Pacifism

I

Introduction

Pacifism, the opposition to war and other forms of violence. Pacifism advocates social intercourse to be used to deal with conflict, leading to compromise. This is believed to be morally desirable, and conducive to human welfare, as opposed to the use of violence which is neither. Pacifism is not to be confused with neutrality. It is most widely known as an absolutist condemnation of any form of war or violence, but it is rather more complex and nuanced than this. Pacifism is a powerful discourse associated with a moral repugnance of war, killing, and other forms of violence. In the Christian world it is strongly associated with the Biblical commandment: ”Thou shalt not kill.” It is associated with idealist and utopian thought (and also often denigrated for these associations by political “realists”). Peace is generally seen to be the natural condition of humanity by pacifists, given the proper circumstances, and war is seen to be abnormal and unnecessary. Peace is also seen to be universal both in aspiration and in ontology.

Pacifism is perhaps as old as the phenomena of war itself, and was well documented in the classical world. Pacifist responses to war and violence range from absolute opposition to their use to an acceptance that under certain circumstances force may be used. Pacifism raises some difficult questions for its exponents. While many might understand a pacifist abhorrence of violence, should pacifists refuse to use violence if they themselves are under threat?

There are two sets of responses to this problem, derived from either a pragmatic or principled approach. The latter, often termed absolute pacifism, does not allow for any violent or coercive approach, while the former, often termed relative pacifism, does not accept that war can ever be the best alternative, though it sometimes may be necessary. Pragmatic or relative pacifism is by far its most common form. Absolute pacifists are against all wars and against violence in any form whatsoever, and see their resistance to war as a duty; relative pacifists are selective in the wars and violence they oppose. Most absolute pacifists stress the immorality of the taking of one person's life by another person. The philosophy of pacifism has been propounded throughout history on grounds of morality, divine will, or economic and social utility. The term itself, however, did not become popular until early in the 20th century. These responses can be expressed either in an organized political movement or as an individual ideology.

II

Objectives

In attempting to prevent war, pacifists must achieve four principal goals, and thus establish a climate of feeling favourable to peace. The potential causes of conflict, inherent in such factors as socio-economic competition, ethnic identity, religion, culture, the quest for power, and fear of foreign domination, must be eliminated or minimized. The overt instruments of both power and militarism should be countered peacefully, as well as factors that reproduce structural violence, such as international economic inequality, or divided societies. Means for the settlement of disputes must be provided, as in mediation, arbitration, and trial procedures, conflict resolution, and peace-building. Finally, ways must be found to ensure observance of the settlements that are made. Several distinctive approaches to achieving these goals have been advanced.

Pacifism has always been the subject of controversy and contradiction. For example, some have argued that an unwillingness to countenance war means that the individual and the state are left at risk by the pacifist. The Russian novelist, Leo Tolstoy, a Christian pacifist who was influenced by the work of Henry Thoreau on civil disobedience, argued that pacifism and anarchism were intimately connected because the state was often the source of violence. The most famous exponent of non-violent resistance, Mohandas Gandhi, drew on this idea in his own campaign against British imperial rule in India in the 1930s.

III

History of Pacifism

Examples of forms of pacifism can be found throughout human history. In the classical world, the anti-war sentiments and actions of the Athenian women in the play Lysistrata (411 bc) by Aristophanes provide an early example, and some commentators have argued that Jesus Christ preached pacifism. Although organized peace movements did not appear until the 19th century, the modern search for a means of preventing war began with the rise of nation-states at the end of the Middle Ages. In the 14th century, Dante Alighieri proposed a world empire to abolish war; in the 15th century, George of Podìbrad, king of Bohemia, proposed an international parliament; in the 16th century, Henry IV of France made a similar suggestion; in the 17th century, the English Quaker William Penn wrote An Essay Towards the Present and Future Peace of Europe (1694); and in the 18th century, the French writer Charles Irénée Castel, known as the Abbé de St-Pierre, influenced readers of his time with his proposals for securing “perpetual peace”. These ideas were enlarged upon by Immanuel Kant in his famous text, Perpetual Peace (1795), which argued that war could be prevented in cosmopolitan states that were democracies, allowed free trade, and treated non-citizens with respect. The Quakers (see Society of Friends), Amish, Mennonites, and the Church of the Brethren aspired to pacifism long before the 19th century when it was popularized in the West.

Pacifism is generally now associated with organized peace movements and civil society advocacy and actions. In the West this began to develop in the 19th century, though there had of course been earlier movements such as the anti-slavery movement, which drew on some similar sentiments relating to the inviolability of the human person and the immorality of violence. The development of ideological and social movements in the 19th century in response to ideological developments, industrialization, and social problems brought pacifism to the fore. Similarly, the emergence of anti-colonial movements also drew on pacifism as a way of challenging colonial rule without leading to bloodshed.

The first peace society in history was organized in New York in 1815 by the American merchant David Low Dodge. Another was organized in Massachusetts in the same year by the theologian Noah Worcester, and both were incorporated into the American Peace Society, founded by the pacifist William Ladd in 1828. Other peace societies were established in European countries later in the century, and in 1848 the American linguist Elihu Burritt founded the League of Universal Brotherhood, which established branches in the United States, Great Britain, France, and the Netherlands. These early idealistic groups formulated no specific plans to prevent war, however. The peace movement in the United States lost momentum during the American Civil War, when many of its adherents maintained that preservation of the Union and the abolition of slavery had to be achieved at any cost.

Many new groups were organized towards the end of the 19th century, including the International Workingmen's Association, which advocated workers' strikes to prevent wars, and the International Peace Bureau, composed of national peace councils and committees from various countries. Frequent meetings and congresses and the announcement of such awards as the Nobel Prize for Peace stimulated public interest in the peace movement. Nevertheless, wars multiplied in frequency and intensity during the same period. The South African War (Boer War), the Spanish-American War, and finally World War I all but destroyed the peace movement for a time.

In the years running up to World War I, civil disarmament movements developed in response to the threat increasingly perceived from newly industrialized states pursing territorial expansion and the domination of others through military preponderance. The emergence of new forms of communication and transportation allowed such movements to become transnational and far more effective in their advocacy.

After World War I, pacifist sentiment became not just a popular civil sentiment but also entered into the realm of international relations, though fascist and communist states such as Italy, the Soviet Union, and Nazi Germany endeavoured to ban it on the grounds of the Hegelian argument that individuals found their fulfilment in war. However, many emerging civil society actors and advocacy groups now saw war as another expression of class oppression and elitism, especially after the experience in the trenches of World War I. Increasingly, pacifism was associated with radical movements and issues, such as the suffragettes, or intellectuals responding to the post-war crisis of idealism, such as Virginia Woolf or Aldous Huxley.

Modern pacifism, before, during, and following World War I, was often associated with conscientious objectors who refused to fight in particular wars, from World War I to the Vietnam War. Around this time pacifism also began to focus on the achievement of a system of collective security through the newly formed League of Nations. This organization was loosely constructed, however, and provided no really effective means of preventing war, and by 1941 most states were involved in World War II. This was followed in turn by the establishment of the United Nations (UN), with its much more elaborate institutional machinery for keeping the peace.

By the advent of World War II, it had become clear that pacifism was unsustainable in the face of a determined enemy that had little compunction about its aggression, and the “peace in our time” declaration of Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain famously proved not to be the case. It was not until the 1960s, in particular influenced by the Cold War nuclear stand-off between the United States and the Soviet Union, and by US experiences in Vietnam, that pacifism again became influential. Faced with the possibility of total nuclear war, many previously uncommitted individuals joined pacifists throughout the world in working for a ban against the production of nuclear weapons, for the cessation of the testing of such weapons, and for the disarmament of those nations already possessing them.

In the late 1960s and early 1970s the war in Vietnam was opposed by millions of individuals around the world. It was apparent, however, that a majority of these people would not be in opposition to a war they deemed to be justified, such as World War II. In the United States, anti-war movement activities such as marches, demonstrations, and letter-writing campaigns inevitably had an effect, and by mid-1973 US military forces were no longer active in South East Asia. However, in the more recent case of the War on Iraq, major public demonstrations, indicative of a pragmatic pacifism at the very least, in many of the capitals of the world involving millions of people, seem to have had little effect on the decisions of some Western governments to invade Iraq and depose the Baathist regime of Saddam Hussein.

IV

Absolute, Principled, or Radical Pacifism

An overt and principled stance against violence is very common in society, as is a similar stance against war in most societies, as the phenomena of conscientious objectors indicates. It is relatively rare though to find radical pacifism where proponents argue against the use of violence under any conditions, even those associated with an extreme threat. This stance involves a rejection of any justification for violence, and a belief that all conflicts can be resolved through peaceful methods such as mediation and negotiation, adjudication or arbitration. Even so, a mark of just how powerful this rhetoric is can be found in the inclusion of some of the language of radical pacifism in the UN Charter, along with a more pragmatic pacifist “just war” type framework which allows the UN to multilaterally respond to threats of violence.

Members of some religious groups, such as the Mennonites and the Quakers, believe they can convert aggressors to peaceful ways by setting an example of loving, non-violent behaviour. This is the attitude expressed in the New Testament’s Sermon on the Mount, but it is much older than Christianity, permeating the teachings of Buddha, Confucius, and other Eastern philosophers. Many Buddhists today are pacifists though not necessarily absolute pacifists.

Absolute pacifism in its extreme form assumes both that its practitioners will be able to maintain moral courage when faced with aggression and provocation and that violence and war will always lead to a worse outcome for the majority. Although early Christians maintained this attitude through several generations, their uncompromising opposition to the use of force disappeared after the Church became allied with the Roman state in the 4th century. A contemporary proponent of absolute pacifism usually claims the status of conscientious objector when faced with military service. This radical stance effectively means that death is regarded as morally superior to the use of violence for self-defence, and it is often criticized on the basis that absolute pacifists are forced to depend upon the security provided by non-pacifists—a sort of moral free-riding.