Peaceful Persuasion: a Book Review

by Tim Foley

I have, now and again, thought about the effect of words in a conflict. In mediation work I have noticed that the right form of words can sometimes cause a positive change in the mood of a conflict and a corresponding change of direction in the process (and unfortunately the wrong words have the opposite effect).

In her book Peaceful Persuasion: The Geopolitics of Nonviolent Rhetoric (New York: State University of New York Press 2004), Ellen Gorsevski explores the use of rhetoric in contexts of conflict and violence and identifies, through qualitative research and case studies, the essence and characteristics of non-violent rhetoric. She notes that Western culture tends to promote violent rhetoric while overlooking the potential of ‘peaceful persuasion’ for addressing the conflicts and evils that torment our world. The point is that the way we talk, no matter what the speaking situation, can help to nurture and sustain non-violent modes of behavior into everyday lives. Gorsevski says:

‘Rhetoric is at the heart of cultural change. Cultural change can occur to foster peace just as much as it has been documented to foster war. The role of non-violent rhetoric in fostering peace need no longer be underestimated. By demystifying non-violent rhetoric [we can] can contribute to promoting peace.’

Despite significant examples such at Martin L. King Jr., the potential of peaceful persuasion is rarely harnessed in the teaching or practice of communication. Non-violent rhetoric tends to be more creative and open-ended than typical speech and does not lend itself easily to the sound-bite. It is also typically dismissed as naïve, passive or religious and considered unrealistic or irresponsible.

One of the key ideas in the book is what Gorsevski calls the ‘rhetorical climate’. Rather than focus on the text or speaker the climate has to do with attitudes, feeling states, body states, environmental factors and is not visible (rather perceptual). Gorsevski uses the town of Billings, Montana as a case study. An outbreak of anti-Semitic violence was countered by a change in climate as local people began to resist by painting out hate slogans, supporting churches which were taking a stand for human rights, widespread hanging of paper menorahs in residential homes, and other forms of community support. This in turn encouraged peaceful persuasion in terms of talking, speeches, sermons and healthy gossip. Taking climate into account shifts the focus from the individual speaker to the community of which she is a part. Gorsevski suggests that the rhetorical climate can be more significant in influencing behavioural change than the actual speaker.

The implications for speaking, persuading and preaching are significant as this suggests that the ability to encourage reconciliation is to a large extent dependent on the ‘climate’ of a community or congregation. For example a peaceworker interviewed by Joe Liechty reported:

‘One man, unsentimental and deeply engaged in grassroots work in the community, said simply and bluntly that unless the level of love in the community at large is raised at least a few degrees, he cannot see any possibility of a lasting peace worthy of the name’

And a Church of Ireland clergyman reported:

‘For the people of this parish, he said, expectations of religion are sunk in a sense of tradition and obligation so stultifying that they cannot hear anything new. I can preach the ministry of reconciliation until I’m blue in the face, he said. I can explicitly apply it to our local circumstances, but right now they are simply incapable of hearing it.’

The absence of opportunity for members to relate and work together on a regular basis could diminish the potential of the rhetorical climate to promote reconciliation. If no opportunities are being provided for members to encounter the other it is difficult to see how preaching can effect change on its own. Therefore efforts to build cooperation, opportunities to engage non-members – those from other communities, faiths or socio-political backgrounds - can all help to create a climate conducive to reconciliation and one in which preaching can have a more positive effect. Education for congregational conflict transformation, such as the BridgeBuilders programme can help to normalise conflict in the congregation, reducing destructive conflict while helping to promote positive approaches to difference.

The main defining characteristics of non-violent rhetoric arising from Gorsevski’s research are as follows:

• It empathises with, rather than demonises the opponents
• It portrays all people as deserving of human rights, equality and respect
• It generally eschews metaphors that are violent (which therefore confirm and condone violent behaviours)
• It relies on mutually agreed feelings, facts and history
• It is culturally respectful and aware
• It relies on a sense of community and mutual responsibility
• It evinces stubborn non-cooperation with actions or systems perceived to be unjust
• It is prepared to take risks
• It appeals to the emotions as well as to reason
• It uses the tactic of surprise
• It provides positive, hopeful vision as a substitute for the allure of destructive conflict.