The Role of Nonviolence Scholars Scholars, whether we are university academics or independent researchers, have an important role to play in the effort to create a nonviolent world. Unfortunately, it is my experience that most scholars have paid insufficient attention to what I believe is the fundamental question about any research: Who benefits? If the research is done primarily because it will enhance personal status, primarily because it will assist a university department to secure additional funding, or because it will provide detailed arguments that elites can use to justify their continued exploitation of ordinary people, nonhuman species and/or the environment, then it is clear to me that the scholar doing the research has little commitment to the creation of a nonviolent world, whatever their discipline. Although scholars of nonviolence have usually pondered a version of this fundamental question, many have not gone on to ask some of the important questions that derive from it. Here are some of them. 1. How can nonviolence scholars help to create a consciousness that nonviolence is an ancient and worldwide tradition that predates, and has nurtured and sustained throughout millennia, the various social justice, peace and environmental movements that have arisen throughout history? In a recent article, Paul Wehr argued that 'the tradition and the method of nonviolence have merged in the last half of the twentieth century to form a social movement distinct from the peace movements' and that peace movements and the peace tradition would be better understood if they were viewed within the larger context of the nonviolence movement.1 I would go much further. I suspect that a thorough historical investigation would reveal that most, and perhaps all, social movements (particularly those that have been sustained for any length of time), as well as many national liberation struggles, have drawn justification for their cause from the ethical tradition of nonviolence (which has been mediated through most spiritual, religious and philosophical traditions around the world) and have drawn methods of political action from the practice of nonviolence. In their own way, and despite their distortion by the elites and institutions that control them, most modern religions are relatively recent purveyors of the ancient doctrine of nonviolence. And, of course, examples of nonviolent action predate by millennia the systematic identification and labelling of the phenomenon that has taken place during the twentieth century. To choose a simple example, there is evidence to suggest that the doctrine of nonviolence (mediated through African spiritual traditions and Christianity) and the practice of nonviolent action were very important to the nineteenth-century struggle to abolish slavery in the United States. Is this struggle best understood as a separate movement that drew incidentally on the philosophy and practice of nonviolence? Or is it best understood as yet another manifestation of an ancient tradition that, with the passage of time, is coming more clearly into focus? Analysing the philosophy and methods used by a social movement might tell us more about it than the issue it contests. In summary, rather than analysing recent social movements through a prism that considers what they have drawn (a set of ethical principles, a strategic framework, some literature, an education program, ideas for action) from the philosophy and practice of nonviolence, it might be more productive to analyse all social movements through the prism of nonviolence. At the very least, nonviolence (and other) scholars might consider doing both types of analysis. 2. How can nonviolence scholars facilitate the philosophical and organisational development of the worldwide nonviolence community? I have been using the term 'Global Nonviolence Network' (GNN) for some time now as part of my effort to encourage awareness that the nonviolence community is indeed worldwide. What should we call this community? How can we become 'intentional' members of this (global) community? What philosophical and organisational principles should guide its development? 3. How can nonviolence scholars consciously assist in the development of nonviolent cosmologies and cultures within this global community? What, precisely, do 'nonviolent cosmology' and 'nonviolent culture' mean? What are their components? How do we systematically introduce, and then nurture, these components as we go about re-establishing nonviolent communities all over the world? 4. Assuming that we are not merely interested in a dialogue with fellow theorists, how can we, as nonviolence scholars, adjust our teaching and research efforts to more closely match the needs of nonviolent activists engaged in local campaigns? As a scholar, I am frequently dismayed by the calibre of much that is published within the discipline of nonviolence. Too much of the literature being published is a reiteration of past work (including republication, without new insights, of the same case studies) and is devoid of learning that is genuinely new. Moreover, much of it is useless to activists. Not all research about nonviolence should be designed to directly assist activists but, if we want to be vitally (rather than peripherally) involved in the effort to create a nonviolent world, much more of it should be. As I become more aware of the day-to-day needs of activists, I find myself increasingly discontent with the quality and quantity of nonviolence literature that I am willing to recommend. And most of this has been written by activists themselves (particularly Gandhi) rather than by scholars. For example, nonviolent activists desperately need more sophisticated strategic frameworks to guide their strategic planning, but the frameworks that do exist have virtually all been developed by activists 'in the field'. And, although these frameworks might have then been recorded and 'studied' by scholars, there is little evidence to suggest that scholars have set out to systematically examine how these frameworks might be improved by, for example, a thorough study of recent advances in the field of conflict theory. What questions do activists want answered? In what forms (but certainly not including articles published in obscure academic journals) do they want the answers presented and taught? How can scholars interact with local activists so that their research and teaching has relevance for activists 'everywhere'? In short, how can research resources be best spent if, in fact, helping activists to bring about change is one aim of nonviolence scholarship? 5. How can nonviolence scholars become better nonviolent activists in their own right (apart from the ways in which their research can constitute a form of activism)? Working with activists (nonviolent or otherwise) has taught me that most activists consider the work of scholars to be unrelated to the 'real' world of activist concerns and they attribute this to the distance of most scholars from the laborious work of action campaigns. Moreover, activists are very conscious of the fact that most scholars avoid the heavier costs that activists pay by working directly for social change: foregone employment opportunities and imprisonment being just two of the more common ones. Obviously, I encourage activists to be more generous in their assessment of the contribution that scholars might make to social change movements but we are going to have to demonstrate our commitment in more concrete ways before we are treated as equal partners in the struggle. How can we assist each other to better communicate with activists, to get involved in campaigns (and take some of the risks) and, in doing so, to better identify the important research questions? 6. How can nonviolence scholars more effectively support the nonviolent liberation efforts of those activists (in Tibet, Burma, China, Palestine and elsewhere) engaged in major national struggles? How can nonviolence scholars improve the strategic thinking about nonviolent defence? How can nonviolence scholars more effectively support efforts at nonviolent intervention across national borders (like those of Peace Brigades International, Witness for Peace, Christian Peacemaker Teams or even Greenpeace)? From my reading, too little of the existing research effort is devoted to empathic critiques of these struggles and to developing suggestions and alternative options for consideration by the activists involved. 7. How can nonviolence scholars adopt nonviolence as a way of life? Any serious decision to adopt a nonviolent lifestyle must result in a vast number of changes and a lifetime of effort. But it has profound rewards! One commonly identified aspect of a nonviolent lifestyle is material simplicity. However, my contacts with scholars throughout the Western world has revealed that few of us are making a serious effort to substantially simplify our personal lives and to more fully share the resources to which we have access. This has many outcomes. An obvious one is that while many academics regularly travel overseas to discuss nonviolence at conferences or in other forums, few activists (and especially African, Asian and Central/South American women) are able to do so. Another outcome is that many of these conferences and forums spend much of their time discussing issues that are tangential to the short and long-term preoccupations of activists. I am convinced that, as nonviolence scholars, we would gain personally, derive deeper research insights and improve our credibility with activists, if we were willing to more fully embrace a lifestyle of nonviolence. How can we support each other to embrace this lifestyle and, in doing so, set an example for scholars in other disciplines? These are just some of the questions that I think nonviolence scholars could usefully consider. But how are we to get the answers? Like any research project, the vital first stage is to develop processes and to organise resources so that important questions can be identified and then systematically addressed. The ANN National Gathering in 1995 In order to develop an Australian forum to consider these and/or other questions, I propose that those nonviolent activists, educators and scholars who wish to do so, establish a 'Nonviolence Scholars Forum' (or something of similar name) at the National Gathering of the Australian Nonviolence Network (ANN) in April 1995. If we do this, we will be able to consider and establish processes that allow us to communicate and work together more effectively in future. [See the registration information in this issue, Eds.] The IPRA Conference in 1996 At and beyond the National Gathering, this group might also consider the nature of the contribution that it might make, perhaps on behalf of the ANN, at the International Peace Research Association's (IPRA) biennial conference to be held at the University of Queensland in Brisbane in mid- 1996. The most recent IPRA conferences, held at Kyoto in 1992 and Malta in 1994, have attracted hundreds of participants from all over the world. Among these participants there have been some creative nonviolence scholars and the Nonviolence Commission (one of many within IPRA) has provided an excellent opportunity for these scholars to meet and work together. If our 'Nonviolence Scholars Forum' has prepared itself thoroughly, we might be able to pose some challenging questions, or even to present some radical proposals, to make future gatherings of this type more effective. One radical proposal, that derives from the first question above, might be to suggest the separation of the Nonviolence Commission from IPRA. Perhaps it is time that we formally established the Worldwide Nonviolence Community - drawing in existing networks: the International Fellowship of Reconciliation (IFOR), the International Network of Engaged Buddhists (INEB), Peace Brigades International (PBI), Servicio Paz y Justicia en America Latina (SERPAJ) and War Resisters' International (WRI) - in some form or other, and then created various Nonviolence Commissions to work on a wide variety of issues at (and between) its biennial gatherings! Each commission could consist of an appropriate combination of nonviolent activists, educators and scholars from all over the world. We could have commissions working to develop theoretical and practical responses to interpersonal, domestic and local community violence. We could have commissions working on 'global issues' (such as indigenous people's rights and rainforest destruction) so that global strategies can be developed, local campaigns can be coordinated and solidarity links can be created. We could have commissions working on nonviolent liberation struggles or nonviolent defence strategies (such as those of Tibet, Burma, China and Palestine) so that the global nonviolence community can contribute to the formulation of strategies and the coordination of solidarity activity (ranging from theoretical guidance to local campaigns). We could have commissions working to develop nonviolent intervention strategies (in the spirit of the Gulf Peace Team) to prevent or halt wars. We could have commissions working to facilitate inter-religious dialogue and to develop nonviolent responses to religious (Christian, Hindu and Islamic) fundamentalism. We could have commissions working to develop long- term strategies to systematically dismantle patriarchy, capitalism and the states-system. We could have commissions to develop strategies for the creation of nonviolent cosmologies, cultures and communities. If some of these ideas sound like they might require some difficult and long-term work, I agree. The key question, then, is this: should the worldwide nonviolence community start working on them in a coordinated way soon? Or should we wait for another ten or twenty years? We can only start in a small and modest way whenever or however we go about it. Thus, in my view, we should start now. Robert J. Burrowes P.O. Box 167, North Carlton Victoria 3054 Email: burrowes@peg.apc.org Tel/Fax: (03) 387 3398 Notes 1. Paul Wehr. 'Commentary: Toward a History of Nonviolence'. Peace and Change. 20, 1, January 1995. pp. 82-93.