Pacifism
Pacifism is the opposition to
war or
violence as a means of settling disputes. Pacifism covers a spectrum of views ranging from the belief that international disputes can and should be peacefully resolved, to absolute opposition to the use of violence, or even force, under any circumstances.
Pacifism may be based on principle or
pragmatism. Principled (or Deontological) pacifism is based on beliefs that either war, deliberate lethal force, violence or any force or
coercion is morally wrong. Pragmatic (or Consequential) pacifism does not hold to such an absolute principle but considers there to be better ways of resolving a dispute than war or considers the benefits of a war to be outweighed by the costs.
Dove or
dovish are informal terms used, usually in politics, for people who prefer to avoid war or prefer war as a last resort. Some people termed dovish would not view their position as pacifist as they would consider war to be justifiable in some circumstances (see
just war theory). The description refers to the story of
Noah's Ark in which the dove came to symbolise the hope of salvation and peace. The opposite of a dove is a hawk or
war hawk.
 |
Vereschagin's painting Apotheosis of War (1871) came to be admired as one of the earliest artistic expressions of pacifism. |
Some persons, who consider themselves pacifists, while opposing war, are not opposed to all use of coercion, physical force against people or
destruction of property.
Antimilitarists, for example, are specifically opposed to the modern
nation-states'
military institutions rather than to "violence" in general. Other pacifists follow principles of
nonviolence, believing that only
non-violent action is justifiable.
Advocacy of pacifism can be found far back in history and literature, for example compassion for all life, human and non human, is central to Jainism founded by Mahavira
599-
527 BCE. Human life is valued as a unique, rare opportunity to reach enlightenment and to kill any person, no matter what crime he may have committed, is unimaginably abhorrent. In
Ancient Greece, two examples from the
Peloponnesian War 431–404 BCE are the non-violent protest of
Hegetorides of
Thasos, and the
Athenian women's anti-war sex strike in
Aristophanes' comedy
Lysistrata.
Historic peace churches, the
Religious Society of Friends (Quakers),
Amish,
Mennonites and
Church of the Brethren, have been pacifistic for centuries. Quakers-controlled colonial Pennsylvania employed a pacifist, anti-militarist public policy. The colonial province was for 75 years, from
1681 to
1756, essentially unarmed and experienced little or no warfare in that period. In the 19th century anti-war sentiment grew. Many
socialist groups and movements in that century were
antimilitarists, arguing that war by its nature was a type of governmental coercion of the
working class, who were forced to fight and die in wars of no benefit to them at the behest of their political and economic masters who never suffer in the war's front lines. French socialist leader
Jean Jaurès's assassination on
July 31,
1914 and the
Second International's subsequent abandon to
chauvinism and
militarism and failure to successfully oppose
World War I was considered one of socialist movement's biggest failure.
In
Aotearoa/
New Zealand during the latter half of the 19th century the British, and its colonial settlers, tried many tactics to acquire land from the
Māori, including warfare. In one case a Māori leader was so inspiring that he was able to encourage warriors to stand up for their rights without using their weapons, in an atmosphere where similar warriors had defeated opposing forces in earlier years, Te Whiti-o-Rongomai convinced 2000 people to welcome battle-hardened soldiers into their village and even offer them food and drink. This same, peaceful, leader allowed himself and his people to be arrested without resistance.
 |
"Leading Citizens want War and declare War; Citizens Who are Led fight the War" 1910 cartoon |
Gandhi (
1869 -
1948) was a major political and spiritual leader of India, and the Indian independence movement. He was the pioneer of
Satyagraha the resistance of tyranny through mass civil disobedience strongly founded upon
Ahimsa (total non-violence), which led India to independence, and has inspired movements for civil rights and freedom across the world.
In the aftermath of World War I there was a great revulsion with war in much of the West, and pacifist doctrines gained many new adherents. However pacifist literature or public advocation of anti-war ideals was banned in some nations, such as
Italy under
Mussolini, the
Soviet Union, and in
Germany after the rise of
Hitler. In these nations, pacifism was denounced as cowardice. With the start of
World War II, pacifist sentiment declined.
Bertrand Russell argued that the necessity of defeating Hitler was a unique circumstance where war was not the worst of the possible evils; he called his position
relative pacifism.
H. G. Wells, who had claimed after the armistice ending World War I that the British had suffered more from the war than they would have from submission to Germany, urged in 1941 a large-scale British offensive on the continent of Europe to combat Hitler and
Nazism.
Pacifist sentiment rose a generation later in the 1960s. Notably,
Martin Luther King, Jr (
1929 -
1968) was a
Baptist minister, who was considered the leader of the
American civil rights movement. In
1960,
Thich Nhat Hanh came to the U.S. to study
comparative religion at
Princeton University, and he was subsequently appointed lecturer in Buddhism at
Columbia University. Thich Nhat Hanh had written a letter to Martin Luther King in 1965 entitled: "Searching for the Enemy of Man" and it was during his 1966 stay in the U.S. that Thich Nhat Hanh met with Martin Luther King and urged him to publicly denounce the Vietnam War.
["Searching for the Enemy of Man", in Nhat Nanh, Ho Huu Tuong, Tam Ich, Bui Giang, Pham Cong Thien. Dialogue. Saigon: La Boi, 1965. P. 11-20., archived on the African-American Involvement in the Vietnam War website [1]] Dr. King gave his famous speech at the
Riverside Church in
New York City in
1967["Beyond Vietnam", April 4, 1967, speech made by Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. at the Riverside Church, NYC, archived on the African-American Involvement in the Vietnam War website [2]], his first to publicly question the U.S. involvement in Vietnam.
"Pacifist" often less technically describes a person who accepts risks to her or himself and others, or prefers the penalties which might accompany a non-aggressive stance even in extreme circumstances, for the sake of avoiding a violent or military solution especially in
politics. A pacifist person may be distinguished as more than usually confident in peaceful means for the resolution of any conflict, more of a pacifist than others, earning the reputation as a "dove" or a "peacemaker". Pacifism also describes a stance in particular circumstances, in contrast with those who believe that the circumstances justify violence. An advocate of a pacifist strategy may be more optimistic or opposed to violence in the situation, differing from her or his non-pacifist counterpart only in her or his assessment of the means the situation calls for. Positions which advise non-aggression under normal circumstances but reserve the right to self-defense under crisis, while not pacifist in an ideal sense, may be calledpacifist in a pragmatic sense, reflecting strong commitment to the natural and nearly universal preference of peace over war.
The political theory of
Green parties lists "
non-violence" and "
decentralization" towards anarchist co-operatives or minimalist village government, as two of their ten key values. However, in power, Greens like all politicians often compromise, e.g. German Greens in the cabinet of Social Democrat
Gerhard Schröder supported an intervention by German troops in
Afghanistan in 2001, but on condition that they host the peace conference in Berlin — and during the 2002 election campaign forced Schröder to swear that no German troops would invade Iraq.
This suggests that many who advocate "non-violence" or pacifism, especially political parties that participate in government, actually advocate what is more properly called
de-escalation or even
arms reduction (on a very large scale) rather than outright
disarmament (which is advocated by many pacifists). Many outstanding pacifists of this sort have taken part in defensive military actions when their countries were attacked, but others prefer to leave their country if it is preparing for aggressive war (such as Germany in the
1930s). Clearly a party that writes and enforces law is not non-violent. It can be pacifist, however, by refusing participation in external conflicts, refusing to supply weapons, and sheltering refugees but not combatants. There are many definitions of such "pragmatic pacifism".
While those who believe that war is normally preferable to peace are rare indeed, pacifism as a distinctive belief is not at all common. The distinction of pacifism is not only an extraordinary faith in the effectiveness or benefits of peaceful means of resolution of conflict, but the principled rejection of all justification of violent means under any circumstances. At a minimum, this stance is adopted as a matter of personal conviction limited to one's own choices, which sometimes leaves the individual conscientiously free to serve in a war effort as a non-combatant if required to do so. Some people who felt they could not in good conscience fight in a war served as ambulance drivers during
World War I; others were jailed, such as the American pacifist agitator
David Dellinger.
The ultimate pragmatic argument that may be offered by pacifists is that violent resistance to violence always fails to bring about peace, that war can only be expected to establish a realignment of forces under principles of violence. Besides, pacifists may argue, war frequently fails to accomplish the political or economic ends to which it is supposedly directed, nor do the benefits usually outweigh the cost, and rarely in actuality is war motivated by the high ideals that its supporters use to justify it. Not all forms of radical pacifism make pragmatic assumptions, and rather simply oppose violence as such. Radical pacifism is controversial, and only a few religions (such as the
Jainism, several
Buddhist traditions and the
peace churches of
Christianity) advocate it.
Pacifism has both a passive component (refusing to fight) and an active component (working for peace). Many pacifists may seek to be recognized
conscientious objectors by their government, and may actively seek other ways to avoid all participation in their nation's maintenance or use of military forces. Pacifists believe that if their community is threatened by a crisis of aggressive opposition, all aggression as such should be opposed, including self-defensive "aggression". Those who advocate a philosophy of total non-violence at all levels may offer pragmatic arguments for the benefits of non-violent resistance; however, a radical pacifistic position is in the final analysis a moral, spiritual or religious principle intended to be maintained at all cost, and therefore does not necessarily imply any optimistic expectation for the material benefits of this policy. Radical pacifists would believe that it is better to be killed while sticking firmly to their principles of nonviolence than to fight back and survive (principle over practicality). They would consider submitting to violence against them the only morally acceptable option, and consider their death noble martyrdom.
Today, some countries (for example,
Switzerland,
Norway and
Germany) offer
civilian service in order to allow pacifists not to go into the military.
Some pacifists and
multilateralists are in favor of the establishment of a
world government as a means to prevent and control international aggression without the
UN veto problem. Many large regions (such as the
United States,
India and
Europe) have banded (or have been banded) together to form a political entity. Groups of people within the organization may not like or agree with each other. However war between themselves is considered very unlikely. A world government, however, is less likely when different regions are separated by culture, language and economic development. These give rise to frictions due to different perspectives on laws and on social equality. There is less of a feeling of 'us'. It is also easier for politicians to divide up such separated people by appealing to
tribal feelings.
A commitment to pacifism is often based on
religious beliefs. In particular, many
Buddhists,
Hindus and
Jains are pacifist, as are
Unitarian Universalists and some Christian groups including
Religious Society of Friends,
Mennonites,
Church of the Brethren. Strictly speaking,
Jehovah's Witnesses espouse
neutrality rather than pacifism, a complete rejection of any type of participation in war, but do not consider themselves pacifists. There have also been non-violent movements in Islam, in the 20th century the
Khudai Khidmatgar movement being a classic example of non-violence being used successfully in combination against a colonial ruler.
Though
Jesus clearly espoused a philosophy of peace, there is some disagreement as to the extent of Jesus' pacifism. Certain Christian denominations, known as
peace churches, have taken the position that he was constant in his pacifist aims, and believe further that early Christianity was essentially pacifist in nature. The Russian novelist
Leo Tolstoy was a Christian pacifist. He argued that Christians were obliged to be pacifists, and that pacifists, in turn, were obliged to be
anarchists — since government is based on the use of
force. Tolstoy was influenced by
Henry David Thoreau's writings on
civil disobedience. Tolstoy's own writings on pacifism and
nonresistance influenced
Gandhi's
nonviolent resistance movement in the 1930's.
In the modern era, theologians such as
Mennonite John Howard Yoder and
United Methodist Stanley Hauerwas have been strong advocates for Christian pacifism. Both have strengthened the pacifist argument with sophisticated philosophical underpinnings, grounded in the
Bible and the life, words, and person of
Jesus.
Non-pacifistic religions, including
Judaism, many variants of Christianity, and of
Islam, have usually made no pretense of meaning "pacifism" when they teach that there exists an obligation to pursue peace: typically constructing rules, sometimes very elaborately defined, under which the use of aggression for the establishment and maintenance of justice may be legitimate. Non-pacifist Christians typically interpret Christ to have taught patience under even extreme religious persecution, but do not directly extend the teaching as a rule for the governance of nations or the strategies of police forces. Most (the
Roman Catholic Church in particular) adopt some formulation of the
Just War Theory, by which the use of violence or force is deemed legitimate and necessary under certain circumstances, on which occasions non-participation may be judged morally wrong.
Religions without a pacifist stance usually emphasize the inherent limitations of aggression, but do not teach that force is in fundamental contradiction of their basic principles. However, nearly all religions reject violence as a means of
proselytism although there are notable cases in which this principle has been ignored, such as the
massacre of the Thessalonicans under Roman Emperor
Theodosius I.
Some of the pacifist religions and philosophies have sometimes approved the use of force in apparent contradiction of their principles, although not always by taking up weapons themselves. During World War II some members of Quaker and Mennonite churches in the United States served as medical workers in the army or put aside their pacifist beliefs altogether and fought in the battlefield.
Pacifist social movements in Buddhism
In Buddhism, leaders of pacifist movements often go to great lengths to effect change. For example,
Daw Aung San Suu Kyi is a
nonviolent pro-
democracy activist and leader of the
National League for Democracy in
Myanmar (Burma). A devout
Buddhist, Suu Kyi won the
Rafto Prize and the
Sakharov Prize for Freedom of Thought in 1990 and in 1991 was awarded the
Nobel Peace Prize for her peaceful and non-violent struggle under a repressive
military dictatorship. One of her most famous speeches is the "Freedom From Fear" speech, which begins "It is not power that corrupts but fear. Fear of losing power corrupts those who wield it and fear of the scourge of power corrupts those who are subject to it."
Also famous for leading a pacifist movement,
Tenzin Gyatso is the fourteenth and current
Dalai Lama, and as such, is often referred to in Western media as simply
The Dalai Lama. On
November 17 1950, at the age of fifteen, he was enthroned as Tibet's
Head of State and most important political ruler, while Tibet faced occupation by the forces of the
People's Republic of China. After the collapse of the
Tibetan resistance movement in
1959, Tenzin Gyatso fled to
India, where he was active in establishing the
Central Tibetan Administration (the Tibetan government in exile) and preserving Tibetan
culture and
education among the thousands of refugees who accompanied him. A
charismatic figure and noted public speaker, Tenzin Gyatso is the first Dalai Lama to travel to the
West, where he has helped to spread
Buddhism and to publicise the cause of
Free Tibet. In
1989, he was awarded the
Nobel Peace Prize.
Pacifism in mainstream Christian denominations
The origins of the mainstream Christian pacifist movements can be traced back to the 1930s, when, in the wake of the First World War, modern pacifism emerged. It was first seen in predominantly intellectual circles, both religious and secular, initially in
Great Britain. In previous decades in that nation it had been associated with other radical movements, such as the
suffragettes. In the backlash after the war, many writers, such as
Virginia Woolf,
Olaf Stapledon and
Aldous Huxley brought pacifism to the forefront of intellectual thought. This caused many theologians and clergy to reassess their previously held positions.
Possibly the key figure in making pacifism "respectable" to the general public was Richard "Dick" Sheppard, an Anglican priest prominent due to his position as broadcaster of the BBC's first religious program. Sheppard, a former army chaplain, had come to believe that war, militarism and nationalism was blatantly counter to Christ's teachings. He thus founded the hugely successful "
Peace Pledge Union," a secular organisation committed to "No More War!" The "Pledge" was as follows: "I renounce war and never again, directly or indirectly, will I support or sanction another." Within one year, Sheppard had 100 000 signatories to his cause, though the many were to later break this oath and fight in the
Second World War. Sheppard's Christian philosophy can perhaps best be summarised by this quote, "Not peace at any price, but love at all costs. At all costs...Though my enemy slay me, I will die rather than hate him." Sheppard died in
1937, the loss of his charismatic presence being a huge blow to his organisation, occurring as it did at a time when the faith of some members was wavering due to the rise of
Nazism in mainland
Europe. That same year, a specifically Anglican offshoot of the
Peace Pledge Union, the
Anglican Pacifist Fellowship, emerged. Both the PPU and APF are still in existence and are highly active in "constructive" or "positive" efforts towards peace (a contrast to the earlier "negative" pacifism, which defined itself as "anti-military" and "anti-war" without offering any pragmatic solutions to support this ideology.)
In 2005, the APF had approximately 1500 members worldwide, both clergy and laymen. Prominent early members of the APF includedformer British Labour Party leader (and Nobel Prize nominee)
George Lansbury, literary figure
Vera Brittain and Anglican theologian
Evelyn Underhill. These were involved in a number of campaigns in the late 1930s, the most prominent being a drive to ban bomber aircraft (due to their ability to inflict huge numbers of civilian casualities). This latter cause has been likened to today's anti-nuclear rallies.
The most notable Anglican of this period not to be a pacifist was the academic and writer
C. S. Lewis. Lewis, in fact, denounced the movement on his radio show during the war years. (It must be noted that many other theologians and clergy were blacklisted from broadcasting in this period by the authorities precisely due to their pacifist beliefs.) It should also be noted that, whilst hugely influential as a populariser of religion, Lewis' pronouncedly conservative views on many issues are not those of mainstream Anglican theologians today. Perhaps the greatest success of APF has been the ratification of the pacifist position at two successive
Lambeth Conferences, though some Anglicans still would not regard themselves as pacifists. Amongst modern Anglican pacifists,
Desmond Tutu is a prominent example.
Rowan Williams led an almost united Anglican Church in Britain in opposition to the 2003
Iraq War, mirrored by
Peter Carnley, who similarly led a front of bishops opposed to the
Australian Government's involvement in the invasion. Again, though, this was as the result of the circumstances of this particular attack. Whether opposition would occur to a more popularly supported war remains to be seen.
Within the Roman Catholic Church, the
Pax Christi organisation is the premiere pacifist lobby group. It holds positions similar to APF and indeed, the two organisations are known to work together on ecumenical projects. Within the Roman Catholic world, there has been a discerible move towards a more pacifist position through the twentieth and early twenty-first centuries. Indeed, the Popes
Benedict XV,
John XXIII and
John Paul II were all vocal in their opposition to specific wars. However, the Roman Church has not declared itself to be specifically pacifist, nor has it returned to the practice of its pre-Augustinian days, whereby those who served in the military were barred from the Eucharist.
Since the nineteenth century there has been a notable trend among prominent lay Roman Catholics towards pacifism. Individuals such as
Dorothy Day and
Henri Nouwen stand out among them. In addition, martyred El Salvadorian Bishop
Oscar Romero was notable for using non-violent resistance tactics and wrote meditative sermons focusing on the power of prayer and peace. By taking the name
Benedict XVI, some suspect that
Joseph Ratzinger will continue the strong emphasis upon non-violent conflict resolution of his predecessor. Whether this means a further move towards support for pacifist ideology remains to be seen. It is significant that representatives from both conservative and liberal factions of the Roman Catholic communion are giving expression to pacifist ideology.
The controversial democratic peace theory states that
liberal democracies have never (or almost) made war on one another. Furthermore, also lesser conflicts and internal violence is rare between and in democracies. It has also been argued that relatively rapid growth in the number of democratic states will in the not so distant future end warfare.
In some cases, it is possible that committing an act of violence might actually prevent further acts of violence (and reduce something like a "net-sum" of violence). For example, invading a country might bring an end to a dictator's violent oppression and save millions of lives, even if many thousands died in the war. However, most pacifists would be against taking such violent action. Some think situations like these provide an argument against pacifism.
The ideology and political practice of pacifism has been criticized by American activist
Ward Churchill, in his essay,
Pacifism as Pathology. Churchill argues that the social and political advancements cited by pacifists as examples of non-violent action at work have always been made possible by concurrent violent struggles.
Some commentators, including
Jan Narveson, argue that pacifism is a self-contradictory doctrine. Narveson claims that everyone has rights and corresponding responsibilities not to violate others' rights. Since pacifists give up their ability to protect themselves from violation of their right not to be harmed, then other people thus have no corresponding responsibility, thus creating a paradox of rights. As Narveson puts it, "the prevention of infractions of that right is precisely what one has a right to when one has a right at all." Narveson then discusses how rational persuasion is a good but often inadequate method of discouraging an aggressor. He considers that everyone has the right to use any means necessary to prevent deprivation of their civil liberties and force could be necessary.
[Narveson, Jan. 1965. "Pacifism: A Philosophical Analysis." Ethics, LXXV: 4, pp 259-271.]*
Ahimsa*
Antimilitarism*
Anarchism*
Christian anarchism*
List of pacifist faiths*
Christian Peacemaker Teams*
Criticisms of the War on Terrorism*
Khudai Khidmatgar*
List of pacifists*
Martialism*
Militarism*
Multilateralism*
Nonresistance*
Nonviolence*
Nonviolent resistance*
Opposition to the Vietnam War*
Pacifist organisation*
Peace*
Peace camp*
Peace churches:
Religious Society of Friends (Quakers),
Mennonites,
Brethren,
Polish Brethren*
Popular opposition to the 2003 Iraq war*
Protests against the 2003 Iraq war*
Tax resistance*
Unitarian Universalist Association*
World government
*
ACTivist Magazine*
Nonviolence.org*
The Philosophy of Nonviolence*
(Didn't Know I Was) UnAmerican*
A Look at the Cultural Roots of German Pacifism*
Writings on Christian Nonresistance and Pacifism from Anabaptist-Mennonite Sources*
Anti-War Directory*
A New Way*
Pacifism in 19th century New Zealand against the British and colonial invaders*
anabaptist.org*
Anglican Pacifist Fellowship*
A Case against War*
Peace Pledge Union*
Source documents in Global Anabaptist Mennonite Encyclopedia*
Manifesto against conscription and the military system, on official website
*
Manifesto against conscription and the military system, with online signature, official website
*
The IWW's Position on War and Militarism*
Traditional Catholic Reflections and Reports *
Jesus Christ, Gandhi and George Bush by Stephen Hand 
