This feedback sheet evaluates Kevin James Nolan's assignment on nonviolent action. The evaluator gave high marks in all categories, praising Kevin's intelligent writing and ability to question, interrogate, and deduce information. The assignment argued that nonviolent action against an unfair government is ethical. It used examples from Thoreau, Pankhurst, Tolstoy, and Occupy movements to support this, showing how nonviolent protests can achieve more than violent ones by keeping communication channels open and maintaining ethical and democratic stances.

1. Feedback Sheet for PEAC100 – Assignment 1 Short Essay - (30%) Name & Number: Kevin James Nolan 220104074 A1 T2 2012
Marking Categories: 
No
Some
Yes
Merit
Excellent
Referencing: (Number, Citation, Style)
9
Analysis/Arguments: Depth/Level of Analysis
9
Presentation & Expression: Grammar/Meaning/ Editing
9
Demonstrate Engagement with: The unit materials, prescribed sources, and resources provided (e.g. suggested readings)
9
Nonviolence: Arguments for nonviolent action against the lawful authority of an unfair government being ethical
9
Nonviolence: Examples/reasons from people/events used to back up arguments.
9
Marks: 27/30 Unit Coordinator - Dr. Bert Jenkins: Comment: Kevin, this assignment was excellent in every respect as can be seen from the above grid. The way you question, interrogate and deduce is the hallmark of intelligent writing. Congratulations on a job well done.

2. Kevin Nolan Student Number 220104074 PEAC100 Introduction to Peace Studies Assignment 1 July 2012 The practice of non-violence may contest and go against the lawful authority of a nation. Given this fact, argue for why non-violent action is ethical? Explain your reasons using examples to back up your arguments. (Topic – Nonviolence).
If one assumes all violence inflicted by governments, institutions or individuals to need an instigator, and therefore a recipient to that violence, then one might naturally assume a moral
Comment [D1]: Kevin, I have made few comments on your work as I found it to be very articulate and well reasoned.

3. position of a protector of the recipient. However it could be argued that the recipient might also have a responsibility to take a stance against such violence, so that others are not subjected.If such violence takes a physical form, then non-violent and even violent resistance might be a straightforward argument. In a society however, violence can assume multiple guises, such as oppression. In such a case, further examination and judgement may be needed in order to engage in what might be considered a measured reaction to such violence. For example, Thoreau in his essay on civil disobedience in the mid-19th century argued that a government taxing commodities for example, may actually do more good than harm (Thoreau n.d., cited in Barash 2010, p.192). However he also extended this claim by stating that if the problems in government worsen to become organised oppression or robbery (presumably through unjust taxes or other charges) then there is a need to engage in resistance or even revolution. On the basis of the individual, one might understand this position to be ethical on the grounds of self-protection.Indeed, during Thoreau’s time slavery was still common, and oganised welfare and healthcare were still in their infancy at a time when officials, rulers and bureaucrats lived in relative comfort compared with say, farmhands or the unemployed, so perhaps one could readily sympathise with his arguments, particularly with regard to the oppressive institution of slavery. In later years on the other side of the Atlantic,Emeline Pankhurst fought on behalf of both her own and all women’s oppression and gained widespread attention when she established the Women’s Social and Political Union in order to secure voting rights for women. With organised, non-violent newsletters and rallies, she was able to achieve more attention than earlier, moderate speeches, (even though in later years some violence ensued) (BBC,2012). There wasanother facet of US government which troubled Thoreau and that was the Mexican-American War. Although not directly involved, Thoreau refused to pay his taxes as a protest and from this our concept of civil disobedience derives (Thoreau n.d., cited in Barash 2010, p.192). In this example, resistance is not just about the individual, but about what we might consider to be the ‘greater good’, as referred to earlier. Determining what is the greater benefit for those whom one may not even have encountered naturally has its problems, as Thoreau himself admitted. He argued that some injustices were necessary as part of the governmental machine (Thoreau n.d., cited in Barash 2010,p.195). However he also highlighted the importance of conscience(Thoreau n.d., cited in Barash 2010, p.192).
Further to the east, the writer Leo Tolstoy, who served in the Crimean War, was also outspoken on conscience and non-violence. For Tolstoy the common people were just as

4. responsible for wars as their governments, and for him war was comparable to or synonymous with murder (Tolstoy n.d., cited in Barash 2010, p.198). Although Tolstoy was increasingly a man of conscience largely defined by his religion, it is surely not for ethical discussion by people of any persuasion that killing, regardless of its motivation, can be considered a moral act. Beyond just violent actions, Tolstoy believed that governments were organisations of institutionalised violence (Tolstoy n.d., cited in Barash 2010,p.197). If one takes that to mean sanctioned and oft unrestricted killing in the name of war, then ethical consideration determines the needfor it to be opposed by citizens to keep such governments in check. However institutionalised violence can also be a partner of less visible structural violence, such as that discussed below, proposed by Galtung (Galtung 2004, para.4).
Western society in particular has become increasingly Americanised and neoliberal in nature since World War II. Elitism and classism are implied everywhere if not directly expressed; heads of business are celebrated and rewarded with considerable salaries and privileges. Public services have been privatised to become subservient to the commercial gains of their shareholders rather than public interest. In our homes advertising promotes newly defined status symbols such as cars and flat screen televisions. Good education, desirable suburbs and locales come at an increasing monetary cost. People with access to these come to socialise together and engage in similar hobbies and interests, and even speak with accents which are distinguishable and ‘represent’ their origins. Some of these people are able to influence, schools, companies, and politicians directly and indirectly either through association or donations and contributions. For the rest, they are left marginalised in poorer housing areas, with ‘undesirable’ accents and ‘bad credit ratings’, an element of linguistic violence similar to William Gay’s (1998, p.545-547)references. This language is inherent in a neoliberal system as a mechanism to encourage both participation in credit, (as well as ‘bad credit rating’, in order to have a ‘good credit rating’, you would need to have had at least some credit history), and to enforce repayments, usually with interest of course. The linguistic and structural violence which some people are subjected to in varying levels of elitism or classism operates in a cycle of reinforcement that bolsters the perpetrators’ positions further over time. Doubtless some of the unfortunate people do have some options. However for many the long process of self-improvement may have too many steps for a person with a negative self- image to implement. This marginalisation is one consequence of modern neoliberal society. In understanding these injustices,it is indeed the responsibility, and is therefore ethical, for citizens to engage in peaceful demonstrations. In fact this motivation may have been the
Comment [D2]: This is very interesting.
Comment [D3]: Good referencing.
Comment [D4]: “considerable” is rather an understatement.
Comment [D5]: I really like this.
Comment [D6]: Yes
Comment [D7]: YES
Comment [D8]: Yes

5. major factor in the Occupy movements around the world in 2011. Of course in modern times it might seem that the states of more developed countries have over time indeed solved much of the harsher realities present in Thoreau’s times. Although one could argue that similar oppression and over-taxation are still commonplace, with the advent of cheap healthcare and welfare, there may be now, at least superficially,far fewer reasons to claim harsh treatment by the state than ever before.
Perhaps then a more demonstrative example of modern oppression and robbery for developed countries is, to return to the topic,the seemingly perpetual trend to wage or engage in wars. In Australia, foreign policy has tended to side with that of the US, leading to wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, almost by ‘default’. Little or no direct dialogue exists between government and citizens. Instead many succumb to a resigned acceptance, giving governments free reign to decide our fate.To be sure, there are those who wish to serve in the armed forces and possibly even enjoy the discipline and routine of military service and the notion of protecting citizens. For those who do not, and they must number in their millions, engagement in war is a far more reluctant position. As well as their taxes directly paying for arms and rations, usually without discussion or permission given, some will have relatives, friends or neighbours who will suffer or lose their life through war. For others, there may be simply the moral question of being a contributing citizen, albeit indirectly, to a violent assault by their country, again usually without much dialogue taking place. There must be even some within the military who do not agree with the purpose or the extent of a war in which they are asked to engage in. Such people might fit Thoreau’s argument that men serve the state as machines with their bodies and can not exercise judgment or their own morals (Thoreau n.d. cited in Barash 2010, p193). However this implies that men or women have no choices but to respond to the state’s instructions. At first it might be easy to side with this opinion given the realities of the period, but this was not true even in Thoreau’s time, as his own behaviour demonstrated. In modern, developed democracies at least, governments areelected to serve the interests of the people, and it is an ever more plausible stance for men and women, born with the power of their minds, to not merely serve the state as automatons. For to do so is to ignore the true meaning of democracy and deny the considerable privilege of their relatively free will.Given this existence, and the many unfortunate others worldwide who have much less means, it would seem hardly possibleto deduce anything butthat there is a moral imperative for people to exercise their own judgments and if necessary, contest the authority of the state.
Comment [D9]: Yes

6. In addition there are numerous further benefits for modern citizens. As Randallpointed out, governments in the past few hundred years since industrialisation require the cooperation of a workforce in order to operate properly (Randall 2002 p.75, para.4). Consequently a certain amount of leverage is in the realm of the citizens. Furthermore Randall estimated the modern media workforce to have at least equal if not more leverage than that of the armed services (Randall 2002, p.75, para.4). With the advent of the internet and now social media, citizens now have clear and super-fast bilateral communication channels both between each other and through to the media and authorities. The potential to initiate organised demonstrations, (as happened in the UK riots of 2011, although not peaceful), has surely never been greater. Information on names and email addresses of politicians has never been more accessible. Add this to the increased awareness and available leisure time for reflection on society for modern citizens, and the argument for non-violent action in principled stands against authorities becomes increasingly stronger over time.As technology improves further and levels of communication and potential for organisation on the side of protesters begins to match or even overtake that of governments, the potential for mutual better understanding hopefully also increases.
According to Jenkins (2012), Einstein once said that peace can only be achieved by understanding. In order to have the best chance of understanding, communications channels surely must remain open. Violence and posturing colours these channels, possibly leading to further misunderstandings and yet more violence. In themselves these acts are unethical, but further violence ensures than their effects are yet more unethical. Moreover they can defeat the purpose of taking a stand in the first place, which is to be firstly understood, then accepted, and finally represented properly by the authorities in question. This is surely the desired definition and function of a modern, ethical democracy. To take an alternative, violent stance may be to commit to an even more problematic conclusion: to undermine centuries of efforts overcoming undemocratic rule and to further exemplify to others that actions similar to those committed by such rulers is a legitimate way for their opinions to be counted. A far more successful strategy, as history books with their reverence to figures such as Gandhi and Tolstoy testify to, and one which Randle especially alludes to, is one of a long- term non-violent semi-resistance culture (Randle, 2002). As Maurice Isserman surmised when quoted by Hampson(2011, para.3), in response to the Occupy movement in 2011,movements have the greatest impact when they are faithful to their non-violent roots.One could deduce that inaction on the other hand, merely serves to silence their ownand
Comment [D10]: Yes

7. others’ opinions, thereby doing the work of the regimes in charge and in that way,perhaps even implying some allegiance. References David P.Barash2010,Approaches to Peace, A Reader in Peace Studies. Oxford University Press Inc., New York. Galtung, J. 2004,writing about violence, war and their impacts, viewed 23rd July 2012,
http://them.polylog.org/5/fgj-en.htm

8. Gay, W. C. 1998 writing about the practice of linguistic nonviolence, viewed 23rd July 2012,
http://www.philosophy.uncc.edu/wcgay/publingnonvio.htm. Hampson, R 2011, ‘‘Occupy’ movement faces challenge from violent fringe’, USA Today, 13th November, viewed 23rd July 2012,
http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/story/2011-11-13/occupy-movement-violent- fringe/51188258/1 Jenkins, B. 2012, Introduction to Peace Studies unit orientation, University of New England, School Armidale, NSW. Randle, M. 2002, ‘The Dynamics of Nonviolent Action' in Randle, M. (ed), Challenge to Nonviolence, Issues in Peace Research 2002, Bradford: Department of Peace Studies, University of Bradford, pp. 75-91. BBC 2012, History, viewed 23rd July 2012,
http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/historic_figures/pankhurst_emmeline.shtml