Non-violent tension

Non-violent tension

jaredhs 17 Jun 2009 15:13

To help foster some more discussion here, I thought I would post this quotation that we looked at in class from Dr. King's "Letter from a Birmingham Jail." How do you think this relates to Arendt's idea that in the relation of the "polis," only words, and never force or violence, can be used to persuade other individuals?

"You may well ask: "Why direct action? Why sit ins, marches and so forth? Isn't negotiation a better path?" You are quite right in calling for negotiation. Indeed, this is the very purpose of direct action. Nonviolent direct action seeks to create such a crisis and foster such a tension that a community which has constantly refused to negotiate is forced to confront the issue. It seeks so to dramatize the issue that it can no longer be ignored. My citing the creation of tension as part of the work of the nonviolent resister may sound rather shocking. But I must confess that I am not afraid of the word "tension." I have earnestly opposed violent tension, but there is a type of constructive, nonviolent tension which is necessary for growth. Just as Socrates felt that it was necessary to create a tension in the mind so that individuals could rise from the bondage of myths and half truths to the unfettered realm of creative analysis and objective appraisal, so must we see the need for nonviolent gadflies to create the kind of tension in society that will help men rise from the dark depths of prejudice and racism to the majestic heights of understanding and brotherhood. The purpose of our direct action program is to create a situation so crisis packed that it will inevitably open the door to negotiation. I therefore concur with you in your call for negotiation. Too long has our beloved Southland been bogged down in a tragic effort to live in monologue rather than dialogue."

You can find the full text of the letter at this site..

Re: Non-violent tension

Shane Moison 18 Jun 2009 00:22

I think that Dr. King's statements here disprove Arendt's idea. He shows that they've exhausted all non-forceful options, yet they are still surpressed. Though the sit-ins are non-violent, I believe they are forceful. They are forcing themselves upon others. Dr. King's point is that they have really no other option.It had been nearly a century since the end of the Civil War yet the students weren't even allowed to eat lunch where ever they chose. So, i guess if you are willing to wait another lifetime or two, the follower's of Dr. King could have taken Arendt's approach, but that just doesn't seem to make any sense. I think that since all options were explored prior to the sit-ins, the actions of the Nashville students were justified and not immoral even though they did not fall under Arendt's ideas.

Re: Non-violent tension

aps5096 18 Jun 2009 01:53

I think Arendt’s ideas on how words, and not violence and force, should be used to persuade others only works in a society where all individuals follow this principle. When the suppressors in a society are using violence and force, it can be very hard for the suppressed to fight against them with only words. From my understanding if the “polis” follows the principle that Arendt gives it and it applies to everyone in the “polis” then no forceful or violent actions would be made towards one another. Therefore, Arendt’s idea of persuasion cannot directly be applied to the situation of segregation in the South. People can look upon the principal on how to act morally in situations as these, and take the first step of trying to negotiate peacefully with words. However, if negotiation with the suppressors is continually failing then other steps must be taken in order to stop from being suppressed. The next step would be to apply force in a non-violent action. If violence results from the action then Arendt might say that this is immoral, but so are the suppressors who are actually causing the violence. In fact, the suppressors should be considered even more immoral. Basically my point is that Arendt’s idea of persuasion should not be viewed as a rule that should be followed strictly, but more of a guideline on how to act in controversial situations.

Re: Non-violent tension

Jameson L 19 Jun 2009 02:55

It's easy to sit back and say that words solve everything but as it was already said, this only works in a society where all the parties follow this principal. This surprises me coming from Arendt because of her situation of being previously locked up in one of the camps by the Nazis. I wonder how far she would follow her own ideology if she had not been able to escape as quickly and easily as she did. I doubt she would just sit and wait to have a fair talk with one of the Nazi officials because as we know that would never happen. In order to possibly get her point across she would have had to, as Dr. King said, "dramatize the issue that it can no longer be ignored." She would have had to create the tension and force the issue to be able to have peaceful talks since she was obviously not being treated fairly in the first place. I just find it easier to say only "words, and never force or violence" then to actually put it into practice. Especially someone who has been through the struggles she has, I figured she would be one to realize that sometimes force is needed to be recognized.

Re: Non-violent tension

Edward Fuhrman 22 Jun 2009 03:06

I really wish I knew what Arendt’s response to this question would be. In the situation in the south, these people needed to force themselves to be noticed, as well as make their opinions heard loud and clear. They knew this wasn’t going to be possible by just writing letters to their government, or something to that extent. For so long they had been pushed to the side and not taken seriously. So why would the white people of that time change their mind’s and decide to sit down and negotiate with people they didn’t even look at as equals? They needed to create some tension or I guess you could even say havoc within their societies in order to force negotiations. I also think that Jameson brings up a really good point about Arendt’s own personal past. Obviously the Nazi organization did terrible things and would have kept on going if it not for the U.S. Would she think that the United States should have just wrote letters to Hitler telling him to stop?

Re: Non-violent tension

Brian Johnson 28 Jun 2009 04:58

Sometimes if someone won't listen to what you have to say you need to take a more drastic measure to get your voice heard and that is what Martin Luther King and his followers were doing. Our country is built on the foundation of freedom which was obviously being held from the black community. I think of it like if I went up to someone and talked a long of smack you would expect me to get beat up or at least get some smack talked back at me. That's what the whites were doing to the blacks at this time. You can't blame the guy I'm talking smack for beating me up after I brought it on myself just like you can't blame fault the civil rights movement after the whites wronged the blacks. Every action has an equal and opposite reaction and in this case denying freedom resulted in a reaction of demanding freedom by any means needed.