From D to D, Chapter 6 (Continued): Spending Wisely

This post is a continuation of my "study guide" and commentary on the book From Dictatorship to Democracy by Dr. Gene Sharp. In this series of posts, I have shortened the title of the book to From D to D. As I have said in previous posts, the consideration of this book is highly relevant for these times, in which those who support the supremacy of the world's dominant peoples have created a world in which a select few get to Make Themselves Great by exploiting everyone else. The poor of the earth experience this exploitation as enslavement, discrimination, harassment, dispossession, and the threat of genocide. Many live as refugees. Theirs is an experience of apparent utter powerlessness in the face of an all-consuming, murderously abusive power.  

Yet the poor of the earth do have at their disposal a "weapons system" and a strategic method which holds the promise to liberate them from their oppression if they dare to use it.  That means of liberation is strategic nonviolent resistance.  But employing that means of liberation involves accepting the risk of further suffering by the oppressed as part of their struggle.  And here we encounter a common problem: namely, that those who are in the group which must struggle for its liberation have been conditioned by the historical experience of their suffering into patterns of compliance by which they hope to minimize their suffering as much as possible.  It's as if they are saying, "Life is already hard.  Why make it harder for ourselves by challenging our masters?  After all, they can make things really hard for us!"  This attitude might seem to make sense, but it contains the seeds of a contradiction, namely, that the oppressed will suffer regardless of whether they comply as good little victims or whether they choose to resist.  The only difference between the two choices of suffering is that suffering as good little victims is pointless and ultimately hopeless, for it does not accomplish anything.  On the other hand, the suffering that comes from struggle contains within it the seeds of liberation.

The first persons in an oppressed group who choose to struggle for liberation are those who have experienced cognitive liberation as I define it.  This is the point at which an oppressed person decides that he or she will no longer tolerate the oppression and its accompanying humiliation, and that he or she will begin to live in truth from now on - even if it means suffering.  These cognitively liberated individuals frequently become the "seed crystals", the organizers around whom an organized liberation struggle forms and grows.  This willingness to live in truth no matter the cost (and the accompanying willingness to accept that cost) is essential for those who begin to struggle for liberation.  Cowards and Uncle Toms don't liberate themselves.  As Gene Sharp says in How Nonviolent Struggle Works  (HNVSW), "A prerequisite of nonviolent struggle is to cast off or control fear of acting independently and fear of the sufferings which may follow."

Yet this cognitive liberation (and its resulting courage) is not the only ingredient needed for a successful liberation struggle.  A fully human being has both a feeling heart and a thinking head.  The heart guides people to where they should want to go, but the head tells people how to get there.  The head is where strategy is crafted.  Strategy is the answer to the question of how to act "in order to meet one's moral responsibility and maximize the effects of one's actions...The better the strategy, the easier you will gain the upper hand, and the less it will cost you." (HNVSW, page 66).

Concerning the crafting of strategy, it is important to note how much the practitioners of strategic nonviolent resistance can learn from the military.  For the armed forces of most nations that have been around for a while contain entire departments that are devoted to developing and teaching strategy.  (Think of the National War College of the United States, for instance.)  As with nonviolent actionists, those who become soldiers must be willing to pursue a course of action in conflict even though pursuing that course carries with it the risk of suffering and death.  Yet the soldiers and their commanders must also be willing to adapt their course of action to achieve the greatest effect with the least cost.  Those nations whose militaries do not count the cost tend to lose.  This is why a significant portion of Gene Sharp's thinking on the strategic element of strategic nonviolent resistance was drawn from military sources.  We will consider one of these sources today.

Basil Henry Liddell-Hart fought in World War 1 as a British army officer.  He was twice wounded in action, and the entire experience of the war (both personal experience and as an observer of strategy) had a profound effect on him.  In particular, he saw the wastefulness of that war, the damaging effect of the egos of the chief leaders on the conduct of the war, and the futility of two evenly-matched armies going head to head against each other in a straight-up slugfest.  This is what motivated him to write The Strategy of Indirect Approach in the 1940's.  This book contains several terms that are mentioned by Gene Sharp in his writings, particularly the concepts of grand strategy, strategy and tactics.

Among the other elements in his book are the following gems:

• The purpose of strategy is "to diminish the possibility of resistance [by your opponent]."  This is achieved by choosing a course of action which your opponent is not ready to meet.
• The perfection of strategy is to achieve a decision "without any serious fighting."
• Clausewitz said that "All military action is permeated by intelligent forces and their effects."  Liddell-Hart comments that "Nevertheless, nations at war have always striven, or been driven by their passions, to disregard the implications of such a conclusion.  Instead of applying intelligence, they have chosen to batter their heads against the nearest wall."
• Instead of "battering his own head against a wall," the strategist's aim "is not so much to seek battle as to seek a strategic situation so advantageous that if it does not of itself produce the decision, its continuation by a battle is sure to achieve this."
• Therefore, the aim of strategy is to dislocate one's opponent - whether psychologically or logistically.  This occurs as the resisters pursue the opponent's line of least resistance, which on a psychological level is the same as pursing the opponent's line of least expectation.  
• One of the best ways of dislocating your opponent is to pursue a course of action which has multiple possible objectives.  By doing so, you increase your chances of achieving at least one or more of these objectives, while at the same time you put your opponent into a dilemma, as he will not know which of your objectives to guard against.
• "The more strength you waste the more you increase the risk of the scales of war turning against you" - in other words, the more strength you waste, the greater the chance that you will lose!
• "Do not throw your weight into a stroke whilst (or, for us Americans, "while") your opponent is on guard."

If strategy is so important in military action in order to achieve goals with the minimum expenditure of strength, how much more important it is in conflicts in which one side does not use physical weapons at all in its struggle against a potentially violent opponent!  In his writings on strategic nonviolent resistance, Gene Sharp points out how the method of strategic nonviolent action can itself be a powerful indirect response to the direct organized violence of an oppressor, and how that indirect response can shatter the oppressor's ability to oppress.  As Sharp says, "It is important to 'nullify opposition by paralyzing the power to oppose' and to make 'the enemy do something wrong'..." (HNVSW, page 67.)  Nonviolent means are uniquely suited to accomplishing this task.  

But nonviolent means must be directed by a wise strategy in order to achieve this goal.  It is not enough simply to be committed to a certain moral or spiritual philosophy.  Case in point: I have suggested to some of the Black Lives Matter organizers that they need to do more in-depth study of strategic nonviolent resistance.  They might not realize this, but the reason I suggested this is that I think that last year, their opponents were able over time to run rings around them during the protests over the police murder of George Floyd and other African-Americans.  One of these organizers  responded by emailing me a link to "an amazing organization" that does training in "Kingian nonviolence".  A quick look at this "amazing organization" shows that they want to train people in what I call "nonviolence as a an expression of spirituality."  That is NOT what I'm talking about when I say the phrase "strategic nonviolent resistance."  In fact, I would say that every time someone hears me say "strategic nonviolent resistance" and thinks I'm saying "nonviolence", a kitten dies somewhere.  (Stop killing kittens!  The cat you save may be your own.)  Strategic nonviolent resistance is NOT a mere "expression of 'spirituality.'"  It is instead a means of liberation.  I want it to be used by historically oppressed people of color as a means of liberation of historically oppressed people of color.  And on a very pragmatic level, this method works better (and is much cheaper) than violence.  Please forgive my tone here, but I'm trying to correct a serious mistake.

The chief element of an effective strategy is the grand strategy of the struggle group, and this grand strategy orchestrates the development and choice of  campaign strategies, tactics and methods.  In my next post in this series, God willing, I will discuss what makes a good grand strategy, as well as discussing how campaign strategies, tactics and methods should be chosen to implement this grand strategy.  Stay tuned.

The Organizer's Story of Self

One key element of building an effective liberation struggle is the ability of organizers to spread and reproduce their own cognitive liberation in the people they are trying to organize.  A key to this spread is the organizer's "Story of Self."  Learning to tell an effective story of self - the telling of that moment or choice point in a person's life which pushed them to become an organizer - is a challenging exercise.  

I just finished participating in an online practice session in which participants worked on crafting and honing their "Stories of Self."  I heard some beautiful and concise examples of people illustrating their own activizing moments, their own choice points.  As for myself, I think I illustrated my own choice point well enough, but I took too long to do it.  (We are supposed to take only two minutes!)  My story needs some more work...

From D to D, Chapter 6 (Continued): The Role of Cognitive Liberation In Strategic Thinking

This post is a continuation of my "study guide" and commentary on the book From Dictatorship to Democracy by Dr. Gene Sharp. In this series of posts, I have shortened the title of the book to From D to D. As I have said in previous posts, the consideration of this book is highly relevant for these times, in which those who support the supremacy of the world's dominant peoples have created a world in which a select few get to Make Themselves Great by exploiting everyone else. The poor of the earth experience this exploitation as enslavement, discrimination, harassment, dispossession, and the threat of genocide.  Many live as refugees.  (Indeed, when one considers the ways in which people in the United States end up homeless nowadays, one can see that we have created our own homegrown refugees.)  This is an experience of apparent utter powerlessness in the face of an all-consuming, murderously abusive power.  

In the last post in this series, I quoted a source which said that "Whenever people are badly treated, they always resist.  In our experience, people always resist violence and abuse in some way."  And yet for that resistance to be an effective means of liberation, it must be strategic.  Developing an effective strategy of liberating resistance can be challenging.  Often the first challenge lies within the resisters themselves, for as Gene Sharp says in Chapter 6 of From D to D, 

"It is also just possible that some democratic movements do not plan a comprehensive strategy to bring down the dictatorship, concentrating instead only on immediate issues, for another reason.  Inside themselves, they do not really believe that the dictatorship can be ended by their own efforts."

As I mentioned in that last post, if a victim of oppression is moved to resist that oppression, yet the victim does not really believe that his or her efforts will actually bring an end to that oppression, this pessimism will tend to make the resistance ineffective if not downright dysfunctional. The kind of resistance that actually liberates requires first that the oppressed be liberated in their minds, in their souls. This is the beginning and foundation of the term "cognitive liberation" as I define it. And according to my definition, the beginning of cognitive liberation is the "point in which an oppressed person decides that he or she will no longer tolerate the oppression and its accompanying humiliation, and that he or she will begin to live in truth from now on - even if it means suffering (up to and including death)."  This kind of cognitive liberation therefore must rest on a foundation of willingness to suffer and to die, a foundation of confidence even in the face of death.  For me, one foundation of my own cognitive liberation lies in this: "Since then the children [that is, human beings] share in blood and flesh, He Himself [that is, Jesus Christ] likewise also partook of the same, that through death He might render powerless him who had the power of death, that is, the devil; and might deliver those who through fear of death were subject to slavery all their lives." (Hebrews 2:14-15)

One effect of this kind of cognitive liberation is that the liberated begin to say, "Where there's a will, there's a way."  In other words, they begin to actively explore their situation in order to find out what elements they can shift, and how the shifting of those elements can begin to achieve long-term goals.  But it is precisely here that those seeking to liberate themselves encounter a great debate.  It's as if one was a character in a fairy tale who escapes from a dragon's lair and begins to tread the path to freedom - only to find the path blocked by two stone towers which face each other on either side of the path, and from which soldiers in each tower lob stones and arrows at the soldiers in the opposite tower.  Atop one of the stone towers is a single white banner flying in the wind, with the word "SKILLS" emblazoned on it in in royal blue.  Atop the other tower is a single blood-red banner flying in the wind, with a skull and crossbones and a single word emblazoned on it in fire-colored letters: "CONDITIONS."  The soldiers in the "SKILLS" tower are a mix of cognitively liberated practitioners of resistance and organizing, and they are helped by a collection of friendly academics.  The soldiers in the "CONDITIONS" tower tend to all be academics and mouthpieces of large media outlets.  The "CONDITIONS" soldiers also tend at times not only to shoot at the soldiers in the "SKILLS" tower, but also at the pilgrims on the path of life who are escaping from the dragon.

For a central debate among social movement scholars is precisely the importance of skills versus conditions in the creation of transformative social movements.  And here I will cite Chapter 3 of Doug McAdam's 1982 book Political Process and the Development of Black Insurgency 1930-1970.  It is in this chapter that McAdam defines what he means by "cognitive liberation."  In that chapter, McAdam mentions two theoretical models of power in a society such as that of the United States.  Both models acknowledge that "wealth and power are concentrated in America in the hands of a few groups, thus depriving most people of any real influence over the major decisions that affect their lives.  Accordingly, social movements are seen...as rational attempt by excluded groups to mobilize sufficient political leverage to advance collective interests through noninstitutionalized means."  

According to one of the two models, the disparity in power between the elite and excluded groups is so great that the power of the elites is virtually unlimited.  Thus the "CONDITIONS" scholars cite this structural imbalance of power as a determining condition of any liberation struggle.  (Or to put it another way, the message of the "CONDITIONS" soldiers is often, "Dude, it's hopeless!  Just give up!")  However, the "SKILLS" soldiers understand that every system of domination and oppression depends in some way on the people who are oppressed, and that thus "any system contains within itself the possibility of a power strong enough to alter it."  In other words, they see that the oppressed have a certain collective power which is able to fundamentally alter their situation if it is exercised collectively.  The reason why this power is not exercised is due to "shared perceptions of powerlessness."  Note that the elites "seek to keep unrepresented groups from developing solidarity and politically organizing..."  However, "the subjective transformation of consciousness is...crucial to the generation of insurgency."  In other words, when the perceptions of powerlessness in the oppressed are changed, the oppressed begin to liberate themselves.

How then does that perception of powerlessness begin to change on a mass basis?  McAdam asserts that it first begins by a change in the large-scale circumstances of the oppressed, that is, when the structure of political opportunities changes.  Thus when large-scale external events beyond the control of the elites begin to disrupt elite power structures, there is a corresponding shift in the political opportunities available to the oppressed.  One thing that McAdam may not have emphasized enough is that the oppressed themselves can, by their collective action, create those large-scale events that disrupt elite power structures.

There are other elements to the shift in the consciousness of the oppressed.  One of these elements is the relative abundance or lack of a wide range of organizations created of, by and for the oppressed.  For the oppressed to begin to awaken, there must first be "an established associational network," an "indigenous infrastructure" of community organizations created by and for the members of marginalized groups.  It is these organizations (and their leaders) who facilitate the large-scale changes in consciousness among the members of marginalized groups.  McAdam quotes Piven and Cloward in describing this shift:

"The emergence of a protest movement entails a transformation both of consciousness and of behavior. The change in consciousness has at least three distinct aspects. First, "the system" - or those aspects of the system that people experience and perceive - loses legitimacy.  Large numbers of men and women who ordinarily accept the authority of their rulers and the legitimacy of institutional arrangements come to believe in some measure that these rulers and these arrangements are unjust and wrong. Second, people who are ordinarily fatalistic, who believe that existing arrangements are inevitable, begin to assert "rights" that imply demands for change. Third, there is a new sense of efficacy; people who ordinarily consider themselves helpless come to believe that they have some capacity to alter their lot."

But it is to be noted that these changes in consciousness are much more likely to happen among people who regularly associate with each other in groups than among isolated individuals. 

And here it is good to take a look at how this process of cognitive liberation has played out in some rather recent social movements.  First, on a negative level we can see how a counterfeit of this process has played out among the members of the white American right.  Indoctrinated by right-wing, agenda-driven media mouthpieces, many members of the American right came to believe themselves to be members of an oppressed class and to interpret what should have been acknowledged as their own personal problems as something else, namely, as an attempt by poor dark-skinned people to take things away from white America.  Second, these interpreted the electoral successes of the Republican Party as an expansion of political opportunities.  Third, unscrupulous pastors and other prominent figures in the American Evangelical Right used the association of their congregations in regular Sunday services to engineer a shift in the consciousness of their members such that they began to regard as illegitimate the hopes, dreams, and rights of everyone who was not part of their "tribe."  (These, for instance, are the people who for the sake of "liberty" refused to wear masks even as their fellow community members were dying of COVID-19!)

But there are more positive contexts in which this process played out and continues to play out.  Russia comes to mind.  I want to mention a masters' thesis titled, "Corruption and Cognitive Liberation in Russian Environmentalism: A Political Process Approach To Social Movement Decline" by Anna Katherine Pride.  This thesis was written in 2009, and it described the decline of the Russian environmental movement from the mid-1990's until 2009.  She traced this decline to a decline in "cognitive liberation" as defined by Doug McAdam, and hypothesized that this decline was due to a breakdown in social cohesion and trust caused by rampant elite corruption.  According to her view, the decline could be traced thus: "Corruption" leads to "Cognitive Liberation recedes/reinstituted fatalism" which leads to "Social Movement declines" which leads to "state reasserts power" which leads to "Political Opportunity Structure closes" which leads to "movement decline continues".  

And yet...it must be noted that a strong democracy movement has emerged in Russia over the last ten years, and that its emergence was due in no small part to people who kept working, kept organizing, kept persisting, kept resisting, and kept experimenting as reflective practitioners even during the reassertion of power by the State and the supposed "closing" of the political opportunity structure.  Brown's thesis correctly posits that a breakdown in social cohesion and mutual trust hinders cognitive liberation because it disrupts the very networks along which that liberation and change of consciousness spreads.  This is why dictators strive to atomize the members of their societies.  And yet successful liberation movements have been instigated in the most atomized, repressive and unlikely of societies, by people who had experienced cognitive liberation as I define it.  In the Maldives, for instance, the initial problem of social atomization was overcome by activists who started throwing evening rice pudding parties on the beach and inviting friends, neighbors and strangers.  (See Blueprint for Revolution, pages 62-64).  To quote a martial arts story I read as a kid, "Where there is no door, make one."  If we're ready to make that door, it's time to start talking about the elements of strategy.  Stay tuned.