The Power of Moral Sanction – Listening to the Struggle of Indigenous People in North America

The Power of Moral Sanction
By Jay Taber – April 2002

The power of moral sanction, as a penalty of conscience for violations of our sense of decency, based on a belief in the application of justice, has been essential to struggles for autonomy and dignity since the Middle Ages, and is, in my opinion, central to the struggle of rebuilding democratic society today. An examination, therefore, of the strengths and weaknesses of this tool of social change is warranted. This paper is my attempt to articulate the related aspects of leadership as demonstrated by the historical figures focused on in our readings and discussion. I begin with some general thoughts and impressions from our seminars, and proceed to particulars revolving around some of the figures examined.

Moral sanction, alone, may be insufficient to constrain political violence or official repression, but it can bring significant pressures to bear on public behavior as well as within institutions under the control or influence of civil society. Indeed, both reform and revolutionary movements, as well as all forms of resistance in fundamental conflict with tyrannical powers, rely on moral sanction as an essential component of warfare.

Resistance warfare may take different and multiple forms: war of position, based on a principle (i.e. boycotts); war of movement, uniting affinity interest groups (i.e. strikes); civil disobedience, to garner attention to an issue or recognition of the aggrieved; underground warfare, to subvert illegitimate authorities (i.e. sabotage); or open conflict, to challenge the police powers of these authorities (including riots and armed insurrection), but the degree of commitment by the oppressed participants, and the

approbation of non-combatants and potential recruits, is largely determined by the ability of resistance leaders to articulate and disseminate the moral values at issue.

In this way, resistors gain not only attention, but also recognition of the validity of their grievances. At the same time, the moral prestige of the oppressive or repressive State is diminished, and opportunities to obtain concessions or to leverage discussion and dialogue are enhanced. The danger encountered at this fulcrum point is in allowing mediation of communication to divert attention from the revolutionary movement toward an often fraudulent negotiating process. Bad faith offers of conflict settlement by official parties are usually welcomed with open arms by observers and less committed allies. The psychological warfare, the war of ideas, and the war of maneuver are constant; those committed to and capable of seizing power must, thus, continue intelligence and self-defense activities in anticipation of future attack.

The strongest movements will, I believe, combine all forms of warfare, emphasizing the appropriate form at the appropriate time. Highly-principled charismatic leaders, such as Gandhi may, unfortunately, become dismayed by movement shortcomings, but this is the unavoidable paradox of leadership: visionaries are essential to inspiring altruistic action, yet the visions are always betrayed; the quest for justice is what motivates the multitudes, but a better deal that can be built on is sometimes all that can be gained.

Chief Joseph came to understand these aspects of the march of human folly, accepting his responsibility toward the survival of his people in order to hope for better times. A much younger and less socially burdened Joan of Arc did not. …more