This is the P2PU Archive. If you want the current site, go to www.p2pu.org!
Conflict Resolution
My recent threads
You haven't posted any discussions yet.
Recently updated threads
- Notification of research observation Tue, 2011-04-05 23:19
- Week 8: Multi-Track Diplomacy Mon, 2011-03-21 03:19
- Week 7: Ethics Sun, 2011-03-13 23:39
- Week 5: Facilitated Dialogue & Appreciative Inquiry Wed, 2011-03-09 21:50
- Week 4: Mediation Wed, 2011-03-09 21:14
Week 6: Nonviolent Action
For this week's discussion of nonviolent action, we read the Albert Einstein Institution's "Frequently Asked Questions" and watched James Lawson's talk on Ghandi and Nonviolence.
-Reverend Lawson says that nonviolence is not pacifism. How is nonviolent action different from pacifism? Do you think you can be be both a nonviolent actor and a pacifist?
-Reverend Lawson defines nonviolence as the "power of creation." What do you think he means by this?
-What types of nonviolent action have you witnessed, either in your own life or in the news? Were nonviolent strategies effective?
-In what situations can nonviolent action be effective? When is nonviolent action ineffective?
-Do you believe that all problems can be solved nonviolently, or are there some situations in which violence is necessary? Why?
As he puts it, we have a choice – a choice to be destructive or use our lives to give us freedom and make good choices. We can choose to use nonviolence in create solutions in resolving conflicts.
Events like student movement in China the on June 4 a few years ago to Soviet Union dismantling, the Berlin wall to the recent development in Egypt are both good examples of nonviolent action. The two have different results, obviously. There is no guarantee that the opponents will not use violence against nonviolent action. Nonviolent action’s effectiveness in achieving desired results is not guaranteed.
Nonviolent action can be effective if the opponents will face worse consequences if they use violence, or at least they think so. Nonviolent action is ineffective when opponents has no fear, or worse consequences, if they use violence.
Violence can solve problems in less time. But, the results are not necessarily long lasting. Eventually, a longer term solution needs to be put in place. In fact, violence more likely will quiet down opponents’ voices but the underlying problems will likely not be resolved. The situation will go underground in the immediate future; the pressure cooker continues to boil.