Vincent Harding Teach-In Explodes
By Wade Lee Hudson
February 8, 2015
Last Saturday, a day-long intergenerational teach-in honoring Vincent Harding erupted with inspiration in the early afternoon with a powerful statement from Rev. James Lawson. Lawson was a mentor to the 1960 Nashville sit-ins and a close associate of both Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. and Harding, a scholar and activist who wrote King’s anti-Vietnam War speech.
Toward the end of the February 7 teach-in, in which more than one hundred individuals participated, Rev. Phil Lawson, James’ younger brother and a long-term Bay Area activist, proposed monthly gatherings to continue the conversation, which was organized by the National Council of Elders. Whether that happens remains to be seen.
Following the lunch break, James Lawson addressed two points about which, he said, “I haven’t heard anything today.” First, he declared, “All of us have the task to be as fully human, loving, and alive as possible.” Second, he urged activists to promote personal nonviolent struggle in order to become more fully nonviolent as individuals and more effective as activists.
He urged the audience to work on “how we treat each other and ourselves and how we work together” so that we better “learn how to respect each other.” In a challenge to traditional methods of organizing, he argued, “You can’t overcome this society with the old order. You can’t overcome darkness with darkness. You can’t fight evil with evil. We need a new model.”
Later, his brother, Phil, echoed that theme when he asked, “Who is the enemy?” and answered that it is “a spiritual power that has captured everyone” and fosters a wide variety of destructive “addictions.” To counter that force, he said we need a new spiritual power of our own: a profound commitment to nonviolence as a way of life, not as a tactic. “Everyone is an addict and we need to be in some program of recovery from the addictions of our society. We need a long-term, disciplined project.”
Those words were music to my ears. For me, the Lawson brothers’ comments exploded the event with a sudden burst of spirit, hope, and inspiration.
It was no surprise that the morning session failed to address those issues. That vacuum commonly permeates similar gatherings, including those convened by faith-based and faith-rooted organizers.
For years, I’ve been preaching a similar message concerning “deep nonviolence.” That work must include, it seems to me, a willingness and an ability to examine oneself honestly, admit mistakes (at least to a small circle of trusted allies), and resolve to avoid them in the future. As I see it, an organization rooted in deep nonviolence of the sort advocated by the Lawson brothers needs to be clearly, explicitly committed to mutual support and self-improvement, and its members need to set aside special time regularly for that purpose. That work needs to be intentional and disciplined. But I’ve been unable to find an organization with that kind of commitment, and my efforts to initiate one have not been successful, though I’ve connected with many people who have expressed interest.
Toward the end of teach-in, the participants formed small breakout groups and discussed the day’s events for fifteen minutes. I expressed my support for the Lawsons’ comments, and others in my group seemed supportive. And when all of the groups reported back, a few others referred to “addictions” and/or “support groups,” which was encouraging.
Another issue that I raised in my small group was the fact that the day’s proceedings did not consider the need to focus on winnable demands, a key principle embraced by both Gandhi and King. I argued that shutting down BART briefly or otherwise disrupting “business as usual” as the local #BlackLivesMatter groups have done may be “healing” for the demonstrators, as a number of speakers at the teach-in reported. But to build support with the general public, there needs to be a focus on achievable objectives. The same applies to acts of “moral witness.” Those actions may reach a few onlookers and the demonstrators may feel better afterward. But we need more than that.
Phil Lawson presented one such potentially realistic demand when he said that if the Alameda County District Attorney “overcharges” the demonstrators arrested at a recent BART action (by, for example, charging them with felonies), others should protest that decision by shutting down BART themselves. That stance seems to hold more potential than demanding that no charges whatsoever be filed, as some are proposing.
Along the same line, another word that I did not hear at the teach-in was “reconciliation,” a key principle affirmed by Gandhi and King. Their aim was not to defeat “enemies” by imposing their will, but rather to find common ground through negotiation.
After the teach-in adjourned, I thanked Phil for his “addictions” frame and commented that, as with the Harm Reduction Model in drug treatment, we may not need to tell fellow individual activists how they need to change specifically. Rather, perhaps we can leave it to individuals to define their own goals.
And I expressed my appreciation to James for speaking to those issues that had been missing from the morning session, as I too had noticed. One panelist did briefly talk about the need to learn how to deal with “ego.” And Wilson Riles offered some insightful comments about how “we swim in what oppresses us but don’t recognize it,” such as the English language with its anti-Black connotations and individualistic formats for how we relate to each other. But there was no proactive, corrective solutions offered. The Lawsons filled that void.
When I told James that some of us locally have been considering the development of one or more user-friendly, easily replicated tools that activists could use in self-regulating small groups to support one another with their self-improvement, he said “try it and see how it goes,” and commented that nonviolence is not so much a matter of “training” as it is “living it.”
James Baldwin, the renowned African-American author, once said:
A day will come when you will trust you more than you do now and you will trust me more than you do now. We will trust each other. I do believe, I really do believe that we can all become better than we are. I know we can.
I remain inspired by the hope that Baldwin and the Lawson brothers have articulated so well and will continue to try to foster its realization. Toward that end, inspired by the process that William Swing used to craft the United Religions initiative, I may seek an organization to facilitate a similar collaborative writing project to compose a position paper on how to build broad, multi-issue unity though deep nonviolence. If I can find such an organization, I might use a recent inheritance to make a sizable donation to it myself, and also seek other funds to back it. My optimism is tempered, however. Baldwin also said, “But the price is enormous and people are not yet ready to pay.” Most activists are convinced they already have the answers and only need to figure out how to better mobilize others to do what they, the activists, want them to do. Honest self-examination is painful, and collaboration rooted in mutual respect is not easy. Those tasks require more humility and vulnerability than is common among activists. Nurturing a balance between conviction and flexibility is an urgent need. It is the best path to the beloved community. Continuing the February 7 conversation could help.