Jamila Raqib: So that was me that found that cor­re­spon­dence between Gene Sharp and Albert Einstein. And at the time that I found the let­ters, I had already worked with Gene Sharp for more than ten years. So of course I knew about their exis­tence and the sto­ry behind them. I was always so impressed and found it so incred­i­bly mov­ing that the per­son that I worked with, that I learned from, who I respect­ed so much, had been told by the great Albert Einstein—this sort of myth­i­cal figure—that he admired him. It was an incred­i­ble exam­ple to live up to both pro­fes­sion­al­ly and personally. 

So when Gene decid­ed to defy the draft law, he was com­fort­able and secure with his deci­sion. He had that res­olute­ness that comes from know­ing you’re doing the right thing, even if there’s a price to pay for it. But still, a lot of peo­ple must have told him that he was mak­ing a mis­take and that he was fool­ish for throw­ing away his future. So I can only imag­ine what a mas­sive moral boost it must have been for him to receive a let­ter back from Einstein say­ing that he, one of the most famous and respect­ed peo­ple alive, sup­port­ed his act of defiance.

For years I asked Gene about the let­ters. We were all very curi­ous about them. His answers were always sort of dis­mis­sive. He said that he had lost track of all the papers from that time peri­od. He had­n’t actu­al­ly seen them since the 1950s, so when I heard that I gave up. I assumed the let­ters were lost to his­to­ry. So you can only imag­ine what an incred­i­ble moment it was for me to open that box, to see the fold­er titled Albert Einstein” and to know exact­ly what was inside. I’m so excit­ed that the let­ters are here with us today at the Lab. And I’m huge­ly grate­ful to Gene and to the board of direc­tors of the Einstein Institution for lend­ing them to us to dis­play for the first time at such a fit­ting occasion.

Einstein risked his rep­u­ta­tion in order to stand up for his polit­i­cal beliefs. When he was asked how is it that human­i­ty had pro­gressed so far as to dis­cov­er atom­ic pow­er but not the means to keep it from destroy­ing us, he said the answer was sim­ple. Politics,” he said, is more dif­fi­cult than physics.” 

He saw how the polit­i­cal cli­mate in the United States was becom­ing increas­ing­ly hos­tile to sci­en­tists and intel­lec­tu­als and teach­ers. He was wor­ried about the attacks on the press, the rise of author­i­tar­i­an­ism, the degra­da­tion of human rights and civ­il lib­er­ties, the scape­goat­ing of peo­ple who were dif­fer­ent whether because of their reli­gion or their beliefs. Dangers that are very much echoed in our polit­i­cal cul­ture in soci­ety today. 

Gene has gone on to become a well-respected and well-known schol­ar. The so-called Machiavelli of non­vi­o­lent resis­tance, and the Clausewitz of non­vi­o­lent rev­o­lu­tion. He’s writ­ten dozens of books that are read by peo­ple on every con­ti­nent, and he’s influ­enced social and polit­i­cal move­ments around the world. But I like to think that his work had its roots in that ear­ly encour­age­ment from Albert Einstein. So much so that Gene end­ed up nam­ing the insti­tu­tion he found­ed after the per­son who had been so sup­port­ive at such an impor­tant moment in his life. And who told him that his think­ing was valid and that it was wor­thy of atten­tion and prop­a­ga­tion.” It’s like your intel­lec­tu­al idol telling you your research is on the right track.

That think­ing would go on to be the basis of Gene Sharp’s intel­lec­tu­al work. That strategically-applied non­vi­o­lent defi­ance offers human­i­ty the best hope for bring­ing about a world with more peace and jus­tice. Most of us here, at least those of us who grew up in the United States, were raised with inspir­ing sto­ry of Rosa Parks’ defi­ant act when she refused to go to the back of the bus. The sto­ry we’re told is that Rosa Parks was a qui­et seam­stress. That she was a good Christian. She got on the bus, she was asked to move, she refused and was arrest­ed. We’re told that it was a one-day thing for her and also that she was the first to be arrest­ed on a bus for resist­ing segregation. 

But Rosa Parks’ activism start­ed long before her defi­ant act. What’s left out of the sto­ry is that she was polit­i­cal­ly active for two decades before that. She was a sec­re­tary of the local NAACP chap­ter. And she’d been removed from bus­es before. She was a smart lady and a tough one, and she knew what she faced with her act of civ­il dis­obe­di­ence. She was mak­ing a cal­cu­lat­ed deci­sion that day. Later, when she was asked why she did what she did, she said peo­ple always said she refused to move because she was tired. But she said she was­n’t just tired, she was tired of giv­ing in. 

When she com­mit­ted her act of civ­il dis­obe­di­ence, the black lead­ers of Montgomery seized the moment. They real­ized that Rosa Parks’ arrest was a per­fect oppor­tu­ni­ty to test the bus seg­re­ga­tion laws in fed­er­al court. At the same time, a bus boy­cott was orga­nized. Which was only sus­tained because Montgomery’s black com­mu­ni­ty estab­lished an elab­o­rate car pool sys­tem. Which itself was only pos­si­ble because of the strength, the net­works of activists and orga­niz­ers, and the insti­tu­tions that had already been orga­niz­ing around the issue. And the bus boy­cott brought to promi­nence a charis­mat­ic but pre­vi­ous­ly unknown preach­er named Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.

The pow­er of Rosa Parks’ act came from the fact that it was part of a big­ger strug­gle for civ­il rights for the black com­mu­ni­ty. A strug­gle that did­n’t start or end with her. She com­mit­ted her act on the back of a long his­to­ry of activism and orga­niz­ing and institution-building, both by her and the black com­mu­ni­ty of Montgomery and beyond.

This behind-the-scenes plan­ning is often over­looked by observers and by the media because it’s what the cam­eras often can’t cap­ture. I’ve wit­nessed it for fif­teen years at the Albert Einstein Institution. This qui­et capacity-building and struc­tur­al work. The plan­ning and prepa­ra­tions that make move­ments more effec­tive. Like the Chinese human rights attor­ney who is serv­ing five years in prison for dis­trib­ut­ing copies of books about civ­il dis­obe­di­ence. Or the Vietnamese gar­ment work­er who secret­ly hands out tapes of record­ings out­lin­ing work­er’s rights. Or the Zimbabwean activist who told me that she works two jobs—she’s rais­ing a family—but at night after her chil­dren go to sleep, she trans­lates mate­r­i­al about how to orga­nize anti-corruption cam­paigns in her city.

Nonviolent defi­ance has a long and rich his­to­ry. One of the ear­li­est doc­u­ment­ed cas­es is the ple­beian with­draw­al of Rome in 494 BC. It’s prob­a­bly the first doc­u­ment­ed case of a gen­er­al strike. Since then there have been more than 1,000 cas­es, across cul­tures and reli­gions, when peo­ple have cho­sen to fight not with vio­lence but with social, polit­i­cal, and eco­nom­ic forms of non-cooperation and defi­ance. Their objec­tives have been diverse. To fight inva­sions and occu­pa­tions, to under­mine dic­ta­tor­ships, to defeat coups, to defend the rights of women, of work­ers, of minori­ties, peo­ple of dif­fer­ent sex­u­al ori­en­ta­tions. And to pro­tect the climate. 

So when peo­ple con­duct strug­gles effec­tive­ly for social and polit­i­cal objec­tives, how do they actu­al­ly do that? This was Gene’s essen­tial ques­tion. Gene stud­ied these cas­es in order to see what we can learn from them. The more he stud­ied non­vi­o­lent action, the more that he learned about what made it work. What allowed it to suc­ceed and fail in oth­er cases. 

From this knowl­edge Gene Sharp cre­at­ed a sys­tem out of what peo­ple had been learn­ing and apply­ing by tri­al and error. He found out that most often when peo­ple chose to use non-violent strug­gle over vio­lence, they did­n’t do so because of a prin­ci­pal belief sys­tem or because of their reli­gion, but because it was more effec­tive. They under­stood that it offered them cer­tain advan­tages. That when you choose to fight with vio­lence, you’re choos­ing to fight with your oppo­nen­t’s best weapons. Gene learned that the way to cre­ate last­ing change is to under­mine oppres­sive sys­tems so that they crum­ble. But that equal­ly impor­tant for a move­ment, to build their capac­i­ty and become strong. That just as a weak per­son is more vul­ner­a­ble to abuse, so also is a weak soci­ety more vul­ner­a­ble to abuse and tyranny. 

At the root of this sys­tem is an under­stand­ing of pow­er. The idea that each of us, whether we live in a dic­ta­tor­ship or a democ­ra­cy or some­thing in between, we hold enor­mous pow­er through our actions. What we do or what we refuse to do. It’s the polit­i­cal appli­ca­tion of a type of human behav­ior that luck­i­ly comes very nat­u­ral­ly to all of us.

And that’s basic human stub­born­ness. It’s the capac­i­ty and the will­ing­ness to defy, to dis­rupt, and to refuse to coop­er­ate even when that refusal car­ries enor­mous costs. And when that is done as part of a plan in accor­dance with a strat­e­gy, togeth­er with peo­ple in your soci­ety and allies out­side of it, it becomes a pow­er­ful tool. 

198 Methods of Nonviolent Action, Albert Einstein Institution

This is Gene’s list of 198 meth­ods of non­vi­o­lent action. These are the spe­cif­ic actions that peo­ple can car­ry out, rang­ing from protests, sym­bol­ic strikes, eco­nom­ic boy­cotts, labor strikes, polit­i­cal non-cooperation and social non-cooperation. And final­ly, non­vi­o­lent inter­ven­tion, which is the most pow­er­ful cat­e­go­ry of meth­ods avail­able in the non­vi­o­lent arsenal.

Here in the US we’re wit­ness­ing a resur­gence of polit­i­cal engage­ment. People real­ize that they have a role in defend­ing the insti­tu­tions and demo­c­ra­t­ic val­ues that they see as under threat. Albert Einstein said that our rights are only secure if every cit­i­zen rec­og­nizes their duty to do their share. And that the intel­lec­tu­al has even more respon­si­bil­i­ty. Because of their train­ing, they’re capa­ble of more influ­ence over pub­lic opinion.

Einstein got it right. Because democ­ra­cy is not some­thing once achieved in a soci­ety means we then get to sit back and relax. For democ­ra­cy to work, for our insti­tu­tions to func­tion, requires our con­stant vig­i­lance and par­tic­i­pa­tion. It’s so impor­tant today that as we watch these pow­er­ful exam­ples of defi­ance that are hap­pen­ing in our coun­try, the Women’s March; the March for Science; dis­rup­tion of town hall meet­ings; protests against the immi­gra­tion ban; estab­lish­ment of sanc­tu­ary cities; and on and on, we must now fig­ure out how to absorb this momentum. 

One of the most hope­ful trends that I’ve observed in recent months is how peo­ple are orga­niz­ing in new ways. Which means that they’re not just protest­ing poli­cies that they don’t agree with, they’re actu­al­ly build­ing the pow­er capac­i­ty need­ed to actu­al­ly win. They under­stand that weak and frag­ment­ed peo­ple can’t be expect­ed to act effec­tive­ly on social and polit­i­cal issues. So they’re work­ing to cre­ate net­works of peo­ple. Small groups of ten, twen­ty peo­ple who meet peri­od­i­cal­ly in liv­ing rooms and class­rooms and places of wor­ship across America. They talk about the issues that they care about. They orga­nize edu­ca­tion­al work­shops. They dis­cuss their strengths and weak­ness­es. The resources they have and the resources they can get in order to meet the needs of their com­mu­ni­ties. In short they’re learn­ing to think strategically.

And it’s not just groups in the United States but activists and orga­niz­ers from all over the world, who tell me that they under­stand they can no longer rein­vent the wheel and oper­ate based on intu­ition. This is espe­cial­ly true because they’re increas­ing­ly fac­ing oppo­nents who have mas­sive resources at their dis­pos­al, includ­ing con­trol of the media and the banks and the trans­porta­tion sys­tem, as well as the tools of vio­lent repres­sion. The police, the mil­i­tary, and the pris­ons. And these oppo­nents are con­stant­ly learn­ing and con­stant­ly devel­op­ing bet­ter tech­niques to defeat social and polit­i­cal move­ments. Which means that move­ments must also inno­vate if they’re to have a chance of win­ning this non­vi­o­lent arms race.

The chal­lenges to con­duct­ing suc­cess­ful strug­gles for change are many and can seem over­whelm­ing. But the good news is that devel­op­ing capac­i­ties and strate­gies that have a chance of work­ing are with­in our capac­i­ty. The tools to do it skill­ful­ly exist and they’re being improved and refined by peo­ple around the world every day, many of whom are in this room today. This type of knowl­edge and under­stand­ing will make the strug­gles of the future more effec­tive than those of the past. It’s up to us to con­tribute to that so that the future is one of less vio­lence and oppression.

Today it’s an hon­or to be here and to share the stage with such a thought­ful, tal­ent­ed, and brave peo­ple. And to the win­ners of this year’s Disobedience Prize, let me be the first to con­grat­u­late you on the actions that you’ve tak­en on behalf of us all. And to the Media Lab and every­one else who has made this day pos­si­ble, thank you so much. And to all of you, thank you all. So I hope our day togeth­er pro­vokes your own think­ing about what your next act of thought­ful dis­obe­di­ence will be. Thank you very much.

Further Reference

Defiance video archive

Help Support Open Transcripts

If you found this useful or interesting, please consider supporting the project monthly at Patreon or once via Cash App, or even just sharing the link. Thanks.