Martin Luther King's Principles of Satyagraha
King had six principles of what he called "nonviolence" (from his book Stride Toward Freedom).
1. Nonviolence is not passive, but requires courage.
I think this is encouragement for the soldiers in the field. People want to be brave, strong, and fight for a cause. So it is useful and appropriate for them to see that their lack of fighting doesn't mean that they are being cowardly; to the contrary, they are being courageous. I think the same point can and should be made for strength -- people engaging in satyagraha are being strong, not weak.
2. Nonviolence seeks reconciliation, not defeat of an adversary.
3. Nonviolent action is directed at eliminating evil, not destroying an evil-doer.
These two principles capture the idea that in satyagraha the goal is not destruction of the opponent. Instead, the battle should be reconceptualized as working together for a common good.
4. Nonviolence requires a willingness to accept suffering for the cause, if necessary, but never to inflict it.
5. Nonviolence requires a rejection of hatred, animosity or violence of the spirit, as well as refusal to commit physical violence.
One of the basic principles of satyagraha is to be a good, kind person. That means not inflicting suffering, as much as possible. I don't know that a satyagrahist should want to suffer, but the suffering of a satyagrahist, in the service of fighting for truth and justice, wins hearts.
6. Nonviolence requires a Faith that justice will prevail.
Faith in ultimate success is useful to any battle plan. In other words, it is important, but not specific to satyagraha. The expression of this principle reflects the goal of justice, not winning.
Martin Luther King's Steps in a Nonviolent Campaign
The King Center published these six steps in a nonviolent campaign.
1. Information gathering and research to get the facts straight.
There are two reasons for this. First, if you are going make truth your weapon, you want to make sure that weapon isn't pointed at you. Second, you are gathering the truths that you will use to fight with.
2. Education of adversaries and the public about the facts of the dispute.
This is a basic principle of satyagraha -- if you are in the moral right, you want everyone to know everything. This statement also acknowledges the importance of the "spectators."
3. Personal commitment to nonviolent attitudes and action.
Obvious
4. Negotiation with adversary in a spirit of goodwill to correct injustice.
Negotiation might be the wrong word. Otherwise, this follows from the basic principles of Satyagraha. The idea is that two people can sit down together with the mutual goals of knowing the truth and doing the right thing. Then they exchange information, and because they have the same goals, they come to the same conclusion. It would be rude to assume your adversary did not have this attitude without first discussing the issues. But if your adversary should then prove not to care about truth and morality, then you can use other techniques. So discussion comes first.
The things that came next were often harmful, such as the Montgomery bus boycott. Or sometimes they were illegal, as in the case of marches that had been declared illegal. It follows from all the principles of satyagraha, including making a good impression on the spectators, that one should try to solve the dispute by discussion, and harmful and/or illegal actions are justified only when discussion has failed.
Is negotiation the right word? You do not negotiate truth and morality. However, it is very important to discover what your adversary wants, and to think if there is some way to make your adversary happy yet achieve your own goals. To make up a trivial example, if the Montgomery officials wanted Afro-Americans to sit in the back of the bus because they kept putting their shoes on the seats, some easy compromise could have been reached involving a promise not to put their shoes on the seats.
5. Nonviolent direct action, such as marches, boycotts, mass demonstrations, picketing, sit-ins etc., to help persuade or compel adversary to work toward dispute-resolution.
I suspect this might be somewhat disingenious. First, it is most noble to have the goal of working together to settle the dispute, and that often was the outcome. Good enough. This goal then becomes an excuse for marches, etc. Those then have their own advantages. So the disingenious part is not explaining how the marches, etc. work to accomplish the goal. As I explain elsewhere, irrational or immoral reactions from your adversary can help your cause. For all the tragedy of the Selma march, the violence against the marchers, shown on TVs across the nation, ensured voting rights for Afro-Americans.
6. Reconciliation of adversaries in a win-win outcome in establishing a sense of community.
Again, this is the idea of working together for a higher goal.
In his letter from a Birmingham jail, King said to give the opponents a chance to save face. If you wanted to hurt your opponent, you would not want your opponent to escape from the battle without losing face. But as a strategy for getting what you want, allowing your opponent to easily escape from the battle is a good strategy -- your opponent is then more likely to escape. And of course, from the perspective of being kind and working towards a common goal, you would want your opponent to save face.
|
