The Place of Violence in Progressive Social Movements
By Camille Cottais
Feminist & Gender Studies
University of Ottawa, MA
Unceded Territory of the Algonquin Nation
Abstract
While we tend to think that today's democratic societies are less violent than those that preceded them, modern society and the institutions of liberal democracy remain founded on violence, brutality, colonialism and slavery. We might ask whether non-violence, by depriving the population of its right to self-defense, might not ensure that the state maintains this monopoly of violence. The debate between partisans of violence and non-violence has divided progressive social movements since their inception. While some assert that the non-violence of these movements is their strength, others claim a right to resistance or self-defense, and even the use of violence as a legitimate (even necessary) strategy for political emancipation. Institutional and repressive state violence are traditionally seen as legitimate, while insurrectionary - or liberatory - violence exercised by social movements is delegitimized and considered counter-productive. This article thus reflects on the place of violence in progressive social movements, from a Marxist and feminist perspective, with a particular focus on radical left movements. How do we define violence, and where do we draw the line between violence and non-violence? How is violence gendered and racialized? More broadly, is it legitimate to respond to violence with violence?
Keywords: violence, self-defense, resistance, social movements, abolitionism.