Howard Thurman on Nonviolence

By Wade Lee Hudson

In “Reconciliation,” the last chapter of Disciplines of the Spirit, the esteemed theologian, Howard Thurman, one of Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King’s main mentors, presents a case for nonviolence as a way of life, not merely a tactic.

In the opening to the chapter, Thurman acknowledges that personal growth needs to develop within a structure and humans need to be cared for and understood “in general” as well as by others “in particular.” And he discusses “the need to be needed beyond the limits of her family.” In this way, with troubled souls, “the wildness (can be) gentled out of a personality at war with itself.”

To develop the talent for reconciliation, “there must be the intent itself. The individual must want to do it.” This chance is nurtured by the chance to play freely with other children, which is as important as mothering. With adults, the “unwillingness to accept ill will, hatred, or violence directed toward oneself” is key to the development of “simple techniques of cooperation and adjustment.”

Violence, whose “central purpose to make it possible...to impose (one’s) will on another,” is a response that “meets the need of the individual to be cared for, to be understood.” As such, “the violent act is a desperate act…, the imperious demand of a person to force another to honor his desire and need to be cared for, to be understood.” However, physical violence, “terrible as it is, is not violence in its worst form. No. Violence at its worse may be nonphysical. Love itself may be a form of nonphysical violence.”

Nonviolent responses to violence can be so threatening to the violent offender that his sense of security “deserts him and he is thrown back upon the naked hunger of his own heart to be cared for, to be understood, to experience himself in harmony with his fellows.” In this case, only hatred can “sustain the mood of violence,” which leads “to will the very nonexistence of the other person.”

In response, the object of hate “may find himself resorting to hatred as a means of salvaging a sense of self…. But in the end, the human spirit cannot tolerate this. Men are made for each other, and any sustained denial of this elemental fact of life cannot stand.” In the face of this, nonviolence “provides a working atmosphere in which this mutual desiring [for community] may be normal, reasonable, and accepted.”

Nonviolence is a technique, a discipline, that rejects physical force and renounces the tools of physical violence. It “may potentially realize itself in a given situation by rendering the violent act ineffective and bringing about the profoundest kind of change in attitude…. The logic of hate is to kill…. Nonviolence and nonkilling mean, therefore, essentially the same thing.”

Nonviolence is also a rejection of the psychological tools of violence. It assumes that “it is possible for a man to get real insight into the meaning of his deeds, attitudes, or way of life as they affect the life of his fellows. A man faced with nonviolence is forced to deal with himself.”

Ancient behavior patterns can be reconditioned. “The spirit of retaliation must be relaxed and overcome.” The “creative inclination toward community” must prevail over the “destructive inclination toward conquest…. If there is no fear at this point, the power of violence is critically undermined…. The moral impact of nonviolence on violent men cannot be denied…. It awakens, first, a kind of admiration… and then identification”

The problem differs if the violence is impersonal, the result of a violent system. In this case, Thurman argues, “a way has to be found to personalize the system. The fact that a system is violent has to be brought home to those who are largely in control of the power structure.” In these cases, the techniques of nonviolence must be employed as with sit-ins, walk-ins, pray-ins, and boycotts. The purpose is to “awaken conscience and an awareness of the evil of a violent system, and to make available the experience of the collective destiny in which all people in the system are participating.” If the result is not the solidification of the methods of violence, “then a profound change has to take place within the power structure so that all may share the fruits of the common life.”

Reconciliation is a religious experience that reconciles all of one’s warring parts and imposes an ethical imperative to care for and understand others “with no awareness of merit or demerit” and no efforts “to balance giving and receiving…. But the appearance of love may be used as a technique of social control or for the manipulation of other people… It can become a moral pretension. The love ethic may become a love dogma or doctrine.”

In these cases, “we want to be accepted just as we are, but at the same time, we want the other person to win the right to our acceptance of him. This is an important part of the sin of pride. There must be genuine repentance for such as attitude.” Moreover, the mutual flow of love “involves an increased understanding of the other person.” And there must be “a sense of leisure out of which we relate to others… We cannot be in a hurry in matters of the heart.”

Given these realities “any structure of society, any arrangement under which human beings live, that does not provide maximum opportunities for free-flowing circulation among one another, works against social and individual health…. So considered, segregation, prescriptions of separation, are a disease of the human spirit and the body politic.”

Thurman concludes his book with a stirring call. “Ultimately, there is only one place of refuge on this planet for any man — that is in another man’s heart. To love is to make of one’s heart a swinging door.”

The beauty and passion of this chapter are compelling and important, but there are some problems with the content and one key issue that’s missing.

Thurman affirms that humans need to be cared for and understood by others in particular. This formulation emphasizes the direct, interpersonal provision of what is needed for health and welfare. This individualistic frame de-emphasizes the importance that society, in general, communicates respect for everyone’s essential equality and value.

The insistence that violence can be verbal as well as physical is valuable. But Thurman’s definition of violence is too narrow. As well as efforts to kill, violence can also involve efforts to hurt. This broader perspective calls for more complicated considerations of how to be nonviolent. In fact, even the use of physical force that hurts another can be nonviolent if it’s the last resort as a way to prevent more serious injury to another or others. This more nuanced approach helps to avoid absolute language that interferes with talking about these issues.

The most serious weakness in his argument, however, relates to his very brief, too brief, discussion of systemic and structural violence.

Thurman advocates nonviolent direct action to personalize violent systems by targeting “those who are largely in control of the power structure.” The purpose of this action is to educate the targets and awaken their conscience. But this approach scapegoats the administrators of oppressive systems, which easily leads to demonization. Our society is a self-perpetuating social system that consists of all of our major institutions, our culture, and ourselves as individuals. Everyone is responsible. Administrators are replaceable. No one is in control. Personalizing enemies is counter-productive.

Nonviolent direct action can target key decision-makers while making appeals for reconciliation and always remaining open to reconciliation. But the hard reality is that these appeals may fail. Rather, massive people-power may be needed to impose popular will by force, with compassion.

A related weakness is Thurman’s discussion of structure. He merely states that any social structure, such as segregation, that does not “provide maximum opportunities for free-flowing circulation among one another” must be reformed. But structural issues are deeper and more comprehensive than that. The lack of “free-flowing circulation” is not our only problem. Rather, the root cause of most of our personal and social problems is society’s systematic socialization of all people to climb social ladders and dominate those below. Selfish claims to status permeate society.

Nevertheless, the powerful, poetic insights in “Reconciliation” have much to offer.