Thesis (Ph. D.)--Ohio State University, 2007. / Title from first page of PDF file. Includes bibliographical references (p. 441-457).

No description available.

Political resistance is manifested in a variety of ways, including violent and nonviolent methods. Though violence and nonviolence are often treated as analytically distinct phenomena, this dissertation argues that there is value in understanding how the methods are related, and how underlying factors lead to the use of one over the other. There are many resistance groups which use a combination of both violent and nonviolent tactics, and only by examining these methods in conjunction with one another can we more fully understand their use. To understand the efficacy of jointly examining violent and nonviolent tactics, this dissertation addresses the topic from three primary perspectives. The introductory chapter offers the primary questions and puzzles this dissertation will explore. Following that, chapter two, is the first primary perspective to be addressed: the individual level. The arguments in chapter two revolve around personal networks, and the characteristics of those networks that impact views on the use of nonviolence by violent groups. Chapter three takes a state and environmental perspective, and identifies factors unique to the state and their impact on the likelihood of violence and nonviolence. Chapter four examines organizations as the unit of analysis, and inter-organizational characteristics are assessed for their impact on the use of nonviolence by violent groups. The concluding chapter brings together the insights gained from the empirical chapters, and offers suggestions for future efforts. Overall, I find that violent and nonviolent tactics share underlying correlates that impact their use, and that their joint examination offers insights on group behavior otherwise unavailable. A unified approach to the range of conflict methods offers new insight and understanding to conflict and conflict processes.

Repression is the expected response to anti-government protest; however, leaders can also accommodate demonstrators. Committing to human rights treaties is considered in this environment, where treaty commitments are conceptualized as a policy concession that leaders can grant dissenters. Past research has shown that top-down domestic pressures, such as new democratic regimes, can influence treaty commitments. This article extends this line of research by considering the influence of bottom-up domestic pressure, arguing that nonviolent, pro-democracy movements can pressure leaders into concessions, as these movements are risky to repress but threatening to ignore. Leaders are expected to seek ‘cheap’ accommodations, and commitments to human rights treaties provide a relatively low-cost concession that also addresses demonstrators’ pro-democracy demands. Using commitments to the nine core UN human rights treaties, results are generally supportive. Governments experiencing a nonviolent, pro-democracy movement are consistently likely to sign human rights treaties. Ratification is also likely but in more limited contexts, and is more closely related to movement success. This suggests that bottom-up pressures can influence commitment to human rights treaties, but there may be little substance behind those concessions. The status quo and cost-averse preferences of leaders lead them to grant accommodations that result in minimal change and cost.

No description available.

Submitted in fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy in Management Sciences (Public Management), Durban University of Technology, Durban, South Africa, 2016. / This study investigates the effectiveness of the strategies and methods that were employed by non-state actors as they engaged the state in nonviolent campaigns in order to address the socio-economic and political challenges experienced in Zimbabwe between 1999 and 2013. Using a combination of exploratory, descriptive and evaluative methods, the study argues that the nonviolent campaigns used in Zimbabwe were in the short term successful despite the state’s violent responses, which were at their peak during the run up to elections. The findings reveal that Women of Zimbabwe Arise, the Zimbabwe National Students’ Union and the National Constitutional Assembly among other non-state actors were effective in the short term. As a result Zimbabwe stands out as a plausible example where nonviolence as a strategy failed to end a brutal regime but enabled the non-state actor (the Movement for Democratic Change) to gain popular civilian support through its effective engagement of nonviolent strategies and methods. It was just its failure to estrange some of the pillars of violence (some members of the military, the police and the intelligence system) which curtailed the democratically elected opposition to get in into power. However, the brutal state responses directly and indirectly triggered a severe socio-economic and political down turn. This became apparent in the health, education, and water and sanitation services that were on the verge of collapse; increased corruption, growing displacement and emigration of Zimbabweans, and withdrawal of external support. The study concludes that the failure of nonviolent campaigns was partly a result of limited knowledge among Zimbabweans about what nonviolence involves, state brutality, poor planning and lack of patience by non-state actors and their resort to violence instead of sticking to nonviolence. It is nonetheless imperative to encourage civic society to cultivate a culture of nonviolence through the use of various agents of socialization which include the: home, school and the media. / M

"Might makes right," so the saying goes. What does this mean? What does it mean to say that humans live by this saying? How can this saying that is considered by almost all as an expression of injustice play a justificatory role practically universally and ubiquitously? How can it be repulsive and yet, nonetheless, attractive as an explanation of the ways of the world? Why its long history? I offer a non-cynical explanation, one based on a re-interpretation of the saying and of both recognized and unrecognized related phenomena. This re-interpretation relies on the notion of a tacit justification for violence. This non-cynical, re-interpretive explanation exposes the ambiguity of the saying and the consequential unwitting, self-deceptive, fallacious equivocations that the ambiguity makes possible under common conditions. While this explanation, furthermore, focuses on thinking factors--specifically on fallacious thinking, on humans' unwittingly and self-deceptively committing the fallacy of equivocation--it does not deny the possible role of non-thinking factors; it only tries to show that the thinking factors are significantly explanatory. What is the ambiguity? "Might makes right" expresses two principles. The first principle is the common meaning, namely, that the dominance of the mightier over the weaker is right. This principle is generally considered to be not a definition of justice but an expression of injustice. The second principle, which is almost universally shared in a tacit and unreflective way, is a principle of life, namely, that it is right for any living being to actualize its potential. This second principle is originary and thus primary, while the first principle is derivative and thus secondary. The use of all powers, natural or social, can be ultimately derived legitimately or illegitimately from this primary principle. A common manifestation of "might makes right" is the unwitting abuse of power, an abuse that is not recognized as such by the so-called abuser, but that is rather suffered by this latter, who misapplies the second principle in situations that fall under the first principle, thereby unwittingly living by the saying, tacitly justifying abusive ways by it. This unwittingness calls for critical control and forgiveness.

The dissertation attempts to answer the question of how to theorize resistance from within the philosophy of social science. To answer this question we must consider more than just the philosophy of social science; we also must look to political and moral philosophy. Resistance to the social norms of one’s community is possible to theorize from within the philosophy of social science once we develop a sufficiently nuanced account of social and moral communities (which involves identifying political and moral elements in community formation, reformation, and transformation), according to which membership in a community is not defined by sharing judgments, conceptual frameworks, or comprehensive worldviews, but by sharing terms of discourse so that discussion about judgments, conceptual frameworks, and comprehensive worldviews is possible. Understanding the structure of one’s moral community is not the same as to endorsing that structure. This suggests that contestation is already present within communities about what ‘we’ do, up to and including who ‘we’—as a ‘community’—are. Challenging communitarian understandings of what makes a community a community (usually construed as ‘cultures’, understood somewhat monolithically), I argue that communities are best understood as forming around common concerns or perceptions of problems (sometimes veridical, sometimes not). This contestation plays a major role in determining the identities of communities, and these identities are constantly shifting.

The purpose of this study was to explore the life and work of LaFayette, nonviolence and conflict reconciliation from an adult education perspective. This study explores LaFayette’s life from an early age through his involvement in the Civil Rights Movement, his contributions to adult education, and his current views on social change. The nonviolence conflict reconciliation LaFayette teaches is based on the philosophy and strategies of Martin Luther King, Jr. During the last 50 years, LaFayette has been kidnapped, threatened, and survived ventures into hostile environments in his effort to teach nonviolence philosophy, strategies, and methods. This historical/biographical study used semi-structured interviews to obtain information from LaFayette directly and from a plethora of media, books, and articles about him. Semi-structured interviews were also used to interview his family members and colleagues. Despite the numerous awards and recognitions LaFayette has received, he had not been recognized in the field of adult education. Without realizing it, he incorporated some of the theories of adult education such as adult education agencies and categories during his workshop and encouraging institute participants to understand the first principle of the nonviolence training, which is nonviolence is a way of life for courageous people. This study began with a review of LaFayette’s family ties followed by his spiritual upbringing. It briefly outlined LaFayette’s contributions to the Civil Rights Movement. LaFayette co-authored material and curriculum for the nonviolence training by codifying and creating a quality standard which has been used in important organizations he co-founded such as the Alternative to Violence Project and The Summer Institute at the University of Rhode Island Center for Nonviolence and Peace Studies. In addition to these two major institutions, the study included his contributions to adult education in six other institutions. This study provides the most comprehensive, current, and overall picture of LaFayette’s life and contributions. Education institutions, prisons, and community agencies could benefit from the information provided in this study including information about the nonviolence conflict reconciliation training.

Thesis (M.A.)--Georgia State University, 2006. / Title from title screen. Timothy Renick, committee chair; Kathryn McClymond, Jonathan Herman, committee members. Electronic text (89 p.) : digital, PDF file. Description based on contents viewed Apr. 24, 2007. Includes bibliographical references (p. 81-89).