“By Any Means Necessary”: Violence, Nonviolence & Signaling Seriousness

Abstract Erica Chenoweth & Maria J. Stephan’s data in Why Civil Resistance Works suggest that nonviolent resistance is much more effective than violent resistance. In that same data, however, they show that campaigns of violent resistance have been much more common than those of nonviolent resistance — and while nonviolent resistance has recently overtaken violent resistance, this has been alongside greater toleration of violence within nonviolent campaigns (which Chenoweth and Stephan argue should make those campaigns less effective.) This gives us a puzzle of apparently senseless violence, which may lead some to infer on rational choice grounds that Chenoweth and Stephan’s case is not as strong as it appears, and that this violence is not actually senseless. I offer a different rational choice explanation for this finding, which is compatible with Chenoweth and Stephan’s broader analysis. As they argue, the fact that it is much easier to participate in nonviolent resistance makes such campaigns more effective. Yet this advantage for nonviolent campaigns over violent campaigns reverses when we consider the positions of potential violent campaigns and potential nonviolent campaigns that have not yet gotten off the ground. In that strategic position, the costliness of participation in violence makes its preparation a costly signal for a movement’s seriousness. This makes it easier for such campaigns to get off the ground by helping them secure their most committed potential recruits. After outlining this explanation, I offer some practical ways that potential nonviolent resistance campaigns can make participation costlier in their early stages so that they can more easily signal seriousness and reach the level of a full-scale campaign.