Overview of Conflict Prof. Dorcas Ettang

 

Different Views of human Nature Prof. Michael W Sonnleitner

Different Views of Human Nature

 Dr. Michael W. Sonnleitner

Hello everyone. Today we look at different views of human nature. I want to make this complicated and uncomplicated at the same time. You could say we have heard it said, "It's just human nature." It's just human nature to kill. It's just human nature to be evil, individualistic, and competitive. It's just human nature to be saintly and kind. It's just human nature to be nothing.

We're simply conditioned responses to our environment. It's just human nature. I've confused everyone, and yet perhaps I've confused no one because we've heard it all. I would like to analyze this reality of our perception of human nature. The first slide relates to the blind and the elephant. I wanted to start by saying: beware of binaries. What does that mean? A binary is either-or, dualistic thinking.

It's manifest in saying there is either peace or war, either nonviolence or violence, either conversion through nonviolence or coercion through nonviolence. By the way, we're also told we are either female or male. Binary thinking is dominant. I'd like us to briefly understand why I believe it is dominant and why it creates lots of problems for understanding Gandhi and the world. First, I think it is reflected in Aristotle, who many declare the founder of political science.

A bunch of Western thinkers began with the Greeks. Aristotle argued for his view of the law of the excluded middle, which was that something cannot both be and not be at the same time. Something cannot both be and not be. It's the foundation of Western logic. And by the way, we need to recognize that Aristotle was materialistic. That is, he believed in the five senses. The only thing that is real is what we can see, feel, taste, touch, and smell.

So, for him, for example, looking at human nature as male and female, the male is by nature superior. A woman is a deformed male according to him. How does Aristotle come to believe in patriarchy as being the truth? He looks around at his society where he is, at what he can feel, taste, touch, and smell, and he sees patriarchy. What is becomes what ought to be. Now, there's a logical leap.

Aristotle looks at what is—male dominance, patriarchy—and… Professor Michael, then he says to himself, "It is natural. I can observe it." Yes, yes, yes. Understand that this is a trap. I believe you can accept it if you want, but people argue capitalism ought to be, men should be dominant, or human beings are selfish because that's what they see all the time. They say, "It is human nature. It is what is." Do you understand? I'm not going to beat this to death, but I want you to understand that Aristotle was looking at the world in a very materialistic orientation.

Not in terms of wealth, but in terms of what is real is what I can see, feel, and touch. That was his foundation for data: the five senses and only the five senses. But there are other ways. We have Mahavira and Buddha. Mahavira, the accepted founder of the Jain religion, heavily influenced Gandhi and his concept of ahimsa. Mahavira and others have this view of anekantavada. Now, that is the many-sidedness of truth.

And here is the blind and the elephant. You can look at the slide if I'm looking at it on my screen. Many of you have heard of this. Sometimes it's seven blind people. I guess for some reason they like odd numbers. The simple story is, let's say there are three blind people and an elephant. They're blinded by their gender. They're blinded by their culture. They're blinded by the physical, economic situation that they find themselves in. They're blinded by their conditioning. One says, touching the trunk of the elephant, "It is like a snake."

The other touches the body and says, "No, it's like a wall." Another touches the tail and says, "What? You're both wrong. It's like a rope." The point of the story is very simple. They are all right and wrong at the same time. What Aristotle missed was his own blindness. You understand? He thought what he saw was absolutely true. He didn't have the concept of anekantavada. Mahavira says you can be both right and wrong at the same time.

Take the person who is touching the tail. Yes, the elephant is like a rope. It's just that that's not the whole elephant. But it's true. Yes, we could say the same thing about human nature. And if we had the elephant as human nature, we could say human nature is self-centered, individualistic, competitive. That's one part. Human nature is selfless, sharing, collaborative. That's the body.

"No, no, no. You're all wrong. The elephant, human nature, is completely a conditioned response to your environment." They may be all right and wrong at the same time. I hope this isn't confusing to you, but if you can't grasp this idea of being blind and seeing the world through a vision that is often very limited, like Gandhi noted, you will not be able to understand the complexities of peace, nonviolence, or human nature.

Okay, I want you to understand. So, let's start with that. Let us go on a little to the second slide, if you want, which is the nine views of human nature. Gandhi himself was interesting, I would suggest, because he was West meets East. He was both Aristotle and Mahavira. He was both very empirical and pragmatic, and very spiritual in understanding that there is much beyond the five senses.

Gandhi was, I believe, an incredibly "both-and" person. An extremely BOTH-AND person. He would agree with that, and sometimes speak about how there is either violence or nonviolence, and yet in the very same communication, he will talk about how we are both violent and nonviolent at the same time. It's confusing. I'm sorry.

Aristotle avoided the confusion by setting up a logical system that is simplistic. Gandhi may be confusing, but so also is life. And I think we need to try to grasp this non-binary way of looking at human nature. Now, this categorization is mine. I created it. It has its limitations. This outlines nine distinct views of human nature.

There can be a great many more. What is human nature? This is one way of looking at it: nine ways. You'll notice that you can be social-sharing, selfish-unsharing, and conditioned if you go left to right at the top of the screen, and this is individually. If you view human nature in groups on the left side, you can see the columns for social, selfish, and conditioned. Right?

So now we have kind of a graph. This is not too complicated, but it's complicated enough, and this gives us nine distinct ways of looking at human beings. Now, because I taught political philosophy—and that's mostly in the Western tradition—I've learned a lot from the East. I have given examples within each of these boxes of Western political thinkers who I'm not going to argue today because it would take all of our time, but they can arguably be in that box. I'll just deal with three to be quick.

If you believe that human beings as individuals are unselfish, sharing, caring, social creatures, and if you believe in groups, we are naturally also social, sharing, cooperative group people, then you have a lot in common with St. Francis of Assisi, the person in the upper left box. Yes, St. Francis of Assisi, the Christian saint of all of Europe. He was not a great thinker; he was a feeler. He was sensing the unity of life. And Franciscans were typically anarchist. Ultimately, they saw no need for the hierarchy of the church or the hierarchy of the state. If people are naturally, normally caring and sharing both individually and in groups, why do we need a government? We can simply and spontaneously care for one another. Francis wasn't stupid. He saw pain, he saw war, he experienced it, and he even participated in it before he became aware of other realities. And yet, these things he thought were abnormal. These are things that bring out the worst in us, and the best is there inherently. That was St. Francis's hope and his faith.

If you go to the middle box, Thomas Hobbes is the opposite of St. Francis. Hobbes believes that human beings as individuals and in groups are selfish and unsharing. It's a dog-eat-dog world. That's Thomas Hobbes. The natural state of humankind according to Hobbes in the Leviathan is a natural state of war, or preparation for war, of all against all. The consequences of Hobbes's thinking that that is human nature becomes his declaration of belief that we should have an absolute ruler for life. Hobbes himself believed we should have a president or a prime minister elected for life that will give us one person to live in fear of, and that one person who we all fear will keep us from killing one another. It keeps us from falling into a state of anarchy where human beings are, unlike St. Francis's view, inherently competitive individuals. Everyone has their price. Love, according to Hobbes, is simply a way of manipulating you for my needs. That's all. And when I'm finished with you, I'll throw you away like a fast-food container and I'll find someone else to satisfy my sexual needs.

We have extremes with Francis and Hobbes. If you go to the far-right bottom, Karl Marx is also extreme. For him, human nature is a conditioned response to your environment. There are no absolutes for Marx; you are simply a conditioned response to your environment. He's very binary—there's always the oppressed and the oppressor. There are always two classes competing for power in the history of the world, and the history of the world is described as class conflict, graduating from one stage to another where we have different oppressor and oppressed classes. So, he's very binary, but he doesn't think human nature is anything other than a conditioned response to your environment. I don't want to get into the others, but if you really, really want to, perhaps in the breakout sessions—if we survive them in this class—it may encourage you to think about where you are, in which box, and you'll find that you probably disagree amongst yourselves.

I would suggest to you that if you kind of want to understand Gandhi better, he doesn't fit into these boxes very well. That's because, like I mentioned, he is extremely "both-and" and non-binary in his way of looking at the world. If you were to draw a line from the top corner left through Marx, through Hobbes, through St. Francis, and just take it out a little bit at the top, you'd probably find Gandhi. Because Gandhi would probably say, "Yes, we are conditioned responses to our environment. Yes, depending upon our environment and our state of mind, we can have a world like Thomas Hobbes describes: nasty, brutish, and short. We can also, if we go up in our understanding, live in a world closer to St. Francis where we are naturally and inherently surrendering our body to our soul within. We have become spiritually enlightened, self-actualized people." So, Gandhi would probably say all of these nine views have truth. We have nine blind people and an elephant. And yet, to illustrate this, I'm suggesting that he would say Marx, Hobbes, and Francis are all right and wrong at the same time.

To make this maybe fit a little bit better, I would like us to have the slide relating to Maslow's hierarchy of needs, and you can give us that if you want. We will be reminded that according to Abraham Maslow, the psychologist, every person has five levels of needs—not four, but five. And these are the five levels of needs: physiological, safety, belonging, self-esteem, and self-actualization. Now, the belonging and self-esteem needs we could collapse if we wanted to, as I think was done before, into describing them as feelings, and that's okay. We can do that; it's just another way of looking at it.

But with these five, we can begin to see perhaps how Gandhi could say Marx, Hobbes, and St. Francis are all right and wrong at the same time. How can you say that, Gandhi? My god, you're just blowing my mind! No, relax. Look at the physiological and safety needs. The physiological needs—the most basic according to Maslow—include breathing, water, food, shelter, clothing, and sleep. Yes, basic physiological needs that the body needs. And safety and security are also matters of matter; that is, we can feel, taste, touch, and smell them. We need them: employment, family, social abilities. One could put sexual reproduction in there. The first two levels are fundamentally materialistic—we can feel, touch, and smell them. Aristotle would be pleased; that's what we can really focus on.

And if they are met, according to Maslow, we can then begin to go into the more social or emotional needs: love, belonging, and self-esteem. If physiological needs, safety, and security needs are not met on the individual level or in groups, then we have what Thomas Hobbes lived in—a period of almost constant conflict in Europe during the Thirty Years' War. The years were 1618 to 1648; you can look it up. Hobbes's view of what is—and in that sense, he was very much like Aristotle, looking at the world that he saw around him and deciding what is ought to be—was that the world is nasty, brutish, and short. Everyone has their price. It's a state of war, or preparation for war, of all against all. This was the environment that Thomas Hobbes lived in. Between those years, 1618 to 1648—Hobbes's intellectual years where he did his writing and his publishing—half of the population of Europe died. Half! Either through war, combat, disease, or starvation. The bubonic plague, which people didn't know at the time was basically transmitted through rats and the propagation of rats, took away people from almost every family. Hobbes's view of the world was conditioned by his reality.

Your individual views of the world may very well be conditioned by your reality as you see it in your world. The key, I believe, for us to see is that we're both blind and not blind at the same time. We're blind by our historical circumstance. By our realities in Sudan, or Syria, or Congo, or the United States, or France, or Manipur in India, or Bangalore in India, we are heavily influenced. Whether we come to see that or not, I hope will be able to happen by our mind—our rational capacity to reflect upon our reality.

We are the only creature that we know of that has that capacity to reflect upon who we are, to have a mental awareness. I believe we're not alone. I think porpoises and dolphins quite possibly are smarter than we are. They have larger brains compared to body size, and they don't make war, which to me is an indication that they may be a lot smarter than we are. But we give ourselves the credit for having the capacity to think. And according to Gandhi, we can use that capacity to reflect.

"Am I primarily a soul?" That's his kind of dualistic way of looking at things, kind of a Western way. And yet he knows that between body and soul there's a lot of emotion. There's a lot of physiological and safety needs for love and belonging. We need to have self-respect before we can have self-actualization. He knows that—in his mind, he knows that.

But simplistically, Gandhi will sometimes suggest that if you identify primarily with your body, that is the primary source of violence in the world. If you are overwhelmingly materialist in the way you look at the world, you believe only what you feel, taste, touch, or smell—the five senses. If that's the foundation for all of your data, you're not going to believe anything else. You're probably going to be very concerned about self-defense. What's that? Self-defense. No, it's not obvious. What is your "self"?

If you are primarily identifying in your mind with your body, your "self" is your body. So, what you're talking about with self-defense is really body defense. And primarily, you defend your physical body through physical force. That makes sense, doesn't it? You'll fight over food, you'll fight over water, and you'll fight over property of different kinds. You'll never have enough because your body is never adequately protected. You need to have more of a surplus. We need to have the best weapons possible to prevent other people from violating our safety and security needs.

I need to protect my warehouse full of bananas. No one else can have my bananas. I will shoot anybody who takes my bananas. I may need to develop a nuclear weapon to scare the crap out of you to keep your hands off my bananas. Right. So, keep in mind, if you in your mind, according to Gandhi, identify primarily as a body—where material reality is your only reality—then don't be surprised if this becomes a foundation for war, for conflict, for class conflict, for all sorts of violent conflict where you're willing to harm and even kill other people's bodies for the sake of protecting your own. Like Hobbes said, it's a dog-eat-dog world, and I'm going to be the top dog. I'll eat you before you eat me.

"You're all blind. I'm not blind. I see clearly. The elephant is as I say it is. I don't have to listen to you who hold the tail. You hold the ear; I don't have to listen to you. My security needs come first, and that's just the way it is." It's not evil people or violent people who are the problem in the world, according to Gandhi. The problem is the way we are thinking—our minds.

If we think of ourselves primarily as soul—as that which cannot be harmed, that which is immortal, that which is the life force that manifests itself in everything from butterflies to trees to human beings to algae in the ocean—if we are the life force, if in a sense God is within us, if we focus our mind upon our soul within, the drop of water that is within us, we can focus on that drop of water and it becomes the ocean. The ocean is the entire life force that manifests itself in all of creation. You are God, and yet you are not God at the same time. According to Gandhi, you are atman. You are the soul, but you are not paramatman. You are not the ocean, the supreme soul. So, you're both—and you are both body and soul.

If you focus your mind primarily upon the reality that you are ultimately the soul within you, according to Gandhi, then it becomes logical that you should be willing to sacrifice your body for the sake of understanding better ultimate reality, that is your soul. You may be willing to suffer. The body suffers; that is the nature of life. In Buddhism, suffering is there. How do you go beyond suffering? Ultimately, spiritually, you come to see that what is immortal—the life force within you—is ultimately real.

Bring us back here. What about self-defense? Doesn't Gandhi believe in self-defense? Again, what is human nature? If your mind thinks of your body as who you are, then self-defense needs to be physical defense, and all forms and kinds of violence—including very coercive nonviolence—become very acceptable. The more materialistic you are in believing your five senses, and I would suggest the more like Gene Sharp you are from our last session, then nonviolence becomes a method, a tactic preferable to the overt taking of life and doing greater harm. But for Gandhi, nonviolence is not merely a method, or a tactic, or a strategy. His thinking says, "My self ultimately is my soul, and those who want to save their soul may need to give up their life." It's not such a big sacrifice because you cannot be killed. Your soul cannot be harmed.

Gandhi had no enemies because he saw soul, or spirit, or God in all of creation, including his opponent. By calling them an enemy, it would be to disrespect himself, because the same life force that is in me is in Adolf Hitler. In a sense, my real enemy is the way I think. My attachments to this world, my perceiving it as being entirely data-driven by taste, touch, and smell—the five senses. We need to transcend those things. According to Gandhi, we need to see truly that Vasanta, who is right here, looks to be a woman, but she's a person before she is a woman. And she's not only just a person; she is the life force embodied in all of creation. She is not just a member of my family; I see God in her. Why in the world would I want to do any violence or harm towards Vasanta if she is God?

Are you beginning to see a little bit how Gandhi is looking at human nature and how it reflects throughout just about everything else? I'm not evangelizing, though I know I sound like I am, because honestly, Gandhi's picture is right behind me. He has been a guiding spirit in my life for over 50 years. I've met and been inspired by over 30 people that knew Gandhi personally. I have interviewed two of his personal secretaries. I went to Afghanistan to meet with Abdul Ghaffar Khan. I spent a week with Vinoba Bhave. And yet Gandhi is not perfect. You will see in the future, I have plenty of criticisms of him. And he would not mind, because he did not claim to be perfect. His soul was perfect, but he was not a great soul. Gandhi did not allow anyone who lived with him to call him Mahatma. He was not worthy of Mahatma. You understand? He recognized that he was a blind person trying to learn from other blind people in a dynamic, revolutionary way that will increase his capacity to understand the whole elephant.

And human nature for him was just that—it's a matter of conditioning, and how we respond to our environments will bring out a Thomas Hobbes or a St. Francis of Assisi. We have about as much free will as a person on a crowded ocean liner. According to Gandhi, you might not have a lot of control over the ship that is crossing the sea. You don't have control over the weather, the hurricanes, and the typhoons that may be hitting the ship. You don't have control over this, but you do have some control over being on the ship, where you sleep on the ship, and how you relate to other people on the ship—whether you have a democratic sort of system on the ship that helps tell the captain where you want to go, or whether you have a dictator, in which case you might need to have a small revolution on the ship to be able to replace the captain with someone who's more worthy of leadership. So, we both have free will and yet there's determination at the same time. We have some free will, but it's very limited according to Gandhi.

 

Question Answer Session

Q. It was a wonderful and insightful talk that we heard from you. And if you're asking the question about reality, or anekantavada as you mentioned from Jainism, I think that is the only way to look at the world. I think we are blind, maybe not only by physical appearance, but even our inner eyes are also closed if we think that this is the truth. So, the only way to look at it is that there can be multiple sides to any one phenomenon or anything that we observe. So, I totally agree with you on what you are telling. But in reality, today, if you have any social or academic or whatever circles we are in, and if we agree or disagree equally to two different ideologies or different views, we will be tagged as indecisive. So, I feel that there is a practical conflict. Personally, I face that. So...

A. Gandhi understands that, and that is why a satyagrahi—one who holds firm to the truth at any point in time—must always be open to learning from others and then adopting a new truth. But at any point in time, you are not indecisive. Gandhi was very decisive. The obligation is to hold firm to the truth as you see it, even as if it were absolute. But Gandhi knows it isn't. That's why he's willing to modify and change his truth over time. That's really revolutionary. That's personally and also politically revolutionary. He's humble, not because he's proud of his humility; he's humble because he knows that he has various degrees of being blind himself, and he admits it. I don't think Gene Sharp had that awareness. I'm trying to be a little bit hard on Western dualistic thinking. If we only accept nonviolence as a method or a tactic, it is as likely to be abandoned when repression comes as for it to be continued. Gandhi would say when four thousand people are arrested in Delhi or more, that's a sign of effectiveness. It's not a sign to give up and become violent. Nonviolence is powerful precisely when it brings repression, when it shakes up the status quo. That's the time to hold more firm to your truth, not abandon it to take up weapons of another kind. We're running in one more comment and then we'll try small groups.

Q. When we go into a conflict, let's say it's important to agree on something for us to proceed with the talks, right? For example, if you and I had an argument, and I said, "Michael stole my pencil," we have to agree on what happened, right? We have to have some observation to at least start. If you say, "Yeah, you have your perspective, I didn't steal it," then what was Gandhi's—how to say—how did he proceed in situations like this where I agree that we can all have different perspectives, but then something happened and what is the agreement?

A. I don't think it's human nature, but Gandhi himself, I've seen many times, can be very hard to live with because he wants to so live what his values are that he, without even trying, demands that of others. And certainly, in his ashrams, in his living communities, you were not supposed to eat meat, for example, or have sugar or even salt. And yet Kasturba, his wife, would serve guests to the ashram cookies and tea with sugar. So, he and his wife, they have conflicts, and I think they simply learned to live with one another. He didn't kick her out of the ashram. And there were times when he would have a guest to the ashram like Abdul Ghaffar Khan, who was a meat-eating Muslim from the Northwest Frontier Province. And Gandhi would actually have meat to serve Abdul Ghaffar Khan out of respect for Badshah Khan's truth. Even vegetarianism, which I personally believe in, is the rule, but the house needs to be broad enough to include everyone. Does that make sense? So, Gandhi was a dictator and yet very democratic at the same time. I find it amusing. He could be very patriarchal and yet extremely non-binary and even feminine at the same time.

Nobel Peace Prize for 2026 to Navi Pillay

 

Nobel Peace Prize for 2026

The Norwegian Nobel Committee has decided to award the Nobel Peace Prize for 2026 to Navanethem “Navi” Pillay for her efforts to promote peace and international law.

9 Oct 2026

The Nobel Peace Prize for 2026 goes to a person who with exceptional courage and integrity has led the way towards a more comprehensive global legal order. This year’s laureate has been instrumental in ensuring that war crimes, crimes against humanity and genocide are prosecuted.

The Norwegian Nobel Committee has decided to award the Nobel Peace Prize for 2026 to Navanethem “Navi” Pillay for her efforts to promote peace and international law.

Navi Pillay’s commitment to universal legal principles and her firm moral compass are constants in a long career. Born into a family of Indian Tamil origin under apartheid in Durban, South Africa, Pillay became a lawyer and legal pioneer, confronting deep structural discrimination, segregation and exclusion. A common thread runs from her early work defending Nelson Mandela and others who stood up against apartheid to her service as a judge in some of the key international court cases of our time

This year’s laureate has significantly enlarged the scope and impact of international law. She has served as a judge on the High Court in South Africa, the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda and the International Criminal Court. She was the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights and, until recently, she chaired the UN Independent International Commission of Inquiry on the Occupied Palestinian Territory. Today Navi Pillay is a judge on the International Court of Justice in the case where Myanmar stands accused of genocide

In historic international court cases, she has shown that legal measures can help prevent acts of war and violence. Navi Pillay has also contributed to strengthen the institutions of international law. Her independence, expertise and steadfastness have made her one of the most respected international jurists of our time.

The first Nobel Peace Prize was awarded 125 years ago. Already then, the Norwegian Nobel Committee underscored the importance of resolving conflicts through international law – a theme that has remained prominent throughout the history of the Peace Prize. The reach of international law expanded after the Second World War, in particular with the creation of the UN institutions. The key insight was that lasting peace must be built on legal principles, not on the will of the strong or a fragile balance of power. Additional legal mechanisms were introduced in the post-war decades, and momentum picked up further after the end of the Cold War

However, the rules-based international order has never been perfect. The greatest powers have often evaded responsibility. In practice, cases brought under international law have produced different results depending on who is the perpetrator and who is the victim.

Nonetheless, we have seen that more and more conflicts are being addressed through diplomacy, treaties and legal mechanisms, rather than threats, violence and warfare. Leaders and populations alike have come to the same conclusion: international law is a foundation for a more peaceful world.

At a time of existential challenges – including more wars and conflicts than the world has seen in a long time – international law is no longer just a supplement to peace and security. It is an absolute necessity. 
And yet, the system of international law is under tremendous pressure, and its institutions are under attack. We see a shift towards power politics at the expense of legal frameworks and global respect for law and justice. Whenever might overtakes right, it undermines stability, trust and peaceful co-existence.

In awarding this year’s Nobel Peace Prize, the Norwegian Nobel Committee wants to remind the world that the rule of law – national and international – underpins the system we have set up to ensure peace and resolve conflicts non-violently. Peace requires justice

History has shown that a world operating without the rule of law is unjust, unwise and inhumane. The judges – those who guard the thin red line between order and chaos – are therefore highly deserving of our praise. But today, as these same judges are sanctioned, and their institutions are attacked, we need people of courage, vision and determination – qualities that Navi Pillay demonstrates in her work on the bench

Navi Pillay has held states and national leaders accountable and brought hope to victims of violence and conflict. In all the positions she has held, she has stressed the responsibility of individuals and states to comply with the rule of law. She has also helped define the relevant norms and legal principles. When the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda established that rape and sexual violence could constitute a crime against humanity – as well as genocide – her influence was a significant factor. In the same case, Ms Pillay was instrumental in a separate legal breakthrough: for the first time, a defendant faced charges of incitement to commit genocide purely on the basis of spreading propaganda

The Nobel Peace Prize for 2026 springs directly from Alfred Nobel’s will. Navi Pillay strengthens fraternity between nations and – by systematically advancing the use of tribunals for peace and justice – she provides substance, direction and motivation for peace conferences in their modern form.

Navi Pillay is one of the great defenders of international legal principles in our time. Her distinguished career reminds us of the need to support, fortify and expand the global rule of law. Navi Pillay’s commitment to justice and human dignity is a source of hope and inspiration to all who seek to bring about a more peaceful world.

To cite this section
MLA style: Press release. NobelPrize.org. Nobel Prize Outreach 2026. Sat. 10 Oct 2026. <https://www.nobelprize.org/prizes/peace/2026/press-release/>

Navi Pillay

Facts

Ill. Niklas Elmehed © Nobel Prize Outreach

Navanethem "Navi" Pillay
Nobel Peace Prize 2026

Born: 23 September 1941, Durban, South Africa

Prize motivation: “for her efforts to promote peace and international law”

Prize share: 1/1

Champion for international legal order

Navanethem “Navi” Pillay has been at the forefront in the development of an international legal order. Ms Pillay was educated in the law and soon began defending activists who stood up against apartheid. She grew up in a family of Indian Tamil descent in Durban, South Africa, where in 1967 she founded her own law firm. In the 1980s she studied at Harvard University and earned her Doctor of Juridical Science degree there in 1988.

Dr. Pillay was appointed to the High Court of South Africa in 1995. Four years later she became a judge and President of the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda (ICTR), where she gained distinction for her role in establishing that sexual violence and rape as well as the spreading of propaganda could lead to indictment for crimes against humanity and genocide. She was then named to serve as a judge on the International Criminal Court (ICC). From 2008 to 2014 she served as the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR). Navi Pillay also chaired the UN Independent International Commission of Inquiry on the Occupied Palestinian Territory from 2021 to 2025, and in 2019 she became an ad hoc judge on the International Court of Justice (ICJ) in the case in which Myanmar stands accused of genocide.

The Norwegian Nobel Committee attaches importance to Navi Pillay’s role as a driving force in the development of an international system of law and order, while further emphasising her judicial rigour, personal integrity and considerable courage. At a time when the number of wars and conflicts is rising, and when judges and institutions of international law are under political attack, the Nobel Committee wishes to issue a reminder that the ability to resolve conflicts without force or violence is dependent on the international rule of law. An international legal system in which war criminals are held to account and the victims of abuse see justice served is a precondition for a peaceful world.

Navigate to: Summary-- Facts-- Interview-- Photo gallery-- Other resources Prize announcement Press release

To cite this section
MLA style: Navanethem Pillay – Facts – 2026. NobelPrize.org. Nobel Prize Outreach 2026. Sat. 10 Oct 2026. <https://www.nobelprize.org/prizes/peace/2026/pillay/facts/>

198 METHODS OF NONVIOLENT ACTION Gene Sharp

 

Gene Sharp (January 21, 1928 – January 28, 2018)

198 METHODS OF NONVIOLENT ACTION

Formal Statements

1.Public speeches

2.Letters of opposition or support

3.Declarations by organizations and institutions

4.Signed public statements

5. Declarations of indictment and intention

6.Group or mass petitions

Communications with a Wider Audience

7.Slogans, caricatures, and symbols

8.Banners, posters, and displayed communications

9.Leaflets, pamphlets, and books

10.Newspapers and journals

11.Records, radio, and television

12.Skywriting and earthwriting

Group Representations

13.Deputations

14.Mock awards

15. Group lobbying

16.Picketing

17.Mock elections

Symbolic Public Acts

18.Displays of flags and symbolic colors

19.Wearing of symbols

.20 Prayer and worship

21.Delivering symbolic objects

22.Protest disrobings

23.Destruction of own property

24.Symbolic lights

25 Displays of portraits

26.Paint as protest

27.New signs and names

28.Symbolic sounds

29.Symbolic reclamations

30. Rude gestures

Pressures on Individuals

31.“Haunting” officials

32.Taunting officials

33.Fraternization

34.Vigils

Drama and Music

35.Humorous skits and pranks

36.Performances of plays and music

37.Singing

Processions

38.Marches

39.Parades

40. Religious processions

41.Pilgrimages

42.Motorcades

Honoring the Dead

43.Political mourning

44.Mock funerals

45 Demonstrative funerals

46.Homage at burial places

Public Assemblies

47.Assemblies of protest or support

48.Protest meetings

49.Camouflaged meetings of protest

50. Teach-ins

Withdrawal and Renunciation

51.Walk-outs

52.Silence

53.Renouncing honors

54.Turning one’s back

The Methods of Social Noncooperation

55.Ostracism of Persons

55.Social boycott

56Selective social boycott

57..Excommunication

59.Interdict

Noncooperation with Social Events, Customs, and Institutions\

60.Suspension of social and sports activities

61.Boycott of social aff airs

62.Student strike

63.Social disobedience

64.Withdrawal from social institutions

Withdrawal from the Social System

65.Stay-at-home

66.Total personal noncooperation

67.“Flight” of workers

68.Sanctuary

69.Collective disappearance

70.Protest emigration (hijrat)

The Methods of Economic Noncooperation: Economic Boycotts

Actions by Consumers

71.Consumers’ boycott

72.Nonconsumption of boycotted goods

73.Policy of austerity

74.Rent withholding

75.Refusal to rent

76.National consumers’ boycott

77.International consumers’ boycott

Action by Workers and Producers

78.Workmen’s boycott

79.Producers’ boycott

Action by Middlemen

80.Suppliers’ and handlers’ boycott

Action by Owners and Management

81.Traders’ boycott

82.Refusal to let or sell property

83.Lockout

84.Refusal of industrial assistance

85.Merchants’ “general strike”

Action by Holders of Financial Resources

86.Withdrawal of bank deposits

87.Refusal to pay fees, dues, and assessments

88.Refusal to pay debts or interest

89.Severance of funds and credit

90.Revenue refusal

91.Refusal of a government’s money

Action by Governments

92.Domestic embargo

93.Blacklisting of traders

94.International sellers’ embargo

95.International buyers’ embargo

96.International trade embargo

The Methods of Economic Noncooperation: The Strike

Symbolic Strikes

97.Protest strike

98.Quickie walkout (lightning strike)

Agricultural Strikes

99.Peasant strike

100.Farm Workers’ strike

Strikes by Special Groups

101.Refusal of impressed labor

102.Prisoners’ strike

103.Craft strike

104.Professional strike

Ordinary Industrial Strikes

105.Establishment strike

106.Industry strike

107.Sympathetic strike

Restricted Strikes

108.Detailed Strike

109.Bumper strike

110.Slowdown strike

111.Working-to-rule strike

112.Reporting “sick” (sick-in)

113.Strike by resignation

114.Limited strike

115.Selective strike

Multi-Industry Strikes

116.Generalized strike

117.General strike

Combination of Strikes and Economic Closures

118.Hartal

119.Economic shutdown

The Methods of Political Noncooperation

Rejection of Authority

120.Withholding or withdrawal of allegiance

121.Refusal of public support

122.Literature and speeches advocating resistance

Citizens’ Noncooperation with Government

123.Boycott of legislative bodies

124.Boycott of elections

125.Boycott of government employment and positions

126.Boycott of government depts., agencies, and other bodies

127.Withdrawal from government educational institutions

128.Boycott of government-supported organizations

129.Refusal of assistance to enforcement agents

130.Removal of own signs and placemarks

131.Refusal to accept appointed offi cials

132.Refusal to dissolve existing institutions

Citizens’ Alternatives to Obedience

133.Reluctant and slow compliance

134.Nonobedience in absence of direct supervision

135.Popular nonobedience

136.Disguised disobedience

137.Refusal of an assemblage or meeting to disperse

138.Sit-down

139.Noncooperation with conscription and deportation

140.Hiding, escape, and false identities

141.Civil disobedience of “illegitimate” laws

Action by Government Personnel

142.Selective refusal of assistance by government aides

143.Blocking of lines of command and information

144.Stalling and obstruction

145.General administrative noncooperation

146.Judicial noncooperation

147.Deliberate inefficiency and selective noncooperation by enforcement agents

148.Mutiny

Domestic Governmental Action

149.Quasi-legal evasions and delays

150.Noncooperation by constituent governmental units

International Governmental Action

151.Changes in diplomatic and other representations

152.Delay and cancellation of diplomatic events

153.Withholding of diplomatic recognition

154.Severance of diplomatic relations

155.Withdrawal from international organizations

156.Refusal of membership in international bodies

157.Expulsion from international organizations

The Methods of Nonviolent Intervention

Psychological Intervention

158.Self-exposure to the elements

159.The fast

a.Fast of moral pressure

b.Hunger strike

c.Satyagrahic fast

160.Reverse trial

161.Nonviolent harassment

Physical Intervention

162.Sit-in

163.Stand-in

164.Ride-in

165.Wade-in

166.Mill-in

167.Pray-in

168.Nonviolent raids

169.Nonviolent air raids

170.Nonviolent invasion

171.Nonviolent interjection

172.Nonviolent obstruction

173.Nonviolent occupation

Social Intervention

174.Establishing new social patterns

175.Overloading of facilities

176.Stall-in

177.Speak-in

178.Guerrilla theater

179.Alternative social institutions

180.Alternative communication system

Economic Intervention

181.Reverse Strike

182.Stay-in Strike

183.Nonviolent land seizure

184.Defiance of Blockades

185.Politically Motivated Counterfeiting

186.Preclusive Purchasing

187.Seizure of assets

188.Dumping

189.Selective patronage

190.Alternative markets

191.Alternative transportation systems

192.Alternative economic institutions

Political Intervention

193.Overloading of administrative systems

194.Disclosing identities of secret agents

195.Seeking imprisonment

196.Civil disobedience of “neutral” laws

197.Work-on without collaboration

198.Dual sovereignty and parallel government

Gene Sharp’s researched and catalogued these 198 methods and provided a rich selection of historical examples in his seminal work, The Politics of Nonviolent Action (3 Vols.) Boston: Porter Sargent, 1973.

Conceptualization of Nonviolence Prof. Dorcas Ettang

 

Conceptualisations of Nonviolence: An Introduction

Prof. Dorcas Ettang

Thank you very much for the opportunity to contribute to today's conversations and presentations. Over the next few weeks and months, nonviolence will be a theme we talk about a lot. My focus in this session is to introduce us to the fundamental conceptualisations of nonviolence and to highlight key questions that define this field.

To start, I would like to ask all of us to complete a quick survey. If you have your phone with you, please go to menti.com and type in the code on the screen. Alternatively, you can use your phone camera to scan the QR code to submit your responses. The question is simple: When you hear the word "nonviolence," what words or images come to mind? You can type in as many answers as you like.

Let’s wait a moment for the responses to start coming through on the screen...

Excellent, I see them arriving now. We see words like peace, harmony, emotional balance, empathy, and the transformation of conflict. Others are writing security, safety, togetherness, forgiveness, and tolerance. You'll notice that the word Gandhi is growing larger on the screen. In a word cloud, the larger the text, the more popular the response, so Mahatma Gandhi is clearly highly prominent in our collective understanding. I also see social justice, equality, …—which is wonderful to see! It means you view your peers here as nonviolent partners.

Thank you so much for these inputs. They perfectly set the stage for how we define this concept.

 

Defining Nonviolence: Three Dimensions

When we look closely at the literature, nonviolence is generally understood through three distinct lenses:

• First, it is a Philosophy and a Principle: It functions as a foundational worldview that completely rejects violence and commits to peaceful engagement. It serves as a personal moral compass guiding how an individual interacts with others.
• Second, it is a Deliberate Choice: Nonviolence means consciously choosing to resolve social and political conflicts without inflicting physical, psychological, or verbal harm. When faced with conflict, we always have a choice: we can choose violence, or we can actively choose nonviolence.
• Third, it is a Vehicle for Political Change: If we want to transform our communities or dismantle systems of oppression, nonviolence provides the framework to achieve that change without destroying society in the process.

 

Two Frameworks: Principled vs Strategic

As we dive into the research, you will find that the study and practice of nonviolence splits into two major strategic streams: Principled Nonviolence and Pragmatic or Strategic Nonviolence.

To understand how they differ, let us look at their core traits side-by-side:

Feature	Principled Nonviolence	Pragmatic / Strategic Nonviolence
Core Motive	Driven by morality, religion, and ethics.	Driven by utility, safety, and results.
Primary Question	"Is nonviolence right?"	"Is nonviolence effective?"
Core Thinkers	Mahatma Gandhi, Martin Luther King Jr., and pacifists.	Gene Sharp and modern civil resistance movements.
Ultimate Goal	Transforming relationships, opponents, and society.	Achieving a defined political or social objective.
View of the Opponent	Seeks to convert the opponent through moral clarity.	Seeks to pressure, isolate, and coerce the opponent.
Operational Focus	Adhering strictly to ethical foundations.	Planning highly effective tactical interventions.

---

The Difficult Questions

This distinction brings us to the hard questions you will explore during your upcoming group work.

Those who subscribe to Principled Nonviolence believe that violence is inherently wrong under any circumstance. It is a lifelong moral commitment.

On the other hand, those who practice Strategic Nonviolence choose it simply because they have seen the devastating impacts of violence and recognise that nonviolent tactics yield cleaner, better long-term results. They use it as a tool without necessarily committing to a lifetime of personal pacifism.

This raises deep structural questions:

• Do we need to commit to a life of nonviolence out of religious or moral duty?
• Or is it enough to treat nonviolence simply as an effective tool to resolve disputes?

Furthermore, what happens in extreme situations? What if armed groups or military forces actively attack your family or community? Do you still maintain a nonviolent stance?

These are the complex, real-world tensions we will unpack together over the course of this fellowship.

 

Gene Sharp's 198 Methods

So, if those on the principled end are asking, "Is nonviolence right?"—those on the strategic end are asking a fundamentally different question: "Is nonviolence effective?"

Can it actually bring about concrete transformation in our societies and our communities?

For political scientist Gene Sharp, nonviolent action is defined strictly as a technique. It is a technique used by people who completely reject passivity and submission, but who are actively engaged in a struggle.

Let us make one thing clear: nonviolence is not passive. We aren't just sitting down, folding our hands, and letting things happen to us. There is intense struggle involved. Nonviolent action allows us to actively wage conflict without resorting to physical violence.

Conflict itself is entirely normal. It is a natural part of our makeup as human beings and our structure as a society. We will always have conflict—whether it is between two communities, or between a government and its people. Nonviolent action is not an attempt to avoid or ignore that reality. Instead, it is a direct response to a very practical problem: How do we act effectively in politics, and how do we wield power effectively?

What you are looking at here is a list of the 198 methods of nonviolent action developed by Gene Sharp. He researched these tactics for decades, cataloguing real-world examples of how populations have successfully forced political change without taking up arms.

As you can see, his list covers an incredibly wide range of methods, which I will make available to everyone after this session. It includes things like:

• Symbolic Actions: Using drama, music, humorous skits, singing, parades, and public marches.
• Political Non-cooperation: Implementing popular boycotts of elections or the outright refusal of public support to corrupt officials.
• Economic Interventions: Executing stay-in strikes, lockouts, economic embargoes, and even nonviolent asset seizures.

When these methods are carefully planned, they work. For instance, the research shows how massive, coordinated civil resistance in places like Slovenia successfully mobilised citizens to remove a leader from power following widespread electoral corruption.

 Gandhi vs. Sharp

To summarise our frameworks before we jump into group work:

On one hand, we have Mahatma Gandhi at the forefront of the discourse. You will spend several dedicated sessions with Prof. Michael Sonnleitner delving deeply into Gandhian philosophy. For Gandhi, nonviolence is an intensely personal discipline rooted in truth, self-suffering, and a willingness to absorb harm rather than inflict it. It is an active discipline of love and courage.

On the other hand, we have Gene Sharp, the modern pragmatic thinker. For Sharp, nonviolence is not a moral lifestyle—it is a political technique used to protest, disrupt, and shift power dynamics.

 PART 2: INTERACTIVE Q&A SESSION

The true value of this fellowship lies in our mutual engagement. I want us to have plenty of time for our group discussion questions, but before we break out, let's take a few minutes to reflect together on these concepts. I would love to hear your thoughts, views, or perspectives.

Responding to Feedback on Strategic Isolation

Thank you so much for sharing that. It is incredibly powerful to hear your perspective, especially given the intense electoral environment you are experiencing right now.

You’ve raised a deeply challenging question that strikes at the exact boundary line between these two frameworks. You mentioned that while protests make sense as a form of pressure, the idea of "isolating" an opponent feels like a form of violence to you—almost like institutionalised bullying. That is a completely valid and profound critique.

To open our minds to how strategic theorists view this, let’s look at a concrete example: diplomatic or economic isolation. When an oppressive regime or a corrupt political figure is actively harming a population, strategic nonviolence says: "We will not physically attack this person. Instead, we will collectively refuse to look at them, refuse to serve them food, refuse to process their paperwork, and refuse to sit at the table with them."

From a strategic standpoint, this isn't meant to be personal bullying; it is a tactical removal of cooperation. Because a tyrant only has power if the population cooperates, isolating them effectively cuts off their power supply.

However, a principled pacifist might look at that same tactic and agree with you. They might say, "By socially freezing someone out, you are inflicting psychological harm, which violates the core principle of doing no harm."

This is precisely the kind of friction we want to explore. What do the rest of you think? Does strategically isolating a political oppressor cross the line into violence, or is it a necessary tool for justice? Let's open it up to the group.

 

Responding to a Question on Integrity vs Pragmatism

Thank you for that wonderful reflective point. I am so glad this presentation resonated with you.

You’ve hit on a massive tension in this field. You are wondering: Is it even possible to practice nonviolence effectively without accepting it as a deeply personal, ethical, or spiritual discipline? Your instinct is that people who claim to use nonviolence purely pragmatically might not truly be practising nonviolence at all, because it is simply too difficult a discipline to maintain without total inner integrity.

And you are absolutely right to point that out! In fact, this is one of the central questions I have prepared for our breakout groups.

History shows us exactly what you are fearing: when a group adopts nonviolent tactics purely for pragmatic reasons—such as a lack of weapons or resources—but lacks a deep moral commitment to the philosophy, the movement can break down very quickly. The moment things get tense, or the moment they acquire resources, they might easily abandon nonviolent tactics and shift toward physical violence.

True nonviolence requires immense self-restraint, self-awareness, and discipline. Your point is completely valid, and it highlights why pure pragmatism can be so volatile.

Example from The Gambia on Strategic Isolation

Thank you. That is an absolutely real-world example from The Gambia that perfectly addresses our earlier concern about isolation.

Look at what happened there in 2016. When the former president, Yahya Jammeh, lost the election, he initially conceded, but two days later reversed his decision and tried to cling to power after 22 years of brutal rule.

But what did the Gambian people do? They didn’t take to the streets with weapons. They practised a deliberate strategy of isolation. Even the military categorically stepped aside and told him they would not enforce his orders because he had already lost the election and conceded. The citizens engaged in what was beautifully described as a "silence culture"—a complete absence of cooperation. Everyone stayed away, leaving the regime with absolutely no societal pillars to lean on until regional forces arrived to ensure a peaceful transition.

There was no war. There was no bloodshed. That is a textbook example of Strategic Nonviolence working seamlessly to dismantle an oppressive structure. Thank you for grounding our theory in such powerful recent history.

Responding to a Critique Regarding Gene Sharp’s Binary Thinking

Thank you. I always appreciate your deep reading of these texts, and you’ve added an incredibly valuable layer to this discussion.

Gene Sharp is fundamentally a Western, structural thinker. Because of that, his framework is heavily binary—structuring the world into rigid "either/or" categories: you are either violent or nonviolent; you are either principled or pragmatic. As has been rightly noted, that is not how Gandhi thinks. Gandhi’s philosophy is holistic, fluid, and spiritual, making it difficult for a purely strategic thinker like Sharp to capture the depth of principled nonviolence fully.

The suggestion here is that we shouldn't view this as a binary choice—that a person or a movement can actually be both principled and pragmatic at the same time.

I welcome this point completely. The entire purpose of this fellowship is to trigger exactly these kinds of debates and to ask these difficult questions. The reason I categorise Gene Sharp as a modern-day, highly applicable thinker is that his catalogue offers concrete, well-structured tactical options that directly address the complex political systems and institutional governments we live under today. He takes the grand moral ideals of peace and translates them into an operational toolkit.

So, as we move forward into this fellowship, let us agree to disagree. The beauty of a space like this is that we can present diverse perspectives, debate different resources, and pressure-test these concepts.

We just saw in the Gambian example how strategic nonviolence operates effectively at the national level. But as another fellow reminded us, we must also look inward and ask the deep, personal questions: Can we truly be effective strategically if we lack the inner, principled discipline of nonviolence? Can we bridge the gap and be both?

Whether you approach these through a Western strategic lens or a global principled lens, these tactics remain highly relevant to modern-day political engagement, regardless of whether you are from the West or elsewhere in the world. Let’s use these conflicting viewpoints to fuel our discussions.

Deepening the Insight: Empathy and the Adversary

Thank you so much for that beautiful contribution. I really appreciate you bringing the perspective of the Trappist monk and author, Thomas Merton, into our space today.

Merton presents a profound and essential litmus test for true sincerity in practising nonviolence. He forces us to ask: Are we truly willing to learn something from our adversary? If a new truth is revealed to us by them, or through them, will we actually accept it? And are we willing to believe that our adversary is not entirely inhuman, even if they are wrong, and even if they are cruel?

This is a critical reflection. If our opponents see that we are completely incapable of listening with an open mind, then our nonviolence loses its moral authority. It has nothing left to say to the world.

As you rightly noted, this requires a deep inner spirituality—an openness to love, ethics, and morality that many find through religion or personal values. But the absolute deepest, hardest work of nonviolence is building that capacity for empathy with our adversary.

Your comment beautifully expands the open spirit we want to cultivate in each of us. It reminds me of a presentation I gave during last year's fellowship, where we explored deep-rooted African experiences of nonviolence. History is filled with cross-cultural resources showing that we have so much to learn, even from those who hold views that are entirely opposed to our own.

Responding to The Cost of Violence and the Reality of Safety

Thank you so much for grounding us in that reality.

When we look at nonviolence from a pragmatic safety perspective, the first thing an individual or a group must consider is the sheer consequences of the alternative. Violence claims lives. Violence destroys infrastructure, families, and societies.

When those devastating consequences are front and centre in your mind, choosing nonviolent action—and strategically pulling away from cooperation through isolation—becomes the most logical, protective path forward. It is a calculated measurement of cost: the human cost of violence is simply humongous compared to the transformative potential of nonviolence. Thank you for emphasising the critical issue of safety.

Let us take all these rich perspectives—from the tactical tools of  Gene Sharp, to the spiritual discipline of Gandhi and Thomas Merton, to the national realities of the Gambia and Nigeria—and bring them directly into our workshop groups.

I have prepared three core group discussion questions to guide your sessions.

As you discuss, remember: the goal is not to come back with one single, neatly packaged answer. The goal is to lean into the friction. We want you to engage in real debate, voice opposing views, and pressure-test how nonviolence functions in actuality. When your group reporter presents later, we want to hear a synopsis of your key dividing issues or core insights.

Here are your assignments:

• 1: Should nonviolence always be the morally preferred choice in the world today? Why or why not?
• 2: How should nonviolent movements face extreme state or military repression?
•  3: Should nonviolence be treated primarily as a tactical method of resistance, a core philosophy, or both? And why?

Let's open the breakout rooms, dive into the work, and I look forward to hearing your group synopses when we return. Thank you, everyone!