What is pacifism? The essence, idea and history of the movement from A to Z

This article was developed under the heading: Psychology.

Section: Movements.

Many would be interested to know in more detail who pacifists are from a psychological point of view, as well as what advantages and disadvantages such an attitude has to the world around them. This will be discussed in the article.

We will also figure out whether opponents of violence pose a danger to others, and in what forms pacifism manifests itself.

Let's look at what pacifism is from all sides

What is pacifism and who are pacifists

I will not give complex definitions using terms that will be incomprehensible to most readers. Let us limit ourselves to a simple and concise explanation.

A pacifist is a person who is able to openly declare publicly that he opposes any military action, violence and resolving conflict situations (including political ones) by force.

In other words, according to this worldview, no arguments can justify violent methods of resolving conflicts.

A group of people or a person who openly states that they are against war and violence

The history of the origins of pacifism

The views espoused by opponents of warfare and violence have their origins in France (20th century). The “pioneer” of such an ideology is considered to be Emile Arno, a public figure and famous writer of those times.

As for the term “pacifism” itself, it was presented at the world congress in Scotland. Its participants were called "pacifists." Over time, this concept has acquired new meanings - today it is customary to call those who openly oppose the militarization of society.

As you can see, the term “pacifism” appeared a little over a hundred years ago, but the ideological roots stretch from a much earlier period. Even in the first century BC, the ideas of philanthropy, as well as aversion to violence in any of its manifestations, became widespread among ordinary people. The same Romans had their own system of concluding an agreement - on a peaceful basis and with a mandatory guarantee of the security of both parties.

Pacifism officially began in 20th century France

Post-war world order

The era of pacifism of the 20th century was a natural consequence of the established interstate relations after the tragic war of 1914-1918, which entailed great losses. On the one hand, social upheavals, weakened financial systems and destroyed economies of states required appropriate conditions for stabilization. On the other hand, the balance of forces and interests of the great powers changed, and the constantly emerging contradictions between them required resolution. All this led to the question of creating a new system of relations that could prevent war or at least reduce risks. And the main role in this process was played by the “Big Three” - France, Great Britain and the USA.

The result of two international conferences of 1919-1922 was the Versailles-Washington system, which provided for the equality of all its participants. Of course, in reality this was not the case.

How pacifists actually show that they are against war

Any movements and, as a result, demonstrations leave imprints on society.

1994 was the darkest year in history for the state of Rwanda. The powerful pacifist movement led to the whole world taking the position of observers of the terrible events that took place from April to July of the above year.

The military coup in Rwanda disrupted the peace in the country, it claimed the lives of a huge number of people - according to some estimates, more than 1 million people died. Among them were many defenseless old men, women and children.

As we see, pacifism and the policy of non-interference of other countries in that situation led to tragic consequences. After them, the UN nevertheless decided to reconsider some of its views, in particular, on the policy of non-intervention.

Radical pacifism can have an extremely negative impact on the life of society

Briand-Kellogg Pact

Wanting to restore US participation in solving European problems, French Foreign Minister A. Briand appeals to the American people. He proposes to sign a Franco-American treaty banning war as an instrument of foreign policy. His idea was approved. F. Kellogg, Secretary of State of the United States, in response calls for the conclusion of a multilateral treaty, involving the governments of European states. Germany was the first to react, fully supporting the project. The UK made a number of comments, as a result of which the document was finalized and clarified.

On August 27, 1928, as a result of lengthy diplomatic negotiations, a Pact for the Refusal of War was signed between 15 states. Its universality lay in the fact that not only recognized, but also dependent and semi-colonial countries could join it. The figure of 63 countries at the end of the same year explains this well.

The Pacific sign is an international symbol of peace.

There is an icon that serves as an international symbol of peace. The name "pacific" comes from the word "peaceful" in Latin. This symbol is a propaganda for world peace.

The Pacific sign is the work of English designer Gerald Holtom. It was created to order - a request came from a British social movement opposing atomic war and the arms race between countries.

The emblem is based on a circle, it symbolizes the globe. The creative figure planned to place a Christian cross inside the circle, but did not do this because he encountered misunderstanding on the part of the clergy - they said that it was wrong to use a church symbol in protests.

Then Holtom turned to the semaphore alphabet. The artist used the initial letters of two English words - “nuclear” and “disarmament”. As a result, the emblem received various interpretations and became widespread throughout the world - the peace icon did not have a copyright patent.

The peace sign belongs to pacifists, not hippies.

How pacifists influenced the modern world

The humanity of the concept of pacifism is obvious, but it is also obvious that it is not without paradoxes.

There are few absolute pacifists, but opponents of such ideological views note that pacifists receive all sorts of benefits from the state: high-quality free medicine, protection, an unhindered opportunity to rise to higher ranks, and much more. But at the same time, “absolutes”, if necessary, refuse to defend the state, hiding behind principles and ideology. Opponents of pacifism are convinced that its supporters pursue selfish goals. It is convenient for such a person to show himself as a pacifist.

Pacifist sentiments within serious movements, which cannot be ignored, lead to ambiguous consequences. For example, a state on the threshold of military action is faced with an unpleasant and difficult choice: to enter into armed confrontation or abandon the fight, thereby dooming the population to enslavement, terrible living conditions, or even extermination.

Pacifism leaves its mark on the modern world, with all the ensuing consequences. How good or bad this is, no one can answer correctly, because both positions have supporters with weighty arguments.

Pacifism has taken root in many social groups of the modern world.

Literature

Basic texts

• A. Schweitzer about Mo Tzu and Lao Tzu - from the article “Christianity and World Religions”
• N. N. Gusev “The attitude of the first Christians to war”
• P. Brock
  “Attitude to non-violence in pacifist sects in the Middle Ages and early modern times” // “Non-violence as a worldview and way of life”, M., IVI RAS, 2000.
• Erasmus of Rotterdam "Complaint of the World" (1517)
• B. f. Suttner "Down with weapons!" (1889)
• L. N. Tolstoy “The Kingdom of God is within you...” (1890-93)
• L. N. Tolstoy “The Law of Violence and the Law of Love” (1908)
• M. A. Popovsky “Russian men tell stories. Followers of L.N. Tolstoy in the Soviet Union 1918-1977.” L., 1983
• P. V. Verigin “Declaration of Fraternal Life” (1898)
• P. I. Biryukov “Persecution of Christians in Russia in 1895” — about the Doukhobors
• N. N. Molchanov
  “War to War” (inaccessible link) - fragment from the book “Jean Zhores” (ZhZL), M., 1986
• "Nobel Peace Prize 1947" - about Quakers
• “Why don’t Jehovah’s Witnesses participate in wars?” // The Watchtower, July 1, 2008.
• D. Heinz
  “Seventh-day Adventists and refusal to participate in hostilities: a historical perspective” // “Non-violence as a worldview and way of life”, M., IVI RAS, 2000.
• U. Savatsky
  “Protestant pacifists in Soviet Russia during the interwar period” // “The Long Path of Russian Pacifism”, M., Institute of History and Science of the Russian Academy of Sciences, 1997.
• Archimandrite Spiridon (Kislyakov) “Confession of a priest before the church” (1916)
• M. and L. Zwick
  “Dorothy Day, Prophet of Pacifism in the Catholic Church”
• "Biography" of Khan Abdul Ghaffar Khan - non-violence and Islam.
• B. Russell “Autobiography” // “Foreign Literature”, 2000, No. 12
• T. I. Telyukova
  “Moscow group “Trust”” - see Group for Establishing Trust between the USSR and the USA

Research

• F. Dyson
  “Weapons and Hope”, M., “Progress”, 1990 - chapters from the book.
• "Pacifism in History". M.: IVI RAS, 1997
• "The Long Path of Russian Pacifism." M.: IVI RAS, 1997.
• D. Sdvizhkov
  “Against “iron and blood”. Pacifism in the German Empire", M., IVI RAS, 1999
• G. Page
  “A society without murder: is it possible?”, St. Petersburg: SPBU Publishing House, 2005 - see Aversion to murder
• "Treats on Eternal Peace." M., Sotsekgiz, 1963
• N. Karapetyan
  “NEW” OUTFIT OF PACIFISM
• I. Gordeeva
  Radical pacifist movement in Russia - 20th century
• K. V. Stvolygin
  “Refusals from military service due to convictions in the Russian Empire.” Minsk, RIVSH, 2010
• A. D. Epstein
  From pacifism to political protest: the Israeli anti-war movement in the period from the founding of the state to the First Lebanon War
• Songs against war

Criticism

• Ignat DANILENKO, Olga GUSEVA. Shall we extinguish the torch of Herostratus? Tolstoy and Dragomirov: the dispute continues
• A. Almog
  “Shalom Akhshav” against the world

Forms of pacifism

We have dealt with the general concept of pacifism, now let's move on to considering its forms. Researchers identify three:

• Absolute.
• Conditional.
• Selective.

Absolute

Adherents of the absolute form of pacifism deny any type of aggression and believe that military action or the use of force cannot be justified under any circumstances. Absolute pacifists do not recognize “holy” and “liberation” wars. Taking the life of another person, even in self-defense, is taboo. In their understanding, nothing justifies violence and militarism.

Conditional

Unlike absolutists, adherents of conditional pacifism are not so radical in their judgments. They accept the use of force or the possibility of military action if circumstances urgently require it. Conditional pacifists usually react normally to liberation wars or when it comes to the fight against genocide of the people. In their pacifist views, they are not very categorical and are ready to choose violence if it is the lesser evil.

Selective

The idea of ​​selective pacifism is largely aimed at combating certain types of military actions and weapons. Supporters of the ideology are convinced that the renunciation of nuclear and chemical weapons would benefit everyone. But selective pacifists allow in their ideology the possibility of military actions conducted in the traditional way. But only if a violent conflict is inevitable.

Herriot formula

France, having changed its position from offensive to defensive, chose a new direction in interstate relations - open diplomacy. She came up with a number of projects to ensure international security, the developers of which were two prominent French politicians - E. Heriot and A. Briand.

The essence of Herriot's formula was expressed in three concepts: arbitration, security and disarmament. It implied the idea of ​​renouncing military action as a way to resolve interstate problems.

The League members accepted the proposal with enthusiasm and the Geneva Protocol of 1924 was signed. But it could never come into force due to contradictions between the leading powers, which “stumbled” on the definitions of “offensive” and “defensive” war.

The term “era of pacifism”, coined by historians for this period, as you understand, is very conventional. Along with loud slogans about peace, serious passions about the division of territories and influence were seething.

Reasons for pacifism

True pacifists usually advocate world peace; they despise violence, aggression and armed conflict. Not to mention deadly weapons of mass destruction.

Initially, the idea of ​​pacifism implied the elimination or at least minimization of wars and armed conflicts. People who adhered to this ideology promoted goodness and tried to make the world a better place. And in theory this is good.

However, even from a psychological point of view, it is impossible to divide the world only into black and white and say that this is good and that is bad. So society, on a voluntary basis, will never be able to accept only one position; there will always be those who hold the opposite opinion.

There are also those who turn white into gray and hide behind idealistic ideas supposedly to create a better world. Although, in fact, they pursue exclusively selfish interests in achieving their goals.

On the other hand, this does not negate the fact that some supporters of this ideology sincerely believe that their efforts bring benefits to modern society.

Pacifism arose due to the large number of wars of the 19th and 20th centuries

German problem

Despite all efforts, the stabilization that emerged in the 1920s was very unstable. The measures taken could not calm down the deep contradictions that successfully began to hide under the veil of the era of pacifism.

The stumbling block for the leading world powers was their attitude towards the German question. From the very beginning, the USA and England advocated for a “non-weak Germany” as a counterweight to France and Soviet Russia. They pursued an active policy of financing and supporting the German economy and made concessions on some wishes.

France insisted on compliance with the Treaty of Versailles and opposed any concessions to the German revanchists. She understood that the strengthening of Germany in the international arena creates a security threat and the loss of significant positions for France in Europe. But under pressure from the Anglo-Saxon states, it was forced to curb its ardor and strengthen its rear with the allied states, signing cooperation agreements.

Thus, the German question affected the interests of leading states and created a certain tension.

Is a pacifist good or bad?

Each person has his own life credo and worldview. And, as you know, some people consider themselves true pacifists. Some people consider this stupidity and weakness, while others consider it the opposite. Opinions will always differ - it's like two sides of a coin. And not a single psychologist who is accustomed to assessing situations from different “angles” will answer your question: is pacifism bad or good? Everyone can have an opinion on this topic, but this does not mean that it is the ultimate truth. That is why it makes sense to consider the obvious pros and cons of pacifism, and then, after thinking, draw conclusions and come to your own opinion.

Advantages and disadvantages

In general, speaking out against war, bloodshed and the use of deadly weapons of mass destruction looks like something that has a right to life. We say this with restraint because this formula would work in an ideal world. Alas, our world is not like that.

It is difficult to argue with the fact that a person who does not want to show aggression and harm other people brings good to this world. This is good, because for some reason there is much less good around than many would like.

Any movement by its nature is extreme. Especially if it is absolute pacifism.

Adherents of such views are often unable to create a successful career, simply because the “sharks” around them will not allow them to do so.

A pacifist risks becoming a traitor to his country and even his family. Hiding behind your views and remaining principled when a conqueror or someone who wants to harm you and your loved ones is on the doorstep is probably not a good thing. It is for this reason that absolute pacifists have an ambiguous attitude in society.

Everyone can draw conclusions about whether pacifism is justified in the modern world.

We smoothly approached the next topic for consideration - the attitude of people towards pacifists.

How do people feel about pacifists?

The attitude towards pacifists in society is ambiguous. It has always been so, is and will be. But the reason is not only in the phenomenon of pacifism as such, but also in the attitude of people towards various movements. For some, extremes are simply unacceptable.

Some consider pacifists to be cowards who cover up their helplessness or unwillingness to defend their family and country even in cases of urgent need. On the part of society, one can often see a complete lack of respect for such people. But this applies to a greater extent to adherents of the absolute form of pacifism.

But there are noticeably more representatives of conditional and selective pacifism. They do not promote their views so fiercely, so it is much easier for them to exist in society. Therefore, society treats such people with much more restraint. Sometimes it is even difficult to guess that a person holds pacifist views.

Everyone approaches movement differently. Some are positive, some are completely negative.

How to become a pacifist

Some people think about becoming pacifists. Everyone has their own reasons and goals. But how to do this?

To begin with, change some of your views on the world and people around you. Become kinder, stop snapping at others for no reason, come to an agreement with your heightened sense of justice. Think about enjoying every moment of life for yourself and for aggression. It really gives strength to love the world without aggression.

But not everyone succeeds in this, because true pacifism is a state of mind, and not something artificially grown. Moreover, every person is who he is. “Breaking” yourself and doing it quickly is not the best solution. If you want to change, just start working on yourself and your life.

Also find a pacifist society and try to join it, becoming a full part of it. If you are not completely sure of your ideology, then don't do it.

Become a pacifist - renounce all violence in your life

Balance of power

The time came when it seemed that wars in the world were over. Slogans calling for peace and disarmament were heard everywhere.

The defeated countries, mainly Germany, as well as the deprived participants in the Versailles-Washington conferences (Japan and Italy) did not have sufficient strength to directly object and resist the established order. To achieve their goals, they were forced to use peaceful methods. The era of pacifism gave them time to restore and strengthen their economy and military power, so that they could then confidently “cast their vote.”

The Soviet Union, while engaged in socialist transformations in the country, also needed favorable external conditions. In no case did he need conflicts with capitalist powers, so he adhered to the principle of peaceful coexistence.

In short, the era of pacifism was a time of calm before a big storm.

How to stop being a pacifist

It is known that most people who have a pacifist worldview are phlegmatic and melancholic. Being a choleric person, it is extremely difficult to adhere to pacifism.

If you are a pacifist in life, but have a desire to change this, then try to follow the example of people with a sanguine temperament. Their distinctive feature is that they think only about what is relevant to them, and try not to worry about what they cannot influence in any way. An ordinary turner from a factory is not able to influence any armed conflict at the state level. But if he worries about this on a personal level, it certainly won’t make his life any easier.

Sometimes it happens that pacifists eventually turn into victims of the cruel society that surrounds them. They are used to not punishing people for bad deeds, even towards themselves. People quickly begin to feel this. Decide how important your own principles are to you, and how willing you are to at least partially renounce them in order to protect your honor and dignity. Yours and your family. It may be useful for some to stop putting their interests on the back burner. Stop being passive in situations that require intervention.

But you have to work on it; no person is capable of radically changing in one day.

Sometimes a violent reaction is the only right solution

Criticism of pacifism

Judging superficially, the concept of “pacifism” looks humane and generally positive. However, there is a certain balance in the world and nature - there are always those who have a different opinion. And sometimes the arguments of the opposition side turn out to be really sensible. Psychology teaches you to look at things (be it some problem or anything else) from different angles. There are different opinions regarding pacifism.

The arguments of opponents of such an ideology are conventionally divided into three categories:

1. Logics.
2. Biology.
3. Policy.

Let's take a closer look at each of the categories.

Pacifism has often been criticized from various quarters

Logics

A true pacifist is an idealist. And such an individual is convinced that his ideas are most effective in building an ideal world. But, as already mentioned, each side has a wrong side - none of the ideas can be ideal a priori. Practice shows that sometimes conflicts occur that cannot be resolved without military intervention.

Biology

Militancy and, to some extent, aggression are inherent in all living beings on our planet. People are no exception. Aggression is a defense mechanism that allows humans to survive during evolution. Another question is that some are ready to use this “tool” even when the situation does not require it. It is at such moments that we need those who are able to resist aggressors and protect those who become their victims.

Policy

Everything is as simple as possible here. If a state completely denies the relevance of military action (even when the situation requires it), then soon it will simply cease to exist. The territory will be at the mercy of those who consider aggression acceptable and permissible.

Locarno Conference

At an international conference in 1925, held in the Swiss city of Locarno, the British program became the main topic of discussion. During the meeting, documents regulating relations between the countries were reviewed and adopted. The most important document signed, the Rhine Pact, was approved by Belgium, France, Germany and Great Britain. It served as a guarantee of the inviolability of their borders, with the exception of the latter, who acted as an arbiter in these difficult negotiations. In the fall of 1926, Germany became a member of the League of Nations and received the right to vote in its Council.

The Locarno Accords helped maintain peace during an era of pacifism, but the peace was so controversial that it is better characterized as a temporary truce.

The powerlessness of pacifism

Pacifism, as a phenomenon, has reached our time. But history tells us that such an ideology is powerless in some cases.

Of course, now we live in a civilized world, but this was not always the case. Those who allowed themselves to be pacifists ran a serious risk of being trapped by the aggressors. Since ancient times, it has become clear that pacifism is good in theory, but in practice it is often powerless.

The modern world has gone through stages of evolution, but large-scale conflicts still occur. And pacifism here demonstrates impotence.

In practice, pacifism does not find much reflection in the hearts of people

Hippies as bright representatives of pacifism

To understand how hippies (not to be confused with hipsters) have to do with pacifism, you should first look at their subculture.

True hippies prefer loose colored clothing, love to wear all kinds of beads and baubles, and often weave colored threads into their hair. But it’s all a shell, the main thing is what’s inside.

Most hippies have a specific worldview, which they tried in every possible way to convey to the masses. For a real hippie, freedom and the development of spirituality are important. These are the pillars on which their ideology rests. Freedom for them is the highest value. And peace and love are the basis of being. That is why hippies wore a pendant or badge of the “pacific” symbol.

The famous slogan, most popular among hippies, which people shouted and wrote on banners, looked like this: “Make love, not war.” Which in English translates to “Make love, not war.”

Hippies are a wonderful offshoot of this movement.

The League of nations

During the Versailles-Washington meetings of 1919-1920. The international organization League of Nations was founded. Its main activity was ensuring security and resolving conflicts by peaceful methods. We can say that with the formation of this organization the beginning of the era of pacifism was laid. Its charter was signed by 44 countries; the Soviet Union was not invited.

The significance of the League of that era is difficult to overestimate: it coped well with its tasks, speaking out against aggression and preserving peace in every possible way. She has a large number of resolved international conflicts to her credit. But as history later showed, not all questions were within her power.

Books about pacifism

To better understand the state of mind of a true pacifist, read at least two or three books written by them. Let's briefly talk about a few.

“The world as I see it” (A. Einstein)

For many people, Einstein's theories remain a mystery. At the same time, we see what contribution this man made to the development of not only science, but also civilization as a whole.

Not everyone knows about the other side of the scientist’s personality, because he was interested not only in science. Einstein was a pacifist, so someone will probably be interested in knowing what problems worried him, how he felt about various social phenomena?

Imagine that his interlocutors are S. Freud or K. Lorenz. Find out what Albert Einstein thought about peace, love and war.

"Down with weapons!" (B. Zunter)

In this novel you can find a lot of pacifist arguments. But all this is happening against the backdrop of political uncompromisingness and cruelty. Not recommended for reading by persons under 18 years of age.

Excerpts from this book were quoted in the Austrian government and published in newspapers. This work was highly appreciated by Leo Tolstoy.

“Agnosis” (E. Kozlov)

This is a philosophical and ethical work, written with different but sincere feelings. This book is an emotion that, as far as possible, is expressed in words.

Films about pacifism

Many films have been made on the topic of pacifism. I offer you those that deserve your attention and time:

• "Revenge" (2010);
• "Straw Dogs" (1971);
• Apocalypse Now (1979);
• "Weather Underground" (2002).

The phenomenon of pacifism and people with such views are part of modern society. It is a fact. How good this is - everyone has the right to decide for themselves. Finally, a small wish - people, be kinder.

Be sure to watch these films, through them you can understand the true nature of movement