Tag Archives: Book review

Readings in Nonviolence: Sharp non-shooting – Gene Sharp book review

Nonviolent News, Readings, , ,

Gene Sharp – A life devoted to exploring nonviolent actions, edited by Craig S. Brown, Irene Publishing, 2024, 256 pages, price c. UK£22. https://irenepublishing.com/

Reviewed by Rob Fairmichael

In reading this book, I expected to learn a bit more about Gene Sharp, what shaped his life and work, and some more about things like his theory of power. I was wrong. While some of it is not an easy read, particularly if you are new to nonviolent theories, I found it also contained a massive amount of very useful information and reflections on many different aspects of nonviolence. So, while it is not a primer on nonviolence the contents from the different writers – including Christine Schweitzer, Brian Martin and Craig Brown himself – cover a very considerable number of issues in the field of peace and nonviolence.

I have been a fan, hopefully not an uncritical fan (a ‘Sharpie’?), of Gene Sharp for many years. While it is possible to overstate his role, see below, and he was a theorist more than an activist, even if a theorist of action – that does not mean he is not one of the most important figures in nonviolence in the second half of the twentieth century and the start of the twenty-first. Brian Martin says “Sharp’s pioneering contributions have shaped the study and understanding of nonviolent action today. Among his most influential ideas are the classification and documentation of hundreds of nonviolent methods, a theory of power to explain why the methods work, and a strategic, agency-oriented framework for understanding nonviolent campaigns. These are facets of what is commonly called the ‘pragmatic approach’ to nonviolent action, providing an argument that nonviolent action is more effective than violence.” (pages 55-56)

The training/exploration workshop which INNATE has used the most is one on nonviolent tactics and this has Sharp’s “198 varieties” of nonviolent action tactics at its core (from his 1973 “The Politics of Nonviolent Action”). This workshop takes participants through some relevant historical examples from Sharp – and he has numerous Irish ones – before doing individual ‘risk lists’ (the kind of things people feel comfortable doing or could at least could push themselves to do with support and preparation) and then moving on to brainstorm on the particular issue or issues of concern that those present wish to address. It thus expands people’s horizons on nonviolent possibilities before personalising it and focussing on the matter for which people are together. https://innatenonviolence.org/workshops/workshop1.shtml

I met and heard Gene Sharp just once, at a conference in Bradford on social defence in 1990 (see Dawn Train No.10, page 18, available at https://innatenonviolence.org/dawntrain/index.shtml ). I was not perturbed by the issue for which some peace activists would criticise him, namely that he was only advocating nonviolence for pragmatic and not moral grounds (for ‘moral’ here, read also philosophical and religious/spiritual). Since in general I see no contradiction between the positions of being morally or pragmatically committed to nonviolence, and this informs my practice despite being morally committed to nonviolence as well as pragmatically, I was certainly not worried about this aspect of Sharp’s stand.

One of Craig Brown’s conclusions on this area is that “it is notable that Sharp suggested the ‘pragmatic-principled’ split in nonviolence is overstated, seeing the dynamics of both being mutually reinforcing and advocating a ‘mixed motivation’ of ‘practical considerations’ and ‘relative moral preference.” (page 158)

However it is clear from this book, and to a considerable extent the earlier part of Gene Sharp’s life, that deep down there was very considerable commitment to a moral stand against war and violence. Michael Randle in his piece states, (page 9), that “In later years, Gene declared he was no longer a pacifist, but there is no reason to believe his thinking changed on this point.” He did, however, distance himself from the peace movement to a considerable extent and would have been critical of ‘them’. Part of Michael Randle’s conclusion in his chapter is that “The thread that links the earlier pacifist Gene with the more pragmatic Gene of the latter period is the commitment to the same basic values, to developing nonviolent action as a strategy against dictatorship and oppression, and as an alternative to reliance on the military for national defence.” (page 20).

The book also demythologises the deification of Sharp and his role in relation to the 2010/2011 revolutions in MENA/WANA countries, the ‘Arab spring’. It is not saying he had no influence here, or in Baltic countries throwing off the rule of the USSR, but that these revolutions and movements were largely situated within indigenous forms of protest, and western emphasis on Sharp’s work and thinking was misplaced. The distribution or knowledge of work by Sharp was not a major factor in these revolutions; that does not make Sharp a less important figure on the world stage in working for peace and justice.

Especially in a chapter by Craig Brown himself (which has been available previously), this work effectively defends Sharp against the accusation that he was a tool of neoliberalism and US foreign policy. While there is the possible interpretation that he may have been naive at times in relation to arms of the US state, or others (which of us has not been naive?), it would seem to clear him unequivocally of the accusation of him being neoliberal or assisting neoliberalism, indeed positing him as closer to anarchist traditions.

I want now to examine some more detailed aspects of the book, mainly working from start to finish. The first two chapters, by Michael Randle and Andrew Rigby, are very interesting reflections on some of Gene Sharp’s early life, especially his time in Britain – he became an assistant editor of Peace News in 1955. Admittedly in you are not interested in Gene Sharp you are perhaps not going to be interested in this – but then if you are not interested in Gene Sharp you are unlikely to read this book. One fascinating aspect of the coverage here of 1950s British action is, perhaps tragically, how modern much of it feels – like it could be action taken today (and some of the issues were the same or very similar).

One point I learnt was that Sharp had taken his typification of the mechanisms of change, or different ways nonviolence can be successful – conversion, accommodation or coercion (the last has been controversial for some pacifists) from George Lakey, though Sharp added a fourth point, disintegration (of the oppressor or coercer), page 10. The realisation that nonviolent action is not the preserve of pacifists (page 25) – a key point in perhaps all of Sharp’s work – is so fundamental, and yet so ignored, that it is likely to be an essential understanding in any nonviolent movement for change. However that should not mean ignoring the importance of the involvement of nonviolent activists in keeping a movement nonviolent (page 41).

I often quote Sue Williams about there always being people, in the most violent of situations, trying to deal peacefully with the issue concerned. This comes to mind in the coverage of ‘islands of peace’ in civil wars (page 42) in Christine Schweitzer’s piece where she considers key factors in such phenomena including anticipation of the coming conflict, choosing a ‘non-war’ identity, a legitimate leadership structure, and contact with the different belligerents. It would be interesting to apply this broadly to what took place in the Troubles in Northern Ireland and peace efforts there. In relation to civil strife and war, she goes on to point out that, since we all have to live together in peace again, and that this is much easier if there has been no massive bloodshed, “…..still, what is needed is conflict transformation, not just winning a conflict like a war is being won. This is an aspect that does not play a big role, if any, in Sharp’s writings.” (page 46)

Christine Schweitzer’s chapter is on social defence (a less statist approach to protecting civilian populations which is covered in the concepts of nonviolent or civilian based defence). It is difficult to underestimate the importance of making progress in this area for avoiding the plague of wars which currently exist, and the risks of widespread annihilation which threaten. In this area, Sharp is your man, while of course others have taken the issue forward, though progress is slow and intermittent.

The deliberate avoidance of this issue by the Irish Government’s ‘Consultative Forum on International Security Policy’ in 2023, called by Micheál Martin, is almost criminal negligence – and if I hadn’t voluntarily left under protest a Dublin Castle session of this ‘Forum’ I would have been thrown out for trying to point out this wilful ignoring of the matter. They seem incapable of thinking outside an EU/NATO box and static military thinking. https://www.flickr.com/photos/innateireland/53003786126/in/dateposted/ Or am I being simply as naive as Sharp is sometimes accused of in expecting real interest from governments? (see above.) And a question arising is if the government of a relatively non-militarist ‘neutral’ state cannot or will not, refuses to, see the real possibilities here, what hope is there of others? But we must live in hope (and effort…).

A valid criticism of Sharp by Brian Martin, page 77, is that he “…never made an analysis of strategy to transform the military-industrial complex. He somehow assumed that defence policy-makers are primarily concerned with their nominal tasks, defence against foreign enemies.” And while the long interview with Gene Sharp in the book by Jørgen Johansen and Stellan Vinthagen has many useful takeaway points, it also shows the extent to which Sharp had neither studied nor claimed to have answers to many questions. But he was also being very honest.

One aspect of Sharp’s thinking, as shown in the Johansen-Vinthagen interview, is portraying two levels in Gandhi’s thinking, lifestyle and spiritual discipline compared to the political level, and the confusion this sometimes caused as to what level he was operating on. (page 93). Sharp elucidated this in response to a question about Gandhi’s influence on him – and he had a book exclusively on Gandhi, “Gandhi as a Political Strategist”.

When asked in the interview about the universal applicability of nonviolence, with an interviewer saying he has the feeling that Sharp is suggesting that “nonviolent techniques are a universal technique that is possible to apply more or less everywhere”, Sharp responds to say “I am not sure I would put it that way. I think they are universal in the sense that they have been so widely practiced. But there may be certain kinds of situations in which they would not be effective for achieving the ends that a particular group might want to achieve…..” I think this is probably an important qualification in avoiding the impression that ‘one size fits all’ and that you can simply transfer a technique from one situation and culture to another; perhaps you can, perhaps you can’t. (page 119)

The interviewers also critique peace research departments in universities saying that “With extremely few exceptions they study everything but peace…”, and Sharp then shares his frustration with peace researchers. (page 129)

Craig Brown critically examines Sharp’s influence, or lack of it, in relation the independence of the Baltic states (page 138 and following) and “The So-called Arab Spring” (page 158), the conclusion in relation to the latter being that “Sharp’s purported influence was overblown and overstated.” (page 159). The lack of economic analysis in Sharp’s work is acknowledged. (page 153)

Before a listing of Gene Sharp’s writings in a final chapter or appendix, two relatively short, old works of Sharp’s are reproduced. The first is a study of nonviolence, and nonviolent possibilities, in relation to the Welsh nationalist adoption of nonviolence; this was written in 1957 when he was in Britain. It is entitled “Which way to freedom? A study in non-violence”.

The second short work, published in 1958 in serial form in ‘Peace News’, focuses on the history of Norwegian teachers’ resistance to the fascist government of Vidkun Quisling, installed by the German Nazi regime. Sharp spent quite some time researching this and it is a fascinating account of resistance in a harsh environment, both politically and in relation to physical cold. It is a tremendous example of nonviolent resistance when violent resistance was impossible and where the enemy could be extremely brutal. The end result, or part of the end, is typified by Quisling’s well known quote that “You teachers have ruined everything for me!” This writing is an important telling of an extraordinary, stunning piece of resistance.

Gene Sharp wasn’t necessarily sharp in his writing style, in this book his writing is described as prosaic, but he is also depicted as the most influential figure in modern times on nonviolence. While centred on the person of Sharp this is a book which includes, admittedly sometime in summary form, a huge number of the issues in relation to nonviolence. And if you are trying to get to grips with Sharp’s thinking it is certainly a book to read; it is also, by itself, a valuable addition to thinking about nonviolence and its role in building peace and social or political change, wherever you are.

What if the nuclear industry really isn’t safe?

Nonviolent News, Readings, ,

Book Review — Making The Unseen Visible: Science and the Contested Histories of Radiation Exposure (2023), edited by Linda Marie Richards and Jacob Darvin Hamblin, Oregon State University Press.

By Caroline Hurley

Book Review — Making The Unseen Visible: Science and the Contested Histories of Radiation Exposure (2023), edited by Linda Marie Richards and Jacob Darvin Hamblin, Oregon State University Press.

While the 2024 State of the Environment Report by Ireland’s EPA warns that the inadequacy of measures to mitigate climate change is hastening nature loss, compounding pollution impacts, and increasing emissions, which are often hidden in misleading data, its only reference to nuclear activity is in terms of radiation monitoring. The decision not to succumb to ever louder industry calls for more ‘green’ nuclear energy as a false solution comes as a relief. Aren’t we in enough trouble?

I addressed the context of the recent lobbying stampede in an article for INNATE last February – https://innatenonviolence.org/wp/tag/caroline-hurley/ Making the Unseen Visible focuses on what is most dangerous about the nuclear industry, i.e. radiation, which is only detectable with technology, but is potentially lethal, in both short-term and long-term effects. The book captures perspectives from people, often of indigenous and working-class backgrounds, who are usually overlooked and unheard in ensuing political and legal battles. Many other citizens affected were never informed either, including Downwinders and bomb explosion victims.

Following an introduction by the two editors, the anthology consists of 21 chapters written by a cross-section of 18 expert authors sharing insights. Contributions coming from inside and outside academia span history and continents. An account is given of the lengthy disruption caused to sheep farming in Wales by the Chernobyl Disaster, which is the closest content gets to Ireland. The United Kingdom’s most serious nuclear accident, and one of the world’s worst, the 1957 Windscale fire, resulting in radioactive material reaching Ireland, does not feature in this book. People affected by the US Government atomic testing programme and representatives do tell their stories. They and others refer to the many forms of radiation sicknesses – autoimmune disorders, spontaneous abortions, sterility, thyroid and heart problems, leukaemia and many other types of cancers and birth defects following genetic damage. Major challenges of linking disease to a radiation source are explored.

The town of Richland crops up in several analyses, as it’s beside the Hanford mass nuclear waste storage site and B Reactor. New insights come from an emphasis on social and economic factors. The enduring burden on inhabitants of the intensely-bombed Marshall Islands is detailed. How information about the 1979 Three Mile Island Disaster was controlled is set out. Likewise, the handling of publicity during French nuclear bomb testing in Africa is critiqued. A range of those still suffering persistent harms after being involved in manufacturing nuclear weapons in Rocky Flats Colorado and in Kazakhstan are studied. The Navajo – Dine recruitment for hazardous but unprotected uranium mining receives attention.

When recounting controversies around uranium mining in India, Prerna Gupta confronts questions of risk, and how they were assessed, or more often, ignored. Another paper taking a meta-analytical approach is Jaroslav Krasny’s consideration of unnecessary suffering and how international law applies, which has ramifications for current wars and other institutional harms, whether nuclear or not. Three entries constitute poetry, which create particularly powerful impressions.

A moving statement by a Hiroshima resident on the 75th anniversary of the atom bombing is one of the last pieces. At the online book club I attended, organised by World Beyond War and hosted by editor Linda Marie Richards, a hibakusha (survivor of the 1945 bombs in Japan) joined the group, and described her horrific direct near-death experience caused by man-made weapons of mass destruction. Her biography, One Sunny Day, came out last year. About a quarter of a million deaths are attributed to those now relatively small atomic explosions, but indirect fatalities from generational exposure to radiation, equally relevant for the many nuclear workers, are estimated to be far more.

A short review cannot do justice to the stream of revelations, data from corrective scientific research, and personal testimonies, contained in this valuable book. Full reference lists are supplied throughout, for further reading related to this project that draws the various strands together through a humanities lens. The common scientific jargon can baffle the curious layperson, something taken advantage of by nuclear promoters, so accessibility is welcome.

During discussions, related texts were cited, such as Arjun Marhijani’s 1995 synthesis of scientific research, Nuclear Wastelands The first edition of Environmental Radioactivity from Natural, Industrial and Military Sources appeared in 1997.

In Mortal Hands: a Cautionary History of the Nuclear Age, by Stephanie Cooke, was published in 2009: J.D. Hamblin’s Wretched Atom, came out in 2021. M.V. Ramana’s 2024 book, Nuclear Is Not The Solution, sounds similar cautions.

But will this resurgence of interest in the area be enough, and in time? In March 2024, over 600 organisations from around the world signed a declaration that as a climate change solution, nuclear energy is too slow, too expensive and too dangerous. Even way back in 1951, an Atomic Energy Commission study concluded that commercial nuclear reactors would not be economically feasible if they were used solely to produce electricity. What would make them feasible however, would be sale of the plutonium produced. Plutonium is used to make nuclear weapons. The prospect of being able to produce “too cheap to meter” electricity had zero appeal for utility companies unless other parties took responsibility for the waste products, and states indemnified them against catastrophic plant accidents. Somehow, their unreasonable demands were met and the world put in greater jeopardy.

The latest gold-standard World Nuclear Industry Status Report confirms that high government subsidisation still sustains the industry. Though the share of electricity produced by nuclear power has been relatively high in France, when reactors are not breaking down, Macron admitted that nuclear arms manufacture depends on having a civil nuclear industry, or so-called ‘atoms for peace’. Nuclear energy and nuclear arms are birds of a feather.

Friends of the Irish Environment (FIE) has become Ireland’s foremost eco watchdog. From a position 15 years ago of being seduced by the nuclear hype especially around long-promised small modular reactors (SMRs), the organisation now engages fully with the grave real-world implications, including the inevitability of more transboundary radioactive leakage on expanding or even retaining nuclear production.

Friends of the Earth Ireland take a more general stance. Greenpeace lacks an active Irish presence at the moment. The Irish branch of the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament retains at least symbolic presence, for now, although the UK counterpart under Kate Hudson is becoming noticeably more vocal.

The Irish Government was instrumental in arranging the first international Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NTP) signed in 1970, and to this day, officially claims to be committed to their complete elimination. However, as can be seen by US use of Irish airspace for military purposes in the Middle East, the country’s economic entanglements with bigger Western blocks wield sufficient pressure to compromise traditional principles valued by civilians. Around the world, there is a growing trend for governments to authorise state force to suppress activists peacefully demanding policies and practices that heed scientific warnings and international humanitarian laws. Many lawmakers and political actors are still choosing short-term political popularity over the earth’s long-term survival. Business as usual includes the nuclear industry, as spelled out by atomic scientists behind the Doomsday Clock.

This global crackdown on protest amounts to an erosion of classic liberties, and replacement of good governance by state negligence, driving increasing numbers of citizens to take landmark legal cases against their governments in pursuit of the transformative changes urgently needed. Instead of nursing dictatorial antagonism, government figures need to start self-identifying as activists and working with protestors and grassroots leaders on radical and urgent adaptation. Earlier this year, with the European Union’s adoption of a new Environmental Crime Directive, which includes crimes ‘comparable to ecocide’, all 27 EU member states got 18 months to transpose the directive into domestic legislation and ensure enforcement capacity. Real justice would end the impunity with which fossil fuel and other companies perpetrating environmental harms are treated.

The EPA’s five key climate mitigation recommendations are: a national policy position that aligns actions across sectors: rigorous enforcement of existing laws; transformation of key economic sectors, significant investment in critical infrastructure, and prioritising environment health for public wellbeing. This last objective in particular would forever be sabotaged by giving into calls for a source of energy whose routine emissions and waste products would bring unseen invisible sickness to our doorsteps for millennia.

The Norwegian Nobel Committee has awarded the 2024 Nobel Peace Prize to the Japanese organisation, Nihon Hidankyo. This grassroots movement of atomic bomb survivors from Hiroshima and Nagasaki, also known as Hibakusha, is receiving the peace prize for its efforts to achieve a world free of nuclear weapons and for demonstrating through witness testimony that nuclear weapons must never be used again, at a time when nuclear powers are replenishing nuclear weapon stores. No nukes ever!

Making the Unseen Visible is now widely available.