Collective intelligence refers to the capability of a group to collaborate in order to achieve goals that an individual — even the most gifted in a given group — would not be able to solve alone.

On a strictly behavioral level (excluding the symbolic layer of culture), collective intelligence communities are not exclusively a human prerogative.  They are observed within many social animal species, from the ant-hill to the wolf pack and the fish shoal, when the emerging level is manifestly “smarter” than its individual components. From the point of view of nonviolence in particular, it is important that groups can collectively solve problems creatively without a leader (for example, to evacuate patients from a hospital after Katrina).  Just as mob violence can be encoded in cultural forms, leading to scapegoating and war (see the work of René Girard), the human collective capacity for good could be developed and encoded to bring about a peaceful society and world.

For a review of the concept, see Collective Intelligence: The Invisible Revolution.

This concept, sometimes written today non-violence, refers to the kind of commitment that regards nonviolence as a strategy, to be adopted merely because it is thought to be more likely to “work” than violence (see "work" vs. work) or because violence is not a practical possibility.  Those adopting nonviolence in this way often reserve the right to go back to violence if they do not meet with success, and some theorists believe this limits their effectiveness.   Strategic nonviolence is usually a better choice and often requires more courage than violence.  It can cause problems, however, if people think that this is the only form of nonviolence.  Then if it does not ‘work’ they are left with no recourse but violence (or submission), whereas principled nonviolence is not only more effective in the short term but can move humanity toward a new paradigm as it involves an other order of belief regarding human nature and human relationships.

Strategic nonviolence, for example, still presupposes that the means can justify the ends, whereas for Gandhi, “Means are ends in the making:”

Principled nonviolence is the nonviolence of those who feel that it is a calling, as opposed to strategic nonviolence. In this view nonviolence is not merely a strategy nor the recourse of the weak, it is a positive force that does not manifest its full potential until it is adopted on principle. Often such practitioners feel that it expresses something fundamental about human nature, about whom they wish to become as individuals or as a people.

To adopt principled nonviolence is not a quick and easy decision one can make through logic but a slow, perhaps lifetime endeavor. Nonetheless, we focus on that kind of nonviolence because we think it has the potential for creating permanent, long-term change, ultimately for rebuilding many of our institutions on a more humane and sustainable foundation. In the long run nonviolence is, as Gandhi said, an “experiment with truth.” We have all to try that experiment in the way that seems best to us, and in the end the world will need all our experiences to arrive at a new order that we all desire.

Probably the most important lesson we have learned since – and from – Gandhi is that nonviolence is a positive force. It is a way to alter violent situations and influence others by persuasion rather than coercion, a way to resolve differences so that all parties grow in the process as human beings – and become more open rather than more closed to each other

Almost everyone today is familiar with the principle that “the ends don’t justify the means.” It is this recognition that differentiates a principled nonviolence-based effort, which is a mutual learning process for change, from a power struggle. “Means are ends in the making,” Gandhi explained, meaning that the kind of means we use – violent or nonviolent, with secrecy or transparency, democratic or authoritarian, deceivable or truthful – are already building the foundations of the society we want to live in.  While some would say means are just means to an end, to the principled nonviolent actor they are, he said, “everything.” In the case of a revolutionary struggle, for example, he held that “violent revolution will bring violent swaraj [independence].” Nobel Prize-winner Adolfo Perez Esquivel was just as emphatic: “Nonviolent action implants, by anticipation within the very process of change itself, the values to which it will ultimately lead … it does not sow peace by means of war.”

See Also:
Strategic Nonviolence
Ahimsa
Nonviolence

Reaching out to those who disagree with us is challenging, but vitally necessary.  Give it a try.  Have a friendly discussion with someone who doesn’t ‘get’ nonviolence.  They’re in the majority, after all!  Practice separating the person from the ideas — a critical skill for satyagrahis.  Take note of points where you need to marshall your facts for the next time; but remember, in the end most of our points will not be carried by facts alone.  They’ll be carried more by our politeness and unflappable confidence in our position.

Teach Peace Foundation will be hosting its 2008 Evening of Peace, a student led annual awards dinner to recognize peacemakers and promote unity, on Sunday, September 21, in Sacramento, California. Tickets are available through their website and proceeds help the Teach Peace Foundation deliver peace education.