A Niebuhrian pacifism for an imperfect world
| Published date | 01 June 2021 |
| DOI | 10.1177/1755088220978996 |
| Date | 01 June 2021 |
| Author | Jeremy Moses |
https://doi.org/10.1177/1755088220978996
Journal of International Political Theory
2021, Vol. 17(2) 169 –184
© The Author(s) 2020
Article reuse guidelines:
sagepub.com/journals-permissions
DOI: 10.1177/1755088220978996
journals.sagepub.com/home/ipt
A Niebuhrian pacifism
for an imperfect world
Jeremy Moses
University of Canterbury, New Zealand
Abstract
This article considers the role that might be played by the political thought of Reinhold
Niebuhr in contemporary debates over pacifism. It begins with an overview of Niebuhr’s
changing position on pacifism, showing how his early commitment to anti-war principles
gradually faded over time and was replaced with a pragmatic approach to just war
thinking in his later life. The article then considers whether this drift away from pacifism
necessarily means that there is nothing in Niebuhrian Christian realism for contemporary
pacifist thought. Drawing on Niebuhr’s critique of perfectionist liberalism, it argues
that an imperfect and non-absolute pacifism that accepts the permanent possibility of
political violence but refuses to offer moral endorsement to such violence can offer a
viable political position in current debates on war and peace, particularly in opposition
to just war approaches.
Keywords
Christian realism, just war theory, pacifism, peace, Reinhold Niebuhr, violence
Introduction
The tensions between the ideal of peace and the apparent necessity of violence bear
down heavily upon us in a political context marked by the rise of racist, right wing poli-
tics and extreme division in many societies around the world. In the United States, the
most notable example of this trend, debates have raged over the legitimacy and efficacy
of using force and over the right moral and political strategies that may be deployed to
resist the rise of fascism (or, indeed, to repress the outbreaks of rebellion that have sprung
up against it). Central to these debates are contests over the legitimacy of violence as a
tool of resistance. Is the use of physical force ever justifiable in fighting such an enemy?
Or is it necessary to maintain a commitment to peaceful means? Can we take pacifism
Corresponding author:
Jeremy Moses, Department of Political Science and International Relations, University of Canterbury,
Private Bag 4800, Christchurch, South Island 8140, New Zealand.
Email: jeremy.moses@canterbury.ac.nz
978996IPT0010.1177/1755088220978996Journal of International Political TheoryMoses
research-article2020
Article
170 Journal of International Political Theory 17(2)
seriously in our current political and social context, or should the recent predominance
of just war thinking be maintained as we debate the appropriate responses to multiple
extreme human crises?
Reinhold Niebuhr’s thought is particularly pertinent in thinking through responses to
such questions. Niebuhr’s political theory was always suffused with equivocation and
oscillation in an attempt to navigate the choppy waters between our sinful nature and our
idealistic aspirations as human beings. His various stances on pacifism over the course
of his life are emblematic of this approach, indicating both a desire for a durable peace
and an abiding belief that responsible political action would sometimes require the use of
force. But this inconsistency should not be construed as theoretical weakness. On the
contrary, I will argue that Niebuhr’s equivocation on big questions of pacifism and politi-
cal violence is in fact the source of its enduring value.
James Childress, in one of the more detailed critiques of Niebuhr’s struggle with and
against pacifism, concludes with the suggestion that:
[A] pacifism could be developed on Niebuhr’s own grounds that would not be as vulnerable to
his attacks largely because it would repudiate liberalism’s extreme assumption that persuasion
is sufficient to effect social change. Such a position could start with the rule of nonviolence, as
Niebuhr must if violence is prima facie wrong. . . Such considerations would at least increase
the reluctance to depart from the rule of nonviolence. . . [and] would help to restore nonviolence
(as the rule: do violence to no man) to its rightful place as the starting point for thought about
violence. (Childress, 1974: 491)
It is the object of this article to attempt to respond to and develop Childress’ provocation,
while also building on Caleb Day’s (2020) recent work on the realist pacifism of Martin
Luther King and its relation to Niebuhr’s thought. In the first part I will explain Niebuhr’s
shifting position on pacifism, with a particular focus on some of the key published works
related to this. In the second part I will argue that pacifism can and should still be
embraced within a broadly “Niebuhrian” understanding of the world. It will bring
together elements of Niebuhr’s early embrace of pacifism with his later thought on trag-
edy and hope. The older Niebuhr, I will argue, unnecessarily conceded too much ground
to the use of force in his political thought and was too dismissive of the political function
of a pacifist ethos. This re-creation of a Niebuhrian pacifist ethos will seek to both
respond to and invert Niebuhr’s influential critique by showing how pacifism can be
embraced within a broadly realist political worldview. This is not, therefore, simply an
attempt to defend pacifism against Niebuhr’s criticisms; it is more about drawing upon
Niebuhr’s insights into the tragedies, ironies, and moral complexities of politics in order
to make the case for a politically robust and responsible pacifism.
Niebuhr’s pacifism and anti-pacifism
Niebuhr’s approach to questions of war and peace was variable from the earliest days of his
life as a student of theology and then a minister in the German Evangelical Synod of North
America. His first public forays into the issue came in response to the domestic challenges
faced by the German immigrant community in the United States during World War One.
Anxious to establish the patriotic credentials of the first generation German-American
To continue reading
Request your trial