NONVIOLENCE vs violence EXERCISE

for affinity groups

This exercise is a tool that will help affinity group members understand how the concepts of nonviolence and violence are subjective, and how each of us can have very different opinions on what is or is not violent and even whether or not violence can be justifiable in certain situations. For some, a philosophical approach of loving their enemies, often including pacifism, is what nonviolence means. For others, “nonviolence” is a tactical approach only. They can and will feel however they want to about their enemies/opponents, but they commit to nonviolence during actions.

Having different perspectives on what is violent/nonviolent does not mean that group members cannot work together. To the contrary, a wide variety of perspectives makes things interesting, and having different opinions involved with discussions and planning can be very beneficial. Having a commitment to nonviolence is the key factor, if your AG chooses to engage in nonviolent methods of activism.

This exercise is one that should open doors to conversations and lead to a better understanding of your fellow affinity group members and their stances on nonviolence vs violence, and when/if a violent act is justified. It may also give insight in to your own perspectives that you may not have been aware of previously. You should also begin to understand how, even if your actions are perceived as nonviolent by you and your fellow group members, others may perceive your actions differently.

There are no right or wrong answers. You are NOT saying “I would/would not commit this act” by viewing an act as nonviolent/violent. There should be no judgement during or after this exercise.

You can use your knowledge of the consensus decision making process and options for blocking when, in the future, potential actions raise concerns for members regarding their perception of violence or what they are willing to participate in.

Exercise

Ask group members to stand up and ‘draw’ a line on the floor/ground. If you have something to use, go for it. Otherwise, just show where the ‘line’ is. One end of the ‘line’ represents ‘nonviolence’ and the other represents ‘violence.’ The line is a spectrum and gradually increases from nonviolent to violent (like a scale of 1 to 10, nonviolent being the 1 and violent being the 10).

Once this is all clear to group members, you will ask the following questions (or come up with your own similar questions), giving time after each for people to move up or down the line to where they feel the proposed action falls on this spectrum of nonviolence to violence. It is a great idea after each question to ask one or more of your group members to explain why they feel that proposed action is violent/nonviolent (or wherever they end up on that spectrum [line]). Rotate who you elect to answer and watch for social cues that someone may not want to be elected for this.

Proposed (hypothetical) actions

1) The act of screaming “AHHHHHHHH” very loudly when no one is around and no one can hear you.

2) The act of screaming at a child when they have misbehaved.

3) The act of screaming threatening remarks at officers that have assaulted a protestor at a nonviolent rally or protest.

4) Hitting a dog.

5) Purchasing and eating meat.

6) Removing a corporate-owned fence that is a boundary marker for an area of old growth forest that is being clear-felled.

7) Damaging a bulldozer, that is being used to clear a forest, by sabotaging the driving mechanism or the fuel system.

8) Burning down a facility where hundreds of animals are routinely, forcibly inseminated and killed every week.

9) Shooting the “enemy” during a war.

10) Making the decision to wage war against another country.