Occupy Wall Street has signaled the changing weather of a looming “American Autumn” and consequently galvanized the progressive movement. The 99 percent, as they call themselves for the interests they want to represent, have shown tremendous courage in the face of police brutality. They have also demonstrated remarkable perseverance, despite the general lack of accurate mainstream attention on their efforts to reclaim a democracy that takes the human being into account over corporate interests. But perhaps the most inspiring aspect of this movement is that its members are choosing nonviolence to achieve their objectives. Nevertheless, there is little doubt that the movement would be more inspiring, more effective, and ultimately truly nonviolent, by including the one percent.
Nonviolence is not a mere strategic tactic as touted by scholars of political theory, including some within the progressive movement itself; it is more comprehensive, and as such, much more powerful than the limiting definition these people have adopted (to our detriment as a movement with a real future). The basis for the power of nonviolence is emerging more and more in science, not to mention that it has always existed across the wisdom traditions—namely as a positive force governing human interaction that allows us to build deeper bonds and uncover a greater sense of unity as people.
Gandhi (who celebrated his birthday on October 2nd) said, “It is the law of the humans,” meaning, we exercise our full humanity as we exercise our full capacity to do good to others. And it is illogical to think that we can raise the image of humanity if we do not take all of humanity into account. Within that excluded one percent are people, indeed some powerful people who will simply point out our hypocrisy of methods if we dehumanize them in our movement. When we use dehumanization as a tactic, we borrow it not from any true theory of nonviolence, but straight from the paradigm of violence. It is the violent who gave us “corporate personhood;” we need to espouse radical humanization to set right that distortion.
As Gandhi disclosed in regard to his national struggle against the British Raj, “Behind my non-cooperation, there is always the keenest desire to cooperate on the slightest pretext even with the worst of opponents.” Of course we are not blind to the evil that has been perpetuated in the name of citizens of the United States by the one percent. Those grievances are well known. Nor do we deny that there is a group with whom we are in opposition; but we have to be clear about where that opponent resides. When Gandhi says that he is willing to compromise with his opponent it is because he was aware of a higher reality, that we are an interconnected whole that in the end, our opponent is none other than ourselves.
“Conquer anger,” the Buddha says, and “you will conquer the world.” It is in conquering ourselves that we will begin to conquer our foes and have the full force of nonviolence at our disposal for persuading our opponent to change, not by violence or domination, but by employing the right means to, as Gandhi said, “compel reason to be free.” Conquering anger does not mean suppression or passivity, it means using it for constructive ends; it means transforming it into a creative force. Gandhi put it this way, “I have learned through bitter experience the one supreme lesson to conserve my anger, and as heat conserved is transmuted into energy, even so our anger controlled can be transmuted into a power which can move the world.”
This is the secret of nonviolent action: conserved anger can become love, not a soft, passive love, but a love that can disarm a person expecting a harsh remark or an insult. Our friend David Hartsough, for instance, experienced this force at a lunch-counter sit-in in a segregated Virginia. When his life was threatened with a knife at his chest by an angry segregationist, David, in an effort to transform his anger and fear turned to his aggressor and said quietly, “You do what you think is right brother, and I will try to love you anyway.” The man dropped his knife, began to cry and left the restaurant.
This is why at the Metta Center we recommend finding a spiritual practice such as meditation. We recommend practicing it everyday, anywhere. Gandhi himself turned prison time into an opportunity to meditate and continue to build the movement. With the October 2011 protests looming large, we have a great opportunity to keep our flame going and build it and other protests currently underway into an enduring movement. That one percent of energy saved each day in meditation is going to keep us from burning out, from harboring resentment and anger, and for keeping the struggle going for building a nonviolent future for the United States. We will get there fully when we are chanting, “A nation united can never be defeated” and mean all of us, 100 percent.
thank you for this article – i was just pondering this very thing. truly we need to find a way to tell the 1% that the 99% needs them, that we’d like to work together with them to make things for everyone better. no one wants to take anything away from anyone – it seems what’s needed is some sort of a “dialectic revival” to try to get everyone communicating…
Hi, Alyce:
We do need more conversation. My next piece will be about talking with the opposition. Any thoughts on how this revival might be structured?
Warmly, Stephanie
hi stephanie, at the very least, i think this is a very interesting conceptual exercise!
it seems that it would begin with representatives from different sides understanding and agreeing to adhere to the tenets of dialectic. then, starting very simply, pose some basic questions to both sides, such as: what is your ideal vision of a healthy, functional society? as the conversation progresses, constantly ask participants to define and re-define terms as they come up (ie: capitalism, liberal, republican, socialist/socialized, liberty, freedom, etc). part of the problem, as i see it, is that these terms are defined entirely differently by different people. it might be a slow and arduous process, but i think it has great potential!
not sure how to make something like this happen in reality – but i felt compelled to start by designing an invitation – i call works such as this that are intended to spark dialog “philosoprops”. 🙂 http://www.flickr.com/photos/alycesantoro/6212197874/in/photostream
“A nation united can never be defeated”
Can I suggest a friendly amendment to this language? How about “a world united can never be defeated” or “the people united can never be defeated”–otherwise this might project nationalism.
“Which side are you on?”
Dear Adam,
I like the suggestion and the song you quoted. It crossed my mind to say it, but I thought, Let’s unite as a nation first under the principles of nonviolence and that will have to extend to the rest of the world. Gandhi had a concept of oceanic circles of service: the individual serves the family, the family serves the town, the town serves the nation and the nation serves the world, (I’ll stop there for now). I’m not saying where we draw those lines, either. 🙂
Warm regards, Stephanie
Yes! Thanks so much for this Stephanie, very important. I must admit this was my first thought when I read the “Declaration”, with its litany of “they”s. As Solzhenitsyn said, “If only there were evil people somewhere insidiously committing evil deeds and it were necessary only to separate them from the rest of us and destroy them. But the line dividing good and evil cuts through the heart of every human being. And who is willing to destroy a piece of his own heart?”
I say this as a supporter of OWS, and who very much wants to see the movement succeed. If method matters (and it does) then including the 1% is as important as the 99.
Beautiful piece. As a Christian, I’ve been reflecting on what to do with the command to love my enemy when my enemy is considered the 1 percent. Thanks for such a wonderful, inspiring and, most importantly, challenging piece.
As a long-time Gandhian, I have much sympathy with this viewpoint. However, having read much about Gandhi’s campaigns, I think we need to distinguish two viewpoints on the 1% First, because you understand the interests of your opponent in a struggle does not mean the thereby you are dehumanizing them. Quite the contrary, understanding your own and other’s motivations is a necessary part of being human. The fact is that in material terms, our interests and those of the 1% are opposed. What allows them to make more profit damages the old, the poor and the weak in this society. Saying that is not dehumanizing any more than saying that the British had an interest in keeping Indians weak and poor was dehumanizing to the British. Truth is never dehumanizing. Truth always makes us free.
Saying that we must embrace the 1% can be taken in a way that undercuts the whole basis for the struggle. On the material level, our interests do not coincide and to pretend that they do plays directly into the media trope about protesters’ needlessly stirring up class warfare. Just as the British tried to stigmatize any violence against their rule, so the dominant classes cloak their incessant class war against the poor by blaming protesters with “class warfare.”
However, on the spiritual plane our interests do coincide and it’s possible to imagine a change of heart in the 1% that could bring about true unity. It is something devoutly to be hoped for and we should believe in its possibility. But we cannot let this hope blind us to the reality of class struggle – not on our part, but on theirs. If the opponent insists on taking away your human rights, you can pray for the opponent, but you cannot pretend that he is not waging war on you. Live in the truth always, for Truth is God.
Beautiful articulation of what non-violence is about and how it applies today. Thank you.
It really warms my heart to see such passion in our young people. This is the age of information, and the internet has made it like a drug. Things are no longer just about the many categories on your page. People are now adding a demand for a reinvestigation to the facts of 9/11, and it goes way beyond that even. They want (all) truth about everything, so make your decisions wisely, and to whom you allign yourselves with. If we have not lived our lives for something, then we have lived our lives, for nothing. God bless you all.
“Occupy Wall Street has signaled the changing weather of a looming “American Autumn” and consequently galvanized the progressive movement.”
Well, the “American Summer” in Wisconsin recall elections didn’t happen as “progressives/liberals/Marxists” had hoped. The progressives went down in historic numbers last year’s “American Autumn.” The result will likely be the same next year’s “American Autumn” when progressive champion Mr. Obama is tossed out on his rump.
I can’t help but laugh at the hygienically challenged miscreants. Has anyone figured out what this motley collection of Marxists want? Their antics may fire up <1% of you, but the other 99% of us will just laugh at it or ignore it.
America is not a progressive/liberal nation. That's a tough pill to swallow for those who'd like to suck at the teat of a government fed by the fruits of other's labor.
All this non violence protesting stuff is all fine and good, but there must be desired cause and a coherent message. The idiots at the corner of Wall and Broad have either.
Thank you for adding your voice to this discussion, Dave. It gives us all food for thought on a number of levels.
All I want to add is simply this:
Nonviolence has to go beyond protest at some point and is a non-partisian option.
Best regards, Stephanie
Great article. What needs to be dehumanised is corporations, as a subject. It’s not really about the leaders or representatives of those corporate entities asmuch as it’s about the power and inhumanity of their machines of profit.
Indeed. Dehumanize the machines. Well said.
Thanks to Alyce to pointing me to this article. Along the lines of reaching 100%, I think it’s most important and productive to approach the average person who has aligned him/herself with the Tea Party, in search of common ground. We have many similar economic interests, though it will be difficult to reach them through the lies the’ve been fed by right wing media. For a start, leaving political party labels out of this is essential.
Not sure if there is much common ground between Tea Party folks, who appear libertarian in their leanings, and the Occupy Wall Street folks, who appear collectivist/Marxist.
“Lies they’ve been fed by the right wing media”? Care to share one?
Frankly, it amazes me the ignorance and arrogance of people who believe that others would agree with them except for “lies fed by the right wing media.”
Fine, no Democrat/Republican. We can talk in terms of liberal, classically liberal, social/fiscal/conservative, libertarian, marxist, collectivist, statist or other more specific descriptors.