Questions asked

Tonight I continued an ongoing dialogue with the Board members of the organization I work for. Last month the Executive Director gave them a set of questions to answer to engage with one another in conversation. The questions were:


1) How important is nonviolence in our work as an organization?

2) How does that level of importance get expressed (in what ways – specific and general)?

3) How do you personally learn nonviolence?

4) How does it motivate and effect your decisions and actions here at our organization?

5) What are the most important ways that the board must use nonviolence?

6) What would happen if this did not happen?

I only had fifteen minutes to facilitate the discussion and was only able to get through the first question! I knew that was going to happen, but I understand that we have plenty of time over the course of the next year to address the questions more fully together. I am glad that they are committed to having this conversation and making it a regular part of the Board meetings (they are giving me 15 minutes each meeting and they have committed to reading articles in between meetings to help deepen the conversation). The reading assignment for this meeting was the first two articles from Coleman McCarthy's Class on Nonviolence (the University one), the articles are "Nonviolence as a Way of Life, by Robert McGlasson and "If We Listen Well", by Edward Guinan.

The group was challenged but also encouraged by the broad definition of violence presented by the two articles. Many felt that the work we do at our organization is in alignment with addressing the all the forms of violence discussed by the authors. Some felt that we need to spend more time addressing the violence within (such as that mentioned by Robert McGlasson, and that work can feel pretty challenging and a little scary, although all of us agreed that our community organizing work will be more powerful and authentic if we address the violence within us first (or at least simultaneously).

I asked the group if any of them have had the experience of being a part of a group (even ours) where the group has resorted to demonizing the opponent, or has had the intention of a nonviolent action, but still harbored hate and resentment towards the people they were trying to change. Many responded back that yes they have had that experience. Someone gave a great example of an organization that had tremendous threat power because they could put a lot of people power to organize rallies, demonstrations, and actions that held public officials accountable. This person said that often times the actions this group took were not physically violent but the rhetoric was not peaceful, kind, or just. The person reflected on his experiences of the group and stated that the actions that got them the furthest were their relationship building meetings (in which they did their homework and research) and were able to convince the decision makers through cooperation to advance their agenda. We didn't get a chance to go over if the meetings were successful because of their threat power or not, but it was good to hear of a group that tried both tactics, and to learn which methods seemed to work more for them. In his book "A Search For A Nonviolent Future" Michael Nagler discusses in great detail the ways in which violence sometimes "works" and almost always doesn't work and how nonviolence sometimes "works" and always works. I briefly mentioned that concept to the group and gave them all an invitation to our nonviolence study group which will be meeting for 9 weeks starting in May to discuss that book! I will share more about that soon!

Someone brought up that they felt that as they understand violence more, and at a deeper level, it can be overwhelming to decide when and how to respond, because as they put it, they feel like they can be responding to it all the time. Then the issue becomes, what do I say, how do I say it, do I even go there, etc. We all acknowledged that the work can be hard and that as we grow in our understanding of nonviolence, how each of us addresses it in our daily life will largely depend on how willing we are to do what the articles suggest, which is accepting the voluntary redemptive suffering that comes from challenging oppression and violence.

We didn't get a chance to talk about voluntary suffering other than it was a new concept to many. As I understand it this is the path of interrupting violence rather than the typical fight, or flight response we have to conflict. An example for our organization would be taking a public stand on a controversial issue, knowing that we could lose major donors, and doing it anyway because it's the right thing to do rather than choosing to remain silent to avoid losing that money, or causing conflict. Another example that came up is that sometimes we support actions that cause us to break the law (civil disobedience) which can lead to voluntary suffering (going to jail,paying a fine). It could also be lovingly confronting someone who has said something racist or classist and knowing that we could be verbally attacked by them (or worse), and that rather than "fighting" back at them we instead seek reconciliation with them, no matter what they do to us--affirming their humanity as we challenge their behavior.


We also briefly talked about the challenge whether we are working to address violence within ourselves, or with others, how hard it is to be at peace in our hearts and still lovingly challenge others (truth in love). Often times we say nothing (which harms us and the other as it allows them to continue to create the very violence we speak out against and leaves someone else responsible for addressing it) or we say something/do something that escalates it (because we address the person as an object rather than a person, and we in some way humiliate or attack them rather than name the behavior). It was then that the conversation ended much too briefly (and I went five minutes over the time I was allotted!) I ended up leaving them with this handout from Turning The Tide, which I encouraged them to look over. I feel it gives a tool to address what I feel is the root of a lot of violence--"Us vs. Them" mentality.

I hope that some of you can read through these handouts and let me know what you think! Also, answer the questions I gave to my Board--applying it to your life/work situations see what you come up with!