Nonviolent Action, Trust and Building a Culture of Peace

Abstract

Building and sustaining cultures of peace does not mean eliminating conflict. Rather, conflict is to be expected. Sharp, even profound, disagreements among groups are almost inevitable in any social setting. These disagreements may be or become deeply divisive and threaten to split the community on moral or political grounds. The challenge for building a culture of peace, therefore, becomes how such contention is expressed and managed. This involves building institutions that are authoritative and legitimate and altering behavioral repertoires among community members so that conflicts can be waged short of violence. This chapter argues that nonviolent action, as a method of making contention, makes three important contributions to building and sustaining a culture of peace. First, nonviolent means of struggle promote social norms that eschew violence, even without any kind of overarching commitment to pacifism. Second, nonviolent struggle helps to build trust among individuals and groups, even when they find themselves in contention. Third, the structural requirements for effective nonviolent action diffuse power throughout society— effectively empowering groups who might otherwise be excluded, broadening democratic participation, and valuing inter-group communication. The repertoire of nonviolent methods for contentious action has important consequences for each of these approaches to building peaceful communities. It does this by virtue of the characteristics of engaging in nonviolent action as well as by the behavioral consequences of its practice. In addition, it promotes institutions that are responsive to community interests and needs, reflect norms of social justice, and are generally effective in their actions. Such institutions will have deeper legitimacy and consequently will be able to act with greater authority. Of vital importance, these institutions will also be perceived as legitimate venues for conflict resolution and for contention. The methods by which conflict and societal contention are engaged are crucial. Even when institutions are generally effective and legitimate, they may be flawed or new circumstances arise that change needs. Indeed, Guidry and Sawyer (2003, p. 273) argue that “the politics of claiming space in the public sphere...is a necessary, though not sufficient, condition for democracy.” Thus, building and sustaining