Speaking Peacefully
F.R.R. Mallory
December 11, 2007

Speaking Peacefully
"Seven Blunders Of The World That Lead To Violence":

Wealth without work
Science without humanity
Pleasure without conscience
Worship without sacrifice
Knowledge without character
Politics without principle
Commerce without morality
~ Mahatma Gandhi

On September 11, 1906, Mohandas K. Gandhi, (Mahatma Gandhi) launched the Satyagraha movement as a response to an ordinance which would have disenfranchised the Indian people. A Satyagraha movement, as explained by Gandhi, is, “a relentless search for Truth and a determination to search for Truth. Satyagraha is an attribute of the spirit within. Satyagraha can be described as an effective substitute for violence." (The Hindu 2002).

In practice, Gandhi used a four-pronged communication model to promote Satyagraha in concert with his actions of nonviolent resistance. This four-pronged model is described in two ways by leading academic experts in communication theory.

            Arne Naess in his 1974 book “Gandhi and Group Conflict: An exploration of Satyagraha”, describes Gandhi’s communication theory as:

1. On-site accumulation and analysis of facts, with opponent participation;
2. Identification of interests in common with opponents;
3. Formulation of a limited action goal acceptable to all parties and mutual discussion of same; and
4. A search for compromise without ceding on essentials (Naess).

            Robert Allen Bode, author of “Gandhi's Theory of Nonviolent Communication”, describes the same theory this way:

1. Nonviolent speech and action;
2. Maintenance of relationships and enrichment of personhood;
3. Openness; and
4. Flexibility” (Bode).

By unifying these two descriptions we can develop a clearer understanding of the features of this communication model.

Part One:
Analysis of Facts:
Satyagraha relies on the continued work toward a discovery of the truth while converting the opponent into a friend. Satyagraha is not against an opponent but accomplished when both parties join forces in the acquisition of truth. Conflict is resolved through a moral appeal to the heart and consciousness of the individual rather than based on the threat of violence, pain or threat.

Satyagraha, at its core, emerges from the acceptance that both parties to the perceived disagreement or conflict are competent and indeed, reasonable human beings. In this way Satyagraha perceives all human beings as reasoned and competent even or particularly when they are displaying anger, fear or aggression.

The first action Gandhi would take in communicating with a person, government, group or idea in apparent conflict with his perspective, would be to begin the accumulation and analysis of fact. It was Gandhi’s perspective that conflict resolution is or should not be attempted to be imposed from the outside (which is a form of violent imposition) but must come from those affected, at the place and time they are affected including and particularly in union with those equally affected who are identified as in conflict. This perspective is dependent upon the belief that the discovery of truth will resolve the conflict for both sides without either side winning or losing. This absence of the imposed humiliation of loss is again a feature of nonviolent process where humiliation is considered an action of violence.
As both parties to the conflict accumulate the facts and jointly analyze the facts they become co-creators of solution finding and/or the orientation of position becomes increasingly eroded (on both sides) as the truth establishes a new position acquired by joint reasoning process.

Part Two:
Enrichment of Personhood:
            To attain what might seem to be incredibly difficult goals it is critical to deploy the second part of this communication model which is to identify common interests between the opponents in order to establish, recognize and enhance each opponent’s personhood.

            Gandhi believed that enriched personhood disabled behaviors of aggression and violence. The more that a person likes and appreciates their opponent the more difficult it becomes to dissociate from the humanity of the individual and the distance to act with cruelty or violence is created by dismantling the humanity of opponent. So, by intentionally engaging in the process of enriching personhood, the ability to dissociate is reduced and in fact the personhood of the individual negotiating the conflict may become so invested that violent measures become intolerable concepts of destroyed personhood. In a sense this is the argument that the act of violence inverts or destroys the personhood of the person taking the violent action. In this way acts of violence are seen to be against the self, performed outward on others.

Part Three:
Limited Action Goals:
            The third step in the Gandhi Nonviolence Communication Model is to make actual and real progress toward a limited action goal. Since the idea of Satyagraha is based in the idea that all humans have interests in common and that opponents should be trusted and deceiving opponents should be avoided it becomes possible for both sides to be able to compromise on non-essentials. This ability to compromise enables or encourages the conversion of the opponent toward the objective being sought. Sacrifice in this way is not viewed as a loss but as a clarification toward the discovery of truth. The idea is that eventually the opponent will desire the same larger goal based again on the idea that the opponent’s humanity and desires are equal to their opposition. This immediate granting of peer status and value is critical to the enrollment necessary for attainment of a limited action goal.

            The taking of limited action goals allows both parties to systematically redefine their position relative to each other, reducing by gradients the distance between each and the fundamental goal of finding the ‘truth’ at the center. In this way it can be seen that hardened positions are indicators of increased likelihood of violent interactions reflecting a lack of flexibility.

            The acquisition of limited action goals allows both parties the opportunity of improved discussion, the opportunity of enhanced openness and ultimately support the slow adjustment of the (sides) of both opponents toward redefined and improved understanding of the situation.

            Satyagraha, in this way, posits that the conflict itself is due, not to the absence of humanity on either side, but due to inadequate information and understanding of the truth. Once adequate information and understanding become more visible to all ‘sides’ then the humanity of all parties will seek to produce this truth in terms of all humans having the same long-term interests in common. Since adequate information and understanding can only be brought by ‘both’ parties to the conflict since each possesses only their own collective information and understanding, in this way the truth is where these formerly separate uninformed positions have been brought together to clarify each other.

Part Four:
Ceding:

The fourth and last part of this communication model is described as a search for compromise without ceding on essentials and flexibility. When both sides ‘partner up’ together, from a position of enhanced information and understanding they have unified to the point where their positions are now more flexible. They no longer fear a loss of personhood due to discovery of truth. They value their opponent for the establishment of recognition of personhood and humanity and have reconfigured their opposition to be a thoughtful partnership between humans seeking common goals.

In this way the act of ‘ceding’ is a fluid position or a movement toward the discovery of truth and is not an act reflective of humiliation, loss or provocation.

Mahatma Gandhi demonstrated that these techniques were not only viable, they were transformative for all persons engaging in them. Fundamentally the practice of nonviolence is also the acceptance of suffering. By accepting suffering rather than inflicting suffering the dynamic of confrontation is fundamentally altered. The opponent is no longer ‘reacting’ but must now make a choice from a position of moral weakness. The ‘side’ of the opponent if this is considered in group terms is observing the difference between reacting to stimulation of provocation to intentionally deciding to inflict suffering on others. Should the opponent make the immoral choice they are then demonstrating to their own supporters a failure to value human life which translates to a loss of trust from their own supporters. If an opponent only values certain human lives then those who may have supported that individual begin to understand that the line of value may be temporary or shift to where their own life is also not valued.

Mahatma Gandhi’s nonviolent actions led to the independence of India from Britain in 1947. His techniques and practices have been used successfully by such luminaries as Martin Luther King, Jr., in his “I Have A Dream” speech and in his actions toward civil rights. Today Gandhi’s powerful four-pronged Communication Theory can be witnessed in such ongoing conflicts as the Burmese people’s fight against its current military government which resulted in the internationally noted footage of Burma monks being attacked while peacefully protesting in the streets of Burma. On November 1st progress was noted by the return of the UN envoy to continue the ‘behind the scenes’ discussions. Also making the headlines is the ongoing WGA strike (Writers Guild of America) who are protesting nonviolently by ceasing to participate in the production of television shows.

While it does not become possible to witness or document the private negotiations as they take place behind doors, it is certain that the nonviolent striking action, estimated to cost more than $20 million a day (Topix) in lost television revenues, has reminded the television studios that the striking workers are endowed with humanity and common goals and the failure to fairly portion proceeds is an action they would agree to were roles reversed which makes it against morality and supports the probability that this action will result in both sides finding a common truth sufficient for everyone to go back to work.
To some extent peaceful marches, strikes, protests, sit-ins, editorials, petitions, surveys and campaigns are representative of nonviolence in action and since nonviolence is a comprehensive model it is seldom easy to portion communication from action since often both are wed.

            Gandhi’s four-pronged communication model to promote Satyagraha provides a dynamic blueprint for the resolution of conflict through nonviolent means. At the core, this communication model makes demands of those choosing to use it. This is different from other communication models where the methods used are not examined for how they will impact the state of being of the person using the technique. Acceptable practices such as our president ‘lying’ in public statements are not openly examined in terms of how making those lies is affecting the president’s personhood. There is an underlying concept that if you practice deceit it means you are deceived or are unable to identify the concept of truth and to act from truth you must first be able to know truth. This demonstrates a fundamental lack of connection with personhood or an underlying belief in diminished self-value. In a sense, you cannot value others if you do not accept self value first and if you cannot value others then you are capable of cognitive error in terms of making decisions or choices that involve the value of others or self. Lying in public statements is not unusual, unless you are a practitioner of a communication model such as that used by Gandhi.

To adopt this communication model you have to prioritize the maximal reduction in worldwide violence as a goal, both personal and as part of humanity or the greater community in which all of us live. The way we communicate determines the character of the results of our efforts. If, back to the presidential example, we choose to express devalued personhood through deceit and/or lying to those we communicate with, then the character of the results of our efforts will frame their response from the perspective of a liar.

As shown in the ‘weapons of mass destruction’ and the current ‘Iran nuclear potential’ the lies will out. A president known as a liar will historically be a president known as a liar and his personal devaluation of self will translate into a historical devaluation where he is seen to have been of diminished capacity.

The voluntary acceptance of suffering is an act that ultimately transforms both sides of the conflict or conversation. The acceptance of suffering is a means of demonstrating sincerity first to the self and then to others. This sincerity is the vehicle which appeals to the opponent and to any undecided audience. The objective is for the opponent to confront their own views on the truth of the situation which may lead to conversion of the opponent.
Public opinion activism such as that being currently brought to the situations in Burma and Darfur, public opinion on the world stage, become indirect conversion mechanisms when the opponent’s behavior is placed outside of their control in terms they are unable to avoid making them confront their actions in terms of the truth of the situation. This isn’t a philosophical conversion but the objective is still attained in terms of behavior changes and since it is governed in public opinion the weight of that movement creates the transformative change that the initial behavior change offered as the opportunity. In a sense this is where the discovery of truth, even through the compelling of public opinion, is sufficient to transform in its wake those who were staunchly opposed to that behavior prior to the discovery of truth. Two examples of this process of reversed enlightenment might be to consider the nonviolent activism of the Vietnam War era and the nonviolent activism of the green movement. Retrospectively, the positions supporting the war and the overuse or waste of resources do not make sense in terms of the additional information and understanding which came with the discovery of truth.

In practice, this model of communication is part of a way of thinking, a way of decision making and a determination on how you will live your life. Using this model forces the practitioner into examination of self and ideas of personhood and humanity. As such, it is often difficult or challenging to maintain, particularly in a culture whose primary communication models are near mirror opposites. Some scholars on the subject suggest that cultures which foster nonviolent resolution of conflict as part of their cultural construct find converting to this model easier since it is closer to their already existing relationship models. It is important to consider that post-Gandhi, there has been a continuing rise in nonviolent activism worldwide. This includes such actions as the resistance to the Vietnam War and the actions which eventually freed Nelson Mandela. Gandhi showed the world what was possible, it is up to us to take it further by saying no to violence, in all places we find it. Ultimately, nonviolent action works because it seeks to deal with the sources of our conflicts rather than the symptoms of our conflict.

Work Cited

Bode, Robert A., “Mahatma Gandhi's Theory of Nonviolent Communication.” (1995) 2007.

Naess, Arne, “Nonviolent Communication in Group Conflicts:  An Intramural Note”
The Trumpeter. (2005) Volume 21, Number 1 2007.

The Hindu. 2002. 2007.

Topix. 2007.

Webber, Thomas, and Robert Burrowes, “Nonviolence: An Introduction”. 2000. NonViolence International. 2007.

Wehr, Paul, “Self-limiting Conflict:The Gandhian Style” 2007.

Mahatma Gandhi
http://www.mkgandhi.org/

Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi, was born on October 2, 1869 and died, through assassination on January 30, 1948) He was commonly known as Mahatma Gandhi. Gandhi was a major political and spiritual leader of India and he was instrumental in the overthrow of Colonial rule (The English) leading to the Indian independence movement.

He pioneered Satyagraha which I speak to in this essay. For further and better detail I suggest you explore more direct research through his website or other similar venues.

He inspired world-wide civil rights and freedom movements and in the United States he is credited with inspiring Martin Luther King, Jr., to seek the path of nonviolence in his efforts to bring civil rights to the black people of the United States. The Mahatma (Sanskrit: "Great Soul" - an epithet given by Tagore) and as Bapu (Gujarati bŸÅpu-"Father").

In India, he is officially accorded the honour of Father of the Nation and October 2, his birthday, is commemorated each year as Gandhi Jayanti, a national holiday. On 15 June 2007, the United Nations General Assembly unanimously adopted a resolution declaring October 2 to be the "International Day of Non-Violence. (Some portions of this information can be viewed here.)

On a personal level I discovered Gandhi late in my life and in what I consider an accidental manner. Although I had read accounts of him and seen the movie made of his life, I did not feel personally moved by his work until I became consumed with the desire to live my life with less violence. At that time I began to discover pieces of his speaking and writing that had profound impact on me. The more I learn the more I feel there is yet to learn through the thoughts he opened in the world.

HOME | MALLORY'S WORKS | COOL STUFF | JOURNAL | TRUNK | ABOUT MALLORY

© 2007-2008 F.R.R. Mallory