Part 2, Section i
2a. The Rhetoric of Nonviolence
Shon Meckfessel defines nonviolence as “a rhetorical strategy in which the very definition relies on calling violence into the speakers’ mind even as the speaker disavows it.” In other words, for nonviolence to exist effectively, violence also has to exist, even if just in theory. Nonviolence is not, however, an aversion to conflict. It is also obviously not an armed struggle. Instead, what makes nonviolence so powerful is the potentiality of violence.
Nonviolence advocates seem to confuse the dismissal of nonviolence with a commitment to direct force no matter its legitimacy, like the instilment of an illegitimate authoritarian government after a coup. The phrase “Fuck the police” has become inherently violent and has led to fear in those who oppose it, including peaceful protestors. But even if language is read as violent, does it deserve to be met with brute police force? The issue is that “violence” is harder to define than “armed.”
The term “strategic nonviolence” has been replaced by “unarmed insurrection,” but this creates a false dichotomy between “nonviolent” and “armed,” which further perpetuates a dualism and unnecessary revulsion towards “armed” conflict. People often confuse that false dichotomy of violence versus nonviolence by associating violence with revolution and nonviolence with reform when in reality, violence is congruent with action and nonviolence with inaction. The choice of violence versus nonviolence is actually a choice between action and inaction.
There is no set definition for “violence” and “nonviolence.” As mentioned before, words with no action can still be read as violent. We do, however, know that nonviolence does not mean passivity, and as such, a nonviolent protest at least demands intervention — crowd control, defusing of counter-protest, the list goes on — even if it does not demand being armed or physically violent. Violence and nonviolence are actually interdependent and can work together to achieve a set goal. If this is the case, then why do people insist on labeling protests as “peaceful” from the get-go? It’s important to look at the way language is being used in these conversations.