Check out this important review article on the role of violence in nonviolent resistance. In the past two decades, scholarly focus has gravitated towards nonviolent resistance – a type of conflict where unarmed individuals orchestrate mass protests, strikes, and boycotts. Although primarily nonviolent, these mass movements sometimes incorporate unarmed collective violence, fringe violence, or organised armed action, leading to questions about the impact of such violent flanks on the outcomes of the movements. Reviewing these dynamics reveals that organised armed violence tends to hamper the success of largely nonviolent movements, while unarmed collective violence has more ambiguous effects.
Notwithstanding the emerging study of violent flanks and unarmed collective violence, the study of nonviolent resistance remains paramount for two key reasons. Firstly, many global movements consciously choose a nonviolent resistance strategy for both instrumental and moral reasons. The majority of global protests explicitly follow this strategy, with many self-determination organisations switching from violent to nonviolent tactics over time. Secondly, the concept of nonviolent resistance holds significant political relevance, indicating public recognition of nonviolent action as a distinctive and valued phenomenon.
However, recent findings challenge the assumption that nonviolent discipline is vital for the success of mass movements. To explore these effects in depth, the research field could benefit from increased analytical precision when comparing violent flank activity. There is a need for more detailed investigation into the short-, medium-, and long-term impacts of nonviolent resistance. Moreover, embracing methodological pluralism can provide richer insights, as can focusing on the mechanisms through which violent flanks influence the success or failure of resistance movements.
However, the ethical terrain in which this research is conducted is complicated. Different resistance methods pose varying degrees of risk to movement participants, their supporters, and society as a whole. Importantly, the endorsement of certain forms of mobilisation without fully acknowledging the associated costs can lead to moral hazards, particularly when violent flanks operate on the peripheries of movements and do not necessarily reflect the will of the majority of participants.
In light of the evidence available, it appears that organised armed resistance reduces the long-term strategic benefits of primarily unarmed resistance campaigns. Meanwhile, unarmed collective violence and nonviolent resistance have more ambiguous impacts. Current research findings are difficult to disentangle due to differences in how resistance methods are classified across different databases and units of analysis.
Potential avenues for future research include investigating the impact of unarmed collective violence on participation over time, the influence of public attitudes towards police violence on the legitimacy of a movement, and whether the success of unarmed collective violence is contingent on its minor role in the overall contention.
Moreover, understanding how dominant groups within the public perceive certain features of a protest as violent, irrespective of whether protesters engage in nonviolent or violent action, might yield further insights. In conclusion, the current consensus indicates that the form of resistance adopted by a movement can have significant implications for its outcomes, necessitating further research into the strategic, political, and ethical trade-offs inherent in high-stakes mobilisation.