Creative nonviolence and hostile protest behavior

author : Robert Whitlock

by Rob Whitlock

I went to the Tacoma Convention Center on June 6th to witness the Special Operations West 2007 Weapons Exposition. The marketing exposition showcased the latest in high-tech weapons and the specialized tools of killing, compliance, surveillance and reconnaissance that are available only to elite military forces and law enforcement. But my reason for going was not to get the lowdown on the latest implements and efficiencies in the dealing of death, you see; I oppose killing. I wanted to witness the human side of the weapons marketing equation and to represent all of the people who were unable to express their own opposition to death dealing. I went to find a deeper understanding of the people who market, sell, distribute and consume weapons of violence and death. But mostly I went to bear vigilant and conscious witness to the event.

I showed up with three others who opposed the exposition, the war, and the making of war profits. On a first drive around the building we did not see any protesters. So we parked and walked back to find the protest. By the time we arrived at the North entrance, there were others gathered and actively expressing their opposition to the market of suffering that was taking place inside the pavilion. One man, Ray from Puyallup, held a sign quoting General Smedley Butler, which read "War is a Racket." Another man held a collage of images that showed suffering Iraqis.

I was glad to be there. It was an important expression of disapproval for the purposeful distribution of and profiting off of these weapons of destruction and division. My fellow protesters inspired me; their message and presence strengthened my own.

On the car ride to the exposition I had a good, though brief, conversation about nonviolence and antagonism and protest demonstrations. I mentioned my concern about hateful behavior and abrasive / hostile language at events like the one we were headed towards. The person driving me said that it was her desire to antagonize the war-profiteers. I told her that I didn't think that antagonism was an effective tool for promoting social change. We were able to have a friendly discussion about the use of hateful, hostile, antagonistic, language and behavior, in the context of protest. This conversation set the tone for the rest of the event and helped to clarify much of the recent thinking that I have been doing about the role of nonviolence and the problem of hostility at protests.

I have been doing a lot of brainstorming about creative nonviolence for about a year now. I started thinking about nonviolence in the context of the arrival of a genuine band of Nazis to Olympia. If you remember that, you might remember the hostile and hateful greeting that the Nazis received from the "peace and justice" community of Olympia. So you can thank the Nazis for provoking these thoughts and musings on how to most effectively oppose violence and work toward the development of a truly peaceful and prosperous society.

When the Nazis came to Olympia I saw a lot of hateful behavior not only from the Nazis, but from some of those who opposed the Nazis. Does the fact that Nazis spew rhetoric of hate and violence make it acceptable for those of us in the "tolerant" community to do the same? The use of hate speech "against" them actually serves to legitimize their own use of hate speech, and also lowers us to their level. I am sure that there are enough of us in the "tolerant" community with enough imagination to respond in a sober manner and with constructive criticism. Creative and serious expressions of disapproval, rather than displays of antagonism, shouting, also are more fitting to the gravitas of facing an invasion of Nazis. So what's stopping us?

The basis of my argument against the use of hateful, hostile and antagonistic behavior is threefold. First of all, I don't like to be subjected to hate. I don't like to be approached in anger. I don't like to be hurt or antagonized. Therefore, it is important for me to exercise reciprocity, or the Golden Rule.

How can we advocate for de-escalation, for an end to violence and hostilities if we are unwilling to let go of them ourselves? If we want to put an end to needless suffering, to the injustices being committed by our government, we must also set an example and create a model for how people can interact without resorting to harmfulness and violence. Gandhi said that there is no way to peace -- but that peace itself is the way.

The second part is that I am uncomfortable when I'm around hostile and antagonistic demonstrators. Belligerent sloganeering and hostile speech put me on edge. And I know that I am not alone. If the goal is a mass movement, a grass roots movement, then there will need to be masses of people. But it will be hard to amass the necessary number of individuals if people feel uncomfortable in the protest environment, and cannot peacefully participate. Instead of shouting abrasive slogans and making demands of our adversaries, it would be more effective to demonstrate an attitude of understanding. We have the ability to create a more comfortable and welcoming protest atmosphere.

I think that protests would be most effective by having a critical mass of people who are committed and willing to participate in life-serving acts of creative nonviolence including civil disobedience. We can promote the formation of a critical mass by developing a comfortable, welcoming and fun activist environment, embracing a diversity of tactics. More people will bring their children and participate in actions of sacrifice or nonviolent physical obstruction like roadblocks, if there is a peaceful environment. Violence in the form of shouting profanities, vulgarities and slurs (not to mention acts of physical violence) works counter to the creation of this possibility.

Another problem with hostile environments is that it is easier for agent provocateurs to infiltrate. Whether in the protest setting or in other aspects of organizing, the security of the movement can be better maintained by having a calm and comfortable environment. The security issue re­affirms the claim that hostility is problematic -- and in multiple ways.

The third part of my argument also has to do with effectiveness. How does the use of hateful behavior promote peace? Does the use of hateful behavior promote change? Or is it possible that hostility actually serves to further the divide, and the misunderstanding, between us? I argue that antagonistic behavior amongst activists is counterproductive. For one, when people approach me in anger, I go into fight or flight. Even when I am in the wrong I find it exceedingly difficult to admit my error, when I am confronted in an angry and hostile manner. If I won't admit my wrongs in the face of hostile accusation how can I be expected to begin the processes of remediation and reconciliation?

Rob Whitlock is a resident of Olympia.