UC Santa Barbara

Gandhi, King, and their movements organized on different continents, at different times, with different populations in different social conditions. They made different demands of their governments, organized with different strategies, and uplifted different visions of the future. History remembers them together because of their deep conviction and mastery of the nonviolent method in political, social, and economic change. The American youth climate movement holds the practice and value of nonviolence as core to the movement. When one wonders what’s missing, they speak to the differences in understanding and application of the nonviolent method. In this thesis, I explore the question of what’s missing in the American youth climate movement’s understanding, practice, and application of nonviolence. First, I examine modern social scientific understanding of nonviolence and argue that the social sciences have focused primarily on pragmatic nonviolence in contrast to principled nonviolence, and that as a result existing research largely misses the actual observed practice of nonviolence. I argue, through my observations, the activists practice a form of nonviolence neither strictly principled nor pragmatic, but a blend of both: socially pragmatic nonviolence. Then, I seek to understand how socially pragmatic nonviolence differs from the Gandhian and Kingian nonviolent method. I explore the religious roots of their respective methods and argue that the religious perspective and foundation was key to both their practice and philosophies of nonviolence. Lastly, I argue that socially pragmatic nonviolence is a practice of nonviolence that does not meet the moral, ethical, or spiritual imperative of this moment. I argue for consideration of a maximalist, principled practice of nonviolence to meet the catastrophic scale of violence suffered in our moment. I argue that the sense of something missing from the activist’s current understanding of nonviolence is a nonviolence that is both spiritual and structural. I argue that the potential of nonviolence has yet to fully be realized by the climate movement, and that it is worth exploring as more than just a pragmatic political toolkit, but as a liberatory practice for transformation of the self and society. I argue that if activists want to take more seriously the process of answering what’s missing, nonviolence is a crucial place to begin.