Description
As a theory of, and approach to, politics, pacifism provides a useful set of analytical tools for understanding power, agency, resistance, peace, war and other subjects, despite its persistent subjugation and de-legitimation as a form of knowledge in the wider field. In particular, rooted in knowledge and understanding gained through real-world political struggles and action (as opposed to thought experiments and abstract principles), it advances a sophisticated understanding of the nature and effects of violence as a mode of political action. In this paper, I critique the naïve and persistent belief in the instrumental utility of violence as a tool of politics that characterises the contemporary study and practices of politics and international relations. Rooted in pacifism, but also drawing on broader social theory, I explore the contradictions and mistakes of just war theorising and the commonly expressed arguments for revolutionary violence. I argue that the constitutive nature of political action, including the use of political violence, and the inherent social limits of violence as a mode of power, contradict any instrumental or teleological aims of violence, whether revolutionary or conservative. I conclude that pacifist theory, which argues for means-ends consistency, pre-figuration and the complete elimination of violence from politics, appears to be the more reasonable position.
