One of my favorite exercises in civil disobedience trainings deals with the question on what accounts as violent and non-violent. Trainers propose a scenario where, for example, the window of a multinational oil corporation that is known to be complicit in an environmental crime, is broken by throwing a stone.<\/p>\n
The trainer then asks the people to take positions on a line, where on one end people identify the act as violent, and on the other end it is perceived as non-violent. People can take any position between the two poles. After people have taken their positions, the facilitators go through each participant validating each point with a additional question or other signs of support.<\/p>\n
It’s a simple exercise, but the pedagogy is near perfect. It shows that a single body can not take the same position as an another. On the spectrum of violence, all positions are distinct. The point of the exercise is to illustrate and approve all positions in an assembly, and map people who are interested in support roles or other acts. The people who identity being close to each other, will continue engaging together and know each others strengths.<\/p>\n
The exercise portrays violence and non-violence on a spectrum, where there is no clear distinction on what is violent and what’s not. The trainer also learns that different groups behave differently and are effected by the site or atmosphere. The participants explanations, of why they’ve entered which ever position on the spectrum are more interesting than what society counts as violent. The exercise helps us make our own rules.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
One of my favorite exercises in civil disobedience trainings deals with the question on what accounts as violent and non-violent. Trainers propose a scenario where, for example, the window of a multinational oil corporation that is known to be complicit in an environmental crime, is broken by throwing a stone. The trainer then asks the … <\/p>\n