George Lakey (1962: 18-38) on Mechanisms of Change
A successful nonviolent action brings about change through one of the following mechanisms: (1) coercion, (2) conversion, or (3) persuasion.
Coercion is “taking away from the opponent either his ability to maintain the status quo or his ability to effect social change” (1962: 19). The effectiveness of this mechanism depends on (a) how dependent the opponent is to the nonviolent exponent, and (b) the relation between the opponent and a third party (1962: 19).
Conversion means that the opponent “comes around to a new point of view which embraces the ends of the nonviolent actor” (1962: 20). While “coercive nonviolence undermines the opponent’s ability to resist the demands of the nonviolent actor, nonviolent conversion removes the opponent’s reason for resisting” (1962: 21).
Persuasion refers to a condition where the opponent is not converted, but “accepts a new image of the nonviolent actor, an image which discourages the use of violence against him” (1962: 21). It works when a nonviolent exponent manages to convince others that they are not appropriate targets for violent repression (1962: 22). Being able to project a self-image as a ‘nuisance’, and not as a ‘threat’, a nonviolent exponent is close to a resolution of the conflict (1962: 23).
The above mechanisms were adopted and slightly modified by Sharp (1973: 705-776) into (1) coercion, (2) conversion, and (3) accommodation (Randle 2002: 79). In a later publication, Sharp (cited in Randle 2002: 79-80) introduced another mechanism, labelled as disintegration, which refers to “a situation where the opponent’s power structure collapses altogether under the pressure of civil resistance”.
