Peace and Nonviolent Resistance
September 10-11, 2021
Professor of Political Science, Columbia University
Fellow, Oxford Institute for Ethics, Law, and Armed Conflict (ELAC)
War causes unconscionable damage, yet most of the philosophical literature (in a tradition stretching back to Augustine) focuses on its justification, either as a form of national defense or as a means of securing future peace. Although peace is the ostensible aim of a just war, substantive questions about peace itself rarely enter into the frame. This conference seeks to fill this lacuna, by bringing questions of peace to the forefront.
Peace theorists, including both philosophers and political scientists, are becoming increasingly skeptical about the long-held assumption that violence is necessary (either morally or pragmatically) as a response to aggression. The dominant assumption, that war is a necessary response to aggression, rests on equating nonviolence with weakness or passivity. This equation imputes two kinds of failure to nonviolence – moral and pragmatic. The moral failure consists in the fact that the pacifist’s refusal to choose war is a dereliction of her moral duty to stand up for herself and her fellow citizens. The pragmatic failure consists in the fact that violence is the only effective response to aggression. Challenging this dominant outlook, this conference will seek to connect peace to nonviolent resistance.
Iain Atack, “Nonviolent Resistance, Political Power and Social Change”
The central argument of the paper is that an understanding of the connection between nonviolent resistance and political power helps explain both nonviolent resistance as a political strategy as well as the deeper structural changes to societies permeated with multiple types of violence required by nonviolence. The paper asks whether the ultimate objective of nonviolent resistance is to reform or establish the liberal democratic state, for example, or to create forms of social and political organization that challenge and replace power as domination (in the form of both direct and structural violence) with power as cooperation.
Amanda Cawston, TBA
Heather Eaton, “On the Relationship Between Justice, Peace, and Sustainability”
This presentation focuses on the intersection of nonviolence, peace and ecology, incorporating gender analyses. The key insight is to expand nonviolent and peace theories to include ecological dimensions in two ways. The first is to recognize that as ecological decline increases, so does the militarization of the world and the need to protect ecological resources, at times with force. A second way to include ecology in nonviolence and peace theories is to consider Earth-centric rather than anthropocentric frameworks.
Andrew Fiala, “Cosmopolitan Pacifism”
This presentation will show links between political cosmopolitanism, pacifism, and nonviolence. It will argue that cosmopolitan values and institutions are effective at promoting peace. And it will critique resurgent nationalism. We ought to continue to work to transform the nation-state system in a more cosmopolitan direction, while also working to cultivate the values of cosmopolitan and pacific systems of value.
Nathan Goodman, “Nonviolent Resistance as Polycentric Defense”
Orthodox rational choice theory models defense as a public good provided optimally by a central state. However, this approach abstracts away from the diverse institutions and processes individuals use to provide defense in the actual world. To better understand these real-world institutions and processes, we leverage another concept from rational choice theory: polycentricity.A system is characterized as “polycentric” if it features multiple centers of decision-making that can act independently from one another. Using historical examples, we show that polycentric networks of activists can maintain nonviolent social movements that successfully provide defense.
Tony White, “The Healing Power of Awareness: Nonviolence in Thought, Word and Deed”
This paper compares methods of nonviolent conflict resolution pertaining to the sociopolitical, interpersonal, and intrapersonal levels, using as paradigms the nonviolent resistance of Mohandas Gandhi and Martin Luther King Jr., the Socratic method of philosophical dialogue, the nonviolent communication of Marshall Rosenberg, and the peaceful transformation of feelings of Thich Nhat Hanh. Among several commonalities highlighted, chief is their shared assumption that bringing out the attitudes relevant to a conflict into sustained conscious awareness organically tends toward resolution of the conflict. I propose that this works by obliging parties to address the root of the conflict in a way that transcends habitual patterns.
This is no conference fee, but registration is required.