The following assemblage of citations from Dr. King’s life was prepared by the Martin Luther King, Jr., Research and Education Institute at Stanford University.
Nonviolence
As a theologian, Martin Luther King reflected often on his understanding of nonviolence. He described his own “pilgrimage to nonviolence” in his first book, Stride Toward Freedom, and in subsequent books and articles. “True pacifism,” or “nonviolent resistance,” King wrote, is “a courageous confrontation of evil by the power of love” (King, Stride, 80). Both “morally and practically” committed to nonviolence, King believed that “the Christian doctrine of love operating through the Gandhian method of nonviolence was one of the most potent weapons available to oppressed people in their struggle for freedom” (King, Stride, 79; Papers 5:422).
King was first introduced to the concept of nonviolence when he read Henry David Thoreau’s Essay on Civil Disobedience as a freshman at Morehouse College. Having grown up in Atlanta and witnessed segregation and racism every day, King was “fascinated by the idea of refusing to cooperate with an evil system” (King, Stride, 73).
In 1950, as a student at Crozer Theological Seminary, King heard a talk by Dr. Mordecai Johnson, president of Howard University. Dr. Johnson, who had recently traveled to India, spoke about the life and teachings of Mohandas K. Gandhi. Gandhi, King later wrote, was the first person to transform Christian love into a powerful force for social change. Gandhi’s stress on love and nonviolence gave King “the method for social reform that I had been seeking” (King, Stride, 79).
While intellectually committed to nonviolence, King did not experience the power of nonviolent direct action first-hand until the start of the Montgomery bus boycott in 1955. During the boycott, King personally enacted Gandhian principles. With guidance from black pacifist Bayard Rustin and Glenn Smiley of the Fellowship of Reconciliation, King eventually decided not to use armed bodyguards despite threats on his life, and reacted to violent experiences, such as the bombing of his home, with compassion. Through the practical experience of leading nonviolent protest, King came to understand how nonviolence could become a way of life, applicable to all situations. King called the principle of nonviolent resistance the “guiding light of our movement. Christ furnished the spirit and motivation while Gandhi furnished the method” (Papers 5:423).
King’s notion of nonviolence had six key principles. First, one can resist evil without resorting to violence. Second, nonviolence seeks to win the “friendship and understanding” of the opponent, not to humiliate him (King, Stride, 84). Third, evil itself, not the people committing evil acts, should be opposed. Fourth, those committed to nonviolence must be willing to suffer without retaliation as suffering itself can be redemptive. Fifth, nonviolent resistance avoids “external physical violence” and “internal violence of spirit” as well: “The nonviolent resister not only refuses to shoot his opponent but he also refuses to hate him” (King, Stride, 85). The resister should be motivated by love in the sense of the Greek word agape, which means “understanding,” or “redeeming good will for all men” (King, Stride, 86). The sixth principle is that the nonviolent resister must have a “deep faith in the future,” stemming from the conviction that “The universe is on the side of justice” (King, Stride, 88).
During the years after the bus boycott, King grew increasingly committed to nonviolence. An India trip in 1959 helped him connect more intimately with Gandhi’s legacy. King began to advocate nonviolence not just in a national sphere, but internationally as well: “the potential destructiveness of modern weapons” convinced King that “the choice today is no longer between violence and nonviolence. It is either nonviolence or nonexistence” (Papers 5:424).
After Black Power advocates such as Stokely Carmichael began to reject nonviolence, King lamented that some African Americans had lost hope, and reaffirmed his own commitment to nonviolence: “Occasionally in life one develops a conviction so precious and meaningful that he will stand on it till the end. This is what I have found in nonviolence” (King, Where, 63–64). He wrote in his 1967 book, Where Do We Go from Here: Chaos or Community?: “We maintained the hope while transforming the hate of traditional revolutions into positive nonviolent power. As long as the hope was fulfilled there was little questioning of nonviolence. But when the hopes were blasted, when people came to see that in spite of progress their conditions were still insufferable … despair began to set in” (King, Where, 45). Arguing that violent revolution was impractical in the context of a multiracial society, he concluded: “Darkness cannot drive out darkness: only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate: only love can do that. The beauty of nonviolence is that in its own way and in its own time it seeks to break the chain reaction of evil” (King, Where, 62–63).
Footnotes
King, “Pilgrimage to Nonviolence,” 13 April 1960, in Papers 5:419–425.
King, Stride Toward Freedom, 1958.
King, Where Do We Go from Here, 1967.
This entry is part of the following collection
Martin Luther King, Jr. – Political and Social Views
Martin Luther King, Jr. – Travels
Montgomery Bus Boycott
Nonviolence
Related Events
King begins freshman year at Morehouse
King hears Mordecai Johnson preach on Gandhi
Montgomery bus boycott begins
Bayard Rustin visits Montgomery
King discusses nonviolence with Bayard Rustin
Glenn Smiley interviews King in Montgomery
“Stride Toward Freedom” officially released; King signs copies at Harlem’s Empire Baptist Bookstore
The Kings and Lawrence Dunbar Reddick depart for India and Middle East
King’s “Pilgrimage to Nonviolence” published in Christian Century
Wow, very relevant in today’s world. Thanks for sharing this. I’ve been quite interested in the idea of non-violence these past months. I first heard it when we were discussing Leo Tolstoy. Before, I only admire Ghandi because of the quotes that I read online. Now, becaus of your post, I learned that this is who he was and it’s even more beautiful. Thanks for sharing!
I heard one of the protesters claim that sometimes we need to break things in order to be heard. Violence begets more of the same. While it may get attention, it will not get marginalized people meaningful change. Violence plays right into the thug messaging that this administration wants to exploit. Violence actually distracts from the message. Peaceful protest along with other non-violent economic actions like the famous Montgomery bus boycott is more likely to evoke a response that is a lot more effective in the long run.
I am saddened that there has not been another visionary black leader like Dr. King since the civil rights era. I often wonder what Dr. King would say about the privatization of public education and its separate and unequal impact on communities of color. While privatizers co-opt civil rights rhetoric, the impact has been increased segregation and separate schools along with more poor quality schools for black and brown students. There has been so little political will to support diverse public schools where students of all colors are treated fairly and given an equitable start to a better future.
“While it may get attention, it will not get marginalized people meaningful change.”
Really? Then how do you propose that marginalized people actually get change? Because peaceful protests sure the hell haven’t worked. They just get pepper sprayed and shot with rubber bullets and beaten with batons and sicced with dogs and tased and arrested. If people have tried peaceful protests with no results, violence doesn’t detract from the message, it reinforces it. What did you think “no justice, no peace” meant anyway?
Incidentally, it’s too simplistic to say that violence doesn’t lead to meaningful change: https://jacobinmag.com/2020/06/rioting-george-floyd-liberals-black-lives-matter
The riots of 1966-68 elected Nixon.
Riots, arson,looting, vandalism,etc. will help re-elect Trump.
Is that what you want?
Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi beat the British Empire with nonviolent resistance.
Voting is key. There are 1 million native Americans that can vote, if they can get registered. Allowing mail in voting also provides access to people without transportation. Boycotts can also be useful tools, but they can only be successful if there is a good leadership that organizes people.
I had forgotten the six key principles that guided MLK. Thank you for reminding me, Diane. I got swept up in anger and forgot. Shame on me. At least I didn’t act on my anger. Nonviolence works. When people allow themselves to be pepper sprayed and shot with rubber bullets (My student, 12 years old, was fired upon two days ago.), or allow themselves to be attacked with fire hoses and police dogs, or allow themselves to be beaten with clubs or wrongfully imprisoned, they force the authorities wreaking the violence, as long as they’re not fascists, to re-examine.
Diane, Austin Beutner, in his address on KCLS this morning, said LAUSD is going ahead with blended instruction next school year. He said to forget about rises and falls in case numbers, to forget about masks and desk spacing, to forget about transportation and eating details, and to leave virus testing and tracing to other agencies, but come heck or high water, we’re flipping instruction. He wants students to attend school three days a week, rotating in cohorts, with all-online school for some. I am livid, but it will be up to Jackie, Scott, parents, UTLA (who I hope, while it’s so difficult to communicate with each other, are on top of this and the dangers of blending online products with school), and us teachers to thoughtfully and peacefully disobey Beutner’s unjust directives. If school is going to be partially online in the future, and it shouldn’t be but if it is, at the very least that future needs to have end dates attached so it does not become the permanent future.
The protests are having an impact. Chauvin’s charges were upgraded to second-degree murder, and the onlooking officers are now are now charged with aiding and abetting second-degree murder and aiding and abetting second-degree manslaughter.
“Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi beat the British Empire with nonviolent resistance.”
Yes. And today India leads the world in the number of coveted Deming Prizes earned (no, not won; The Deming Prize is not a competition) … 32, since 2000!! The US? Two.
So, a reasonable question, at least for me, is: Why isn’t Deming a great rational follow-on from King via-a-vis Gandhi vis-à-vis nonviolence for the Black community? Yet some in the Black Community have the brass to say Deming is not relevant to Black Culture?
To be unequivocal, here: I have held for a very long time that if there is today any one human culture that stands to benefit profoundly from Deming more than any other human cultures, it is Black culture…meaning specifically African American culture, not African culture. African culture, in pursuing the AU Agenda 2063 to become a partner with the world, will emerge just as India is doing, thanks to Deming, I suggest.
Unfortunately, India seems to be going the way of Trump (or possibly beyond). Modi’s ultra nationalist anti-Muslim rhetoric is really bad.
Granted. We mustn’t assume Deming means panacea. Still, Deming philosophy and practice arise from ethical, moral, just, and democratic ways of being and treating each other–cooperation, not competition à la “racism”–so at least portend hope in the face of a Modi or a VSF Trump.
Rev. William Barber is the heir to Dr. King’s legacy. He is a champion of the oppressed and a fighter for justice. He has led the Moral Monday crusade in North Carolina. He spoke at our NPE national conference a few years ago and tied together all the threads that attack poor people, voting rights, public education, etc.
Dr. Barber is the most important American alive today, in my humble opinion. As an atheist, I make a point of watching 3-4 of his sermons a year when I feel really down. His clarity, morality, consistency is as uplifting as it gets.
“I am saddened that there has not been another visionary black leader like Dr. King since the civil rights era.”
Hmm. Why must it be another visionary black leader like Dr. King?
Deming died at age 93, 25 years after the assignation of King, doing exactly what Diane’s post here says King said: “Occasionally in life one develops a conviction so precious and meaningful that he will stand on it till the end.” Deming did his last seminar at age 92, trying to help us regardless of so-called “race,” etc.
But, alas, Deming was white. And because he was white, I was once told: “Deming is not relevant to black culture.” To which I replied: In that case, then black culture can only be something other a human culture.
I often wonder what a conversation between King and Deming would have been like.
And so I am saddened that there has not been another human visionary leader like King or Deming, or others that came before them.
I must be missing the point you are trying to make. Deming was a brilliant man but, so far as I know, he was not a civil rights leader. He was a visionary leader in an entirely different field, business effectiveness and industrial efficiency. Deming wasn’t assassinated by someone filled with hatred for black people, he wasn’t killed for advocating for equality and justice for African-Americans.
“The Civil Rights Division’s outreach initiatives adopt the
concepts of the National Performance Review and take a page from
private industry and the works of quality authority Dr. W.
Edwards Deming. They acknowledge that coordinating the efficient
and effective enforcement of grant-related civil rights statutes
is a customer-oriented task. They also reflect that customers
and stakeholders (including Federal grant agencies, grant
recipients, program beneficiaries, and discrimination victims)
are a valuable source of knowledge, experience, and assistance.”
https://www.justice.gov/crt/civil-rights-forum-volume-9-number-3-fall-1995-0
Does this help you get the point?
I don’t think that the 2 men are comparable. MLK put his life and limb on the line, he was arrested multiple times, he was constantly plagued with death threats against him and his family, he was trailed and spied on by the FBI, he took a stand against Vietnam which angered LBJ and he ultimately gave his life for the cause of civil rights and social justice.
Thinking in terms of the two being comparable implies ranking them as competitors. And that’s nonsense. However, I don’t hesitate to understand and say the two men’s philosophy, teachings, and leadership are complementary hence interrelated. Specifically, I say they are complementary Systems Thinkers, two wise men who have greatly extended the wisdom of Systems Thinkers that came before them throughout the ages, including Gandhi, Jesus, and others. And that’s the beauty of it.
It’s a long, long arc, Dr. King, but we’ll get there. Thank you, Diane, for posting this.