Ghandi believed that our goal should be towards nonviolence and continuously make efforts to progress towards it. He believed it was a weapon only for the strong because we have to be strong enough to not be nonviolent as sometimes it’s inevitable. Similarly, Martin Luther King was known for his for his tactics and decisions to use nonviolence as the most effective form of protesting. Even when violence was aimed at him and threatened him, he still decided that peaceful forms of nonviolence such as his most famous “I have a dream” speech and the march. I believe that both King nor Ghandi’s views or beliefs align with neither pragmatic violence or conscientious nonviolence. Both king and Ghandi attest and vouch for a peaceful nonviolent way of life and thinking. If anything, conscientious nonviolence is most close to their views, but they do not coincide with religion. I do not find Stiehm’s distinction and definition of conscientious nonviolence and pragmatic nonviolence helpful when it comes to trying to understand King or Ghandi’s understanding of the topic. I would prefer and use a different approach. Its not much different from conscientious nonviolence just excluding the religion portion. The approach I would take to understand them is that they advocated for peace and nonviolent ways to solve differences. Arguments and differences between people or groups is inevitable because we all have our own beliefs but if we are strong enough to handle situations in a nonviolent way, we can accomplish so much more than if we resort to violence. Both King and Ghandi were strong enough to believe this was a way of living and solving problems.
This week’s texts by Mohandas Gandhi, Martin Luther King Jr., and the political scientist Judith Stiehm all share the common theme of morality in the face of political non-violence and resistance. The dichotomy between “conscientious nonviolence” and “pragmatic nonviolence” that Stiehm presents is useful for understanding Gandhi and King political work. “Conscientious nonviolence”, as Stiehm defines it is “by historical continuity and by a religious or ethical belief which categorically prohibits injury of another.” (Stiehm, Pg. 23). The political ideas of Gandhi fit into this dichotomy because he stands for protecting the purity of India to be untaintable from reciprocating the violence the Englishmen have inflicted. Gandhi as the editor claims ”The state after withdrawal will depend largely upon the manner of it. If, as you assume, they retire, it seems to me we shall still keep their constitution” (Gandhi, Pg. 27). With this quote, Ghandi emphasizes that there should be peace in the manner in which the Englishmen should leave India, and the collective soul of India is at stake. There is importance in one’s individual action, and the conscious is to be sacred in one’s decision making process. However one may disagree in a particular note in Stiehms definition where she states “The goal of conscientious nonviolence is to create new awareness in its foe.”(Stiehm, Pg. 25), whereas Ghandi believes India will not change the Englishman as they are comparable to a Tiger that changes their behavior, but is still a tiger. (Gandhi, Pg. 27). However, Ghandi’s ideals heavily relied on peace and one’s concept of morality, making it incredibly effective in maintaining India’s identity in the midst of this conflict. As Stiehm puts it, there is a need in focusing more on the individual’s particular behavior rather than an end goal.
Comparably, King aligns with “pragmatic nonviolence” in Stiehm’s distinction in that it ”appears periodically as a more or less spontaneous response by an unarmed populace or by a minority group to a situation regarded as intolerable.” (Stiehm, Pg. 23). King’s Letter From Birmingham Jail is an absolutely desperate call for change in a society that had made conditions intolerable for African Americans. King says “There have been more unsolved bombings of Negro homes and churches in Birmingham than in any other city in this nation.” (King, Pg.1). With this quote, King explains his reason for his actions of political non-violence by comparing it to the horrible crimes committed against so many people. However, it could be argued that one could also consider King’s ideals as a dichotomy of “conscientious nonviolence” because he states “So we decided to go through a process of self-purification.” (King, Pg. 1). This is seen in Stiehms definition where she states “conscientious nonviolence” is also “ the urge to attain or maintain moral purity which brings about commitment to this type of nonviolence.”. Ultimately, Stiehms dichotomy between “conscientious nonviolence” and “pragmatic nonviolence” are an essential tool and categorizing both great political leaders leading with non-violent resistance.
Words often wield more power than weapons do. There’s a reason why apologizing with a simple “I’m sorry” can calm the fiercest of fury in someone and hearing an “I love you” provides us with a special sense of warmth inside. As social and sensitive beings by nature, language influences us to a great extent. From song lyrics to speeches, nonviolent communication elicits emotional responses – sparking the very change of heart known to inspire action. Aggression isn’t a necessary means for change. In fact, people are more likely to actively listen to an individual when they raise their words, not voice.
I find nonviolent direct action to be unequivocally effective because it forces a person to turn inwards. Such reflection paves the way for reevaluation by fostering a deeper understanding of one’s personal beliefs and actions. We can see a successful example of 20th century civil resistance in Southern college town sit-ins throughout the Civil Rights Movement. In using Mahatma Gandhi and Dr. Martin Luther King’s strategies of nonviolence, students against segregation challenged discriminating franchises through nonviolent direct action. Actions of civil disobedience are more likely to gain attention from curious watchers on the national stage, spreading awareness while violence more inculcates fear, taking away from an issue’s focus. On Gandhi’s premise, large-scale noncooperation against a power, whether it be the colonial government or lunch counter, eventually forces it to collapse.
Both descriptions of conscientious and pragmatic nonviolence are equipped to suit Gandhi and Dr. King. At first glance, one phrase might seem more ascribed to a certain figure than the other because of specific keywords, but in digging a little deeper, it’s clear that the duality of these terms is conspicuous. In terms of Gandhi, conscientious nonviolence speaks to his principles the most if one of the two interpretations must be chosen. Gandhi’s just moral code upheld by truth (Satyagraha) and nonviolence (Ahimsa) relate to Judith Steihm’s grounds of, “…the ethical injunction prohibiting injury.” By Steihm’s definition, I see Dr. King’s legacy aligning most with pragmatic nonviolence. His leadership in the fight for equality between black and white Americans can be detailed by what Steihm called, “…a more or less spontaneous response by an unarmed population or by a minority group to a situation regarded as intolerable.”
Now we can relate the sentence, “…one’s impulse to practice this kind of nonviolence, then, is identical with one’s impulse to live one’s concept of morality,” to both figures without a doubt. It’s sentences like this that make it pretty difficult to determine which form of nonviolence suits who best when taken out of context. On top of this, the fact of conscientious nonviolence asserting that social conflict is nothing other than the miscommunication between individuals and their consciences speaks to Dr. King’s activism. Again, the explanation of pragmatic nonviolence can be drawn to Gandhi’s mission for the entirety of India to refuse cooperation with the British government, “…through coercion, which involves either offering increased cooperation in return for altered behavior, or threatening a punitive decrease in cooperation unless behavior is changed.” Overall, the coinciding truths of each definition are applicable to Gandhi and Dr. King aside from the fixed language found in conscientious and pragmatic
Gandhi and King promoted the idea that all conflicts should be settled peacefully and without violence. Nonviolent resistance, such as protest and civil disobedience, was seen to be the most effective means of bringing about positive social change, which they all believed in (Gandhi & Gandhi, 1939). They agreed that using violence was never an option and thought that moral reasoning and noncooperation might bring about positive change. Gandhi and King were “pragmatic nonviolent activists” and “idealistic nonviolence campaigners.” They saw nonviolence as a tactic rather than an end in itself and recognized the justifiability of resorting to physical force in times of danger and the strategic use of violence in achieving their goals.
Both Gandhi and King thought talking things out may break a vicious cycle and lead to positive change (King, 2011). In this way, they demonstrated an ethical and functional commitment to nonviolence. They considered nonviolence a powerful tool for social transformation, applicable to conflict resolution and self-defense. They believed in the power of peaceful protest and civil disobedience to bring about positive change, and they valued discussion and compromise as means for resolving conflict. The ripple effects of their principled and practical nonviolence may be felt worldwide even now.
In general, Stiehm’s descriptions of “conscientious nonviolence” and “pragmatic nonviolence” apply to both Gandhi and King (King Jr, 1992). They were both firm believers in the efficacy of nonviolence to effect social change and curious about its possible uses, especially in self-defense. The profound societal changes they spurred are being felt today. There is little doubt that Gandhi and King fall squarely under ethical and realistic nonviolence categories, respectively (King, 2011). They shared a conviction in the efficacy of nonviolent resistance, including protest and civil disobedience, in bringing about needed societal changes. This faith in the effectiveness of nonviolence aligns with the concept of principled nonviolence, which holds that violence is never justifiable and that people should constantly seek peaceful solutions to disputes. They understood the value of violence under specific conditions and the need for peaceful conflict resolution and constructive change via dialogue and compromise (King, 2011).
Practical nonviolence, which recognizes that violence may be essential in certain situations, is consistent with this view of violence as a strategic tool. Gandhi and King inspired generations of activists with their commitment to nonviolence and their ability to use it ethically and practically. Stiehm categorizes Gandhi and King into two camps, conscious nonviolence and pragmatic nonviolence, which helps me to do so (Stiehm, 1968). Both Gandhi and King, as Stiehm’s distinction shows, believed in the power of nonviolent protest and civil disobedience to effect beneficial social change but also acknowledged the need to resort to violence in extreme situations (Stiehm, 1968). That way, we can get a more detailed picture of both leaders and how their ideas relate to the more significant nonviolent movement.
Week three talks about marks communism and Gandhi also mentioned, and his fascination on his campaigns of nonviolent resistance. Moved by satyagraha (equals love) and Agraha (equals force) first I rejected their materialistic interpretation of history. Communism, avowedly secularistic and materialistic, has no place for God. that communism challenge delete Archbishop and it should challenge every Christian as it challenged me to a growing concern about social justice. With its false assumptions and evil methods, communism grew as a protest against the hardships of the underprivileged. Communism is theory emphasize A classless society, and a concern for social justice, through the world knows prasad experience that in practice it created new classes and a new lexicon of injustice. He then goes into marks critic of modern culture. He presented capitalism as an essential a struggle between the owners of the productive resources and the workers, marks interpreted economic forces as the dialectal process of which society moved from federalism through capitalism through socialism, with the primary mechanism of this historical movement being the struggle between economic classes whose interests were irreconcilable.
The Montgomery movement, first let it be known that nonviolent resistance is not a method for cowards. (page 90). The second fact that characterizes nonviolence is it does not seek to defeat or humiliate the opponent but to win his friendship and understanding. The third characteristic of this method is that the attack is directed against forces of evil rather than against persons who happen to be doing the evil. The fourth point that characterizes not violence resistance is the willingness to accept suffering without retaliation to accept blows from the opponent without striking back. The fifth point concerning nonviolent resistance is that it avoids not only external physical violence but also internal violence and spirit.
And speaking of love we are not referring to some sentimental or affectionate emotion. Would be nonsense to urge men to love their opposers in affectionate sense. Agape is disinterested love. (page 93). Another basic point about a gape is that it springs from the need of the other person his need for belonging to the best in the human family. A gap is not a weak, passive love. It is love and action. It means love seeking to preserve and create community. OK that’s it
Upon reading Steihm’s essay, a comprehensive understanding of the nature of non-violence as a tactic for achieving objectives has been achieved. Steihm’s essay classifies non-violence into two categories for the sake of argument: “conscientious nonviolence” and “pragmatic nonviolence.” Steihm provides detailed explanations of both types. The first type is more of a moral obligation to non-violence, where individuals feel a strong desire to maintain moral purity, which drives them to practice this type of nonviolence. She clarifies, “It is based upon a directive addressed to an individual; it prescribes a particular kind of behavior rather than a particular goal” (Steihm, 24).
I believe that the most similar concept to the one described is found in Gandhi’s chapter on Brute Force, where he discusses the importance of consciously maintaining moral purity and avoiding coercion in conflicts.“It is perfectly true that they used brute force, and that it is possible for us to do likewise, but, by using similar means, we can get only the same thing that they got. You will admit that we do not want that. Your belief that there is no connection between the means and the end is a great mistake. Through that mistake even men who have been considered religious have committed grievous crimes. Your reasoning is the same as saying that we can get a rose through planting a noxious weed. If I want to cross the ocean, I can do so only by means of a vessel; if I were to use a cart for that purpose, both the cart and I would soon find the bottom.” (Hind Swaraj, 81) Gandhi emphasizes that true consciousness of non-violent approaches is essential to achieving the freedom that India truly desires. He argues that using the same tactics and techniques as the Englishmen did would not bring true morals and pure freedom. Instead, he advocates for a mindset and lifestyle based on conscientious non-violence. Through patience and perseverance, the Indian people could achieve their freedom despite facing numerous adversaries, as their commitment to non-violence ultimately prevailed over the brute force of the Englishmen.
Steihm describes pragmatic non-violence on the opposite side of the spectrum. She states that pragmatic nonviolence “appears periodically as a more or less spontaneous response by an unarmed populace or by a minority group to a situation regarded as intolerable. This tradition is reflected in peaceful mass movements.” (Steihm, 24) However, an example of a response that is not spontaneous but necessary and direct and fits this concept is described by MLK in his “Letter from Birmingham Jail.” King states, “You deplore the demonstrations that are presently taking place in Birmingham. But I am sorry that your statement did not express a similar concern for the conditions that brought the demonstrations into being. I am sure that each of you would want to go beyond the superficial social analyst who looks merely at effects and does not grapple with underlying causes. I would not hesitate to say that it is unfortunate that so-called demonstrations are taking place in Birmingham at this time, but I would say in more emphatic terms that it is even more unfortunate that the white power structure of this city left the Negro community with no other alternative.” According to Steihm, conducting peaceful demonstrations as the only available means is what pragmatic non-violence entails.“It is less concerned with meeting exacting ethical requirements as to means that is with waging effective goal-oriented struggle against a stronger opponent or minimally against an opponent capable of inflicting severe damage if the conflict should become violent. In this case conflict is often accepted as inevitable and even as desirable.” (Steihm, 25)
Client #23610
Thank you
Client #23610
Thank you
Client #23610
Thank you!
Client #23610
Thank you!
Client #23610
Thank you so much!Life saver!
Client #23610
Awesome paper! Very reliable and prompt
Client #23610
Thank you!
Client #23610
This was great!
Client #23592
Thank you. I will get back to you next week. There are more classes that I need help.
Client #23605
Thanks a lot. All good
Client #0
I loved the service it was really fast & efficient. I ended up with an A in my class!
Client #0
It was a pleasure working with you. You are really responsible and always do you’re best and of course, we will keep working together.
Client #23592
The essay and the Excel file looks good. Thank you for working with me throughout the project.
Client #23592
Thank you for the quick help. I was stuck.
Client #23594
You are a lifesaver. Thank you. I will be needing your help for the midterm exam.
Client #23594
I am very grateful for your help. Without you, I would have quit a long time ago. Appreciate your help 100%.
Client #23599
I know it is APA 7 and it should not have the running headers, but my professor insists on them. Please include them in the upcoming orders. Overall, I liked it and I will be submitting it tonight. Thank you.
Client #23596
Thank you for the help. All good.
Client #23595
You do an exceptional job, have gotten good grades n positive feedback/ comments from my professors since you started helping me.
Client #23592
Thanks. I will handle the replies.
Simple Order Process
Fill in the Order Form
Share all the assignment information. Including the instructions, provided reading materials, grading rubric, number of pages, the required formatting, deadline, and your academic level. Provide any information and announcements shared by the professor. Choose your preferred writer if you have one.
Get Your Order Assigned
Once we receive your order form, we will select the best writer from our pool of experts to fit your assignment.
Share More Data if Needed
You will receive a confirmation email when a writer has been assigned your task. The writer may contact you if they need any additional information or clarifications regarding your task
Let Our Essay Writer Do Their Job
Once you entrust us with your academic task, our skilled writers embark on creating your paper entirely from the ground up. Through rigorous research and unwavering commitment to your guidelines, our experts meticulously craft every aspect of your paper. Our process ensures that your essay is not only original but also aligned with your specific requirements, making certain that the final piece surpasses your expectations.
Quality Checks and Proofreading
Upon the completion of your paper, it undergoes a meticulous review by our dedicated Quality and Proofreading department. This crucial step ensures not only the originality of the content but also its alignment with the highest academic standards. Our seasoned experts conduct thorough checks, meticulously examining every facet of your paper, including grammar, structure, coherence, and proper citation. This comprehensive review process guarantees that the final product you receive not only meets our stringent quality benchmarks but also reflects your dedication to academic excellence.
Review and Download the Final Draft
If you find that any part of the paper does not meet the initial instructions, send it back to us with your feedback, and we will make the necessary adjustments.