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.
I do believe that civil resistance can change the world, but humans would have to stop all violent acts. This would be exceptionally hard for many reason, especially with the facts she brought up that civil resistance creates and produces norms for democracy. The norms are made, but if nonviolent acts create the norms, then why is there violence? Why do we defy the norms? I thought that the tea bag at the beginning was a great start into what her beliefs are and how she would link that to her speech. If violence works 7% of the time and nonviolence works less than that, then how can our world function with complete civil resistance? It wouldn't be able to because of how we are brought up and everyone's beliefs that have been engraved into their minds by past generations. If we want to change the world, we must do it now. We must stop most, if not all, of the violence and use the power of our knowledge to pursue our norms. Her research is convincing, but there isn't a way to erase all violence, it is just a way of life for some. In order to create a civil resistant society, we must have the quantity and quality of participation. The more diversity we have to boycott violence, the better the opportunity for our voices to be heard. The only thing that could happen is a repressive backfire or our world may become unsustainable. With having the choice and free-will to do what we want, there will never be a life free of violence. Humans can minimize violence, but it will never be eliminated.
ReplyDeleteCatherine Kramp (2:00 pm)
I completely agree with what Catherine is saying here. Although the idea of nonviolence is a great one and one many people may desire over violence, it will be extremely hard to get our society to completely switch to this. In order for it to work, like Catherine said, all violence would have to come to an end completely. Dr.Erica Chenoweth did provide research that proves nonviolence works, but that is just one small rung on a ladder to changing societies views on violence verse nonviolence especially since people have freedoms to act basically as they please. The only way to rid humanity of violence is to get the vast majority of people to agree on and act out according to the principles of civil resistance which is highly unlikely since almost every aspect in today's society can be considered controversial and hard to come to a concrete answer of what is right and what is wrong. You will always have those people that are stuck in their ways and unwilling to even consider change. Although the idea of civil resistance is a good one that would save a lot of turmoil in humanity, and has proven to be previously successful, the likelihood of seeing a world with absolutely no violence seems unimaginable to me still.
DeleteAmanda W. (1:00)
I believe the idea of civil resistance is a good one, but in order to enforce it a lot of variables need to come together. Sadly we live in a world where violence is alive and well. As long as individuals are free to do as they wish, evil and violence will occur. One of her main claims throughout her speech is that of cooperation and participation. She reveals numerous examples of statistics that show that civil resistance has succeeded throughout history, but why is it so difficult to get started? In order to change the ways and disrupt the base of powerful regimes, individuals must gather in large numbers in order to make a change. The ability to gather groups in large numbers is probably one of the hardest things to do when trying to engage in civil resistance. One of the main reasons is because people may have to put their lives on the line, not all the time, but in many cases. The process also takes time to develop. Few people are actually motivated to support a cause in the long run. They would rather do their part for a rather short amount of time and then get back to their everyday lives.
ReplyDeleteShe also goes on to compare the deaths associated with civil campaigns and violent campaigns. All cases, violent or nonviolent, were successful in their ways, but the death tolls are extremely different. In places such as Tunisia, Egypt, and Bahrain (rather disciplined nonviolent campaigns) the number of combined deaths barely exceeds 1,000. On the other hand in countries such as Libya and Syria (violent campaigns) the number of combined deaths is astronomically higher. Syria saw deaths of 20,000 – 40,000 in only 3 weeks. In Libya the deaths ranges between 20,000 – 50,000. Her research shows that nonviolent campaigns tend to produce democracies while violent campaigns lead to authoritarian regimes.
She also shows a visual showing the probability of a civil war reoccurring within 10 years if a violent or nonviolent campaign was previously used. Violent campaigns have a 43% chance of seeing a civil war happening again while nonviolent campaigns only have a 28% chance. Ultimately, all the research she has presented proves that civil resistance is the way to handle conflicts. It may not be easy to convince other individuals, but if it can be achieved, the outcome will be more beneficial for all.
Sal S. (1:00)
I do believe that she does make a really valid argument on why civl non-violent campaigns are far superior to those that resort to violence. When she first started doing this research on non-violence, many people had presented arguments as to why violence is the answer and why we should always resort to it. Many even believed that the more violence it had, the more effective it was. Closer towards the beginning of her presentation, she has a slide which contains the success rates of violent versus non-violent campaigns. Non-violent ones had much more success, where violent ones had more failure. As we go on by the decades, nonviolent campaigns are starting to increase in number and violent campaigns are decreasing, which is good. Another key point that Dr. Chenoweth presents is that nonviolent campaigns are better because they get more participation from a bigger and more diverse crowd. They also generate sustainable people power. She notes that the higher participation that a campaign has, the more likely it is to succeed. The big reason why most violent campaigns fail is because they generally do not have a large amount of participation. She also introduced 4 barriers to participation. They are physical, commitment, informational, and cognitive. Another key point is that nonviolent campaigns have a 46% success rate against repressive opponents, where violent ones have a 20% success rate. One reason is that repression is likely to backfire. Another one is that repression can become unsustainable. One thing that violent campaigns have the upper hand on is that they get more international support. With nonviolent campaigns, they usually do not get international support because most places never hear about them until after the fact that they have been resolved and help comes too late. Even though this may be the case, she says that of the the help that does assist nonviolence, it usually does not have any significant impact on the effectiveness of the campaign. Lastly, we have more of a chance of getting a democracy with nonviolent campaigns compared to violent ones and that the probability of experiencing a civil war within 10 years of the end of the conflict is higher with violent campaigns than nonviolent ones.
ReplyDeleteI think that even though nonviolence seems as the better choice between the two, most people will always prefer violence over everything because it is what we have been accustomed to for quite some time and we do not want to go through change. I think that most leaders are nervous to go away from violence because if we counter with nonviolence instead and it does not work like we thought, then we would be in big trouble. There's this problem, then most of us are concerned with our image and reputation that if we appear weak in the eyes of our opponents, then we will get walked all over and get taken advantage of. I think nonviolence is the better way because it helps us to communicate with each other, use rationality and common sense, and prevents unnecessary deaths as well. Most people will still want to resort to violence, but if we can convince them otherwise, I think it will be for the better.
Brandon M. (2:00)
To try and sum my three pages of notes into a paragraph or two is going to be interesting.
ReplyDeleteFirst of all, establishing her credibility and skepticism toward civil resistance did wonders for the rest of her presentation. I'm sure that she would have been arguing on the No Team for the prompt, "Does violence work?" That would be very difficult to do and I give her props for that.
Her restrictions for her research were incredibly extensive, including: 1000 people involved or more, the difficulty of the demands, and the severity of the violence occurring - with most of them having minimal to none. These specifications leave very little room for error. A question I would have for her is regarding the many researchers evaluating the 320 cases. Who were they? Were they researchers she met at the conference, or were they fellow terrorist experts from her class? Or were they neither? Biases are something I always try to look for in research, and while she clearly has stated that she has none, that doesn't mean that the people behind her couldn't have. The results are likely very accurate considering the large amount of cases being studied across the board, but I would have liked her to clarify on those researchers a little bit more for the benefit of the average Joe.
I was a big fan of the visuals she gave us, and her clarification of the logarithmic values were appreciated. I have to say again, I'm just so impressed with how she could help me understand the data without my being a doctor. The success rate of civil resistance genuinely surprised me. The visuals she used with the civil resistance breaking down the pillars from the outside, as opposed to the violent resistance going for its core, were great for the audience's understanding. Nonviolence is infinitely more complex than I had ever realized. "People power" is certainly its biggest weapon, and the ability to commit to the movement but still have a day job is also important - It's not a whole life's commitment, and that's what makes many so involved. The ability to disperse or concentrate is incredibly vital in some situations. It's an ability that could save lives.
Her discussion on the military hit close to home for me, considering the majority of my loved ones are soldiers. It certainly would slow violent forces down, needing to ensure their commitment and desensitize them to killing.
I enjoy the tactics that have been used in the past for making the regime "look ridiculous." There certainly is no way for a regime to uphold superiority when outlawing singing.
I apologize for my scatter-brained thoughts. I'm still trying to absorb all of this information.
I agree with my classmates who have already posted so far, civil resistance is a great idea but it would take a lot for it work all the time every time. Just from watching and reading the news, we can see that people are quick to anger and violence even if the situation doesn't call for violent actions. I find in interested that Erica made the point that nonviolent campaigns are much more successful yet we hear everyday about the violence happening over in Syria, Iraq, and even the bombs that recently happened in Brussels. One action of violence just creates a chain reaction because people then want to retaliate and fight back with more violence and then the violence is never ending until one side is defeated completely. I also found it surprising that nonviolent campaigns get almost no international aid; I would much rather give money and support towards something that will not harm anyone or destroy cities versus a violent campaign that would do a lot of destruction. I think that if nonviolent campaigns could draw more attention, then people would have an easier time learning about and supporting the campaign. I think that there is hope for nonviolent campaigns to grow and become more prominent; however, due to the fact that people are quick to violence in certain settings, violent campaigns will never completely end.
ReplyDeleteRachel F. 1:00pm
In Erica Chenoweth’s speech, she talks about the pragmatic reasons why nonviolence is more effective and should be used more often than violence. I feel that Chenoweth makes some good points about nonviolence and that she did good research. She gives us convincing statistics in favor of nonviolence. One such statistic that she gives us is that 46% of nonviolence campaigns are likely to work while only 20% of violence campaigns are likely to work. The odds for nonviolence to work in comparison to the odds of violence working are much greater. I think these statistics help to show the effectiveness of nonviolence campaigns. I do believe nonviolence is effective, and that it should be used more often than violence. I do think that sometimes it is necessary to use force, but when possible it is better to use nonviolence methods. I do not feel, though, that we will ever have world in which we only have nonviolence campaigns. The world sees violence as an answer to problems and that it is an effective show of strength for stopping others from challenging them. Think of all the movies you have watch lately, how many of them solve conflict in nonviolent ways? I cannot think of many, and I feel the types of shows and movies we watch reflect the things we believe. Violence has been a solutions for many things like revolutions, the Roman Empire (the conquered large amounts of land), and the American Civil War are all examples of times people have used violence to get what they want. I feel that people have used violence as a means to get an ends for so long, that it would be a very hard mindset for people to get rid of and replace with the idea of using nonviolence campaigns alone. I do feel though if Chenoweth and others can keep finding and sharing research about the effectiveness of nonviolence we can start moving more towards that direction, even if we never actually achieve in convincing people to only participate nonviolence campaigns.
ReplyDeleteHannah K. (1:00)
Erica Chenoweth states here that non violence resistance never seemed to reference things with violence. Her definition of non violent resistance is a Form of active conflict where unarmed civilians use non violent things to make a political change. For example this would be using signs, and protests to make a change. As long as you adopt an indirect approach it can be very effective. Although some people believe the more violent and angry you can be the better. Basically in his eyes, suicide violence is better for the world; and the more effective.
ReplyDeleteTo me personally, this is scary. In this world, people use violence and terrorism to get what they want. This terrifies the human race, but it also distracts them to not think about what the terrorist want. Instead of taking the bombing and thinking "oh my goodness, they are doing this because we did this" people instead get distracted and think, "oh my goodness a bomb!" Therefore, terrorism truly doesn't seem to do anything but scare everybody.
Chenoweth's research is very interesting. She started as a believer that violent actions solve more issues than non-violent actions. She states that many authors even said that the more blood the more effective the movement. Abraham (2006) wrote that violence does not work, but it is still more effective than non-violent movements. Chenoweth's research covers whether or not non-violent resistance is more effective than violent when trying to have a regime change, or gain territory. In her research Chenoweth found out the non-violent resistance has about a 60% success rate, compared to violent resistance which success rate is only 30%. She also notes that partial success rates are twice as more likely for non-violent campaigns. This was very surprising to me. This means people should focus less on violent actions and use a more effective non-violent movement. Chenoweth basically says the reason for successful movements is the power of the people. The more people the higher success rate. This power in numbers explains why non-violent movements are more effective. Chenoweth explains that most people are not likely to partake in a violent protest. She mentions four barriers that make ordinary people not want to participate in a violent movement. The four barriers are physical, commitment, informational, and cognitive barriers. Really all these barriers can be summed up by saying that people aren't killers, and most of them are unprepared/not ready to risk their lives. Non-violent campaigns don't have such risk. The more people that support a non-violent movement the better. People are more likely to go protest if they see others protesting. The most interesting thing about her findings was that the success of non-violent movements was increasing since 2000. This is most likely because of technology, and communication more people can relate to a cause and unite. Overall, violence should be avoided, and non-violent protest causing discomfort to the officials in power is the most effective way to end a conflict.
ReplyDeleteRyan Wilburn (2:00)
Chenoweth's research was very interesting, as one would naturally assume that violent resistance is more effective just because of the notoriety it gets. What was really interesting was the statistics on participation that really brought the effectiveness of civil resistance to light. In the end, it seems that it comes down to a numbers battle. When it comes to nonviolent resistance it just seems to be way more effective at holding down numbers. It made a lot of sense when Chenoweth was saying that in underground violent resistance, is hard to keep numbers because of the barriers of participation. Violent resistance is hard to keep support because of the amount of devotion that it requires as opposed to civil resistance. With civil resistance, sympathy is easy to maintain because of everyone acting, well, civilly.
ReplyDeleteTom R. (2:00)
Chenoweth explained that non violence resistance never seemed to reference things with violence. She described non-violent resistance as a form of active conflict where unarmed civilians use non violent things to make a political change.
ReplyDeleteI agree with previous post on this site because civil resistance is a great idea, even though it would take a lot for it work all the time every time. Just from staying up to date with the news, we can see that people are quick to anger and violence even if the situation doesn't call for violent actions. One of her main reasons is because people may have to put their lives on the line, not all the time, but in many cases. This process also takes time to develop. Few people are actually more motivated to support a cause in the long run. They would rather do their part for a rather short amount of time and then get back to their everyday lives. I also found it surprising that nonviolent campaigns get almost no international aid. I believe that if nonviolent campaigns could draw more attention, then people would more likely support the campaign because they are educated on it. I believe there is hope for nonviolent campaigns to grow and become more successful. In the end all the research Erica Chenoweth presents in her speech proves that civil resistance is the way to handle conflicts. Convincing others may be hard but the gain from it will be a gain for everyone.
Demondre B. (2:00)
Dr. Erica Chenoweth had an interesting background on the topic of war and violence, as related to her point of view on civil or nonviolent resistance. I agree with my classmate Sal S. in what they said about the prevalent violence in our world and, beyond reality, how beneficial it would be if people could actually realize the success of nonviolent resistant versus violent resistance. Dr. Chenoweth started her presentation with a motivational quote: “Your choice will change the world.” Early on, even she thought that nonviolent resistance is only equal to a passivist point of view, but much to the contrary this is the form of conflict where unarmed citizens use acts of nonviolent demonstrations to seek some sort of change.
ReplyDeleteIt has been said that “violence does not work, but it works better than nonviolence”. However, after the research provided, nonviolent methods actually succeed greater than two times as much, including the rate for partial success. She states how participation matters when it comes to insurgency, and people are more willing to participate in nonviolent campaigns for the sake of the aspects of trust including physical, commitment, informational, and cognitive means. Also given the statistics for repression against both groups, nonviolent resistance has 46% success against repression while violent resistance only has 20% success. Another benefit of displayed nonviolence is the act of dispersion, which makes it hard to repress their actions.
Furthermore, some believe nonviolent resistance only works if it has international support, but Dr. Chenoweth denied this claim with the fact that only 10% get money support. Submission to violent resistance can lead to thousands of more calculated deaths than nonviolent means, plus a more likely fact of a post-conflict civil war. To summarize her view on civil resistance, Dr. Erica Chenoweth answered a question regarding the role of media and trends related to nonviolence. She stated that with the advancements in technology, there is more information available and the ability to spread the word on an international level. However, social media can play a negative role to nonviolent resistance in helping the repression. Overall, it is clear that nonviolent resistance outweighs the benefits of violent motives to solve conflicts. It may be impossible for the world to realize that making an impression doesn’t require brute force and weapons, but it would be the most effective.
Sara B. (1:00)
I think that Dr. Chenoweth’s research was very interesting, but not all that surprising. It seems obvious that when faced with violence, most people’s instincts are going to be to react with more violence. If someone attacks your country the first reaction will be to attack them, not to question why they attacked or what your country is doing wrong to make someone so angry. With civil resistance, if the regime being resisted reacts first with violence, that will only increase the doubt that the population has for that regime. People’s first reactions won’t be to attack those who are resisting but to try and figure out why. Like Dr. Chenoweth suggested, it is much easier for a civil resistance to gain support and support is key in achieving meaningful change. One thing she mentioned in her talk was that violence distracts from the message of the reason for the violence. When someone blows up an airport because they disagree with that countries religious views people aren’t focusing on the fact that the attackers disagree. People are focusing on the fact that their airport just got blown up. The meaning of the attack is lost in the chaos and people just become angry. Something I hadn’t thought about is how much easier it is for people to join in on civil resistance. Less dedication, physical ability and training is required compared to what is needed for a violent campaign to be successful. This allows the civil resistance to even more support. Hopefully people will start to realize the benefits of civil resistance and we can move on from blowing each other up to get our points across.
ReplyDelete-Cody F. (2:00)
It is only obvious that civil resistance works better than violence. It was proven during the civil rights movement. Nonviolence was key in the civil rights movement and it seemed that it was the most effective option. In this right, Dr. Chenoweth's research is not surprising. It has always been common that people react to violence with more violence because it seems like the proper response and it is easier to join in the violence. If you think about it though, when prompted with a violent act, one should resist to succumb to partaking in similar violent reactions because that is what is expected. Doing the unexpected is to react with nonviolence and taking the enemy by surprise. While reacting with nonviolence to a violent act, one is to generate more of a response than reacting with violence. Those who react with nonviolence are more likely to gain support and more likely to produce change, much like Dr. Chenoweth suggests. Recognizing that civil resistance is more useful than violence would change the world significantly. There would be less pointless violent acts and more arguments will be settled rather than turning into crimes.
ReplyDelete-Sierra L. (2:00)
Erica Chenoweth talked about non-violence resistance as a form of active conflict. These unarmed civilians used non-violent things to cause a political change. Things like signs, and even having protests. I do agree with the rest of my classmates who have already posted on this blog with resistance being a good idea. Erica stated that these type of campaigns are more successful, but yet you see all of the violence and harm that is being done with war and what not. I think that violence is scary because some people will go to great lengths to get what they want and will harm anything or anyone that gets into the way of their destination/outcome.
ReplyDelete-Katherine S. (1:00)
Erica Chenoweth starts out by stating that her initial beliefs associated nonviolence is heavily related to pacifism. I have also thought this a time or two, but I now realize civil resistance is simply unarmed resistance in many forms. I also found it rather interesting that people are more outraged when nonviolent resistors are repressed than when violent resistors are repressed. That, to me, says that people prefer the violent over nonviolent resistance. I also found it interesting that nonviolent resistance movements receive little to no international aid, and those who do receive the aid are not helped efficiently. Chenoweth says that civil resistors are more likely to produce change than the violent resistors. I think this is extremely important to recognize because although violence solves some issues, there are ways to go about political issues for change in a nonviolent manner. Lastly, I thought it was important that Chenoweth mentioned civilians during war times being able to be agents of conflict and change and that civilians can actually do something that makes a difference.
ReplyDeleteDr. Erica Chenoweth’s research on the correlation between nonviolent and violent resistance is very interesting to say the least. At the beginning of the lecture, I found myself thinking the same things as she was when debating this research methodology. I figured only violent resistance would really enact radical change, even though I know the basis of what was occurring in our own Civil Rights Movement. Saying this statement, I never gave heed to the what would happen after the incidences of violent action occurred and how the newly found government would maintain their power. As she stated many of the violent resistances that caused this radical change and allowed for the establishment of another regime would most likely maintain their power with the same brutal acts that they performed to gain power. Needless to say, the concept of nonviolent resistance not only appears more natural, but it makes sense that it could cause significant damage to the unfair regime, making it more likely to maintain an environment of democracy without the carnage of war.
ReplyDeleteChenoweth’s methodology seems very plausible in terms of resistance to change the masses. As she presented, there are the concepts of unity between the two sides that needs to be established in order to make this change possible. Nonviolent resistance was presented in a way that makes a lot of sense and can now be correlated to protests that are present today as well. It is allowed to affect the structures of obedience without cause significant changes in the lives of the protesters themselves. They can come and support the cause whenever they want, they are presented with all of the information from the beginning, and they can leave without consequences to their individual lives. I never really thought of this premise in this way because I always associate ‘unrest’ with blatant resistance until the problem is solved. The only objection that I had during this lecture was the idea that nonviolent resistance can still be maintained even with violent actions that occur. Though she stated that overall the occupation was nonviolent, wouldn’t the action that are classified as violent cause the ‘cause’ to term violent. This needs to be taken into consideration because once a violent act occurs, then that is what the public sees and labelled.
Through her research, Chenoweth has compiled empirical data to establish the basis of the implications involved in both violent and nonviolent resistance against a hostile regime. The implications of her research shows that the tendencies for moral and civil changes must revolve around the act of nonviolent resistance, in that ‘the less blood, the better’ a statement opposite to scholars like Abrahms. These findings can be used to construct the ultimate strategy to combat opposition on both fronts of the regime. From the data, the protesters should maintain adequate size and pressure to shake the foundation of the regime to enact the change wanted, but we can also make strategies for the original opposition. They can target the sense of unity by playing it against the masses. By decreasing the concentration and informative nature of the nonviolent resistance, you will then shake their foundation. Another point would be that this research and its implications should promote the use of nonviolent resistance in order to decrease violent resistance and contain the casualties of a rebellion. Finally, there seems to be no true answer to the premise of continued violent resistance even after presenting the benefit of nonviolent resistance. One thing that struck me in the lecture were the percentages given in terms of the individuals that perform the acts of killing during war time (which is very little). The only thing that I can think of is the foundation of a violent resistance can be broken down to the simplest building blocks, those blocks being those people that either have the mentality of a hero or a personality that loves killing.
Tyler Cross (2:00)
There is much to be thought about after watching the research presentation that Dr. Erica Chenoweth gave at Dartmouth. Very early in her presentation she described how she felt about the effectiveness of nonviolent vs. violent resistance. She believed that her research would back up her view that violent resistance is more effective than nonviolent resistance, but once collected, her research actually showed the opposite. Dr. Erica Chenoweth, once a skeptic of nonviolent resistance, had now become in favor of its effectiveness over violent resistance.
ReplyDeleteIt was found in Dr. Chenoweth’s research that although nonviolent resistance does not necessarily work, it does work more effectively than violent resistance. This came as a shock to her and all others who previously shared the same viewpoint. This came to a shock to me as well. In fact, it was mentioned in the presentation that violent resistance is becoming increasingly ineffective, and nonviolent resistance is becoming increasingly more prevalent and effective today. Several reasons for why this is happening were then introduced. Physical, commitment, informational, and cognitive barriers are all obstacles that must be considered during resistance participation. Dr. Chenoweth showed how it was much more challenging for people to overcome these barriers in a violent resistance than it was in a nonviolent one. In the case of a violent resistance, people involved would have a harder time recovering and getting back to normal lives after the resistance was over. Whereas, after a nonviolent resistance is over, people would be able to recover better. Therefore, they would be able to get back to their normally functioning lives faster.
Dr. Chenoweth also discussed very good criteria for measuring the effectiveness of the two different types of resistance. These criteria included how many deaths occurred as result of the resistance as well as what the political outcome was. Low death counts and democratic political outcome indicates a rather effective resistance. Another idea that was mentioned in the presentation was the phrase “agency over structure”. This referred to the fact that getting people together and on board with what the resistance is trying to do has more importance than the actual structure of how the resistance is carried out. In other words, a nonviolent resistance that is united and has many members will be much more effective than a violent resistance that may not have as much support. The more support around a resistance, the more effective it will likely be.
My personal takeaway after watching this presentation is in accordance to many of my classmates. I previously thought that violent resistance, even though higher in risk, was more effective in reaching the resistance’s goal than nonviolent. However, I am now convinced through these research findings that the opposite is true. This is a good thing in that nonviolent resistance allows for certain moral codes to still be followed somewhat. Whereas, violent resistance would most likely result in certain moral codes being broken. For example, violent resistance could result in several deaths, and this would undoubtedly go against some moral codes. More people need to watch this presentation and learn from it to help make the U.S. and world a better place.
James D. (2:00)
In Dr. Erica Chenoweth’s lecture, she discussed how she started her education with wanting to be a terrorist expert. She soon turned into an expert on nonviolence which was very new to what she was originally studying. She soon found out that the program she attended discussed similar topics that she had learned about when looking at terrorism however they talked about these same topics but with a non violence approach.
ReplyDeleteSoon the questions came forth of which has a more effective track record: nonviolent resistance, or violent insurgency? Since Chenoweth was a skeptic of nonviolent resistance, she started her study by choosing the greatest number of deaths to go against the non violence, therefore making it harder to prove that nonviolence strategy is better. In order to analyze her data she relied on a dozen of experts in the field and got results back that she was not expecting. The nonviolent program had a much higher success rate and the violence program had a much higher failure rate. Over the years, it has been proven that nonviolence has an increasing rate of success.
Chenoweth found in her study, that the more people who are involved in a nonviolent campaign the better. When we have all of these participants we can work to break down our competitors weapon force. For their weapon force relies on individuals below them to hold them together and if we encounter these individuals then we can slowly break down the violence and solve problems more efficiently with less deaths. It is much harder to maintain a group of armed individuals. It takes a certain form of commitment that a lot of people aren’t will to commit to such as killing others. Therefore when choosing a nonviolent resistance force, we can get more people to participate and cause a greater change with less deaths. Civil resistance uses power in numbers.
When it comes to combat using violence, it is often necessary to train the members to kill. Most humans are raised with knowing that killing is wrong so going into combat is very different and people often want to aim in the air when shooting their weapons insteads of at the enemy. Therefore it is also discovered that only a small group of the members of combat actually kill. From this I assume that people are naturally more accepting of nonviolence resistance since we are raised to not kill.
In the end, there is no doubt that violent resistance works occasionally. However this is by only looking at the short term effects. When looking at these circumstances, you must look at the long term effects for our children will soon be learning about these violent encounters. We must ask, was it worth the money, the blood, the sweat, and the tears? Civil resistance promotes democracy while violent resistance promotes authoritarian regimes.
Ashley L. (1:00)
When the topic was first introduced, it seemed obvious to me that non-violence is more effective. MLK and the civil rights movement seems to be the obvious example of this. However, as I thought about it more, the American Revolution is the exact opposite example. A bloody and violent war lead to independence and democracy, and to the country we see today. So which one works the best? Seeing as we have two examples of each working to good, the answer isn't immediately obvious.
ReplyDeleteChenoweth's work is on the side for non-violence. It seems that the empirical evidence we have points to that truth. My only concern with her work is that in this case, hindsight isn't always 20/20. To me it seems impossible to know which is better when it comes to each individual situation. We cannot look back at the revolutionary war and say for certain that it was the best course of action, and we cannot look back at it and say that a non-violent solution would have worked better. These political and social climates are so complex and convoluted that it seems nearly impossible to grant one side victory over the other.
That being said, the evidence Chenoweth presents clearly favors non-violence. My intention with the above concern was to make sure that we don't lose sight of the complexity of these sort of situations.
Parker Schroeder
I found Erica Chenoweth’s research to be quite fascinating. Like many of my fellow classmates it was apparent to me that nonviolent resistance is much more effective than that of violent resistance. I found it interesting that nonviolent resistance is actually twice as more effective than violent resistance. Chenoweth then goes on to describe that participation in resistances is a key to success in these particular groups. I would agree with Chenoweth’s theory on the different barriers of resistance groups. Most people are willing to participate in something that does not involve physically injuring or killing another human being. People are also more likely to participate if they are able to make choices such as not participating in a protest if they feel threatened, unlike violent resistance those individuals are trained and forced to partake in violent activities without say. Nonviolent campaigns also have better communication because they are able to communicate with the media and public. Violent campaigns such as the armed forces must keep things to themselves. Another interesting point that was brought up is that people who are involved in violent campaigns are trained to be desensitized to violent acts against others and in many cases this can cause serious mental issues with those individuals. The main issue with nonviolent campaigns is that they are not likely to get international support like violent campaigns do. In my opinion if nonviolent campaigns were able to gain more international support they could be much more successful than they currently are. I believe that nonviolent campaigns are much more useful and effective because change is being made without harming other individuals.
ReplyDeleteLacie S. (1:00)
I found that Erica Chenoweth’s study explains that non-violence resistance doesn’t connect with violence. In the study the statistics on participation that were brought by the effectiveness of civil resistance. Such as when protestors use signs to make a change. In a world with so much violence and terrorism it is distracting the world and becoming a normality. Such as bombings or school shootings; people think, “oh another one,” or “they bombed us because we killed half their town.” The violent response doesn’t do anyone any good. Civil resistance is easier than violent because everyone acts civil.
ReplyDeleteChloe J (1:00)
Why Civil Resistance Works- Erica Chenoweth
ReplyDeleteChenoweth began her lecture by mentioning the quote that was on her tea bag. Her tea was randomly selected and it said “your choices will change the world.” She is speaking to class room full of college students, where the decisions we make will change the world. As Millennials we are the future and opinions like nonviolent and violent resistance can both change the world very differently.
Before Chenoweth began her study on what started to be research on how violent resistance works best, she believe that nonviolent resistance equaled to passivism. Believing that people who used nonviolence to fix anything didn’t really care that much about what they were trying to fix. Chenoweth then stated that there are pragmatic reasons for using nonviolence resistance that is strategically affective for political aims. Meaning that, she is starting to lean towards nonviolence being more effective than violence in a political sense. She then moves on to give the definition of nonviolent/civil resistance; a form of active conflict where unarmed civilians use a variety of nonviolent tactics to try to affect political change without using/threatening to use violence toward the opponent. The reason nonviolence resistance was not being used in previous years was because it wouldn’t have been affective due to the intellectual development at the time.
The reason Chenoweth began this study was because she had read that violence does not work, but it works better than nonviolence (Abrahams 2006). When she had read this, she still believed that violent resistance was better than nonviolent resistance. In another reading it said, violent resistance is necessary to achieve difficult demands, or to defeat powerful repressive, authoritarian opponents (Tir and Fuhrmann 2009; Goodwin 2001). I agree that when things get difficult violent resistance is the way to go. I do believe at times that nonresistant violence has its place, but when trying to achieve a big goal, violent resistance is more affective.
Chenoweth circulated the 320 cases that she discovered among experts to evaluate the effectiveness of violent and nonviolent campaigns. She wanted the experts to determine if the cases achieved what they were supposed to. Out of these studies she determined that nonviolent campaigns are more than twice as successful as violent surgeoncies’ and violent campaigns are more than twice than likely to fail. In fact, violent campaigns are becoming an increasingly ineffective thing to use.
Lastly, one of the biggest questions of Chenoweth’s talk; why has civil resistance succeeded so often relative to armed insurgency? The first reason is that nonviolent campaigns are better are attracting diverse and large participation that is sustainable over a long period of time. Secondly, people power is super important, which nonviolent campaigns are good at. Insurgency is getting as many people as you can with as many guns as you can find and go fight against the opponent and take them down from the center. Whereas nonviolence resistance is to leverage people powers to pull the pillars that support the regime. Chenoweth’s theory is that there are higher barriers to participate into violent insurgency. There are four barriers which include, physical, commitment, informational, and cognitive.
Morgan H. (2:00)
Listening to Erica’s speech about nonviolence, it really made me think about both violent and nonviolent tactics. I found that her fact made about thirteen minutes in was an interesting one. That they found that terrorism doesn’t work because it often distorts the message that the people were originally trying to send. She goes onto say how the bombs are actually a distraction for people, it made me wonder why it was so popular. It makes you wonder is it because of the fact that it’s easier to blow something up and get noticed than to nonviolently protest? Is it faster at getting awareness? Does it take less guts? It really was interesting that they are twice as likely to be successful than the violent insurgencies. I wonder if any of these failures met a bad end? I mean if only a thousand people was the minimum for the study to be large enough, does it stand to reason, that if you are meeting a violent regime with a nonviolent protest couldn’t they use violence to stop a nonviolence protest, or does that go against our nature? Does it go against morals to kill someone who isn’t fighting back physically with violence? It amazed me when she made the comment that often even men and women in the military didn’t like shooting at their opponent, but rather up into the air. I agree with her comment that ordinary people are being to take up nonviolent protests. I feel that there is truly powers in numbers, but when numbers get too big it can quickly turn from nonviolent to violent protest really quickly. The actions of a few in a crowd can surely say the many when in mob form. I think civil resistance might be able to change the world, the hard part truly will be changing the minds of the people in order to accomplish a society that despise violent wars and ways of over throwing government and things. Will be hard to try to get the masses to put down their swords and run into battle without a weapon to physically fight. I think you make yourself a better target with nonviolent protests because it truly is passive resistance.
ReplyDelete~Erika M. 2:00
Erica Chenoweth discusses. non-violent resistance. Like everyone else has stated, that it is a good idea to keep people out of committing violence. From the statistics Chenoweth presents, it seems that nonviolent resistance is the most effective way. Majority of people that are around violence react with violence when something happens to them. It goes back to the civil rights movement , it was most effective to campaign without violence. This also goes with what Chenoweth’s research found that violence get you nowhere. An example of this would be protesters holding up signs that say something, and she says that this is the most effective way to campaign.
ReplyDeleteJeremy J (1:00)
I was very interested in Erica Chenoweth's study on the effectiveness of violence versus nonviolent resistance. Initially I was curious about the idea that nonviolence is the same as pacifism. In my mind I had never seen it that way but it is interesting thought. I also thought that it was kind of odd that the studies and discussions on nonviolent resistance and violent resistance could have the same dynamics but not reference each other. I assumed there would be some correlation. When she began talking about her study, I think Dr. Chenoweth did a good job answering all of the questions I was curious about, especially like what happens in the long term. I did struggle a little with the concept that she had to build a new data set to match the already existing data set because I think it could be easy to miss important information. However, once the timing and all the steps were explained I feel as though it is probably fairly reliable. I especially was fascinated by the ideas of barriers; physical, commitment, informational, and cognitive. It helped to clarify why exactly people may choose to be part of a nonviolent resistance as opposed to a violent one. I also liked that she mentioned the idea of safety in numbers and high visibility. In speaking about whether the security forces stood down, it made sense when relaying that people want to be on the winning team. Moreover, she explained that this tactic showed credibility. I was surprised to learn though at the large gap in numbers between democracies staying democracies through nonviolent or violent resistance, I didn't think the numbers would be as staggered as they did. I suppose that it makes sense though. My favorite thing she mentioned was towards the very end when she mentioned that in nonviolent resistance, the civilians are the agents of change instead of bystanders. I think that she really summed up her idea of the reason civil resistance works by saying this. The reason it works, as opposed to violent resistance is because more people, the people who want change, will become involved.
ReplyDeleteKaty F. (2:00)
Her argument was very interesting to me. It just makes you think of our world in a different way. She talks about violence and non- violence. Of corse the obvious choice seems to be non- violence. People would prefer if no one had to suffer through some decisions made. The thing I thought about when hearing her talk was, "What is our society like now?" I wonder if people see the world differently than me; and I'm sure they do. But to me the world is a very violent place. It seems in order for things to get done or be heard some little form of violence must be done. The littlest things can be violent, well depending on who you talk to. Little things could be yelling or using hurtful words building up to bigger things such as harming one another or the things people care about, causing damage. So, yes it would be great to live in a non- violet place, but reality is the world would be very different than it is now. I just wonder if other people realize how violent the world is or even what is considered violent.
ReplyDeleteLike I said before I think when violence is used actually action or change happens. This is sad but true. I realize that when violence happens someone's moral codes will be broken or hurt feelings will happen. But, there should be a rule of when violence is taken too far to complete a task. I guess this all made me thing of others more.
~Danielle Tester
(MWF 1:00)
I found Erica Chenoweth's discussion to be very informative and it made me realize just how much about civil resistance and its overall affects on the situations I did not know about. Though, I would always opt for the least amount of violence possible when addressing an issue, I would have never thought that a campaign built upon complete and utter non-violence in a world full of violence would ever stand a fighting chance of being successful. Thus, Chenoweth's statistics truly amazed me. I can understand her point about how participation can make or break the success of a campaign. I think this because of the "mob mentality" that occurs when many people start to believe in a cause and get swept away in the tide of what everyone else is saying. In other words, the more people that are in a campaign, the higher the chance that there voices will reach others. I also believe that violence will always breed more violence. "Blood for blood" as some might say. However, as Chenoweth explained, I also think it can become necessary in some cases. In any sense, I think that a non-violence approach should always be considered first as I think it typically involves the least amount of risk.
ReplyDelete^^^Brianna E. MWF(2:00)
DeleteThis article really hit home to me because that's all I witnessed in the past year was non violent protests. I work in Chicago so I was able to see first hand the protests against the police in result of the Michael brown killing and then on Christmas Eve where people lined the stores on Michigan Avenue to prevent people from coming in. Then most recently, Trump had a rally in Chicago and it was cancelled because it got to violent. What people need to realize is that Physical violence doesn't solve anything, all it really does is just make you look like the bad guy. Also, when the protestors interfere with innocent peoples live that aren't involved, that is not effective at all. By blocking traffic at rush hour preventing people from going to work/home, is not effective. But for violent approaches to getting your point across, all that does is make create even more of a conflict. A non-violent approach should always be the first solution to getting your point across.
ReplyDeleteMatt Sheehan: MWF(1:00)
The talk with Erica was very interesting, she made some points that I would have never thought of unless she brought them up. She started the talk with a quote from her tea, which I thought was quite ironic. Her tea bag read “Your choices can change the world” which I thought was a very powerful quote to start on. She mentioned later on in the talk that people react differently around a group of people than they do by themselves. But on the other hand it takes one person to form these groups and bring everyone together, and by that one person doing that one action it can change the world. She went on to talk about the strategy of non-violence and how it is to not confront. And to me this seemed to be more of a passive way of doing things. I am not a violent person by any means but on the other hand we need to stick to what we stand for and not let people push us around. So if that means there needs to be some confronting to stand up for what you believe in than I think that, it should be what it takes. To continue her thoughts on confronting she mentioned the purpose of having police, they are the ones that maintain ordinary obedience and are the pillars of support. This thought made more sense to me because if we all went around confronting, it would be an even angrier world. This woman mentioned she was involved in ROTC when she was in college. So she has plenty of personal experience of how to participate in violent activies. Whether that be physical, training until you throw-up, commitment, do something crazy to be apart of something, Informational, getting people to join in and spread the word, or cognitive, in convincing other to be violent with you. She talked about how some movements may not feel like they are ideal and in their hearts people don’t agree with them but for the long run they are better. She also mentioned a married couple and how that can effect a movement to have happiness when they arrive home to each other. Erica offered many detailed points and I could really tell she clearly had lots of research wrapped up in what she tells.
ReplyDeleteEmily Gill
Erica Chenoweth stated out want to be a terrorist analyst which is violence being the thing that makes political notion to work. She now is focused on nonviolence resistant which is the completely opposite end of the spectrum. Violence is more effective because people are afraid and sometimes it is the only way to be able to get to where you want to be. Nonviolence resistance would be strikes, sit ins, and protests.
ReplyDeleteDr. Chenoweth had many rules to be studied about whether they were actually considered nonviolent in her study. There had to be enough people and the groups intentions had to be for specific reasons.
Nonviolent in the best world would be the ideal way to go about getting your campaign won. People would also be more inclined to participate in a nonviolent regime. Violence most likely would shy people away because most people do not like the discipline of violent conflict.
Violence sometimes has to be taken, but there has to be a limit to as when enough is too much. If to much violence is taken that is going to cause more trouble.
Mackenzie DeGarmo 2:00
I feel this is very "current" due to the recent presidential campaign. Most of the videos on the internet I have seen show the difference between the hate of Trump supporters and love of Bernie supporters. I would have never felt this was plausible but she offers good support for her argument. However, it seems everyone has support for their argument but it is different when you actually see it in "action." I feel that humans are naturally drawn to violence especially men. It is taught this is part of our DNA so I believe that humans often hold on too violence regardless of what is observed. I love how she continuously states that knowledge is power because I do believe that is true. However, I think that most of society is controlled by those with little knowledge but high social skills, which means that they may not be choosing the best option based on intelligence. She points out the Cuban revolution and the Chinese revolution where violent conflict were successful BUT there are costs associated with it long term. The deaths there are immense and include fatal repression (obviously). She then went on and discussed what level of democracy countries are before both nonviolent and violent campaigns begin. With violent, there's only a 50% chance of being a democracy, while with non-violent far more turn into democracies. Civil resistance produces more democracies. "Win by the sword, rule by the sword." My only objection is what I said previously, that humans do not always think intelligently but instead with what seems easiest.
ReplyDeleteMariah Vasquez
I find much of Chenoweth’s points interesting and I largely agree with them. I especially found her points on the government and regime comparison compelling. Her statement was that if someone fights with a nonviolent regime, they are likely to end with democracy. For those who fight with violent regime, it is likely to end with an authoritarian government. In relation to where our nations stand today, you can tell which nations leaned towards the nonviolent or violent regime when put under conflict. I also found interesting her points on obedience and consent. As she puts it, anyone can shoot people in the head and kill them, but obedience and consent is necessary to have people working under you. The true power is not in the gun, but the obedience. This obedience is the foundation of both the violent and nonviolent approaches, but it has more merit in the nonviolent. For a violent regime, as previously stated, it means to have people kill for you. For a nonviolent regime, obedience means consent to peace and a determination to the cause of nonviolence. Obedience to a cause rather than a violent ruler assists in her defense of a nonviolent approach working better.
ReplyDelete-Meghan K. (2:00)
The argument presented in this lecture was extremely interesting to me. I very much admire how Chenoweth started out as a critic to this idea of nonviolence, but after doing her research, switched sides. This demonstrated her open mindedness to new ideas, which I believe is a valuable trait that many people lack. The world that we live in today is rooted in violence. There seems to be a vicious cycle of retaliation to violence with even more violence. The statistics provided in this lecture are proves that if the ball could just begin to roll, then the nonviolent approach could truly work in everyone’s favor. When violence is removed from the equation, amazing things could happen. Money that is spent on war could be spent in improving water quality or providing food to developing countries. There would be less debt and death, and trade between countries would arguably be a lot easier. While this idea does seem nice, I agree with the fact that there might always need to be violence in this world. One way or another, it will work its way in. Violence has been part of our world for almost all of history, and it might be impossible to completely eradicate it completely, especially considering that there will be people with ill intentions no matter if there is no violence or if there is. Overall, Chenoweth made a great argument, and I believe that I would like to see the world take a step towards to direction of less violence.
ReplyDeleteAlexis Locke~1:00
Erica Chenoweth discusses a lot about violence — specifically how civil resistance can only occur should humans give up all violent acts. While this idea of a world without violence seems nice, it’s highly unlikely to ever occur, especially in today’s society where just about any topic is able to set some group of people up in arms and filled with anger. Violence is a chain reaction, passed down based on those who experience it, so it’s feasibly impossible to assume it could ever be wiped out — it’s in our society and in our blood to be violent creatures. Also discussed the lack of airtime for non-violent campaigns, which I found to be very interesting and very true! We live in a world where people use violence and intimidation to get what they want — and frankly it’s sickening. Chenoweth discusses how violent resistance has trouble maintaining support due to the amount of backlash received and the devotion that’s required to oppose civil resistance. All in all, a very interesting view.
ReplyDeleteJ Burke (1PM)
Civil resistance, while I believe is a good idea supported by powerful statistics from Dr. Chenoweth’s research, is sometimes unrealistic in my opinion. There is far too much violence in this world. People do not want to work together to solve this issue. People will always have their free will, meaning violence will always exist. Her research along with others doing similar research should be widely published in order to spread awareness on how to effectively solve issues without violence. I personally do not believe that we can ever live in a world without violence. This world will always have it and in certain situations it is the only way problems can be solved. I thoroughly enjoyed watching this to see Dr. Chenoweth’s point of view from her research.
ReplyDeleteVictoria W. (1:00)
As I listened to Erica Chenoweth's lecture on Why Civil Resistance Works, I thought to myself all of the acts of violence that have been happening lately throughout Ohio. Erica stated that for violent campaigns, instead of being able to tell people what you're campaigning for and why, they decide to do armed acts instead. However, nonviolent campaigns are generally far better at attracting a large number of people over time compared to violent campaigns. This is because nonviolent campaigns are basically based on "people power." When Erica said this, it clicked as I thought more about it. I never thought of it that way and it all started to make sense. Erica also stated that more people are more willing to participate in nonviolent campaigns because they are able to participate whenever they want and quit whenever they want. This is good because you're able to support what you want to support and sit back on the things that you don't. There is no level of commitment needed, the commitment is up to the person involved. I found this lecture to be very helpful when it came to understanding not only the difference between nonviolent and violent campaigns, but also understanding which is more popular for the people and why. I would encourage people to participate in nonviolent campaigns because this way, a message can be portrayed in a way that people will want to support.
ReplyDeleteRebecca Harvey (1:00)
The part of the lecture that I found most interesting and raised some questions was if non-violence is so effective, why isn’t it more popular. Dr. Chenowith in my opinion had a good response. I think there is such a misunderstanding of what the difference between non-violence and violence is. When I think of non-violence, I think of passiveness and giving up on the fight which is not the case. There is such a lack of knowledge to the public about what non-violence is and I think that takes a toll on its supporters. Chenowith described many examples of non-violence acts that I had never heard of and it definitely gave me new perspectives. One person in the audience why there isn’t more media coverage which was something I had thought of as well and still there was a reasonable answer. It gives aid to the regimes. I also feel that in the American culture at least, holds onto violent acts, maybe because it’s more entertaining or maybe because that is the easiest option. I think that a lot of what Chenowith said was very informative on the subject on non-violence and found it very eye-opening.
ReplyDeleteRachel K. (1:00)
I agree with what has been said by my peers that Erica Chenoweth presented a hypothetical world of non violence that would not be possible. I don’t agree that those that fight with violence will end in an authoritarian government by example of our own country. When America started they fought in the American Revolution that ended in a democratic government. I believe that not all conflicts need to be solved by violence and should always be a last result. The difference in what government will be the outcome is how quick the people go to the conclusion of violence.
ReplyDelete(2:00 Anthony B)
This lecture was something surprisingly interesting to me, I thought coming into it that it would belong winded and mind numbing, but I found that it did well to catch my interest and keep me interested the whole time. When it comes to violent resistance and nonviolent resistance, I like how the numbers add up in support of nonviolence. Personally, I am a fan of avoiding violence and conflict, even more so when it would lead to unnecessary death of the innocent, or large amounts of death altogether.
ReplyDeleteOn to my thoughts of the plausibility of the subject and my objections, I say it must be more than just plausible based on the evidence, and I hold no objections towards the idea or her Chenoweth’s logic. I love the idea of nonviolent resistance for two main reasons, the first of which being the idea of change being brought about without violence, using the power of the people’s numbers to motivate change. The second reason is about how it works. When I look at the effects, it seems to work in an underhanded way behind the scenes, as Chenoweth said, it takes away the pillars of support for this regime that they are trying to change. This thusly leads to the enemy crumbling on their own due to those supports going missing, like the oil worker example she used.
As to why people hold on to violence, I think it is due to the people’s emotions. Violence is usually a product of anger, an emotion that many people fall into easily, meanwhile nonviolent protests and such necessitate control, something that not everyone has. Everybody has anger and can act violently, but only the right people can truly control that ands lead these nonviolent changes.
Austin Hackworth (1:00)
I like how she laid out the three questions that are all very good questions: Which has a more effective track record: nonviolent resistance or violent insurgency? Under what conditions does nonviolent resistance fail- and does violence have better odds in those circumstances? And what are the long-term social and political consequences of nonviolent and violent resistant campaigns? Chenoweth states that nonviolent resistance campaigns "are generally far better at attracting a larger and more diverse number of people over time compared to violent campaigns". In nonviolent resistance, the civilians are the agents of change instead of bystanders like in other types. This is one of the largest source of support that really helps Chenoweth's argument. Very good and interesting argument- also an excellent speaker!
ReplyDeleteCourtney (2:00)