Case’s (2018) analysis of unarmed violence during the 2011 Egyptian Revolution has advanced the argument for evaluating unarmed political violence within the context of civilian resistance movements. This response builds on that by referencing interview data from participants in the 2010/11 Tunisian Revolution, who described using both nonviolent and violent tactics. Applying these findings to Case’s criteria of mobilization, resilience, and leverage—derived from Schock (2013)—the Tunisian case reinforces Case’s conclusions. However, it also emphasizes the limitations of reducing nonviolence analysis to pragmatic or strategic components when compared to violent methods.
This is particularly significant in light of the constructive efforts in Tunisia to establish alternative political and economic structures, which were tied to what interviewees termed "aspirational nonviolence." They pursued goals rooted in dignity, suggesting a broader conceptualization of nonviolent action beyond mere strategy. While Case’s broader approach to civilian resistance, which includes unarmed political violence, is analytically sound, it’s important to recognize the scope for further exploration and application of enhanced nonviolent methods. This involves deeper engagement with moral considerations about political and economic organization, as well as the pursuit of nonviolent social revolutions.
Read Benjamin S. Case's article
Riots during the 2010/11 Tunisian Revolution: A Response to Case’s Article in JRS Vol.4 Number 1
Get Access
Buy Article $20
Purchase this article and receive the PDF via email.
Is your library using openathens?
Click on ‘Login’ and you will be authenticated, your credentials will be detected. No need for further passwords.
Subscribe $59/ YEAR
With an annual subscription you will get access to ALL the articles. Read online or download, starting from less than $5 a month (billed annually)!
Ask your Library to Subscribe
Ask your institution or your library to subscribe to the Journal. Simply fill out this form, and your University will receive the request for you.
Excerpt
Case’s (2018) analysis of unarmed violence during the 2011 Egyptian Revolution has advanced the argument for evaluating unarmed political violence within the context of civilian resistance movements. This response builds on that by referencing interview data from participants in the 2010/11 Tunisian Revolution, who described using both nonviolent and violent tactics. Applying these findings to Case’s criteria of mobilization, resilience, and leverage—derived from Schock (2013)—the Tunisian case reinforces Case’s conclusions. However, it also emphasizes the limitations of reducing nonviolence analysis to pragmatic or strategic components when compared to violent methods.
This is particularly significant in light of the constructive efforts in Tunisia to establish alternative political and economic structures, which were tied to what interviewees termed "aspirational nonviolence." They pursued goals rooted in dignity, suggesting a broader conceptualization of nonviolent action beyond mere strategy. While Case’s broader approach to civilian resistance, which includes unarmed political violence, is analytically sound, it’s important to recognize the scope for further exploration and application of enhanced nonviolent methods. This involves deeper engagement with moral considerations about political and economic organization, as well as the pursuit of nonviolent social revolutions.
Read Benjamin S. Case's article
Share on socials