Tolstoy
Many people regard the writings of Count Leo Tolstoy as the epitome of the doctrine of non-resistance. Tolstoy arrived at his convictions after a long period of inner turmoil, and published them in _My Religion_ in 1884. In the years that followed, his wide correspondence introduced him to many others who had held the same views. He was especially impressed with the 1838 statement of Garrison, and with the writings of Ballou, with whom he entered into correspondence directly.[108]
However, he went further than Ballou, and even further than the Mennonites in his theory, which he formulated fully in _The Kingdom of G.o.d is Within You_, published in 1893. He renounced the use of physical force completely even in dealing with the insane or with children.[109]
He severed all relations with government, and went on to insist that the true Christian might not own any property. He practiced his own doctrines strictly.
Tolstoy had quite a number of followers, and a few groups were established to carry out his teachings. These groups have continued to exist under the Soviet Union, but their present fate is obscure. His works greatly influenced Peter Verigin, leader of the Dukhobors, who shortly after 1900 left Russia and settled in Canada in order to find a more hospitable environment for their communistic community, and to escape the necessity for military service.[110]
However, Tolstoy"s theory is so completely anarchistic that it does not lend itself to organization. Hence his chief influence has been intellectual, and upon individuals. We have already noted the great impact that his works made on Gandhi, while he was formulating the ideas which were to result in Satyagraha.
Neither in the case of Gandhi, nor of Peter Verigin, however, were Tolstoy"s doctrines applied in completely undiluted form. The Mennonites also disclaim kinship with him on the grounds that he sought a regeneration of society as a whole in this world.[111]
For most men the doctrine of complete anarchism has seemed too extreme for practical consideration, but it would seem that Tolstoy arrived at the logical conclusion of a system of non-resistance based on the premise that man should not combat evil, nor have any relationship whatever with human inst.i.tutions which attempt to restrain men by means other than reliance upon the force of example and goodwill.
FOOTNOTES:
[108] Aylmer Maude, _The Life of Tolstoy,_ (New York: Dodd, Mead, 1910), II, 354-360, where the letters to and from Ballou are quoted at length.
See also Count Leo N. Tolstoy, _The Kingdom of G.o.d is Within You_, translated by Leo Wiener (Boston: Dana Estes & Co., 1905), 6-22.
[109] In a letter to L. G. Wilson, Tolstoy said: "I cannot agree with the concession he [Ballou] makes for employing violence against drunkards and insane people. The Master made no concessions, and we can make none. We must try, as Mr. Ballou puts it, to make impossible the existence of such people, but if they do exist, we must use all possible means, and sacrifice ourselves, but not employ violence. A true Christian will always prefer to be killed by a madman, than to deprive him of his liberty." Maude, _Tolstoy_, II, 355-356.
[110] J. F. C. Wright, _Slava Bohu: The Story of the Dukhobors_ (New York: Farrar and Rinehart, 1940), 99.
[111] Hershberger says of him: "He identified the kingdom of G.o.d with human society after the manner of the social gospel. But since he believed in an absolute renunciation of violence for all men, Tolstoy was an anarchist, repudiating the state altogether. Biblical nonresistance declines to partic.i.p.ate in the coercive activities of the state, but nevertheless regards those as necessary for the maintenance of order in a sinful society, and is not anarchistic. But Tolstoy found no place for the state in human society at all; and due to his faith in the goodness of man he believed that eventually all coercion, including domestic police, would be done away." _Mennonite Qu. Rev._, XVII, 129-130.
VII. ACTIVE GOODWILL AND RECONCILIATION
The term "resistance" has occurred frequently in this study. As has been pointed out, this word has a negative quality, and implies opposition to the will of another, rather than an attempt to realize a positive policy. The preceding section dealt with its counterpart, "non-resistance," which has a neutral connotation, and implies that the non-resister is not involved in the immediate struggle, and that for him the refusal to inflict injury upon anyone is a higher value than the achievement of any policy of his own, either positive or negative.
Non-violent coercion, Satyagraha, and non-violent direct action, on the other hand, are definitely positive in their approach. Each seeks to effectuate a specified change in the policy of the person or group responsible for a situation which those who organize the non-violent action believe to be undesirable. However, even in such action the negative quality may appear. Satyagraha, for instance, insofar as it is a movement of opposition or "resistance" to British rule in India is negative, despite its positive objectives of establishing a certain type of government and economic system in that country.
The employment of active goodwill is another approach to the problem of bringing about desired social change. Its proponents seek to accomplish a positive alteration in the att.i.tude and policy of the group or person responsible for some undesirable situation; but they refuse to use coercion--even non-violent coercion. Rather they endeavor to convince their opponent that it would be desirable to change his policy because the change would be in his own best interest, or would actually maintain his own real standard of values.
Many of those who would reject all coercion of an opponent practice such positive goodwill towards him, not because they are convinced that their action will accomplish the social purposes which they would like to achieve, but rather because they place such an att.i.tude toward their fellowmen as their highest value. They insist that they would act in the same way regardless of the consequences of their action, either to the person towards whom they practice goodwill or to themselves. They act on the basis of principle rather than on the basis of expediency. In this regard they are like many of the pract.i.tioners of other methods of non-violence; but unlike them they place their emphasis on the positive action of goodwill which they _will_ use, rather than upon a catalogue of violent actions which they will not use.
To those who practice the method of goodwill all types of education and persuasion are available. In the past they have used the printed and spoken word, and under favorable circ.u.mstances even political action.
They hope to appeal to "that of G.o.d in every man," to bring about genuine repentance on the part of those who have been responsible for evil. If direct persuasion is not effective, they hope that their exhibition of love towards him whom others under the same circ.u.mstances would regard as an enemy may appeal to an aspect of his nature which is temporarily submerged, and result in a change of att.i.tude on his part.
If it does not, these advocates of goodwill are ready to suffer the consequences of their action, even to the point of death.
Action in the Face of Persecution
The practice of positive goodwill is open to the individual as well as to the group. Since he does what he believes to be right regardless of the consequences, he will act before there are enough who share his opinion to create any chance of victory over the well organized forces of the state or other inst.i.tutions which are responsible for evil. The history of the martyrs of all ages presents us with innumerable examples of men who have acted in this way. Socrates is of their number, as well as the early Christians who insisted upon practicing their religion despite the edicts of the Roman empire. Jesus himself is the outstanding example of one who was willing to die rather than to surrender principle. It cannot be said of these martyrs that they acted in order to bring about reforms in society. They suffered because under the compulsion of their faith they could act in no other way, and at the time of their deaths it always looked as though they had been defeated.
But in the end their sacrifices had unsought results. The proof of their effectiveness is declared in the old adage that "the blood of the martyrs is the seed of the church."
If we seek examples from relatively recent times, we may find them in the annals of many of the pacifist sects of our own day. Robert Barclay, the Quaker apologist of the late seventeenth century, stated the position which the members of the Society of Friends so often put to the test:
"But the true, faithful and Christian suffering is for men to profess what they are persuaded is right, and so practise and perform their worship towards G.o.d, as being their true right so to do; and neither to do more than that, because of outward encouragement from men; nor any whit less, because of the fear of their laws and acts against it."[112]
The early Quakers suffered severely under the laws of England in a day when religious toleration was virtually unheard of. George Fox himself had sixty encounters with magistrates and was imprisoned on eight occasions; yet he was not diverted from his task of preaching truth. It has been estimated that 15,000 Quakers "suffered" under the various religious acts of the Restoration.[113] But they continued to hold the principles which had been stated by twelve of their leaders, including Fox, to King Charles shortly after his return to England:
"Our principle is, and our practice always has been, to seek peace and ensue it; to follow after righteousness and the knowledge of G.o.d; seeking the good and welfare, and doing that which tends to the peace of all.
"When we have been wronged, we have not sought to revenge ourselves; we have not made resistance against authority; but whenever we could not obey for conscience sake, we have suffered the most of any people in the nation...."[114]
These sufferings did not go unheeded. Even the wordly Samuel Pepys wrote in his diary concerning Quakers on their way to prison: "They go like lambs without any resistance I would to G.o.d they would either conform or be more wise and not be catched."[115]
In Ma.s.sachusetts, where the Puritans hoped to establish the true garden of the Lord, the lot of the Quakers was even more severe. Despite warnings and imprisonments, Friends kept encroaching upon the Puritan preserve until the Ma.s.sachusetts zealots, in their desperation over the failure of the gentler means of quenching Quaker ardor, condemned and executed three men and a woman. Even Charles II was revolted by such extreme measures, and ordered the colony to desist. After a long struggle the Quakers, along with other advocates of liberty of conscience, won their struggle for religious liberty even in Ma.s.sachusetts. There can be little doubt that their sufferings played an important part in the establishment of religious liberty as an American principle.[116]
In our own day the conscientious objector to military service, whatever his motivation and philosophy, faces a social situation very similar to that which confronted these early supporters of a new faith. For the moment there is little chance that his insistence upon following the highest values which his conscience recognizes will bring an end to war, because there are not enough others who share his convictions. He takes his individual stand without regard for outward consequences to himself, because his conviction leaves him no other alternative. But even though his "sufferings" do not at once make possible the universal practice of goodwill towards all men, they may in the end have the result of helping to banish war from the world.
FOOTNOTES:
[112] Robert Barclay, _An Apology for the True Christian Divinity; being an Explanation and Vindication of the Principles and Doctrines of the People Called Quakers_ (Philadelphia: Friends" Book Store, 1908), Proposition XIV, Section VI, 480.
[113] A. Ruth Fry, _Quaker Ways: An Attempt to Explain Quaker Beliefs and Practices and to Ill.u.s.trate them by the Lives and Activities of Friends of Former Days_ (London: Ca.s.sell, 1933), 126, 131.
[114] Quoted by Margaret E. Hirst, _The Quakers in Peace and War: an Account of Their Peace Principles and Practice_ (New York: George H.
Doran, 1923), 115-116.
[115] Quoted in Fry, _Quaker Ways_, 128-129.
[116] Hirst, 327; Rufus M. Jones, _The Quakers in the American Colonies_ (London: Macmillan, 1923), 3-135.
Coercion or Persuasion?
A man who is willing to undergo imprisonment and even death itself rather than to cease doing what he believes is right knows in his own heart that coercion is not an effective means of persuasion. The early Quakers saw this clearly. Barclay stated his conviction in these words:
"This forcing of men"s consciences is contrary to sound reason, and the very law of nature. For man"s understanding cannot be forced by all the bodily sufferings another man can inflict upon him, especially in matters spiritual and super-natural: "Tis argument, and evident demonstration of reason, together with the power of G.o.d reaching the heart, that can change a man"s mind from one opinion to another, and not knocks and blows, and such like things, which may well destroy the body, but never can inform the soul, which is a free agent, and must either accept or reject matters of opinion as they are borne in upon it by something proportioned to its own nature."[117]
And William Penn said more simply, "Gaols and gibbets are inadequate methods for conversion: this forbids all further light to come into the world."[118]
Other religious groups who went through experiences comparable to those of the Friends came to similar conclusions. The Church of the Brethren, founded in 1709 in Germany, took as one of its leading principles that "there shall be no force in religion," and carried it out so faithfully that they would not baptize children, on the ground that this act would coerce them into membership in the church before they could decide to join of their own free will. The Brethren have refused to take part in war not only because it is contrary to the spirit of Christian love, and destroys sacred human life, but also because it is coercive and interferes with the free rights of others.[119]
For the person who believes in the practice of positive goodwill towards all men, the refusal to use coercion arises from its incompatibility with the spirit of positive regard for every member of the human family, rather than being a separate value in itself. In social situations this regard may express itself in various ways. It may have a desirable result from the point of view of the pract.i.tioner, but again we must emphasize that he does what he does on the basis of principle; the result is a secondary consideration.