We are beginning our discussions on war and violence. Our focus in particular is on the ethical dimensions of war and violence with special emphasis upon what implications a love ethic may have here.
One matter that comes up when discussions turn toward responses to violent, oppressive regimes is whether nonviolent civil resistance can be effective in bringing about the desired regime change and the development of a more peaceful society. Even those who are otherwise sympathetic to nonviolent resistance to evil worry that nonviolence just isn't practical--it just doesn't work in the real world. Sometimes, the worry continues, violence is the only practical option.
But is that so?
Dr. Erica Chenoweth was Assistant Professor of Government at Wesleyan University and she is now Professor and Associate Dean for Research at the Josef Korbel School of International Studies at the University of Denver where she focuses upon international relations, political violence, terrorism, homeland security, international security, and civil resistance. In this lecture delivered at Dartmouth four years ago, she argues that nonviolent civil resistance works, and actually fares better, typically, than violent resistance.
As she notes in her introductory remarks and elsewhere, Dr. Chenoweth began her research on the comparative effectiveness of nonviolent resistance as a thoroughgoing skeptic; she was simply dubious that sustained, rigorous, analytical empirical research would bear out the claim that nonviolent civil resistance was especially effective at bringing about desired political change and compared favorably to violent uprisings.
In addition, she insists that her research and accompanying argument is not rooted in some position on the ethics of war and violence. That is, she does not at any point wish to make claims about the ethics of war and violence. Rather, she contends that this is simply an empirical investigation into what's effective as a response to political oppression and violence. (Of course, this may very well have bearing on the ethics of war and violence; but that's decidedly not her agenda here.)
Please watch and listen carefully to the entire lecture, including the Q&A that follows the lecture. Listen as she lays out her methodology and makes her case. Consider the explanations she offers and be sure to take deta
iled notes along the way.
What do you make of her research/argument? Seem plausible? Any objections? What are the implications of her research, as you see it? What of her observation that many people just seem bent on holding on to violence for dear life as the solution even in the face of the empirical research that points to nonviolence?
As always, engage each other on this extremely and tragically relevant topic, and do so with grace, charity, and humility. We all have something to learn.
