Regardless of its theoretical background, most of the literature is dedicated to physical force applied against civilians living in a state. In spite of extensive criticism related to the term, this is usually referred to as “terrorism.” For the purpose of this study, it is important to emphasize that much of what is called terrorism goes beyond physical force targeting the state (although physical force targeting the state may be called “terrorism”). Quite frequently, for instance, “terrorism” is used to describe physical force targeting particular religious groups. For example, consider the attack on Copts, a religious minority in Egypt, in “The Saints Church” in Alexandria during the Coptic Christmas mass at the beginning of 2011. While the attack has been called “terrorism,” the religious background of the victims (Coptic), the location of the attack (a church), and its timing (during Christmas mass) suggest that the state was not the primary target. Rather, they suggest that this attack is an act of political violence against the Coptic community. This is the case, although one might add that, by exposing the Egyptian state’s inability to prevent the catastrophe, the attack also hurt the state. On the other hand, the massacre of tourists at the Temple of Hatshepsut in 1997, which has also been called terrorism, may be considered an attack against the state: the targeting of tourists is an attack on the Egyptian tourism industry—a major source of state income. Moreover, the perpetrators had a history of targeting state representatives, during which they stated they were indeed targeting the state (Peters 2006).
It might be objected that focusing on political violence against the targets mentioned appears to be somewhat arbitrary and rather narrow. However, the definitions provided in this section establish the basis for a rigorous comparison of violent and nonviolent activism that happens in the same environment—and not for exploring all forms of political violence. Focusing on a wider range of targets (including nonstate targets, for example) would have made it much more difficult to conduct this comparison, even if both violent and nonviolent activism happened in the same environment.
Fourth, physical force is widely considered a means rather than an end, and there is a consensus that the people who exercise physical force do so for a purpose beyond the mere application of physical force.6 Since goals exist prior to the performance of actions, political violence appears to be a planned rather than spontaneous type of behavior.7 Goals also indicate that political violence may involve deliberation, including alternative means—for example, about forcing the repeal of a new law by planting a bomb inside the Ministry of Justice rather than by demonstrating in front of it.
In spite of a more or less general consensus that political violence includes goals, the literature differs on the nature of these goals: cultural-psychological theories assume the goals are based on religious beliefs, and in particular on Islam. Environmental-psychological theories suggest that the goals are based on economic hardship and express people’s desire to improve their living conditions. Focusing on violent groups that absorb individuals who establish contact with them, group theories seem to equate goals with groups, suggesting that the group itself can be a goal. Finally, psychopathological theories imply that goals are subject to the personality of individuals.
This study supports the general consensus that political violence involves certain goals. Since the cognitive mapping approach does not specify particular factors in advance, I do not formulate particular types of goals at this stage. Rather, my construction of data provides insight into the goals related to political violence (see Chapter 4).
Nonviolent Activism and Borderline Behavior
At first sight, the literature discussed above offers little ground to develop a definition of nonviolent activism. This is due to its more general neglect of the absence of political violence8 as well as to the absence of control groups in existing studies of violence. To cope with this difficulty, I draw on the definition of political violence to define nonviolent activism.
Nonviolent activism is a behavior that involves a means that is not physical force. For examples of such activities, Gene Sharp’s famous article on nonviolence (1959) serves as a valuable source.9 In particular, Sharp mentions boycotts, strikes, or noncooperation movements exercised as passive or peaceful resistance in the context of conflicts with the goal of “achieving or thwarting of social, economic, or political change” (53). More specifically, he cites Mohandas Gandhi’s resistance campaign; the Montgomery, Alabama, Negro bus boycott in 1955–1956; the 1952 “Defy Unjust Laws” campaign in South Africa; and the 1942 Norwegian teachers’ resistance to Nazi use of Norwegian schools for indoctrination, which was among the “most important actions in halting Quisling’s plans for instituting the Corporate State in Norway.”
Further drawing on my definition of political violence, I consider nonviolent activism to involve civilian perpetrators and state targets. Such a common focus provides a rigorous basis for comparison—although it limits a wider exploration of violent and nonviolent activism, which may involve noncivil perpetrators and nonstate targets. As mentioned, it is nevertheless much more difficult to compare violent and nonviolent activism conducted by different perpetrators against different targets. It is also important to note that violent and nonviolent activism that involves civil perpetrators and state targets does occur; and that focusing on exactly these activities provides an especially rigorous basis to systematically differentiate between the two.
Following my definition of political violence, I further consider nonviolent activism to involve goals. By definition, violent and nonviolent activism might involve the same goals. However, nonviolent activism is distinguishable from political violence by its means, which are not physical force. As a result, the goals of nonviolent activism are nevertheless related to the rejection of physical force and the embrace of other means instead. This is expressed by Gandhi: “Non-violence is the greatest force at the disposal of mankind. It is mightier than the mightiest weapon of destruction devised by the ingenuity of man” (Gandhi 2007: 23).
It is also interesting to note that, in this context, it is possible to differentiate nonviolent activism from peaceful activism: goals indicate that an activity is planned and is intended to exercise certain but not other means. By contrast, peaceful activism may be considered to not involve any goals and be unplanned or spontaneous. Peaceful activism may moreover be considered to involve goals without considering physical force as a means. In the following analysis, this aspect is addressed by coding the individuals’ direct speech into different types of categories representing peaceful and nonviolent activities (see Chapter 4).
Although the examples of nonviolent activism mentioned above do not involve physical force, the same cannot be said about other activities, which appear to be very similar: As Sharp observes, demonstrations or strikes, for instance, in principle involve nonviolent means—but their occurrence has often been connected with physical force.10 Some examples are the Egyptian revolution in 2011, the Greek protests against austerity measures in 2011, the strikes of textile workers in Mahalla, Egypt, in 2008, or the student revolts in Germany in 1968. In addition, there are activities whose goals involve physical force but whose application does not occur. Examples are the failure to detonate of a bomb intended to kill the hostages and hostage takers during the RAF siege of the German embassy in Stockholm in 1975, or the failed detonation of bombs placed on German trains in 2006.
Table 2: Examples of Borderline Activities (general)
| Failed application of physical force | Application of both violent and nonviolent means |
|
Not pulling
|