Transformative Nonviolence: The Social Ethics of George Fox and Thich Nhat Hanh

Abstract

Both George Fox, an early Quaker leader, and Thich Nhat Hanh, a Buddhist leader, seek to transform the world through their (and their religious traditions') teachings. Although they differ on some practical points of implementation and style, both espouse nonviolence or lack of coercion in seeking this transformation. This article examines two religious leaders and the communities that they led: George Fox (1624-1691), founder of the Religious Society of Friends, or Quakers, and Thich Nhat Hanh (1926), ideological leader of the Vietnamese Buddhist antiwar movement and internationally recognized leader in the Engaged Buddhism movement today. These men and their movements were and are gentle and nonviolent. They lived and live in a violent world that pressed its aggression directly upon them. Yet neither they nor their immediate followers practiced retreat or withdrawal from the world. Neither felt he could ignore the world; rather, each engaged it in a variety of both proactive and reactive encounters. Let's consider in each case the form of this engagement with the world and the role of religious belief and practice in engendering and shaping it. I am particularly interested in considering the extent and quality of nonviolence practiced by each in his engagements with a violent world and with his own community. After all, it is one thing to practice nonviolence in withdrawal from the world; but to maintain strict nonviolence while simultaneously aspiring to change at its roots a violent and resistant world must surely put severe demands on the theory and practice of nonviolence. Does coercion, force, or aggression of any kind have any place in the actions of these self-defined peaceable peoples? Is there an intrinsic coerciveness in the very intention of transforming the world? Or are there forms of behavior that are inherently noncoercive yet bear the power to transform others? If there are such purely noncoercive yet transformative behaviors, did and do these leaders and movements confine themselves to them? Buddhist-Christian Studies 18 (1998). ? by University of Hawai'i Press. All rights reserved. This content downloaded from 207.46.13.114 on Thu, 26 May 2016 06:27:50 UTC All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms