Post on 24-Feb-2023
Martin Luther King. Jr and Mahatma Gandhi SeminarDr. Josiah Young and Dr. Sathianan ClarkWesley Theological Seminary / Spring 2009Heesung Hwang
Possibility for King’sNonviolence action
in the Age of Terrorism
I. Introduction
My initial thought for this paper related with King words
and deeds was started while studying nonviolence resistance of
Gandhi and then of King. As I read the books and articles, a
series of questions burst upon me: “Nonviolence is nice in
theory, but is it really practical? Is it still possible in this
world that was seized with the fear of terrorism?1 Can it be
possible for the U.S.A. to accept the reality that we are
sometimes weak, we cannot be the winner all the time, and we may
1 Cf. Cortright, David. Gandhi and Beyond: Nonviolence for an Age of Terrorism. Boulder: Paradigm Publishers, 2006. 1.
1
be able to forgive and heal the world with the nonviolent power
rather than brutal revenge?”
When I presented these questions in the panel discussion
related with the terror attack on Sept. 11, 2001, I obviously
could see two different kinds of faces. Some people showed their
interest in that insight, but others looked offended. Their faces
were talking to me “How dare you ask, even think like that!” That
situation even made me more interested in that thought.
Based on this initial experience regarding nonviolence
study, I would like to develop my ideas. Following King’s
insights of love and nonviolence, I will analyze how the modern
society can creatively adopt his nonviolence movement.
II. The Sources of King’s Thought
a. Experimental Influences
King was born in Atlanta, Georgia, on 15 January 1929.2 Even
though there were prevailing racial segregation and oppression,
“young Martin grew up in a home which was relatively secure
financially. He also grew up very much in church – Sunday school,
2 Washington James M. “Editor’s Introduction,” A Testament of Hope: The Essential Writings and Speeches of Martin Luther King, Jr. New York: HarperCollins Publishers. 1986. xvi.
2
Training Union, Youth activities,” 3 as a son in preacher’s
family. It was a great benefit for him that he was able to get
relatively stable childhood and a chance to get higher education
in his time.
Through the continuous experiences of racial segregation as
he grew up, King started to ask himself and looked for the
ultimate means to make a difference in the society. His question
was basically “how could Blacks battle against oppression and yet
act in Christian love for their oppressors?”4 As a result of
that, he developed the idea of nonviolence resistance based on
two sources: Jesus and Mahatma Gandhi.5
As an activist rather than a theologian or a religious
thinker, “his ideas and motivation always came from the specific
demands of an actual historical situation that required an active
response.”6 It was especially after becoming a minister of the
Dexter Avenue Baptist Church in Montgomery, Alabama, that King
3 Ramsay, William M. Four Modern Prophets: Walter Rauschenbush, Martin Luther King, Jr., Gustavo Gutierrez, Rosemary Radford Ruether. Atlanta, GA: John Knox Press, 1986. 31.4 Ramsay. 34.5 Ibid. 34; Details about these two sources will be mentioned in Part II.6 Chernus, Ira. American Nonviolence: The History of an Idea. Maryknoll, New York: Orbis Books, 2004. 161.
3
actively involved into civil rights movement.7 During this time,
he combined and applied his thoughts and principles, which are
that he had developed through his seminary education, into the
real circumstances.8
The most important incident that made him get recognized as
a social leader was the Montgomery Bus Boycott.9 On Dec. 1, 1955,
Mrs. Rosa Parks sat down on the first seat which was the white
section of a Montgomery city bus. She refused to move to the
“black section” or to stand up and was arrested. NAACP10 which
King was involved helped her get out and decided to boycott of
the buses. It was the beginning of the legendary 381-day
nonviolence resistance.11
For this resistance, “King was chosen head of its organizing
network, the Montgomery Improvement Association.”12 In the same
night, through his opening speech, “King enunciated the concept
he had been working out, the idea to which he was to dedicate his7 King, Coretta Scott. “Foreword,” Martin Luther King, Jr. Strength to Love. Philadelphia:Fortress Press. 1981. 7.8 King, Coretta Scott. 7; cf. King’s Essay “Pilgrimage to nonviolence” Martin Luther King, Jr. Strength to Love. Philadelphia: Fortress Press. 1963. 146-154.91955-1956; Cf. Chernus. 161. He said, “The experience in Montgomery did more to clarify my theology on the question of nonviolence than all of the books I had read.” 10 The National Association for the Advancement of Colored People.11 Ramsay. 32-34.12 King, Coretta Scott. 7.
4
life: his faith in the power of active, loving, nonviolent
resistance.”13 Then he dedicated his life to keeping the social
movement going but in a loving, nonviolent way. 14
b. The Influence of Christianity: agape love
For King, “religion is and must be a personal experience.
This is because God is personal.”15 And this God loves all of us
equally. “So we should love all members of the human family
equally.”16 Just as God is agape (“selfless love”), so we should
treat all people with agape love. 17 Agape is “understanding,
redeeming good will for all men. It is an overflowing love which
seeks nothing in return. It is the love god working in the lives
of men” 18
13 Ramsay. 33.14 ibid. 34.15 Chernus. 162.16 Ibid. 163.17 Ibid. 163.18 King. A Testament of Hope. 13; 140; See also King. Strength to Love. 52.
5
Agape does not mean that “we should like all people; some
people are indeed unlikable.”19 But it means that we should
respect every person’s unique personality and help all
individuals fulfill their highest potentials. Therefore it means
caring about what happens to every person and responding to each
one’s unique needs. Agape creates “true person-to-person
relationships.”20 “In the beloved community, all action would
express agape love.”21
c. The Influence of Gandhi
Cortwirght mentions that “Gandhi’s greatest contribution was
the method of nonviolent social action, which he defined as
satyagraha.” 22 Gandhi believes that the core of holding on to
Truth is to withdraw support of what is wrong. So if enough
people join to hold onto Ultimate Truth, evil has to collapse
from lack of support.”23 This notion deeply influenced King. He
says “The whole Gandhian concept of satyagraha (truth-force or
19 King. A Testament of Hope. 13.20 Chernus. 164; see also King. A Testament of Hope. 19.21 Chernus. 171.22 Cortright. 19.23 Easwaran, Eknath. “Preface,” The Essential Gandhi: An Anthology of His Writings on His Life, Work, and Ideas. ed.Louis Fischer. New York: Vintage Books, 2002. xxiv.
6
love-force) was profoundly significant to me. As I delved deeper
into the philosophy of Gandhi, my skepticism concerning the power
of love gradually diminished, and I came to see for the first
time that the Christian doctrine of love, operating through the
Gandhian method of nonviolence, is one of the most potent weapons
available to an oppressed people in their struggle for
freedom.”24 For him, Jesus Christ provided the motivation; Gandhi
furnished the techniques.25 He also insists that Nonviolence is
not just intellectual or ethical value. It has to be a
“commitment to a way of life.”26
III. King’s Philosophy of Nonviolence
a. Interdependence
Through his speeches, King first indicates the importance of
interdependence of individuals and communities: “More than ever
before, my friends, men of all races and nations are today
challenged to be neighborly.”27 He also said, “This is the
24 King. Strength to Love. 150.25 Ramsay. 35.26 King. Strength to Love. 150. 27 King. Strength to Love. 38; See also King. A Testament of Hope. 210. “We are caught in an inescapable network of mutuality, tied in a single garment of destiny. Whatever affects one directly, affects all indirectly.”
7
interrelated structure of all reality. You can never be what you
ought to be until I become what I ought to be.”28
b. Forgiveness
Creating the beloved community requires forgiving sins of
each other. And forgiving and loving those who try to harm us
often requires voluntary suffering. King says that “it is also
necessary to realize that the forgiving act must always be
initiated by the person who had been wronged, the victim of some
great hurt, the recipient of some tortuous injustice, the
absorber of some terrible act of oppression”29as did Jesus
respond with “aggressive” forgiving love toward crucifixion by
hate.30 Here is love as the foundational element to interweave
every part of society.31 King believed “This is the only way to
create the beloved community.”32
c. Social Responsibility: Love in Action
28 King. A Testament of Hope. 210.29 King. Strength to Love. 50.30 Ibid. 42.31 Cf. Ibid. 49-50. “Love even for enemies is the key to the solution of the problems of our world.”32 Ibid. 56.
8
Loving our neighbors is the essential link between faith and
action. “There can be no individual spiritual development without
a strong sense of social responsibility. Agape acted out in
society creates a sense of loving community. Because God is
agape, God is always working to create community.”33 Action is
even more important than the commitment to nonviolence: “There is
one evil that is worse than violence, and that’s cowardice.”34
In relation to the social actions, King urges the
significant role of the churches of America with the pen of
Apostle Paul: “I hope the churches of America will play a
significant role in conquering segregation. It has always been
the responsibility of the church to broaden horizons and
challenge the status quo. The church must move out into the arena
of social action. First, you must see that the church removes the
yoke of segregation from its own body. Then you must seek to make
the church increasingly active in social action outside its
doors.”35
33 Chernus. 164.34 King. A Testament of Hope. 360. 35 King. Strength to Love. 141.
9
IV. Scope and Limits of King’s Nonviolence
a. The Power of Nonviolence
Nonviolence can be used universally as an alternative to
violence. It is not just a lack of violence. Most of human
activities such as sleeping, eating, socializing and most work
are considered basically nonviolent, but that does not make them
nonviolent actions. 36 Nonviolence is positive action against
evil.
“King preached against violence because to injure another person
is to deny that person’s sanctity. No matter how evil a person’s
acts may be, the image of God is never totally gone. And violence
injures the image of God.”37 He even stated:
“We shall match your capacity to inflict suffering by our
capacity to endure suffering. We shall meet your physical
force with soul force. Do to us what you will, and we shall
continue to love you. We cannot in all good conscience obey
your unjust laws, because noncooperation with evil is as much
a moral obligation as is cooperation with good. Throw us in 36 Van Inwegen, Patrick. "The Limits of Strategic Nonviolence" Paper presented at the annual meeting of the International Studies Association, Town & Country Resort and Convention Center, San Diego, California, USA, Mar 22, 2006 <Not Available>. http://www.allacademic.com/meta/p99840_index.html. 3. Web. Accessed on Feb. 5, 200937 Chernus. 173.
10
jail, and we shall still love you. Send your hooded
perpetrators of violence into our community at the midnight
hour and beat us and leave us half dead, and we shall still
love you..”38
How aggressive love it is!
b. The Challenge of Nonviolence
Although its high vision, the core challenge that
nonviolence encountered is that it would not be able to “work
against a heartless, brutal opponent.”39 It seems to assume that
the opponent also have a certain level of morality or goodness to
which the satyagrahi’s truth may ultimately appeal.
Many activists, even among peace and human rights activists,
also have similar doubts about the effectiveness of nonviolence
resistance.40 Some considers violence is sometimes acceptable to
achieve a good purpose. The question at the root of these
concerns is a basically this: “Should the victims of brutal
38 King. Strength to Love. 56.39 Cortright. 111.40 Ibid. 111.
11
tyranny be expected to maintain a strictly nonviolent response?
When a legitimate popular movement striving for justice has
attempted every nonviolent form of redress yet faces relentless
repression and terror, must it maintain a purely nonviolent form
of struggle?”41 King himself also faced that kind of questions of
whether violence may be necessary sometimes and can be
legitimate, but he was even more unbending in his response.42
c. The Limits of Nonviolence
There are several researches that show the objective
conditions and limits of nonviolence. The report of Patrick Van
Inwegan is one of them. He states, three components are necessary
to make nonviolent action work: “First, the international
situation must be ripe for the internationalizing of nonviolent
action. For this to be the case, justice becomes equally or more
important than national security. Second, the oppressing country
must be heavily dependent upon international actors. Finally, the
41 Ibid. 112.42 Ibid. 112.
12
state needs to be significantly weakened and thus prone to
pressure from the international actors.”43
Nonviolent movement is most likely to work successfully
where there is a strong power relationship. But the power
relationship may not even exist when a group or a country is such
a small minority that the government does not need to rely upon
it for the state’s sustained existence.44
V. Nonviolence: The Constructive Alternative to Terrorism
a. What happened on September 11?
Pope John Paul II described the attacks of September 11,
2001, as an “unspeakable horror.”45 Even though there are
different voices whether the terrorists were martyrs in their
faith or murders, the indiscriminate slaughter is never
acceptable for any purpose.46 We lost not only friends and family43 Van Inwegen. 14; In addition to the second component, the good example is the European colonization of North America. Unlike the case of India, the people living onthe colonized land were not needed to get what the land was acquired for. Colonists were not interested in trading goods produced in the colony by the natives, but ratherwere interested in the land itself. Then the indigenous population could be exterminated. This is a key indication that nonviolent action was unlikely to work. See. Ibid. 14-18.44 Ibid. 21.45 Quoted from Elshatain, Jean Bethke. Just War against Terror: The Burden of American Power in a Violent World. New York: Basic Books, 2003. 9.46 Elshtain distinguishes between a martyr and a murderer. “A martyr is generally recognized as one who dies for his or her faith. Even if he kills himself in the
13
but also hope and the sense of security; we gained not only
intense fear but also great anger by the death of nearly three
thousand people. “Through the manipulation of fear and constant
references to 9/11, leaders in Washington D.C. have maintained
public support for their war polices even in the face of
widespread skepticism about the military mission in Iraq.”47
When President George W. Bush addressed to the nation on
September 20, 2001, he proclaimed the war against terrorism.48
Even though he carefully mentioned it is more like justification
against terrorism, it was likely seen as revenge. “Revenge stems
from a desire to inflict harm for a real or imagined harm one has
sustained. Revenge does not involve deliberation or care, and it
often recognizes no limits.”49 In contrast, justice has to do
with fairness, “with putting things right when an injustice has
been committed.”50
Can we act with love and justice rather than with the desire
of revenge?
process, however, a person who murders is not a martyr but a murderer.” See. Elshatain. 10;18-19.47 Cortright. 212.48 Elshatain. 23.49 Ibid. 24.50 Ibid. 24.
14
b. Justice and Truth in Today’s world: American Power and
Responsibility
Above all, the answer is yes. “The first requirement is to
balance the demand for peace with the requirement for justice. It
is also necessary to apply pressure on the militants who commit
mass murder and to protect innocent victims.”51
Similar to other debates of nonviolent solutions to hostile
governments and groups, there has been discussions about how to
respond to the 9/11 attacks. In this situation, nonviolence
seemed to become less attractive. Why do we need to hold such a
thing like nonviolence against terrorists? “Most people in the
U.S. wanted to hold Afghanistan responsible and there was
overwhelming support to overthrow the Taliban regime. However,
there was almost no discussion about doing this through
nonviolent means, primarily because of policy-makers
understanding that this is not possible.”52
Yet, America is the only alternative power to counter the threat
presented by international terrorists who have no respects of 51 Cortright. 212.52 Van Inwegen. 19.
15
borders.53 Elshtain also insists, “If human dignity needs a new
guarantee,” who will be the guarantor? There is no state except
the United States with the power and (we hope) the will to play
this role.”54
She continues to suggest about American responsibility as a
victim and a superpower in the world at the same time.
It is difficult to underestimate the shock to the world’s
nervous system on September 11 and how much was at stake that day
and in our response. We were reminded in the cruelest way that
American stability and international stability are linked. As the
world’s superpower, America bears the responsibility to help
guarantee that international stability, whether much of the world
wants it or not. This does not mean that we can or should rush
around imposing “solutions” everywhere. It does mean that we are
obliged to evaluate all cries for justice and relief from people
who are being preyed upon, whether by nonstate marauders (like
terrorists) or by state-sponsored enforcers. We, the powerful,
must respond to attacks against persons who cannot defend
themselves because they, like us, are human beings, hence equal 53 Elshtain. 167.54 Ibid. 167.
16
in regard to us, and because they, like us, are members of
states, or would-be states, whose primary obligation is to
protect the lives of those citizens who inhabit their polities.55
c. Adopting Nonviolence: The Constructive Alternative to
Terrorism
“As an advocate of nonviolence, King was naturally opposed
to all war.”56 Nonviolence challenges all aspects of the
comforting assumptions about goodness, suffering, and violence.57
It provides abundant fountain for “crafting an effective strategy
against terrorism.”58 “The principles of conflict prevention and
transformation are also highly relevant to the fight against
55 Ibid. 169-170.56 Chernus. 179. 57 Kane, John F. “The Challenge of Gandhi,” Sanford Krolick and Betty Cannon. Gandhi in the “Postmodern” Age: Issues in War and Peace. Golden, Colorado: Colorado School of Mines Press,1984. 88.58 Cortright. 212.
17
terrorism. This is where nonviolent movement is especially
valuable.”59
Again, here is the answer. Violence cannot be justified in
any case. Only nonviolent actions can break the cycle of anger
and killing. This is possible although it is very difficult. The
best preparation for nonviolent action is a “constructive
program.”60 For pragmatic action, Cortright suggests major
principles: (1) understanding the political power; (2) Organizing
the network efficiently; (3) Clarifying goals; (4) organizing via
internet, media; (5) Financing; (6) Evaluating Tactics; etc.61
King said he was in a great time to be alive since he could
witness that “old systems of exploitation and oppression are
passing away; new systems of justice and equality are being
born.”62 He is the one who was able to dream the brightest
morning in the darkest and coldest night and prepare for that
glorious morning. That is why his principles of love and
nonviolence still cast a long shadow to us even more than 40
years after his death. 59 Ibid. 213.60 Tahinen, Unto. The Core of Gandhi’s Philosophy. New Delhi: Abhinav Publications, 1979. 56.61 For further details, see Cortright. 191-221 62 King. Strength to Love. 153.
18
Now, not just the black community but the white as well in
whole Unite States face the sever violence with terror attacks.
Although “just few have committed themselves to the strict
nonviolence that was so central to King’s message and life,”63 I
believe this is THE chance for America to apply aggressively
nonviolent love toward the world.
Nonviolence is a strategy and a way of life we need to
preserve to advocate justice and peace. “Nonviolence offers hope
in place of fear.”64 The new order of hope: this is the
possibility that King’s nonviolence leads us toward from the era
of fear and despair.
63 Chernus. 176.64 Cortright. 215.
19
Bibliography
Chernus, Ira. American Nonviolence: The History of an Idea. Maryknoll, New
York: Orbis Books, 2004.
Cortright, David. Gandhi and Beyond: Nonviolence for an Age of Terrorism.
Boulder: Paradigm Publishers, 2006.
Easwaran, Eknath. “Preface,” The Essential Gandhi: An Anthology of His
Writings on His Life, Work, and Ideas. ed.Louis Fischer. New York:
Vintage Books, 2002.
Elshatain, Jean Bethke. Just War against Terror: The Burden of American Power
in a Violent World. New York: Basic Books, 2003.
Kane, John F. “The Challenge of Gandhi,” Sanford Krolick and
Betty Cannon. Gandhi in the “Postmodern” Age: Issues in War and Peace.
Golden, Colorado: Colorado School of Mines Press, 1984.
King, Coretta Scott. “Foreword,” Martin Luther King, Jr. Strength
to Love. Philadelphia: Fortress Press. 1981.
King, Martin Luther, Jr. A Testament of Hope: The Essential Writings and
Speeches of Martin Luther King, Jr. Edited by James M. Washington.
New York: HarperCollins Publishers. 1986.
King, Martin Luther, Jr. Strength to Love. Philadelphia: Fortress
Press. 1963.
20
Ramsay, William M. Four Modern Prophets: Walter Rauschenbush, Martin Luther
King, Jr., Gustavo Gutierrez, Rosemary Radford Ruether. Atlanta, GA.:
John Knox Press, 1986.
Sunnemark, Fredrik. “Introduction,” Ring Out Freedom!: The Voice of Martin
Luther King, Jr. and the Making of the Civil Rights Movement. Bloomington,
Indianapolis: Indiana University Press, 2004.
Tahinen, Unto. The Core of Gandhi’s Philosophy. New Delhi: Abhinav
Publications, 1979.
Van Inwegen, Patrick. "The Limits of Strategic Nonviolence" Paper
presented at the annual meeting of the International Studies
Association, Town & Country Resort and Convention Center,
San Diego, California, USA, Mar 22, 2006 <Not Available>.
2009-02-05
http://www.allacademic.com/meta/p99840_index.html. Web.
Accessed on Feb. 5, 2009
Washington, James M. “Editor’s Introduction,” A Testament of Hope: The
Essential Writings and Speeches of Martin Luther King, Jr. New York:
HarperCollins Publishers. 1986.
21