You may have grown up with the term “nonviolence” shining like a pole star over every discussion of how we accomplish socio-political change. But what does it really mean? And who defines violence for that matter—beyond the police, the courts, and others in power? Today, the theory of non-violence has grown beyond its Gandhian, spiritual aspiration roots, while retaining an irrational faith and offering a distorted view of resistance history. It is now a think-tank-approved, purportedly evidence-based method that guarantees movement success. That reasoning comes from the pioneering scholarship of the pacifist Gene Sharp in the 1960s, and his inheritors in strategic nonviolence discourse, Erica Chenoweth and Maria Stephan. They argue that Gandhi’s sacred ideal of satyagraha also happens to be the only successful pathway to lasting change—and they have the data to prove it. But do they? Nope. Matthew’s guest today persuasively shows that the movements we think of as “nonviolent” never really are. Why don’t we know this? Through a tangle of academic malpractice, spiritual bypassing, liberal wish fulfillment, and erasing anticolonial voices. Oh, and Gene Sharp also got a lot of funding from the Department of Defense. Benjamin S. Case is a retired professional Muaythai fighter, an organizer, educator, and writer. He is a researcher at the Center for Work and Democracy and a fellow at the Resistance Studies Initiative. Show Notes Street Rebellion: Resistance Beyond Violence and Nonviolence | Case Why Civil Resistance Works | Columbia University Press Why Not Riot? Interview with Author Ben Case - CounterPunch.org Change Agent: Gene Sharp’s Neoliberal Nonviolence (Part One) – Nonsite.org Have Repertoire, Will Travel: Nonviolence as Global Contentious Performance Violence Will Only Hurt the Trump Resistance | The New Republic Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices
続きを読む
一部表示
2025/05/221 時間 20 分