Gallery

Oscar Murray, the principle structure of resistance.

        According to Aristotle, “Courage is a primary virtue, as all other virtues require it” (Thomas & Chaleff 2017). This quote underlines the importance of courage as a foundational quality that 'enables other virtues'. The importance of such courage is seen in its role in motivating individual and collective action; according to Dr. Martin Luther King, “Freedom is never voluntarily given by the oppressor; it must be demanded by the oppressed” (King 1963). Courage can therefore be used as a tool by the subordinate masses to demand freedom and reform; great thinkers and activists such as Malcolm X would assert that the most effective route to reform is through more physical courage, i.e violence, to force the hand of the oppressor. Other activists such as Dr. King on the other hand, would propose a more moral form of courage to force reflection, collaboration, and therefore change. Oppressive societal structures remain, as does this conflicting discourse. Media reaction to recent events (such as BLM riots in 2020) has pushed the idea that violent resistance is reckless, destructive, childish, and should be quickly condemned - especially within a liberal democracy, where there are (in theory), other routes to reform. However, according to Tamara Fakhoury, a Professor of philosophy specialising in the ethics of resisting oppression, “Violent resistance may be an act of communication, dismissing it as the result of adolescent recklessness may itself be a form of epistemic injustice” (Fakhoury 2023). People often infantilise or moralise protestor’s actions, instead of trying to “Better understand or eliminate the circumstances that give rise to violence” (Fakhoury 2023). Violent resistance is often a genuine cry for help, however, its effectiveness within a liberal democracy is questionable. Therefore, despite the possibility that violent resistance can be justified under certain circumstances, it is usually not the most effective means of achieving long-lasting reform and pushing forward a cause, therefore marginalised communities need to organise and unify, which allows them to advocate for themselves politically in less harmful ways.

In Defense of Violent Resistance
        Violent resistance does not occur in a vacuum.  As Tamara Fakhoury claimed, there are always underlying causes that ‘give rise’ to violence. For example, according to a report regarding catalysts for recent violent riots in France, which interviewed residents, “The ghettoization of the poorest neighborhoods has been identified for 20 years . . . I can see the lid popping off because too many injustices have accumulated over too many years, lamented [resident and spokesperson] Youssef Badr” (Bronner 2023). In many cases, violence can be a justifiable and proportional reaction to years of oppression. Furthermore, “There's still a feeling in these neighborhoods, and probably a reality, that you don't have as many chances as elsewhere” (Bronner 2023). Often, violent resistance is the only viable means for marginalised groups to create reform. As Tommie Shelby, a philosopher and professor at Harvard University, put it, “Public unrest can seem to be the only power the Ghetto poor can yield collectively” (Shelby 2016). Expanding upon these ideas, Avia Pasternak, an author and professor of political science, outlines three guidelines under which violent resistance is morally justifiable. Peter Singer and Katarzyna De Lazari-Radek (professors of ethics and philosophy respectively), summarise these three guidelines for morally justifiable violent resistance:
“Necessity: there is no other way of defending oneself against the unjust attack;
Proportionality: the harm inflicted on others must be outweighed by the harm averted by stopping the unjust attack; and
Success: the actions that inflict the harm must be part of a strategy that has a reasonable chance of stopping the unjust attack.” (Singer & De Lazari-Radek 2020)
Both these examples, and Pasternak’s theoretical application of them, suggest that there are circumstances under which violent resistance is justifiable, especially when “conventional democratic channels have failed” (Singer & De Lazari-Radek 2020), and violent protestors should therefore not be dismissed as common criminals.

Moral Constraints
        A common objection to any form of violent resistance (no matter the theoretical justifiability under Pasternak’s guidelines), are so-called ‘moral constraints.’ Tamara Fakhoury defines them as “Impartial reasons arising from commitments to abstract principles of justice and morality, such as human dignity, equality, or the collective good” (Fakhoury 2023). Moral constraints have no bearing on the practical effectiveness of resistance, they are simply objections based on concrete (often religious) moral principles. For example, one of the main reasons for Dr. King’s objection towards violence was a “Belie[f] that the universe hinges on moral principles” (Gage, Fakhoury, Watson 2020). His moral constraints are further illustrated in a number of his works, with quotes such as “The means we use must be as pure as the ends we seek. I have tried to make clear that it is wrong to use immoral means to attain moral ends” (King 1963). While these moral considerations have no real bearing on the ultimate justifiability of violent resistance - as belief in what is ‘right’ and what is ‘wrong’ differ widely from person to person - it is still important to note, because much of the objection towards violent resistance, in the media and in public opinion, comes (in one form or another), as a result of moral constraints. Therefore they are a major limitation on the effectiveness of violence, no matter how (theoretically) justified.


The white moderate
        One of Dr. King’s more tangible (less principled and religious) reasons for opposing violent resistance was a focus on the importance of the ‘white moderate.’ The ‘white moderate’ is the demographic most heavily influenced by methods of protest, the demographic “Who constantly says: ‘I agree with you in the goal you seek, but I cannot agree with your methods of direct action’” (King 1963). In King’s eyes, the primary barrier to advancement was not the KKK member (who was likely too far gone on issues of civil rights), but the white moderate, who in theory believes in the cause of civil rights, but if the means of protest are too unruly, they will ultimately choose ‘order’ over justice (Tearle 2023). Malcolm X was not a proponent of this sort of thinking, often calling on his supporters to “Stop sweet-talking [the white man]. Tell him how you feel.... [Let him know that] if he's not ready to clean his house up, he shouldn't have a house. It should catch on fire and burn down” (X 1962).  This kind of rhetoric is likely to be less constructive, and it is easy to see how voters (more specifically white moderates) would be less likely to push for reform having heard violent speeches and incitement of this kind (no matter how just the cause).
On the effectiveness of violent resistance
        The malleability of white moderate support in the face of different kinds of resistance is not purely theoretical. A study from Omar Wasow, a professor of political science with a PhD in African American studies, analysed the effects of black riots in the 1960s on voting patterns, media perception, and public opinion. In analysing the effects of nonviolent protest, Wasow found that “News coverage of civil rights rises and falls coincident with waves of nonviolent protest in 1960 during efforts to integrate southern lunch counters and in 1963 during the buildup to the March on Washington (8/27/63). Similarly, the spikes in 1965 co-occur with the ‘Bloody Sunday’ march in Selma, AL, in March (3/7/65)” (Wasow 2020). Wasow finds a clear correlation between nonviolent direct action and an increase in headlines covering civil rights, hence a greater public concern for civil rights among white moderates. Conversely, when analysing the effects of violent protest, he finds “A strong relationship between patterns of violent protest activity and public opinion on ‘social control’” (Wasow 2020). While nonviolent protest increases media coverage about the issue at hand (in this case civil rights), and hence positively influences public opinion, riots and violent forms of protest shift media coverage to focus on the damage and unruly behaviour, which shifts white moderate opinion toward ‘order’ and ‘social control.’
        The consequences of violent resistance spread far beyond media and public perception, however. Wasow's study found that preferred protest method also has the power to influence voting patterns and policy implementation. Wasow finds that “Violent protests caused a significant negative shift in the county-level [Democratic Party] vote share of about 5.6 to 7.9 percentage points (p << 0.05; p < 0.01, respectively)” (Wasow 2020). Wasow expands this model to the scale of the 1968 presidential election between Hubert Humphrey, the democratic candidate and champion of civil rights, and Richard Nixon, the Republican ‘law-and-order’ candidate. His process involved simulating the 1968 election 10,000 times “Under the
counterfactual scenario that King had not been assassinated on April 4, 1968, and 137 violent protests had not occurred in the immediate wake of his death” (Wasow 2020). Through running these simulations, Wasow concludes that “Across the simulations, there are eight unique outcomes and Humphrey wins in 7,519 out of 10,000 or about 75% of the simulations” (Wasow 2020). This example shows the dire consequences - or “wide proportionality” (Pasternak 2018) - of violent resistance. Even if a violent uprising is justified, and rioters stay within a “directly proportional” sphere of influence (i.e only targeting police stations or public offices), the wider consequences can still be extremely detrimental. In this example, the media coverage resulting from the riots following King’s death influenced public opinion so heavily that it flipped the states of Missouri, Illinois, and Ohio in favour of Richard Nixon, winning him the election. Nixon’s policies supported police power and kept black communities bogged down, illustrating that any good that the riots could create, may ultimately be undermined by wider consequences and public reactions. As Omar Wasow himself puts it, “The results of this article suggest that statistical minorities in stratified democracies can overcome structural biases to influence and frame the news, direct elite discourse, sway public opinion, and win at the ballot box. For subordinate groups in democratic polities, though, tactics matter. An ‘eye for an eye’ in response to violent repression may be moral, but this research suggests it may not be strategic” (Wasow 2020).

Conclusion
        It is extremely difficult to strike a balance between action that is extreme enough to attract attention to a cause, and force legislators’ hands, without ultimately being destructive to the cause and community it aims to uplift. During the George Floyd riots of 2020, for example, rioters destroyed an under construction low-income housing development that would have provided housing for hundreds of people who will now remain homeless, and during the riots at least thirteen people died, many of whom were black (Singer & De Lazari-Radek 2020). On an even wider scale, it has been proven that the 1960s riots heavily contributed to Nixon’s victory in the election, which ironically reinforced the power of the police and perpetuated the very issues the riots intended to fight against. Unfortunately, acts of violence tend to always hurt the communities that engage in them, and reinforce the oppressive structures that marginalise them.
        The solution is, therefore, a more ground-up and organised approach. According to Avia Pasternak, “Political rioters resort to spontaneous, disorganized, public collective violence in order to protest against and to defy their political order” (Pasternak 2018). Due to the disorganised nature of a riot, it is difficult to keep a community’s best interest at heart. A spontaneous release of (justified) anger can block most rational thinking. Marginalised groups must realise that their power lies as a community, rather than by undermining it through more cathartic acts of violence which warp their media perception. As Ted Thomas and Ira Cheleff put it, encouraging intelligent disobedience and moral courage, i.e the courage to come together and think of productive, peaceful solutions, rather than the (often easier) violent alternatives, can help enable ‘other virtues’ (in this case ‘virtues’ take the form of legislation, awareness, and progress). For example, “In the 60’s the Black Panthers used to perform open-carry citizen patrols in black neighborhoods to monitor police activity and prevent brutality. The goal was to intimidate the police officers so that they would not use excessive force against Black people, which they have a long history of doing. This was extremely effective while it lasted and instilled a sense of security among the Black community” (Gage, Fakhoury, Watson 2020). In the context of a 1960s African American ghetto, the conditions of oppression were such that violent resistance likely would have been justified. However, this quote gives us an example of an act of resistance (even within a heavily oppressed context), that uplifts a community, rather than alienating or bringing it down. Dr. King believed that ‘extremism’ did not have to entail violence, in this example, we can see extreme forms of organisation and intimidation being used, however not extreme or excessive violence that could create negative press and undermine the cause. This is the kind of solution that should be encouraged. Ground-up, community based, uplifting programs that lay the foundation for reform and change, and agenda-seed positive press that shifts public opinion, as an alternative to the self-destructive practice of rioting and violence.
        The 1975 painting Confrontation on the Bridge by Jacob Lawrence shows an image of brave black men and women peacefully facing oppression in solidarity, together. Acts of nonviolent resistance can be immortalised and, through media, shape public opinion extremely effectively. The “white moderate” would read stories of brave protestors peacefully breaking unjust laws and risking arrest for the sake of civil rights, hence driving more discourse around the issue of civil rights. Suddenly their image, much like the image of the poor folk on that bridge in Selma, would become immortalised in the minds of voters, and in the legislation that was to come.