What do you think?
Rate this book
Nonviolence Ain't What It Used To Be: Unarmed Insurrection and the Rhetoric of Resistance
"Shon Meckfessel . . . brings a fresh perspective to the stubborn debates around violence and nonviolence and suggests a way to move beyond the left's tactical impasse. Nonviolence Ain't What It Used to Be won't settle the old argument, but it may start a new one."—Kristian Williams, Our Enemies in Blue: Police and Power in America
Shon Meckfessel takes an innovative look at challenges faced by twenty-first century social movements in the US. One of their most important stumbling blocks is the question of nonviolence. Civil disobedience, symbolic protest, and principles of nonviolence have characterized many struggles in the United States since the Civil Rights era. But as Meckfessel argues, conditions have changed. We've seen the consolidation of the media, the militarization of policing, the co-optation and institutionalization of dissent, among many other shifts. The rules have changed, but the rhetoric, logic, and strategic tools we employ haven't necessarily kept pace, and narratives borrowed from movements of the past are falling short.
Nonviolence Ain't What It Used to Be maps the emerging, more militant approaches that seem to be developing to fill the gap, from Occupy to Ferguson. It offers new angles on a seemingly intractable debate, introducing terms and criteria that carve out a larger middle-ground between the two camps, in order to chart a path forward.
Shon Meckfessel takes an innovative look at challenges faced by twenty-first century social movements in the US. One of their most important stumbling blocks is the question of nonviolence. Civil disobedience, symbolic protest, and principles of nonviolence have characterized many struggles in the United States since the Civil Rights era. But as Meckfessel argues, conditions have changed. We've seen the consolidation of the media, the militarization of policing, the co-optation and institutionalization of dissent, among many other shifts. The rules have changed, but the rhetoric, logic, and strategic tools we employ haven't necessarily kept pace, and narratives borrowed from movements of the past are falling short.
Nonviolence Ain't What It Used to Be maps the emerging, more militant approaches that seem to be developing to fill the gap, from Occupy to Ferguson. It offers new angles on a seemingly intractable debate, introducing terms and criteria that carve out a larger middle-ground between the two camps, in order to chart a path forward.
250 pages, Paperback
First published January 12, 2016
6 people are currently reading
309 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 6 of 6 reviews
May 22, 2018
Shon Meckfessel's Nonviolence Ain't What It Used To Be is an interesting discourse on protest and collective action. The book explores the meaning, or frustrating lack of clear meaning, of the term 'Nonviolence', and how it has changed over time. Meckfessel's focus is on violence against property in modern protests, riots, and social movements, and the debate over the use of these tactics. He comes down clearly in favor of destruction of property and defacement of public works as a necessary and vital tool in changing society and challenging norms. He backs his stance up with convincing evidence of violence, or the threat of it, being a crucial component of many movements of the past including the civil rights movement. The book deconstructs the false dichotomy of violence/nonviolence and illustrates that a movement cannot stand alone on a commitment to a negative, and instead re-frames the issue as one of conflict seeking/conflict averse. Movements of the past, even if not causing physical harm to others, still escalated conflicts by breaking laws or norms, like sit-ins. Today's movements are often afraid to face conflict with police or the state, and shy away from actions that have effective impact in favor of actions that adhere to societal norms. Even if on the surface level they appear as protests they are not in any way transgressive to the hegemonic powers that be, and lack the power to cause systemic changes. The book continues on into a metaphysical exploration of the power of property destruction and clashes with law enforcement. The book gets quite abstract at times, but continues to raise interesting questions around the tactics of social movements, and how the influence participation and impact. Overall I found it an interesting read, if a bit overly cerebral and abstract.
~Peter, Library Assistant
~Peter, Library Assistant
June 13, 2022
Very good book on what non-violence and violence as a tactic and a philosophy can mean for different groups. But this is not just a overview of protest tactics, or even a history of it, but a deep sociological analyses on why some demonstrations turn to riots or armed insurgencies.
The author clearly sympathises with violent protesters, but the book is written in a very balanced way, going throw all arguments and not making a final conclusion when or how violence is ok and not. The reader decides. This sympathetic perspective gives the reader a deep look on why riots happen and why some one would destroy a store window or burn a police car
The author clearly sympathises with violent protesters, but the book is written in a very balanced way, going throw all arguments and not making a final conclusion when or how violence is ok and not. The reader decides. This sympathetic perspective gives the reader a deep look on why riots happen and why some one would destroy a store window or burn a police car
July 15, 2020
Some interesting insights, but a difficult read. Mostly for academics.
March 30, 2022
Eye opening!
Read
February 7, 2017Shon Meckfessel's NonViolence Ain't What It Used To Be makes a daring leap in social action, but is intellectually and morally constrained. Meckfessel, if I understand him correctly, is saying, that because Authority has co-opted, infiltrated, and otherwise weakened, social action movements, individuals must redefine the traditional non-violent practices. Redefine them to include violence against inanimate objects, the symbols of oppression.
Meckfessel uses several terms to describe the processes through which the power of the state is undermined via judicious use of violence: desubjectification, profanation, disidentification, disinvestment, etc. These terms struck me as intellectual dressing on acts of physical expression of rage. I don't think a mob turning over a police car is consciously doing so to disidentify with their role as Authority. The mob is angry and the Police here are The Enemy.
The purpose of social action is not to win through domination, but to argue for inclusion as a means to better all lives.
Meckfessel picks and chooses particular authors, readings, and interviews to argue for violence against the symbols of oppression, but traditional non-violence understood that violence hurts, sometimes inadvertently: If the Well-Fargo building is wrecked, perhaps the regular cleaning crew that services it, will miss work, perhaps the building IS occupied, and individuals are physically hurt...
An aikido practitioner I know often councils: "When you strike out, you open yourself up for attack." Meckfessel is not practicing aikido.
While Meckfessel's tract is valuable for it's examination and explanation of the current neoliberal atmosphere that Occupy movements and Black Lives Matter now operate in, and, even, makes a case for violent protest in the face of protests and response that have become almost codified, as tame and ineffectual. I am still hesitant to suggest violence is a way to address the new paradigm. I think it reflects an impatience: We want the world and we want it NOW! I have heard so many dejected, defeatist exclamations about the DNC's thwarting of the recent Sanders presidential campaign. We did not get the revolutionary overthrow. What we got was a prominent example that National, Presidential campaigns do not need millions of corporate funds to be successful. Maybe, if we build on that, greater changes are possible.
The forces of repression and oppression have been at work for quite a long time, are "in place" and, in many instances, are working on automatic, It will take more than rage to undo the status quo. The status quo even holds that Violence equals danger, fear, evil.
What is needed in non-violent movements is a greater imagination and, perhaps, a renewed commitment to creating a "separate society", an alternative to American, neoliberal society that requires us citizens to buy into the commerce, the fossil fuel, the corporate structures that oppressive wage, and trade regulations, racism, and military adventurism support. Easier said, than done, I know. The recent election results leaves us ample room for experimenting in effective protest. I'm rereading Havel's The Power of The Powerless next...
While The Standing Rock No-DAPL protests (happening during and after publication) show the limitations of most of Meckfessel's arguments, the author has valuable analyses of the current political atmosphere, the limitations of a universal movement (like Occupy) versus a community movement (like Standing Rock, MLK's Civil Rights, etc.) While I found his main argument paper-thin, I read his book for these other insights.
Meckfessel uses several terms to describe the processes through which the power of the state is undermined via judicious use of violence: desubjectification, profanation, disidentification, disinvestment, etc. These terms struck me as intellectual dressing on acts of physical expression of rage. I don't think a mob turning over a police car is consciously doing so to disidentify with their role as Authority. The mob is angry and the Police here are The Enemy.
The purpose of social action is not to win through domination, but to argue for inclusion as a means to better all lives.
Meckfessel picks and chooses particular authors, readings, and interviews to argue for violence against the symbols of oppression, but traditional non-violence understood that violence hurts, sometimes inadvertently: If the Well-Fargo building is wrecked, perhaps the regular cleaning crew that services it, will miss work, perhaps the building IS occupied, and individuals are physically hurt...
An aikido practitioner I know often councils: "When you strike out, you open yourself up for attack." Meckfessel is not practicing aikido.
While Meckfessel's tract is valuable for it's examination and explanation of the current neoliberal atmosphere that Occupy movements and Black Lives Matter now operate in, and, even, makes a case for violent protest in the face of protests and response that have become almost codified, as tame and ineffectual. I am still hesitant to suggest violence is a way to address the new paradigm. I think it reflects an impatience: We want the world and we want it NOW! I have heard so many dejected, defeatist exclamations about the DNC's thwarting of the recent Sanders presidential campaign. We did not get the revolutionary overthrow. What we got was a prominent example that National, Presidential campaigns do not need millions of corporate funds to be successful. Maybe, if we build on that, greater changes are possible.
The forces of repression and oppression have been at work for quite a long time, are "in place" and, in many instances, are working on automatic, It will take more than rage to undo the status quo. The status quo even holds that Violence equals danger, fear, evil.
What is needed in non-violent movements is a greater imagination and, perhaps, a renewed commitment to creating a "separate society", an alternative to American, neoliberal society that requires us citizens to buy into the commerce, the fossil fuel, the corporate structures that oppressive wage, and trade regulations, racism, and military adventurism support. Easier said, than done, I know. The recent election results leaves us ample room for experimenting in effective protest. I'm rereading Havel's The Power of The Powerless next...
While The Standing Rock No-DAPL protests (happening during and after publication) show the limitations of most of Meckfessel's arguments, the author has valuable analyses of the current political atmosphere, the limitations of a universal movement (like Occupy) versus a community movement (like Standing Rock, MLK's Civil Rights, etc.) While I found his main argument paper-thin, I read his book for these other insights.
April 14, 2017
A cogent and in depth exploration of the current state of nonviolent resistance. Looks at the history of nonviolent direct action, unarmed insurrection, and the philosophy and practicalities of violence and nonviolence.
Shading toward the academic, this is still a readable text that attempts to locate our definitions of violence and nonviolence and illuminate different ways to think about the concepts and utilize them.
If you're involved with political movements of any kind, you should read this. If you like to get out int he streets, then you have to read this.
Shading toward the academic, this is still a readable text that attempts to locate our definitions of violence and nonviolence and illuminate different ways to think about the concepts and utilize them.
If you're involved with political movements of any kind, you should read this. If you like to get out int he streets, then you have to read this.
Displaying 1 - 6 of 6 reviews