Extracts  from  a preliminary  study  document  on NON-VIOLENCE AND THE ESTABLISHMENT   OF  A   PEACE  BRIGADE
-   Prof.   Fred  Blum
THE MEANING  OF  NON-VIOLENCE
When  I thought, about how  I wanted to  start this  discussion I felt  a need to give  some initial,   broad definition of nonviolence.     The first  definition which  came to my mind was  "to refuse to use violence and to substitute for  it  other means". As  soon as   I had written down this  definition  I felt that  the term  "use" violence was very limiting and expressed  a mode  of thinking so prevalent  to-day that none of us can  easily  escape from it,   namely  a thinking  in  instrumental  terms:      of  using techniques,   of  making  "things"  an   instrument   for  our  purposes, of controlling our  environment,   etc.
This  instrumental mode of thought has  in fact been  a dominant feature  in a good deal  of Western acceptance  of the Gandhian  idea of non-violence.     The  latter  is conceived  as  a MEANS which   is  to  be  used  instead  of violent means.      In   looking at non-violence primarily  as a means to be  substituted for violence, we in the West have greatly misinterpreted Gandhiji who  came  out of  a Hindu  tradition.     This  tradition  is  as far  removed from our instrumental  modern Western culture  as our present  culture  is removed from the medieval world of  St.   Thomas  of  Aquino.     For Gandhiji  non-violence  is not   primarily  a means  but  a WAY   OF  LIFE. But  a WAY  of  life is very different from a means  because  every WAY  is   a  synthesis  of MEANS  and ENDS.     This  memorandum is not the place to  discuss the relationship between  a WAY and MEANS and  ENDS  though   this   question  must  be  discussed at   some  time   of our  endeavour  to   clarify  the meaning  of  non-violence.     It  is sufficient  to  give here  the  first   broad  definition  of non-violence: Non-violence means a refusal to BE violent and a commitment to find a better WAY,   a WAY which  expresses  our highest  ideals  of LOVE and  JUSTICE.
The  substitution  of  the word   "BE"  for  USE"  has  greatly broadened the meaning of non-violence;     it has brought  into  the orbit  of non-violence all  aspects of our  existence,   not only the instrumental   expression  of  our  life.     Such  a broadening leads auite naturally  to  expressing non-violence positively  as  a search for  a better WAY which  expresses our highest ideals  of  those qualities which we want to  be  predominant  in  man's  relationship to man.
Sketche follows: In Christianity involved in of good that What Gandhij idea, not as of LIFE and lies the  ess
d in the broa the West the had,   during
an instrument non-violence
i has done is a philosophy
as -a way  of d
ential meanin
dest strokes,   I  see this  dynamics  as essential  carrier of non-violence,   namely
the 19th  century,   become so  deeply
al  culture which  in fact  denied the  power ceased to be  a  powerful  social   force, to bring us non-violence,   not as  an but  as  an   existential  reality,   as   a WAY
ealing with  SOCIAL  PROBLEMS.      In  this
g of non-violence.
In  order not  to  be misunderstood let me  emphasise that Gandhiji had,   of course,   an idea,   a philosophy of non-violence. But  this  in  itself  was.not  new to  the  West.     What was  new to  the West was Gandhi jiTs realization of non-violence as  a force  to transform man  and society.     Gandhiji has  shown that non-violence can be a real way  of  Life NOW and not  a remote ideal which  could possibly be  practised by a few saintly people  but  is not   "practical" (as we would  say  in  an  instrumental Western  culture)   as an important  force  in  the human  community.     The meaning  of non-violence lies,   therefore,   in  the actual realization  of  a NEW WAY  OF  LIFE and  a NEW WAY OF  ORGANIZING THE HUMAN COMMUNITY   -  HERE  AND  NOW.
-2-
NON-VIOLENCE  AS  A MEANS  AND AS  AN  END
First  of all we must realise that non-violence cannot  be understood as  a technique or as  a means.     There are no  techniques or means which  in themselves are non-violent.       Before discussing this point,   let us first  distinguish between techniques  and means.     A technique is a way of  doing something irrespective  of the  specific use and/or the general  context within which  the particular method in  question is used.     There is  a technique for learning languages,   for cooking,   for dealing with people,   for making things,   etc.     All action is based on certain techniques. A technique becomes  a means when  it  is used to  achieve  a certain end.     To  speak about  a means implies,   therefore,   the notion  of an end,   of  a goal,   of a purpose.     Means exist  only  in relation to ends.
But when  I  say that  there is no technique or means which in itself is non-violent  I mean more than that.     I mean  that no action can be  evaluated as violent or non-violent  exclusively in terms  of  the techniques,  methods  or means used.     Let us take  as an example a strike.     A strike in which  nobody is hurt may be considered  an  excellent  example  of non-violence.     Gandhiji,   in fact,  used the strike as an important part of his  struggle for independence.     I am not  arguing that he used  a method which he should not have used.     I am arguing that the method which he used was non-violent not merely because it abstained from the use  of physical violence,   but  also because it was used for ends which could be  justified ethically.
The Nazis too .used the  strike method.     I remember one  day, the day of the  "boycott" when  all houses where Jews  lived  or had their place  of work were guarded by S.A.   and S.S.   men.     Nobody was hurt  on that  day.     But this  action  and subsequent legislation undermined  the  livelihood of hundreds  of  thousands   of  people  and it was the pre-requisite of the way in which  physical violence could be used later,   leading to the extermination  of millions  of Jews.     This  is  an  extreme  example.     But would we consider a strike in industry non-violent  if  it would destroy the economic  basis  of any party to  the strike action?     I am sure not.     And the reason why we would not consider it  as non-violent  is because the end in view of which the  strike  is carried on  is not an ethically justifiable end.
From this  simple  observation  a very important fact follows: A non-violent way of life and action cannot  be understood by exclusive  emphasis  on the  "proper" means.     Without  an  awareness of the proper  ends,  man cannot be non-violent.
At present,   in  the Western world,  non-violence  is  primarily defined in terms  of means.     This  is  a reaction  against the Machieavellian principle that   "the end justifies the means" and a false  interpretation  of the  Gandhian  postulate that good means imply good  ends.     For  oriental  thought good means    literally "imply" good ends.     The two  are not  separated as they are in the rationalistic  thought  prevalent  in Western  cultures.    What  the West has made  out  of Gandhiji  is to  say:     "All  you have  to  do  is to use good means and the rest will take  care  of itself".     Hence non-violence has  been  limited so far mainly to causes where the ethical nature of the end is  simple  and  obvious.     To be against war and to be  against race discrimination  are goals which  are beyond dispute.     But in all those areas  of  life where ends  are not simple and obvious,  non-violence as  seen  by the West has  so far had very little to  say  and has done  even less.     If the end is to create  a non-violent  society much  more complex problems  arise and hence we have not thought  through non-violent  social  testimony. In fact there is  at  present no non-violent peace testimony.     There is  only a testimony against war.     The  limitation  of  non-violence to   "good means" without articulate concern with the problem  of "good ends" has made the non-violent movement in the West  so far mainly a movement of  protest.     And  it has furthermore greatly
»
-3-contribu^ted to  give  it'a great  emphasis  on   "conflict-resolution".
To   overcome these  shortcomings  and  to  enable  the   Peace   Brigade to form a new type  of non-violent  movement based on nonviolence  as  a way   of   life,   we must   broaden   the  central  concern with means to a concern with both means and  ends.
NON-VIOLENCE  AS   A  STRUGGLE
It is,   again,  not possible to understand the meaning of nonviolence  by  finding  some  definition  for   it,   or  for  its  ingredients. It is true that the meaning  of love and justice needs a great deal of thought  and also  some clear  definitions  but this  is not necessary merely  in  order to have  the clearest possible understanding of Truth.     It  is primarily and ultimately necessary to be  able  to  realise the  Truth   of non-violence more  fully.
All  realisation   of   Truth   is  a  struggle.      To   be non-violent means,   therefore,   essentially to  engage  in  a struggle,   in  a total struggle for  self-realization  in  a  "greater" community of man  and the   "greatest"  community  with  God.     A  struggle  rooted  in   an existential  involvement with the human  situation of to-day is the core  of non-violence.
Far from being a technique for  resolving conflict,  nonviolence is a way of  life which  gives  struggle  a central   place in man and his relationship with  life.     Granted that  the non-violent struggle is  a creative  struggle not  a destructive  one;     granted that  it is  an  attempt  to realize the best and not the worst; granted that  it   is   a  struggle to move to   a higher plane   of  consciousness  and not to relapse into the lower layers  of the human psyche.      It  remains  a  struggle  and  it  will  create  conflicts. Indeed  in  an   apathetic  world  it  is   a major  task  of  a genuinely non-violent movement to  create a creative tension  rather than merely to assuage destructive conflict.
I consider this to be  of the greatest  significance for the Peace  Brigade.     There is no place for neutrality in the   Peace Brigade.     To  be  neutral  means ultimately not  to  care who  is winninj in   a  struggle.     The  Peace  Corps  must  be  a  dynamic   force  in   the present   struggle   "over  the minds  of  men".     But  to  be  a  dynamic force it must  deal with the central  problems which  occupy the mind of man.     It must  take a stand as to what these  central  problems  are  and  it  must  offer   solutions which   are   "better"  than the solutions now  offered by the contesting  parties.    By better solutions  I  mean  solutions  which  incorporate  the  elements  of truth which  are contained  in the ways  of  life  promoted by the existing contestants.     At the  same time these  solutions,   to  be truly non-violent  in character,   must go beyond the nature  of the solution  now   offered  by  the  contestant   parties.      A non-violent solution  is  always  a higher synthesis.     Reconciliation  does not mean to  find a solution half way between the  existing points  of view.     Reconciliation means to  show a better way   (if not the true way)   by  lifting the  struggle  to  a higher  level where it can  be creative rather than  destructive.     Reconciliation must,   therefore, deal with means and with ends.
PROF.   GALTUNG'S  PAPER
The distinctions  between   "technical  assistance",   a  "second party"  and  a  "third  party"  role  for  the  Peace  Brigade  are  not valid  distinctions.     They  are  based  on  a conception   of  non-violent techniques"  and  possibilities  of  "neutrality" which separate  means from ends and techniques from goals.     As a result  an  artificial separation  is made between  action which  does  aim at  promoting "consensual goals" '(technical assistance)   from action where consensual  goals  are challenged   ("second party" action)   and from action where not   "any  particular  goal   or  solution"  is  promoted ("third party"  action).      (See   "Analysis  of the   Peace Corps Concept  by   Professor Johan Galtung,   particularly  page  2).
-k-
To  speak  about   "technical  assis-tarrce"  is  an  expression of  the  instrumental  consciousness   of  the  West.      Like   the expression   "technological unemployment"  it  shifts  attention and responsibility  from human values   and  social   organization  to technique   and  technology.     It is,   of  course,   possible  to  help  a person   or  a. community  by  developing certain  techniques.     But  in bringing certain  techniques and not  others,   in  the way in which the  techniques  are  brought  and the  purposes for which  they  are used  -  in  these decisive aspects  of   "technical  assistance" are hidden the' real  problems which  are vital from a non-violent  point of view.     Such   questions  as:   Do  the  techniques foster human values?    Which values  are fostered and which are neglected?  Whose values  are fostered and whose values  are neglected?    What kind  of personality  does  the  technique  foster?     What  kind  of  society will it  bring  about?  -  those questions underlie the use  of  any technique.     They  are not  technical  questions  but  questions  as to means  and ends,   questions  as  to a way of  life which we consider true and a way  of life which is not in harmony with  our  conception of truth.
It may be  said that these are relevant questions  but  that they  do not matter  because the presently existing consensus  of opinion   on  these  questions  is taken  for  granted.     But  this  means that the  presently  existing consensus  of  opinion  is taken for the Truth.     Neither does it help to  speak  about  "technical  assistance plus personal contact"   (Galtung,   P.2).     The addition of    face-to-face contacts  does not   solve the problem of  social  organization and community relatedness which  underlies  all  problems to which technical  assistance is  relevant.
To the  extent  to which  this criticism  of the  concept  of "technical assistance" is valid,   the  distinction between second party  and third party role becomes  equally invalid.     Non-violence understood  as   a  struggle  to  bring  about  a higher  synthesis,   to help man  to move to  a higher level  of consciousness  cannot   be classified within the terms  "second"  and  "third" party which are based on traditional Western  conceptions  of means  and  ends which are not  compatible with non-violence.