|
Diversity of tactics is a phenomenon wherein a social movement makes periodic use of force for disruptive or defensive purposes, stepping beyond the limits of nonviolence, but also stopping short of total militarization.〔(Amory Starr "...'Excepting Barricades Erected to Prevent Us from Peaceably Assembling'..." ''Social Movement Studies'', Vol. 5, No. 1, 61–81, May 2006 )〕〔(“Tactical Diversity in Successful Social Movements” ''Vancouver Media Co-op'', January 14, 2013 )〕 It also refers to the theory which asserts this to be the most effective strategy of civil disobedience for social change.〔(Anna Feigenbaum, “Death of a Dichotomy: Tactical Diversity and the Politics of Post-Violence” ''Upping the Anti: A Journal of Theory and Action'', May 2007 )〕 Diversity of tactics may promote nonviolent tactics, or armed resistance, or a range of methods in between, depending on the level of repression the political movement is facing. "It sometimes claims to advocate for "forms of resistance that maximize respect for life".〔(“Hallmarks of People’s Global Action (updated at the 3rd PGA conference at Cochamamba, 2001)” )〕 == Development of concept == The first clear articulation of diversity of tactics appears to have emerged from Malcolm X and other radical leaders in the African-American Civil Rights Movement of the early 1960s. Shortly after Malcolm announced his departure from the Nation of Islam, he gave a speech entitled "The Black Revolution" where he promoted solidarity between those who practiced armed resistance against racism, and those who practiced nonviolence. He stated: ::Our people have made the mistake of confusing the methods with the objectives. As long as we agree on objectives, we should never fall out with each other just because we believe in different methods or tactics or strategy to reach a common goal.〔Malcolm X Speaks, George Breitman, ed (Grove Press, 1994 edition), 46-49〕 In March 1964, Gloria Richardson, leader of the Cambridge Maryland chapter of the Student Nonviolent Coordinating Committee (SNCC), took Malcolm X up on his offer to join forces with civil rights organizations. Richardson (who’d recently been honored on stage at the March on Washington) told ''The Baltimore Afro-American'' that "Malcolm is being very practical…The federal government has moved into conflict situations only when matters approach the level of insurrection. Self-defense may force Washington to intervene sooner."〔(''The Baltimore Afro-American'' “Mrs. Richardson OKs Malcolm X” March 10, 1964 )〕 In the same year, Howard Zinn (then on SNCC’s Board of Advisers) published his essay "The Limits of Nonviolence," in the influential civil rights journal ''Freedomways''. In the article, the historian concluded that nonviolent direct action would not be sufficient to break Jim Crow in the South.〔(Howard Zinn “The Limits of Nonviolence” Freedomways, 1st quarter, 1964 )〕 In his 1965 book, ''SNCC: The New Abolitionists'', Zinn explained the philosophy that dominated the movement: ::The members of SNCC—and indeed the whole civil rights movement—have faced in action that dilemma which confounds man in society: that he cannot always have both peace and justice. To insist on perfect tranquility with an absolute rejection of violence may mean surrendering the right to change an unjust social order. On the other hand, to seek justice at any cost may result in bloodshed so great that its evil overshadows everything else and splatters the goal beyond recognition. The problem is to weigh carefully the alternatives, so as to achieve the maximum of social progress with a minimum of pain. Society has been guilty of much quick and careless weighing in the past…on the other hand, it has permitted the most monstrous injustices which it might have eliminated with a bit of trouble.〔Howard Zinn, ''SNCC: The New Abolitionists'' (South End Press 2002 edition) p. 223〕 抄文引用元・出典: フリー百科事典『 ウィキペディア（Wikipedia）』 ■ウィキペディアで「Diversity of tactics」の詳細全文を読む スポンサード リンク
|