The Question of “Cowardice”: Further Reflections on Peaceful Societies

by John Whitehead

—

Mohandas K. Gandhi made a striking statement in his essay “The Doctrine of the Sword” (1920): “I do believe that, where there is only a choice between cowardice and violence, I would advise violence.” Referring to India’s struggle for independence from Britain, he wrote, “I would rather have India resort to arms in order to defend her honour than that she should in a cowardly manner become or remain a helpless witness to her own dishonour.”

While stating that “non-violence is infinitely superior to violence,” Gandhi also said that nonviolence is meaningful only when it is chosen by someone who could behave differently: “it is meaningless when it pretends to proceed from a helpless creature.” He nevertheless advocated nonviolence in the Indian independence movement simply because “I do not believe India to be helpless…I want to use India’s and my strength for a better purpose.”

Variations of Gandhi’s idea that nonviolence is not and should not be synonymous with weakness or cowardice are common among justice and peace activists. Among such activists, nonviolence is presented as instead a form of resistance to injustice. 

American civil rights activist Bernard Lafayette, who participated in the 1960 Nashville sit-ins, commented, “Nonviolence means fighting back. But you’re fighting back with another purpose and with other weapons.” The political scientist Erica Chenoweth has long argued that nonviolence is preferable to violence because nonviolence is the more effective form of resistance.

Yet an alternative understanding of how to practice nonviolence exists. This alternative understanding is displayed by certain human communities that have been dubbed “peaceful societies.” These peaceful societies are relatively small communities, often on the margins of larger societies, that some anthropologists argue are largely free of violence. 

At least some of these peaceful societies appear to reject Gandhi’s principle that violence is preferable to cowardice and nonviolence must not flow out of helplessness. These societies’ attitudes are challenging not only to those who would justify violence under certain circumstances but also to many justice and peace activists. While such attitudes may be limited or flawed, they may also carry some important lessons.

Striving to Avoid Confrontation

A notable feature of the peaceful societies is how their members often deal with conflict not through nonviolent resistance but through flight, submission, or otherwise avoiding confrontation. The Paliyans, an indigenous people of India, will tolerate petty theft or marital infidelity rather than risk conflict over such issues. Faced with threats from outside their community, the Paliyans may simply flee, withdrawing into the forest. The indigenous Zapotec of the Mexican village known as “La Paz” similarly deal with potentially violent confrontations by withdrawing.

Such confrontation-averse, even fearful, behavior is also pronounced among a third society identified as peaceful, the Semai of Malaysia. The Semai are an indigenous people residing in the mountains of southern Malaysia. They have traditionally lived in small bands of roughly 100 people and practiced hunting, fishing, and gathering, as well as small-scale farming. 

The anthropologists Robert Knox Dentan of SUNY Buffalo and Clayton Robarchek of Wichita State University have argued that the Semai are largely nonviolent—although precise numbers on levels of violence among the Semai are hard to obtain.

Dentan and Robarchek’s work indicates that the Semai approach to conflict or potential conflict is often to withdraw from it. If a Semai is walking through the forest and hears an unfamiliar sound, he or she might flee, even throwing away whatever forest produce they have gathered that day in the process.

The Semai try to impress on their children the danger of the surrounding world and encourage caution. They raise children on tales of bogeyman-like monsters who will hurt or kill them. They also model fear of strangers to children: if a stranger enters their village, Semai might react by turning away and repeating their word for “afraid.” 

For Semai children who go to school with members of the majority Malay ethnic group, bullying can be a problem. However, one Semai mother interviewed in the 1990s explained that she taught her children not to confront bullies. She told her children, “Malay kids are bad…They’ll pick fights with you. Don’t you hit them back, you’ll just get in trouble.”

While teaching their children to avoid confrontation with outsiders, the Semai also avoid harsh discipline for children. Semai adults generally do not hit or spank children, although they might threaten such punishments. They also will not force confrontations with misbehaving children: if children flat-out refuse to obey their parents, the parents do not punish the child or otherwise pursue the issue.

The one situation where Semai parents might be more unyielding is if children start fighting with each other. Then, parents might abruptly pick up their children and carry them off back to their homes.

The Semai aversion to confrontation and punishment extends beyond parenting to the larger community. A Semai community will have a leader or “headman,” but the headman’s authority is limited to the power to persuade. He cannot force members of the community to behave a particular way. 

In the absence of punishment or formal political hierarchy, some Semai communities deal with disputes through a community assembly. The assembly begins with elders reminding those assembled of the interdependence of members of the community and the importance of harmony and unity. The parties to the dispute then address the assembly, making the case for their respective sides. Then the disputants’ relatives address the assembly, making their cases for their sides. This debate-like process goes on for hours, if not days, until no one has anything more to say.

When the debate is over, the headman will make a judgment that expresses whatever the group consensus is. He instructs the disputants on how to behave and not to engage in conflict again. Sometimes he may tell one or both parties to pay a fine. The headman and the elders conclude with more speeches on the importance of group unity. 

The assembly serves the purpose not only of addressing the dispute but also exhausting whatever negative, potentially destructive, emotions the dispute might have stirred up. In fact, the goal of dissipating negative emotions is probably the more important one. Sometimes the headmen will refund whatever fines they level on the disputants. Sometimes the original offense that caused the dispute will go unremedied. Sometimes the assembly’s judgment will be ignored or forgotten. What matters is that the conflict does not continue.

As these details of Semai life suggest, what ultimately seems to keep order is a general cultural desire to maintain communal life and not let conflict disrupt it. The same mother who admonished her children not to fight back against bullies told them not to fight with their friends: “[B]e good to your friends…If you’re a bad friend, people won’t want you around.” When Robarchek surveyed Semai to get a sense of their attitudes and values, he found that their most commonly cited fear, more even than death, was “becoming embroiled in a dispute.”

Dentan argues that Semai ways of dealing with conflict make sense in the context of the group’s history. The Semai have historically been subject to enslavement by the various rulers of Malaysia. Fleeing from outside aggressors to seek refuge in the forest and relying on communal solidarity for safety were rational responses to this situation. This background gave the Semai their traditions of avoiding confrontation, particularly when it might disrupt community life. 

The Challenge of Peaceful Societies

The confrontation-avoiding practices of societies such as the Semai, Paliyans, and Zapotec of Laz Paz may disturb some justice and peace activists. Critics could argue that by fleeing from, ignoring, or smoothing over external and internal conflicts, these societies risk leaving injustices or interpersonal disputes unresolved. In their efforts to avoid conflict, such societies might fail to address significant problems. To use Gandhi’s formulation, they may be choosing cowardice over violence; or their nonviolence is the kind that flows from helplessness, not strength.

This criticism is fair: one can reasonably conclude that these societies called “peaceful” do not adequately address the kinds of injustices, such as abuse or oppression, that ultimately need to be confronted. Nevertheless, their non-confrontational habits do have something to teach outsiders, including justice and peace activists.

First, while these peaceful societies might not offer the best model for addressing serious injustices, they do offer a good model for dealing with less serious types of conflict. Many human conflicts, including violent ones, can flare up over petty issues of pride, competitiveness, stubbornness, or fears of seeming “weak.” If more people were willing, without shame, to ignore, brush off, or walk away, or even run away, from these types of conflict (in social media comment sections, for instance), much needless suffering could be avoided.

Second, the sad reality is that in some situations avoiding confrontation is the only practical option, even when dealing with serious injustices. Nonviolent resistance of injustice is the best option, but sometimes that option might not work. Further, when nonviolent resistance does not work, violent resistance might not work, either. Sometimes oppressive forces are too strong to be challenged effectively. 

Even a champion of nonviolent resistance such as Erica Chenoweth has acknowledged that resistance is not always feasible: “nonviolent resistance does not always work, even when many people are using it together… [and] taking up violence may be even more disastrous.” Chenoweth’s findings indicate that in certain situations nonviolent resistance succeeds more than violent resistance—but the findings also show that neither method has a very high rate of success. 

Sometimes, contrary to Gandhi’s formulation, “cowardice,” or at least avoiding a direct confrontation with an oppressor or aggressor, might be the most prudent approach. At the very least, avoiding confrontation may limit the harm done by an oppressor by denying the oppressor a chance to victimize people. 

Further, when effective confrontation is not possible for an oppressed community, preserving communal solidarity may be more important than ever. As Dentan argues, this may be why groups such as the Semai have fled from their oppressors and developed their other traditions for handling conflict. 

The crucial challenge for justice and peace activists is to examine a particular conflict and discern the appropriate response. Is a serious injustice involved or something less consequential? If a serious injustice is involved, is resistance to it feasible or is it better to avoid confrontation? Depending on the situation, the practices of peaceful societies may offer a good model for how to respond.