The Violence of Non-Violence and Civil Disobedience: a Psychological Inference

Abstract

By its very nature and philosophy, non-violence (and the practice or action of civil disobedience) amounts to violence. In its best, non-violence is the philosophy of using peaceful means, not force, to bring about political or social change. Civil disobedience implies the willful and deliberate violation of certain law, civil rule and political authority in resistance to some real or perceived injustice. In other words, civil disobedience is the philosophical tradition that upholds non-violence as the sole route to resisting oppression and injustice. This implies psychological retaliation. But the question is, is the very idea of civil disobedience, as the practice of non-violence, not itself violent? In consideration of this, this article indicated the nature of civil disobedience, provided a typology of violence, and there- from argued that if violence implies violation (whether physical or psychological); that if non-violence denounces violence; and that if civil disobedience is the praxis of non-violence, then, going by its very nature, theory and practice, non-violence/civil disobedience amounts to some form of violation or violence - the supposed evil that it is meant to cure. (to carry). The Latin word, 'violare' is itself a combination of these two words; and its present participle, 'violens' is a plausible source for the word, 'violence' - so that the word, 'violence' in its etymological origin, has the sense of 'to carry force' at or towards. To 'violate' therefore, the intention is to inflict injury or damage on an/a object or subject. 'Violence', therefore, can be physical or psychological. It is notable that the word, 'violation' is an interesting feature