Tag Archives: Majken Jul Sørensen

Readings in Nonviolence: Review of “Constructive resistance – Resisting injustice by creating solutions”

Nonviolent News, Readings, , , , , , ,

Building the uncompromised alternative

A review of “Constructive resistance – Resisting injustice by creating solutions” by Majken Jul Sørensen, Stellan Vinthagen and Jørgen Johansen, Rowman and Littlefield, 2023, 219 pages.

Reviewed by Rob Fairmichael

This is an important book in exploring, in some detail, the concept and practice of ‘building the alternative’ without being compromised and/or bought out by the state or capitalism. Emphasis is put on both being ‘constructive’ and ‘resistance’ and in integrating the two; it was Gandhi who coined the term constructive resistance and it was an important construct to him (think weaving khadi cloth). However the authors do analyse different movements in different parts of the world and the extent to which they meet these values (e.g. charts on page 41) with some fascinating detail. The evolution of women’s shelters, the first arguably in London in 1972, transformed the debate about gender-based interpersonal violence and put the focus on men as perpetrators, and therefore patriarchy as a problem, in giving women an out from being trapped in so-called ‘domestic’ violence.

The authors are themselves well known, in some circles, activists and theoreticians. INNATE was a co-organiser of a webinar with Majken Jul Sørensen earlier in 2024 on nonviolent alternatives to the war in Ukraine.

An initial definition of constructive resistance in the book (page 1) is “initiatives where people start to build elements of the society they desire independently and in opposition to the dominant structures already in place.” The examples they give immediately following are of squatted, previously empty, houses being used for people to live in or for self-organised community centres, and Wikipedia as an example of challenging experts’ ‘truth’ and ‘knowledge’.

Moving to a ‘new society’ of any kind is difficult when the old elites, or perhaps new but equally repressive ones, are so good at regaining power; “When constructive elements are left out, old elites can use the uncertain situation to their advantage to regain power, as we have witnessed in many of the recent unarmed political revolutions” (page 101) – think the ‘Arab Spring’ of 2011. I might add that while the Irish Free State did undergo a civil war at the start of its existence, the new regime became even more reactionary on many social matters than the old, and something like the Sinn Féin/Arbitration courts, imperfect as they were, disappeared into the woodwork and ‘the law’ reasserted itself in conservative form.

Of course the action by councils and MPs of republican persuasion transferring their allegiance from Westminster to the first Dáil in 1919 could also be considered as constructive resistance in creating the new entity they wanted, unshackling from the British state. However on a social and economic level it would be difficult to think of examples in Ireland which fitted both ‘construction’ and ‘resistance’. Important as credit unions are in Ireland they are hardly trying to overthrow the existing financial system, and agricultural coops, essential in rural development in years past, are now large scale economic units within the existing system (and, it can be argued, essentially part of the problem of methane production by cattle).

One example given in the book is the development of nonviolent accompaniment and monitoring, partly developing from Witness for Peace (the US organisation, not the Northern Irish one) noticing that the Contras in Nicaragua did not attack while US citizens were around (in the period around 1983). We can learn and develop new methodologies as we do things.

An ongoing issue in the book is about compromise and being compromised: “A recurring dilemma for those involved in constructive resistance is how much to compromise radical ideals in order to become “mainstream” and make the alternative interesting and available to broader audiences…” (page 183). They cover Thomas Mathiesen’s concept of being ‘in defined’ or ‘out defined’ by the existing powers; ‘in defined’ is to be judged as no threat and therefore ‘one of us’ in essence whereas to be ‘out defined’ it to be depicted as a beyond the pale rebel, past redemption. Successful movements need to avoid either definition so as not to be either co-opted or cast out and rejected as crazy hippies or crackpots.

In dealing with the example of the Transition Movement (on a non-carbon future) the authors place this relatively high on the constructive scale but low on resistance to existing dominant structures. The Fairtrade movement is similarly placed.

The book has detailed studies of Polish resistance to the state and state (Soviet style Communist) control in the 1980s, the struggle against apartheid in South Africa, the peasant-based MST movement in Brazil, and the Zapatistas in Chiapas, Mexico. Partial success – before temporary failure – came for KOR and then Solidarity in Poland by being factory-based rather than street-based (where the state security could easily get people) and in having support from the Catholic church and farmers. “When the factory occupations became widespread in 1980, Polish workers had found a way to build small communities, minimizing the interference from the state. Solidarity set up a democratic structure with transparent decision-making, mutual aid, and solidarity alliances, and continued the development of independent free media. These were elements of the kind of society they wanted to see in Poland in the future….” (page 113).

The authors pinpoint the Freedom Charter process of 1955 as a key element of democratic involvement in the South African struggle. MST in Brazil and the Zapatistas in Chiapas are the current examples given of large scale constructive resistance. However nothing is simple and the authors analyse difficulties and possible pitfalls (e.g. the involvement and participation of women) as well as successes, though the distribution of land to 350,000 landless farmers in Brazil by MST is a success by any progressive definition – and some of the details of the organising involved is astounding.

300,000 people are involved in the Zapatista movement, in 1,000 communities, and it is based among Maya people. While they did have a short violent phase, and still have an army for defensive purposes, if they had continued with war against the state then, as the book states, they would have been wiped out by that state. Instead they have built self-governing and self-sustaining structures with the goal of changing relations between rulers and ruled without taking (state) power. Both MST and the Zapatistas have impressive grassroots decision making structures and processes. A European example in the book is analysis of an anti-dam campaign in Innerdalen in Norway 1978–82 which faced many of the questions that activists reading this may be familiar with.

Without vision the people may not perish but they certainly won’t get very far. The conclusions in the book include that “If movements were more focused on putting their visions into practice through direct actions, creating some of the necessary solutions, people might be more able to envision future societies free of at least some of the major systemic dominations, violences, and injustices. But in order for that to happen, people also need to nurture visions of a different society.” (page 202)

There are other examples of possible positivities from social movements which may or may not fit the category of constructive resistance. One generally problematic area I would certainly identify would be decision making within social and political movements; do we model inclusion, and how do we a) hold together with differences of opinion, b) allow different routes to be taken internally, or c) split amicably? Any large scale social movement is likely to get disagreements which risk the integrity of the movement or may necessitate different people going in different directions. Do we look on the ‘dissidents’ as traitors to the cause or do we celebrate different flocks flying in roughly the same direction but by different routes? Do we encourage involvement and grassroots input? Clearly this latter happens with the likes of the Zapatista movement in Chiapas.

One example of what could have been constructive resistance from the peace movement is Ireland is the “People’s Campaign” associated with Ciaran McKeown in the Peace People in the period around 1994. https://www.flickr.com/photos/innateireland/21987821321/in/album-72157613614963634/ This sought to develop an alternative assembly model for Northern Ireland based on the experience of the basic democratic model of the Åland Islands in the Baltic; each of the 570 electoral wards in Northern Ireland would have discussions locally and two representatives elected. However this plan was decided on by using traditional majoritarian decision making internally and the task – of persuading people in general that it was a good idea let alone operationalising it – was massive and it disappeared without trace after a few years. Whether such a system would have been any more or less positive or workable than what came to pass is open to debate which I won’t go into here. It could also be said that many community groups in the North during the Troubles provided a space for trying to build a non-sectarian or less sectarian future.

Mediation is another area in Ireland where there has been construction but extremely low resistance. In four decades mediation has gone from the far margins to the mainstream, with mediation looked on favourably by the legal system (in both jurisdictions in Ireland). It relieves a bit of pressure on the legal system, and is obviously preferable from the disputing parties’ point of view both in potentially avoiding legal divisiveness and cost. And lawyers have not lost out since they joined the mediation bandwagon as well in training up as mediators. Outside of that, at a community level, mediation has largely been professionalised which raises questions about accessibility for all (in terms of cost). But we are still in a better place to have what we have though community-based mediation systems are very limited.

In the political process, especially later on, in the Troubles in Northern Ireland, conciliation, communication and mediation efforts by individuals and groups helped in an enormous way to bring about the Good Friday Agreement, imperfect as that was and is. This mirrored the inclusiveness which those involved sought to foster. At the time some of this was considered traitorous by the state and by right-wingers who wanted to ‘root out the men of violence’ – even though the state itself secretly engaged in such contact when it felt it appropriate throughout the Troubles.

As stated at the start, this is an important book; it asks peace, social and political activists fundamental questions about how we go about trying to reach our goals. The problem for us is that we may feel so far from the possibilities of building a challenging alternative that we feel it cannot be done or at least that we cannot do it. ‘Living the revolution’ is always a big challenge but our work and witness can add to positive possibilities for the future. This book can be of considerable assistance in thinking about such possibilities.

The possibility of nonviolent resistance in the contemporary world

Nonviolent News, Readings, , ,

A review of “Pacifism Today: A Dialogue about Alternatives to War in Ukraine”by Majken Jul Sørensen, Irene Publishing, 2024, ISBN 978-91-88061-69-0

Review by Rob Fairmichael

The war in Ukraine, occasioned immediately by a Russian military attack to annex Ukraine, has persuaded some people of the impossibility of nonviolent resistance to such an attack. In this regard it is a bit similar to what happened in the 1930s with the Spanish Civil War. How could pacifism or nonviolence resist in such a situation?

One initial problem is that violence and nonviolence are seldom judged with the same criteria. The war in Ukraine has descended into a First World War-type conflict of attrition. People are realising that Putin can afford to keep throwing resources at the war – anything to avoid losing face – and throwing away lives. The effect at home, justifying repression, also suits Putin. The human, environmental and economic cost of the war, on all sides, is massive. And ‘the west’ has to some extent got tired of throwing military resources to Ukraine (and ‘President Trump’ could end US resources going there anyway). And yet very few are saying that perhaps resisting in this way was a mistake, or that settling early on in the war (when Ukraine was considered to be in the ascendant) should have taken place – the failure to do that was partly the fault of gung ho Boris Johnson in opposing any deal and I would say he has blood on his hands.

Thus ‘war’ as a methodology has not come into question despite the failure to kick Russia out of Ukraine or even its acquisitions in 2022.

Whether you call this publication, with 71 numbered pages, a pamphlet or a book is open to debate. It is short and written by Majken Jul Sørensen in the format of a dialogue (imagined) between a sceptic and herself on the issues involved. This is a useful approach even if sometimes I would feel the sceptic’s comments don’t quite ring true. But I am certainly not accusing the author of being disengenuous and this approach is primarily to provide a hook to hang her quite comprehensive comments on; the book will be judged on whether people are persuaded by Majken’s comments.

Early on Majken (which is how she gives her name before what she says) gives three reasons why she is a pacifist; “…I think it is wrong to kill other people….Second, the price people pay for fighting a war is simply too high…..However, most important is the third part of my answer: today we know a great deal about fighting with nonviolent means and it is irrational to ignore this knowledge…”

She deals with the difficulties in demonstrating publicly in repressive situations and I think more can be made of ‘flash mob’ type manifestations where something happens suddenly and then stops just as suddenly, before ‘security’ forces get there. She mentions ‘two minute strikes’ in Denmark under Nazi control – this may have been too short to have a logistical effect but it showed the widespread support for resistance; and during that war the Freedom Council concluded that strikes caused more damage to the German war effort than riots and sabotage. This all still requires audacity, organisation and skill. She gives some details on Norwegian Second World War resistance to the Quisling regime which was relatively successful while also difficult and dangerous. She emphasises the importance of local knowledge and being able to “read the political game”.

In talking about Chenoweth and Stephan’s 2011 publication “Why civil resistance works”, (see e.g. https://innatenonviolence.org/wp/2022/04/01/nonviolent-resistance-to-invasion-occupation-and-coups-detat/ which shows nonviolent resistance to be more effective than violent (based on 20th century case studies), a point I would add is that Chenoweth and Stephan were studying conflicts within states rather than international war. But a significant number of these were similar in outworking to an inter-state war, and the close relations (literally in the case of mixed Russian-Ukrainian families) between Russia and Ukraine means that they are hardly strangers battling it out from opposite sides of the globe.

Majken also looks at questions around non-lethal violence (e.g. sabotage and rioting) and concludes that “Sabotage and riots might…play a role when it prevents the occupier from having the calm that they long for” and while saying scholars of nonviolence need to look at this more closely she does state that “Maybe the less risky adoption of nonviolent methods without sabotage and riots can be sufficient to disturb the calm and keep the fighting spirit high.”

Unarmed resistance requires courage and sacrifice; there is no easy way to resist, as Majken discusses, and she looks at questions regarding nonviolent accompaniment and the possibilities, or lack of them for using this approach. Perhaps I can add a point previously made by Peter Emerson in these pages – what if such action or presence was engaged in by high profile actors – senior religious and civic figures – it might be both more possible and more effective.

As to whether a moral commitment to pacifism is necessary, or simply a belief in the effectiveness of nonviolence, Majken states “it will be easier for a movement to maintain nonviolent discipline if the refusal to harm comes from a moral belief….”

She correctly identifies NATO’s role in provoking Russia while agreeing that the Russian invasion of Ukraine was a brutal act of aggression. She does warn of the dangers of ‘this’ war going on for a long time while also looking at how Putin could be brought down. I would say that sometimes, though we may not like the answer, the requirement is not only resistance but also significant periods of time to enable an opportunity to emerge; the ‘Prague spring’ nonviolent resistance to the Warsaw Pact (=Russian Communist) invasion of Czechoslovakia in 1968 was partly successful – Gene Sharp puts its collapse down to political failings – but the Czechs and Slovaks had to wait another two decades and the popular resistance made possible by Gorbachev’s reforms before being able to throw off the yoke they were under. There are no instant magic wands, nonviolent or violent (violent resistance in Prague in 1968 would have led to catastrophic suffering for the Czechs).

Majken’s final chapter is on “Preparing for unarmed struggle”. This is important. Armies train to both be efficient using their weapons and for soldiers to be prepared to kill. Nonviolent resistance can be effective without preparation but potentially far more effective with it, and she gives a reading list for further learning and thought.

This is a timely publication which is based on the failure of the war machine – military, arms trade, media and above all political establishments – to resist war and its effects. In Gaza we see military speak used to attempt to justify the unjustifiable by Israel. And if you want to trace that back it partly comes from Israeli insecurity and Western guilt after the genocide of Jews by Nazi Germany. And the rise to power of Hitler was largely based on the treatment of Germany following the First World War, and that conflagration was the result of clashing military-imperial rivalries. I realise that this cause-and-effect linkage is simplistic but I would still argue it is correct. So where and how do we ‘break into history’ to say stop?

In the case of the war in Ukraine the time for real rapprochement with Russia was following the collapse of communism. Had ‘the west’ assisted Russia economically and provided other assistance then the authoritarian direction might have been halted. And while it might be counter-intuitive for some people to say eastern Europe would have been safer without NATO membership, NATO pushing towards Russia not only broke promises made after the fall of communism in Russia and eastern Europe but ignored Russia’s memory of Western invasions.

Nonviolent resistance is a vital way to break into history and change the future – in opposing dictatorial rule internally as well dealing with conflict internationally. Some other issues in this area, including in relation to Ireland, are discussed at https://innatenonviolence.org/wp/2022/04/01/nonviolent-resistance-to-invasion-occupation-and-coups-detat/ Majken Jul Sørensen’s book is an important contemporary contribution to the discussion about all of this and deserves widespread reading and discussion. If humanity is to survive on this small globe of ours then nonviolence and the development of nonviolent resistance is essential.

lIrene Publishing’s website is at https://irenepublishing.com/ and – among other items of interest – their list includes books on “Social Defence” by Jørgen Johansen and Brian Martin, on “Gandhi the organiser” by Bob Overy, Michael Randle on his and Pat Pottle’s trial for springing George Blake from prison in Britain, on constructive nonviolent action by Andrew Rigby, “To prevent or stop wars – What can peace movements do?” by Christine Schweitzer, and “Whistleblowing – A practical guide” by Brian Martin. As well, of course, as the above book in the review…..