Who Has the Power?
Thoughts about who holds power in conflictual situations, how nonviolent direct actions is "soft power," but not weak, and the people giving me hope this week.
As protestors resist the deployment of ICE in Minneapolis with the tactics of nonviolent direct action, I’ve been thinking about who holds the power in that situation.
At first blush, it seems like those authorized to use battlefield weapons against civilians have the upper hand. They kill without remorse, cover up their brutality with lies, and are exonerated by those in power before the blood dries.
But aren’t we also seeing the power of different kinds of weapons – of whistles and videos? Of neighbor-love, hospitality to the stranger, and the refusal to be violent?
The social sciences use the words “hard” and “soft” to distinguish different kinds of power. Nonviolent direct action may be called “soft” but it is not weak. It is soft only in the sense that it is not brutish or cruel. It is soft only if you think love that is willing to die for a cause but not kill for it is soft. [1]
The Trump administration does not understand the strength of “soft”. They have shuttered USIP, USAID, demolished the diplomatic corps and weaponized the Justice Department, all uses of brilliant examples of “soft” power. How foolish. “Hard” power is brittle. Not easy to defeat, no, but blind to its own vulnerability to “soft” power. The protestors in Minneapolis are fearlessly exploiting that blindness so that we can all see the truth: that lasting power lies in the hands of those who know how to put love into action.
Allow me to share some ideas from the people who have been guiding my reflections on power this week:
[1] “There are many causes I would die for. There is not a single cause I would kill for.” ― Mahatma Gandhi