How Nonviolence Works
A simple way to illustrate how nonviolence work is to see it as a jiu-jitsu: when used against opponents who are able and willing to use violent measures, it rebounds the violence against its perpetrator. As the violence bounces back to the perpetrator, change becomes possible.
The ideological school believes that nonviolence works as a moral jiu-jitsu: when faced with fearless, calm, steady, and nonviolent reactions, violence itself helps to overthrow its user. The exponent of nonviolent action is superior to the attacker in at least three ways (Gregg 1935: 26). Firstly, this person has taken a moral initiative, one which the opponent is not trained to respond to. Secondly, this person knows what is really happening in such struggle and how to control the process. Thirdly, this person’s self-control conserves his or her energy, while the opponent is exhausted by prolonged anger. Thus, the opponent loses moral balance and starts questioning the appropriateness of his or her conduct.
Meanwhile, the pragmatic school sees nonviolence as a political jiu-jitsu, aiming at throwing an opponent off balance politically, allowing the repression to rebound against the perpetrator’s position and weakening his or her power. As mentioned by Sharp (1973: 109-113), “an extensive, determined and skilful application of nonviolent action” against “opponents who are able and willing to use violent means” will “disturb or frustrate the effective utilisation” of the opponents’ forces, alienate the general population from the opponent, as well as increase sympathy and support for the nonviolent action. More specifically, he identified three groups that can be affected by such political jiu-jitsu:
“(1) the general grievance group and the usually smaller group of nonviolent resisters; (2) the opponents’ usual supporters, on various levels, including among the general population, the opponents’ functionaries, administrators, and enforcement agents, and at times even the top echelons of officials; (3) uncommitted third parties, whether on the local or world level” (Sharp 2005: 407).
