Why Conflict Is Needed to Drive Change

Why Conflict Is Needed to Drive Change

It was Martin Luther King, Jr. who said “Change does not roll in on the wheels of inevitability, but comes through continuous struggle.”

In order to enact change, there has to be tension. There has to be conflict.

This is true for any possible system you can think of: a box on a table doesn’t move unless you apply strength and push it. You can’t improve at the piano unless you struggle and try to learn a piece that you haven’t yet. You can’t grow stronger muscles until you pick up weights that are heavier than you’re used to. You can’t overcome a fear of spiders without challenging yourself to be near or touch one. A baby can’t learn to walk without struggling to stand up and falling over again and again. Gay marriage or women voting doesn’t become legal until people stand up and challenge the system that forbids it.

The examples are endless. You must create conflict in order to cause change. To grow. To improve.

“But isn’t there a better way?”

When I hear things like “I don’t want to protest, there should be a better way,” or “they should be more civil and just talk more about this,” I feel some disappointment. These are the words of someone who is accepting enough of the situation to NOT want to drive change. These are the words of someone who either doesn’t recognize a need to change or doesn’t want change. While the sentiment is meant well, comments like this are misguided. Protesting is what follows failed talks. If people are protesting, it is because talking has failed. Protesting also works, and there is a reason why.

Before going any further, I want to make it very clear: violent protest and rioting is something that is to be condemned in all forms. There is never a need for violence. Violence comes from a place of hate and anger that can never be justified. But what I’m talking about is not violence. I’m talking about conflict. And nonviolent protest creates conflict without violence. Some may argue that nonviolent protest can lead to violent protest, and while that may be true in a handful of cases, that alone doesn’t inherently make nonviolent protest bad. The point still stands that violence is bad and should be condemned in all forms.

And so, to that moderate person who thinks we can just “talk it out”, I pose this question: if you are someone who thinks there is probably a better way, but are not actively searching for it, or are suggesting that you want change, but are unwilling to go out and be the tension and conflict that will cause it, what do you become? 

People, animals, laws, blocks…None move without conflict.

It is a basic law of physics that an object either remains at rest (or continues to move at a constant velocity) unless acted upon by a force.

These blocks sitting on the table are never going to move unless something pushes it. You can wait forever. They won’t move unless they are pushed by something or someone.

Protesters are people pushing from one end: pushing to upset the system and cause change. In the case of climate change, it is the fossil fuel industry that stands on the other end of the blocks and pushes back, preventing the blocks from moving. The stronger the blocks are pushed, the stronger the fossil fuel industry pushes back. But in this metaphor, what are the blocks in the middle? They are the will of the people, or the people themselves. They aren’t actively fighting for change either way, but carry weight in the form of their votes and their opinions: it’s the combined opinions of a population that determine what is “normal” or what is “popular opinion.”

Why Non-Violent Protesting Works

But is there something that we could do that is better than protesting? Why is nonviolent protest necessary? Why does nonviolent protest work?

According to Jesse Marczyk Ph.D., the answer lies in asking ourselves the question: why do we perceive a dimension of right and wrong in the world in the first place? And to that question, Dr. Marczyk says:

“…when a dispute arises, those involved in the dispute find themselves in a state of transient need for social support (since numbers can decide the outcome of the conflict). Third parties (those not initially involved in the dispute) can increase their value as a social asset to one of the disputants by filling that need and assisting them in the fight against the rival. This allows third parties to leverage the transient needs of the disputants to build future alliances or defend existing allies.”

When we see protest, we see people who feel unfairly treated, and by nature may feel a need to support them. In supporting them, our “social currency” or feeling of value among our peers increases. We form allies. We become part of the group. We feel validated, and feel that we are part of something larger than just our individual selves. We may even be able to use these new allies in our own future difficulties. In essence: we are social beings, and by our very nature, will feel driven to band together. 

…And Why Violent Protest Doesn’t.

In the case of violent protests and riots, while they do carry a sort of shock value, they can have the opposite of the wanted effect: it can turn the general public against you. 

“The applications of this idea to nonviolent protest ought to be fairly apparent: when property is destroyed, people are attacked, and the ability of regular citizens to go about their lives is disrupted by violent protests, this generates a need for social support on the part of those targeted or affected by the violence. It also generates worries in those who feel they might be targeted by similar groups in the future. So, while the protesters might be rioting because they feel they have important needs that aren’t being met (seeking to achieve them via violence, or the threat of it), third parties might come to view the damage inflicted by the protest as being more important or harmful (as they generate a larger, or more legitimate need). The net result of that violence is now that third parties side against the protesters, rather than with them.”

This is why nonviolent protest is so important. According to Dr. Marczyk, “a nonviolent protest does not create as large a need on the part of those it targets; it doesn’t destroy property or harm people. If the protesters have needs they want to see met and they aren’t inflicting costs on others, this can yield more support for the protester’s side.”

Nonviolent protest yields sympathy without eliciting feelings of the internal conflict of “promoting violence” that violent protest yields. Or, in the words of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr…

“Nonviolent direct action seeks to create such a crisis and foster such a tension that a community which has constantly refused to negotiate is forced to confront the issue. It seeks so to dramatize the issue so that it can no longer be ignored. ” – Martin Luther King, Jr.

I’ve used the fight for climate change in this example, but it applies to everything from Black Lives Matter, to socialized health insurance, to animal rights, or to the amount of organic foods are sold in stores. Pressure, conflict, and tension drive change.

Driving social change means creating social unrest. Creating social conflict. When people rise up and protest, change happens. Women’s rights, black rights, and gay marriage have all been achieved using protest. Change is slow, so slow that sometimes it can feel like the protests are not having an effect. But these are just a few examples of many cases of change driven by protest. All happened over decades. All took time. But for those who believed and fought for them, I think most would argue that the fight was worth it. Could you imagine a world where women still couldn’t vote? Or where we still used slaves?

There are still plenty of injustices to fight in the world. Search within yourself to find what you believe. Then go out there and drive change to make the world you want. Protest, protest, protest. Just keep it peaceful. Violence is born of hate and anger. And I think we’ve all had quite enough of that.