Duvall, J. (2004). Outside view: liberation by the people.
The article is devoted to nonviolent behavior and its role in social conflict resolution. The key message is that there is not a case in the world’s history when violence reached greater results than nonviolent action. Stating the example of Gandhi, Polish dissidents, Filipinos, and others, the author explains how choosing non-violent opposition as a moral principle can help to succeed “in bringing down dictators”. The common idea that this article shares with the other articles is that nonviolent action should be used in any opposition as it is an effective and high moral principle. A new message is that the author mentions nine principles of how nonviolent actions can be successful in eliminating terrorism and creating new-generation nonviolent civilian movements, the purpose of which is to liberate people.
Merriman, H. (2008). Agents of change and nonviolent action. Сonservation Biology 22 (2), p. 241-2.
The article is devoted to nonviolent action and its role as leverage in conflict. The author claims that nonviolent action can help reach incredible results in society. Thus, the elimination of obedience patterns does not allow “the rulers to rule”, while nonviolent action creates a shift in people’s minds “at a collective level”. The US Civil Rights Movement, the Indian Independence Movement, and other examples show how the setting of clear objectives and documentation of victories promote this shift, where the purposes are achieved due to “hard work, creativity, and skillful political analysis”. The common message is that nonviolent action can induce real changes in modern society. The new message of the article is that people should use nonviolent action for “awakening people” to shift humanity’s course.
Moore, J. (2009). Extreme do-gooders – what makes them tick? Christian Science Monitor.
The article tries to explain why “extreme do-gooders” devote themselves to helping people often on account of their own lives. The author aims to prove that “social entrepreneurs” do not act out of “noble sacrifice”, but out of self-definition, money, etc. To support this point, the author states evidence of interviews conducted with modern social entrepreneurs whose doing good is biased by private motives. To oppose, the author chooses the example of generosity, which is a “unique social engagement” that is characteristic, in particular to American society, which donates more “than twice that of Britain”. This article shares the idea of the nature of doing good and the image of an “extreme do-gooder”. The new message in the article is that doing good cannot be “extreme”, it is a daily change that is exercised by ordinary people with high moral principles.
Tollefson, T. (1993). Is a hero really nothing but a sandwich? Utne Reader.
The author speculates on what a hero is with his/her qualities and characteristics. The key point is to define a hero. Tollefson describes a hero by stating that a hero “does something worth talking about”, is a man of word, induces change, leads a life that “deserves imitation”, etc. The author provides examples of heroes (Gandhi) and opposes them to fame-seekers (Madonna, Michael Jackson) with the purpose of differentiating a real hero from a fake one. The common idea that this article shares with the other sources is heroism as an act of doing good and its role in bringing in change in society. The innovative idea of this article is to reveal that in modern American societies the popular heroes are not really heroic as cases like “political incorrectness” prove that.