Try being a moderate in an unjust society; you lose a part of yourself. Indifference, despite its occasional benefits, forces us to repress a fundamental part of our nature: empathy! In an era of social media activism, we often forget the reason why we are drawn to justice. Deep down, buried under the pseudo-reason of Social Darwinism and forced stoicism, is an emotional, empathetic human being.
Even if we aren't directly impacted in an apartheid state, something in our nature makes injustice unsettling. Unless you are completely ignorant of inequality (which is improbable in anything other than an Orwellian dystopia), empathy permeates even the most hardened soul. The real question is how to fight injustice.
Nonviolence, proposed by Jesus, perfected by Gandhi, and MLK, reflects the idea of basic human empathy. Not only does our nature draw us to justice, but it also allows us to architect movements that bring about true societal change. Throughout the following essay, I'll address the research question of how nonviolent protest became an effective agent for social change. Additionally, I'll investigate why modern activism is so ineffective. Together, these two inquiries will hopefully provide both an incentive to fight injustice and a blueprint for constructing effective social movements.
Perhaps the most prominent description of nonviolent action comes from the Sermon on the Mount in the New Testament. In retrospect, Jesus' teachings must have been incredibly confusing to his disciples at first. For thousands of years, "an eye for an eye" was the common notion of justice. Old testament ethics, ancient political treatises (Hammurabi), and even Native American Tribal Law fit this idea that a just punishment is one that "matches" the crime.
But wait! Jesus claims that if "anyone slaps you on the right cheek, turn to them the other cheek also. And if anyone wants to sue you and take your shirt, hand over your coat as well" (The New Testament, Matthew 5:38-40). Imagine being a Viking and hearing this message. How contradictory it must have been to their conception of nobility, of honor.
Nonetheless, there is great power in this idea. By choosing inaction when faced with injustice, you force your oppressor to question their own morality. Even Pharaoh would eventually crumble to his own conscience. But this form of resistance is far from passive. Nonviolence doesn't mean inaction. Instead, it calls for focused, active nonviolent acts of resistance.
Perhaps the most well-known application of nonviolence is the Indian fight for independence. A self-proclaimed disciple of Jesus, Mahatma Gandhi aimed to free India from British colonization through solely nonviolent means of protest. He led marches, boycotts, and fasts aimed at forcing the British to reflect on their own morality.
Now, an important characteristic of these nonviolence movements is their dependence on a relatively democratic institution. It is far easier to peacefully protest in states that emphasize free speech and modern morals. However, it isn't necessarily impossible in more tyrannical states. As I mentioned earlier, even Pharaoh, when confronted with his own conscience, would eventually recognize the inhuman nature of his treatment of the Israelites - but it would take far more time than in a more "equal" nation.
Another application of nonviolence was the American civil rights movement. Martin Luther King Jr. - a man who once called Gandhi a "guiding light" in his quest for equality - outlines his goal for peaceful resistance in a "Letter from a Birmingham Jail." In response to clergymen who had criticized the "direct" nature of his protests in Birmingham, he claims that "nonviolent direct action seeks to create a crisis and foster such a tension that a community which has constantly refused to negotiate is forced to confront the issue" (Course Packet, pg. 85).
What does he mean by tension here? First, there's the literal meaning; boycotts, sit-ins, and other forms of direct action all result in an economic tension that necessitates negotiation. However, there is also the moral tension created by nonviolent action, in which the oppressor is forced to address their own ethics. Note how MLK continuously calls for active resistance, a striking difference to the modern conception of nonviolence (which will be addressed in the second part of the essay).
Dr. King also argues for this theory of nonviolence in his Dream speech when he tells activists that they must "rise to the majestic heights of meeting physical force with soul force" (Course Packet, pg. 95).
Let us not satisfy our thirst for freedom by drinking from the cup of bitterness and hatred.
This line is so perfect because it reveals a truth about nonviolence: it's hard. Too often is nonviolence considered the "cowardly" or "weak" way to secure justice, when, in fact, it's the opposite. It takes insurmountable courage to refuse to drink from the cup of hatred, and instead patiently wait for moral change.
However, it should be noted that there are many flaws to the idea of nonviolence. In his speech, "What is a slave to the Fourth of July," Frederick Douglass makes it clear that extensive argumentation for why slavery is immoral is absurd, stating that "there is not a man beneath the canopy of heaven that does not know that slavery is wrong for him." (Course Packet, pg. 59). This line is particularly important because it exposes a flaw in one of the most fundamental aspects of nonviolence: empathy.
Douglass, the brilliant orator who made Lincoln a true abolitionist, asks if there is anyone who would feel content as a slave. Here, he matches the ideology of Jesus by arguing for universal moral principles that exist within each person. However, he adds a certain layer of modernity, namely, the concept of isolationism. It is very easy to say that slavery is wrong for yourself, but it does take some understanding to then apply that label of injustice to others (which would be empathy). These questions, surrounding isolation, active resistance, and the effectiveness of nonviolence, all fit under the general question of what happened to activism.
There are multiple reasons for why activism today is so ineffective: indifference, distractions, personal obligations - the list goes on. However, I think the most prominent causes for this generation's general inanity surrounding protest is a misunderstanding of the past and social media.
First, there is a general misunderstanding of the past, specifically surrounding nonviolence. Today, nonviolent action tends to be associated more with passive action, a misrepresentation of the protests of Gandhi and MLK. Additionally, violent action and the principles of Malcolm X also tend to be misconstrued; often, violence is considered a far more effective motivator for actual change (almost the opposite of the teachings of nonviolence). In many ways, the concept of "an eye for an eye" is once again the definition of justice.
You can't blame this generation. It is far easier to both comprehend and also subscribe to the more Old Testament ideal of retribution. In fact, in many ways, it is more logical. Malcolm X, in his speech "The Ballot or the Bullet," calls upon his fellow activists to embrace this conception of justice. He argues that the black man worked for hundreds of years, building the economy of the United States, and thus deserves to "collect on their investment" (Course Packet, pg. 102). The speech is logical, firm, and resonates with the oppressed majority. On the other hand, Dr. King advocates a more philosophical approach to resistance, requiring his followers to be more articulate and patient.
Misunderstanding the past (specifically, the importance of making an impact at a deeper social level) is the first reason why social movements are so weak today. But perhaps a far greater reason is the invention of social media. Social media is destructive in two ways. First, it leads to a pseudo-isolationist perspective on the world. Second, it encourages weak ties and passive movements.
A defining characteristic of Gen Z and Millennials is their obsession with labels. "I'm a liberal." "I'm pro-choice." "I'm against immigration." We choose a few labels and use it to create a digital persona. This persona eventually bleeds into our lives, leaving us in a weird state of isolationism; we subscribe to ideologies, communities, and ideas, but in a shallow way, leaving us alone.
W.E.B Du Bois' solution to the issue of feeling isolated between conflicting cultures in The Conservation of Races is the development of an authentic African and American culture (Course Packet, pg. 82). In other words, instead of finding yourself an outcast in both your own culture and the culture you intend to assimilate into, it becomes necessary to build your own identity. However, social media makes it incredibly hard to meaningfully subscribe to these new identities/cultures (which Du Bois sought to do in America). The state of the internet is one where there is undeniably a multitude of cultures, yet each culture is undeveloped.
Today, our weak identities lead to even weaker ties within a community. We are spread too thin across platforms, part of too many communities, and feel no real connection. This topic of "weak ties" is even more prominent when considering Booker T Washington's argument for the equalizing power of transaction in Up From Slavery. Washington's description of a black middle class that arises from trade is impossible in an age of social media. Trade is far less personal in this modern age, and so trade holds a lot less power as a form of "social movement" than it did during Washington's time.
The overarching topic of this essay is whether we have the duty to fight injustice when our rights are secured. We found that we are naturally drawn toward equality, a concept that serves as the basis for the idea of nonviolence. However, today, we find ourselves in a precarious situation. Nonviolence is misunderstood, and activism seems to be a losing game.
It seems contradictory. Social media and the web should be what connects us and enables larger, more articulate protests. Yet, misinformation, shallow identities, weak communities, and impersonal interactions of a digital age leave us isolated and disinterested in true social movement.
For there to be more impactful social movements in the future, there must be improvements in the American education system surrounding instruction on active nonviolence. Furthermore, there needs to be a shift in mentality surrounding digital activism - it simply is not enough! People need to understand that if they truly want change, they must go out into the world and build communities like Du Bois and be peacefully defiant like Dr. King.
I pray that future generations learn from the mistakes of ours and push for true activism, one centered in peace but grounded by real action and deep connections.