At first glance, MMA, rape, bar fights, toy guns, videogames like Call of Duty, military bases and battlefields appear unrelated; however, a closer examination of these belligerent and dehumanizing social practices reveals that they are intimately connected on what some activists refer to as the ‘continuum of violence’ (Cockburn, 2012). In order to see and understand the relationship between these seemingly separate social practices it is important to apply a critical gender-based lens. Without such lens the forces, causalities and connections between them remain hidden behind an ideological veil that reduces brutalizing and dominating practices to empty notions of, “entertainment,” “pleasure,” “safety,” “security” and “protection.”

As a conceptual framework, the continuum of violence allows us to see the relationship between belligerent social structures such as, warfare, prisons and violence against women during ‘peacetime.’ The continuum permits for the elevation of both causality and influence between phenomena, which exist in a state of constant generation and movement along the continuum. In the words of Cockburn, “violence in our everyday cultures, deeply gendered, predisposes societies to accept warfare as normal. And the violence of militarization and war, profoundly gendered, spills back into everyday life and increases the quotient of violence in it” (para. 2).

Drawing on her research pertaining to women antiwar activist organizations between 2003-2007, Cockburn concludes that the root causes of warfare revolve around the following three forces: (i) capitalism, (ii) nationalism as well as the often ignored force of (iii) patriarchy. As capitalist ideology and its inherent social relations would have it, greed, corporate objectives linked to the maximization of profits at the expense of human life and the environment combined with outright competition for resources and markets form a major root cause. Alongside capitalism, nationalist claims to land and a constant struggle geared towards achieving religious and ethnic superiority lie at the foundation of warfare. Finally, Cockburn draws specific attention to the forgotten and pervasive power of patriarchy. As mentioned by Cockburn, “They’re [women antiwar activist organizations] not afraid of that old fashioned word. Gender relations that involve male supremacy, violent hierarchies of men and complicit, compliant or victimized femininities – patriarchy seems to them to be a cause of militarism and war. Not in the same immediate sense as those other causes of war, but present as a root cause, a predisposing factor” (para. 4).

As an incredibly powerful historical force, patriarchy assists us in the course of understanding the reasons and processes that lie behind the transformation of boys and men into a form of labour power capable and willing to conduct state sanctioned murder. Put another way, soldiering is a learned process that systematically instrumentalizes mental processes and human behaviours that turn otherwise nonmilitary minds and bodies into weapons of domination and control. As a way to combat the terror of male violence at home and abroad Cockburn points out, “Women find themselves looking at everyday cultures of violence, and the part they play in making actual war, armed conflict, thinkable and do-able” (para. 5) in the first place.

The continuum of violence allows us to see the extreme simplicity and naivety that exists in the belief that “minor” thoughts and actions of violence have absolutely nothing to do with “major” thoughts and actions of violence. Drawing on the work of Cynthia Enloe (as cited in Cockburn, 2012: para. 6), Cockburn states, “militarization is much, much more than the obvious bristly things – helicopter gunships and kalashnikovs. It’s threaded intimately through our lives – it’s in the videos and films we watch, in the way products are styled and marketed, the language we use without thinking.”

The continuum of violence allows us to see, for instance, that the Israeli/U.S. openair slaughter of Palestinian men, women and children is intimately connected to acts of violence and aggression during ‘peacetime.’ Put another way, the toxic masculinity and violation of a woman’s body during ‘peacetime’ operates in and through the same patriarchal logic of gendered militarism that informs the extermination of innocent Palestinians. As a “violence-generating social order,” (Cockburn, 2012: para. 15) patriarchy forms the backbone of war, militarism and violence against women during ‘peacetime’ – all of which raises an important realization: the abolition of war, militarism and violence against women is contingent upon our individual and collective ability to abolish, not only capitalism and nationalism in the case of war, but also, the forgotten force of patriarchy.

While walking up to the front gates of a military base and closing it down singlehandedly might be desirable it will never happen. But do not be dissuaded as the continuum of violence shows us that there are multiple points of intervention along the continuum. Whether one or a collective intervenes at the level of the home, community or battlefield itself, all interventions work towards reducing the harms that emanate from a violence-generating social order.

From an anti-militarist standpoint, the objective here revolves around weaking a highly organized violence-generating social order. (Un)fortunately, there are multiple points of intervention, so get organized and start intervening! Without intervenors the violence-generating systems such as the military and the violence-generating social order of patriarchy solidify and gain additional momentum on their path towards the maximization of domination, control, and if left unchecked, our complete annihilation.

While taking on the ‘big institutions’ of our time might be a desirable entry point, Cockburn reminds us that women antiwar activist organizations always prioritize individual survivors. In the words of Cockburn, “The individual survivor matters to them, more than anything else. That’s where their politics begin” (para. 11). Put another way, survivors of male violence (e.g., rape survivors, war veterans, formerly incarcerated people, etc.) cannot heal alone. We need each other on both ends of the spectrum to challenge the root causes of war, militarism and violence against women as well as to heal from the wounds of the everyday battles fought under capitalist, nationalist and patriarchal conditions. 

Instead of turning the light switch off, Cockburn encourages us to turn the light switch on through a gender lens and see the ways in which specific forms of masculinity distort and divide us from ourselves, each other and Mother Earth. In the words of Cockburn, “I think what we need above all, our fundamental need in both movements [mainstream mixed and women antiwar activist organizations], is a way of thinking, a theory of violence, if you like, that offers actual possibilities of violence reduction wherever violence occurs” (para. 17).

For Cockburn, the continuum of violence provides us all with a framework that maps out the intimate relationship between time (pre-war, post-war, ‘peacetime’), place (home, community, warzone) and scale (open handed slap, fist, boot, gun to prisons, missiles and nuclear bombs) – as it’s all related!

As a strategy, the continuum of violence permits for both a politically insightful conceptualization as well as an entry point against a multitude of ‘minor’ and ‘major’ causal factors that work in and through each other to colonize our minds, time, energy and skills. Without our minds, time, energy and skills the violence-generating system of the military and the violence-generating social order of patriarchy have nowhere to plant and grow their seeds of destruction.

It is up to us individually and collectively to push back against the normalization of violence wherever it rears its ugly head. Together we can struggle against and breakdown the belligerent forces that work against humanity and construct a world based on a peace-generating system and social order that truly recognizes and observes the principles of human dignity, respect and worth – not only ideologically, but also, materially.

---

References

Cockburn, Cynthia. “Don’t talk to me about war. My life’s a battlefield.” Open Democracy, 25 Nov 2012, https://www.opendemocracy.net/en/5050/dont-talk-to-me-about-war-my-lifes-battlefield/. Accessed 7 January 2025.

5 Steps to Social Change Model:

The following steps constitute a general guide for anyone interested in engaging in social change on both a local and global level. Upon closer analysis of day-to-day life one may come to the realization that the established structures meant to “take care of things” are in fact not doing a very good job (e.g., prevention of COVID-19, climate chang, expanding military budgets, war, genocide, high cost of living, homelessness, poverty, mass incarceration, student debt, collapsing healthcare system, mental health and addiction, true Indigenous reconciliation, racism, sexism, homophobia, transphobia and the list goes on). This is called “failure of established channels” (“Frameworks for Social Change Movements” n.d.). At this point, we have an individual and collective choice to make: (a) remain politically disengaged, which is a form of consent for the state of injustice to continue or (b) engage with the grassroots political process meant to bring about progressive change in the face of injustice.

Step #1: Organize

Bring community members together and cultivate relational power, which is the ability to unify and act in accordance with the common good (Cox n.d.). According to Hussain and Kohn (2024), “[…] the common good is best understood as part of an encompassing model for practical reasoning among the members of a political community” (para. 2). Hussain and Kohn add, “The model takes for granted that citizens stand in a ‘political’ or ‘civic’ relationship with one another and that this relationship requires them to create and maintain certain facilities on the grounds that these facilities serve certain common interests” (para. 2). As observed in Hussain and Kohn’s conceptualization, the common good is based on the recognition that human beings are relational and responsible for creating conditions conducive to human flourishing for all. Conversely, if conditions or social organizations arise that are inconducive to human flourishing it is the responsibility of the community to question, challenge and repurpose such organization so that the development of the community expresses the will of its people. The will of the people is the most powerful social force known to human kind and can achieve great things when organized, concentrated and directed towards a specific vision (e.g., abolitionist movement, Civil Rights Movement, Women’s Suffrage, Anti-Apartheid Movement, Black Lives Matter, Labour Movement and the LGBTQ+ Rights Movement to name a few).

It is important to note that under conditions of “free” market capitalism and hyper-consumerism the notion of the common good is attacked and gradually replaced with an identity rooted in hyper-individualism and consumer subjectivity. As individuals with consumer identities human life takes on a whole new purpose – that is, accumulation with no end. In the consumer mind the meaning of education and labour itself is reduced to a means of purchasing products sold to us on the “free” market. Furthermore, the ability to consume is equated with induvial “success” and the inability to consume is equated with individual “failure.” In the “free” market mindset our purpose is that of consumer and our political power is replaced with inflated and mythological notions of consumer power. In the words of the American hip-hop group Public Enemy, “DON’T BELIEVE THE HYPE.”

Without conscious awareness and resistance against these ideological forces we are transformed into neoliberal subjects that live and breathe whatever the corporate world conceptualizes as desirable, entertaining and fulfilling. As discussed by Martinez and Garcia (n.d.), alongside liberating corporate capital, cutting public expenditures for social services, deregulation and privatization, neoliberalism works to abolish the notion of the common good and replace it with a completely atomistic form of existence. In the neoliberal mind the money-nexus is the only worthwhile relation to enter while all other relations are defined as a “waste of time.”

From this standpoint, organization is not only about bringing members of a community together and cultivating relational power, but also, an organization of individual and collective values and priorities. Without a clear understanding of our values and priorities there is a good chance that we will be swept away by the fantasies propagated by the dictatorship of consumerism – that is, a form of rule that never stops preaching through its main source of public communication: advertising. As pointed out by USC Dornsife (2023), “We’ve gone from being exposed to about 500 ads a day back in the 1970s to as many as 5,000 a day today.” USC Dornsife adds, “5.3 trillion display ads are shown online each year” – which is an invasion of our individual and collective psyche. Instead of attacking those who work for an advertising industry worth upwards of $1 trillion (Narayanan 2024), we ought to ask: Under what conditions do we as a society give up our creative talents to an industry bent on getting people to “shop till they drop?” Is this the best use of our individual and collective talents or is this the byproduct of economic coercion? If so, the question remains: Irrespective of the industry that pays us for our creativity, talents and time, how do we reclaim what has been stolen from us?

Step #2: Listen

Weinstein and Itzchakov (2021) observe, “Listening is like a muscle that requires training.” According to Cox (n.d.), it is important to learn how to listen to each other and at the same time discover the source of individual and communal discontent. Cox observes, “We spot issues of social injustice that make people’s lives difficult but which they feel powerless to do anything about.” People only feel powerless when they feel isolated in their concerns and lived experiences. One way to break the spell of powerlessness is to create space for people to speak their truth and ensure that they are not alone in their desire and struggle for social change. Weinstein and Itzchakov (2021) observe, “Listening can mean many things. But it comes down to giving others a safe space to have their voice heard and understood, while also conveying valuing, and a non-judgmental approach. Evidence […] suggests that high-quality listening encourages a sense of self-expression, authentic exploration, self-initiative, and relational valuing.” Through the process of creating space, listening and understanding we unlock the door to deeper human bonds and a socio-political connection capable of bringing about progressive changes in our communities.

The longstanding system of divide and conquer has been used against us for far too long. It is time to unite and push back against a socio-economic system that places profits above a growing list of communal concerns e.g., global warming, genocide, war, poverty, homelessness, human trafficking, male violence against women, low wages, student debt, precarious work, unemployment, cost of living, mental illness, etc. In addition to these concerns The King Center (n.d.) adds that we must come together as a means of defeating the “Triple Evils of POVERTY, RACISM and MILITARISM” – that is, forms of violence that feed each other in an endless cycle of repression and violence. In the words of The King Center, “They are interrelated, all-inclusive, and stand as barriers to our living in the Beloved Community. When we work to remedy one evil, we affect all evils.”

For social change to occur Weinstein and Itzchakov (2021) observe the importance of fostering “relationships characterized by mutual understanding, valuing and respect.” Weinstein and Itzchakov add, “The bedrock of these relationships is meaningful and genuine dialogue about values, goals, and strategies for overcoming differences.” It is worth mentioning that initiating a conversation with an ally is a completely different experience in comparison to engaging in a conversation with someone that holds a different perspective on a particular issue. With the latter in mind, Weinstein and Itzchakov state, “Good listening lays the groundwork for discussions where the speaker, responding to the listeners’ cues, feels open, safe, non-defensive, close, and connected to the listener. These internal experiences help speakers overcome natural instincts to stick to their beliefs and reaffirm or bolster worldviews at any cost.” With respect to listening and social change, consider the following key questions: How do we encourage people to listen? What does it look like to be listened to, and how do we teach people to do it (ibid)? What else do we need to do alongside listening in order for progressive change to manifest versus the chronic ailment of socio-political complacency?

Finally, Jodi Stark (2022) from the David Suzuki Foundation adds, “We must strive to understand each other rather than push to be ‘right,’ even when we’re certain our points of view are correct. And we must be more willing to see things from varied perspectives, learn that multiple truths can coexist and admit when we’re wrong or that an alternative idea might work.”

Step #3: Plan

At this point in the social change process it is vital to brainstorm a list of strategies and tactics in order to achieve your final objectives. Cox (n.d.) maintains that research is a vital part of this stage as is knowledge and the creation of alternatives to the status quo. As a means of moving things forward Cox suggests three planning strategies: (1) break problems down into bitesize winnable issues, (2) identify solutions and a target decision-maker and (3) work out what actions you need to take to win. In the words of Cox, “We do this to work out how to channel anger into constructive action, to judge whether the effort is worth it, and to work out the best tactics.”

Step #4: Act

According to Cox (n.d.), the acting step is all about direct participation, which includes creativity, having fun and finding ways to transform the heart of those bent on reproducing the status quo. In the words of Cox, “The ‘reaction’ we seek is an invitation to mutually respectful and accountable dialogue in the pursuit of change, social justice and the common good.”

Step #5: Negotiate

At some point in the social change process you will need to negotiate an outcome. According to Cox (n.d.), “Sustainable change is negotiated and sustained through accountable relationships with decision-makers. Communities participating in decision-making contributes to the common good.”

Resistance to Change

By Seek The Alternatives (STA)

As noted by Vago (2019), “In the modern world, situations of resistance to change are much more numerous than situations of acceptance. Members of a society can always find justification, in some more or less practical and rational terms, for active resistance to change.” As a means of effective preparation for social change it is important to study and understand the various forms of resistance to change that you may encounter. Studying and understanding these forms of resistance to change may provide you with insights that may reshape your thinking, tactics and strategies in correspondence to the five steps of social change outlined in the first section. Consider the following forms of resistance to change, which are divided into four key areas: social, psychological, cultural and economic factors (as outlined in Vago 2019):

Social factors

(a)Vested Interests

At times, social change is resisted and prevented by people or groups who have something to lose, for instance, power, status or wealth (Vago 2019). These factors are very powerful and will move people to resist progressive changes. The question here is: How will you engage with people or groups of this type? How will you get them to see that the changes you are struggling for are good for them, their family and community? Is it possible to make allies out of those often declared our “enemies?”

(b)Social class

In the words of Vago (2019), “In highly stratified societies, people are expected to obey and take orders from those in superior positions of authority or power. The prerogatives of the upper strata are jealously guarded, and attempts to infringe upon them by members of lower socioeconomic groups are often resented and repulsed” (232). It is important to note that social stratification does not only belong to what one might refer to as a traditional society. Social stratifications exist in all sorts of societies, which means that there is always potential for an abuse of power. Irrespective of the type of society those in power always have a vested interest in maintaining the status quo.

(c)Ideological resistance

According to Vago (2019), “Resistance to change through law on ideological grounds is quite prevalent” (232). In order to truly appreciate the power of ideological resistance it is important to offer an effective definition. According to British literary theorist, Terry Eagleton (as quoted in Cole 2019: para. 6), “Ideology is a system of concepts and views which serves to make sense of the world while obscuring the social interests [original italics] that are expressed therein, and by its completeness and relative internal consistency tends to form a closed system [original italics] and maintain itself in the face of contradictory or inconsistent experience.”

A clear-cut example of ideology at work lies in the well-known company Samsung’s value statement, which reads: “Our values are at the heart of everything we do. We follow five key principles that embody our commitment to people, excellence, change, integrity and co-prosperity. Our goal is to continue growing, innovating and challenging the status quo, to turn our values into action every day” (Samsung). At first glance, the value statement paints a picture in your mind e.g., Samsung = A Better World For All. However, a deeper examination reveals that Samsung plays nice in fields beyond electronics, finance, engineering and construction. According to Kanoria (2020), Samsung is directly involved in the manufacturing of military technology. In the words of Valle (2022), “Billed as promoting peace and stability, Samsung military manufacturer, Techwin, is the South Korean manufacturer’s defence branch. It makes surveillance, aeronautics, automation, and weapons technology. Since its launch into the defence industry in 1983, Samsung Techwin has developed and produced artillery systems like the 155mm self-propelled Howitzer M109A2, K9 Thunder, K10 ammunition resupply vehicle, fire directions center vehicles, amphibious assault vehicles and other weapons” (para. 1). Needless to say, military commodities and the fear and destruction they induce remain hidden behind Samsung’s emphasis on “commitment to people,” “excellence,” “integrity” and “challenging the status quo.” If anything, Samsung is reproducing the status quo and doing it under the ideological banner of challenging it.

(d)Organized opposition

In the words of Vago (2019), “Occasionally, widespread individual resistance to change may become mobilized into organized opposition, which can assume formal organizational structures or be channeled through a social movement, political action committees, or lobbyists” (233). Vago adds, “In modern societies, with their multiplicity of informal and formal organizations often in conflict with each other, a variety of new organizations have developed to combat specific threats to the status quo” (233). Some examples of these regressive organizations include REAL Women of Canada, Aryan Nations, Heritage Front, Canadian Liberty Net, Church of the Creator, and the Identity Church Movement (ibid). These are all examples of organizations that attempted to resist progressive social change within the Canadian context.

Psychological factors

(a)Habit

Vago (2019) maintains, “[…] habit is a barrier to change. Once a habit is established, its operation often becomes satisfying to the individual [or group] (233).” Vago elaborates that customs are extremely powerful social forces that could manifest in resistance to societal change. When it comes to confronting the forces of customs, education might be your best tool; otherwise, entrenched values, attitudes and behaviours form a serious barrier to societal progress.

(b)Motivation

Motivational factors are directly linked to the habits and customs discussed in the previous section. According to Vago (2019), “[…] in some cultures religious beliefs offer motivations to certain kinds of change, whereas in other cultures these motivations centre on the preservation of the status quo” (233). Vago adds, “Other kinds of motivations tend to be universal, or nearly universal, in that they cut across societies and cultures. Examples of these motivations include the desire for prestige or for economic gain, and the wish to comply with friendship obligations. Changes that may threaten the desire for economic gain or the attraction of prestige and high status will in general be considered threatening and likely resisted” (234). In other words, cultural forces that exist within the superstructure may work to resist social change, particularly, when the change being sought after threatens elite interests.

(c)Ignorance

In the words of Vago (2019), “Ignorance is another psychological factor generally associated with resistance to change. At times, ignorance goes hand in hand with fear of the new. Ignorance can also be a factor in noncompliance with laws designed to reduce discriminatory practices” (234). When it comes to breaking down ignorance, research and public education might be one of the more effective tools in your social change toolbox.

(d)Selective perception

According to Vago (2019), “Law, by design and intent, tends to be universal. The perception of the intent of the law, however, is selective and varies with socioeconomic, cultural, and demographic variables” (234). Vago adds, “The unique pattern of people’s needs, attitudes, habits, and values derived through socialization determines what they will selectively attend to, what they will selectively interpret, and what they will selectively act upon” (234). 

(e)Moral development

According to Vago (2019), “To a great extent, obedience to the law stems from a sense of moral obligation, which is the product of socialization. Only relatively recently, however, has there been some awareness of moral codes that are not necessarily linked to conventional external standards of right and wrong behaviour, but represent internally consistent principles by which people govern their lives” (234). The following insight draws particular attention to moral theories such as Kohlberg’s Stages of Moral Development. According to McLeod (2025), Kohlberg’s stages can be broken down into the following: (1) Preconvention Level (childhood), (2) Conventional Level (Adolescence and Adulthood) and (3) Postconventional Level (Advanced Moral Reasoning). As pointed out by McLeod, humans contain the potential to develop their moral reasoning, which means moving from obedience and conformity to authority to a stage of social contract and universal ethical principles. Point being, in the final stage people are able to act on principles directly linked to the greater good of society, which may entail disobeying authority or unjust laws. While Postconventional thinkers may assist in bringing about social change those stuck in a Preconventional or Conventional mindset may in fact hinder the process. The question here remains: How can we assist Preconventional and Conventional thinkers in their moral development?

Cultural factors

(a)Fatalism

According to Vago (2019), “Fatalism refers to feelings of resignation or powerless. People who are fatalistic perceive themselves as lacking control over their lives and, for example, believe that everything that happens to them is caused by God or evil spirits. Such a fatalistic outlook undoubtedly results in resistance to change, for change is seen as human-initiated rather than having a divine origin” (235).

(b)Ethnocentrism

In the words of Vago (2019), “Ethnocentrism often constitutes a bulwark against change in that it encourages groups to consider themselves ‘superior’ to others. Feelings of superiority about one’s group are likely to make people unreceptive to the ideas and methods used in other groups” (235). With this in mind, the question remains: How can we breakdown a sense of ‘superiority and open people or groups up to constructive dialogue?’”

(c)Incompatibility

According to Vago (2019), “Resistance to change is often due to the presence in the target group of material and systems that are, or are considered to be, incompatible with the new proposal” (235) e.g., a proposed law, rule or policy that is incompatible with a custom or habit within a particular cultural group. This may increase the degree of resistance to social change.

(d)Superstition

In the words of Vago (2019), “Superstition is defined as an uncritical acceptance of a belief that is not substantiated by facts. Nevertheless, people may act on the basis of these beliefs” (236), which may generate resistance to certain types of social changes.

Economic factors

According to Vago (2019), “Even in affluent societies, limited economic resources constitute a barrier to changes that might otherwise be readily adopted. For instance, in Canada, almost everyone would readily accept the desirability of more effective controls on pollution, cheaper and more convenient systems of public transportation, effective welfare programs, and improvements in our systems of health and education. The fact that changes in these areas come very slowly is a matter of not only priorities but also cost. Cost and limited economic resources is a society in effect provide a source of resistance to change” (236).

“Change does not roll in on the wheels of inevitability, but comes through continuous struggle” – Martin Luther King Jr. (1929-1968).

References

Christiansen, Jonathan. “Four Stages of Social Movements.” EBSCO, 2024, https://www.ebsco.com/research-starters/social-sciences-and-humanities/four-stages-social-movements. Accessed 21 December 2025.

Cole, Nicki L. “Theories of Ideology.” ThoughtCo, 3 July 2019, https://www.thoughtco.com/ideology-definition-3026356. Accessed 21 December 2025.

Cox, Jonathan. “5 Steps to Social Change: Communities Organizing for Power, Social Justice & the Common Good.” Citizens UK, n.d., https://chcymru.org.uk/cms-assets/legacy/5_steps_to_social_change.pdf. Accessed 20 December 2025.

“Frameworks for Social Change Movements.” World Animal Net, n.d., https://worldanimal.net/social-change/31-uncategorised/159-frameworks-for-social-change-movements. Accessed 21 December 2025.

Hussain, Waheed and Kohn, Margaret. “The Common Good.” The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Fall 2024 Edition), Edward N. Zalta & Uri Nodelman (eds.), https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/fall2024/entries/common-good/. Accessed 20 December 2025.

Kanoria, Anurag. “Did You Know Samsung Has A Military Department? Medium, 3 September 2020, https://medium.com/an-idea/mind-blowing-facts-about-samsung-they-have-military-department-80be1c69ca71#:~:text=Samsung%20Techwin%20is%20the%20Korean,when%20combined%20with%20K10%20Ammunition. Accessed 21 December 2025.

Martinez, Elizabeth and Garcia, Arnoldo. “What is Neoliberalism?” Corp Watch, n.d., https://www.scribd.com/document/242713349/Definition-Of-Neoliberalism. Accessed 20 December 2025.

McLeod, Saul. “Kohlberg’s Stages of Moral Development.” Simply Psychology, 16 October 2025, https://www.simplypsychology.org/kohlberg.html. Accessed 22 December 2025.

Narayanan, Aparna. “Advertising Industry To Hit $1 Trillion, Dominated By The New ‘Big 5.’” Investor’s Business Daily, 9 December 2024, https://www.investors.com/news/advertising-industry-to-hit-1-trillion-dominated-by-the-new-big-5/#:~:text=The%20advertising%20industry%20is%20expected%20to%20exceed,Almost%2077%25%20of%20total%20advertising%20in%202029. Accessed 23 December 2025.

Samsung. “About us.” Samsung, n.d., https://www.samsung.com/us/about-us/brand-identity/brand-story/. Accessed 21 December 2025.

Stark, Jodi. “Listening as a form of movement building.” David Suzuki Foundation, 21 March 2022, https://davidsuzuki.org/story/listening-as-a-form-of-movement-building/#:~:text=~%20Emma%20Jackson,a%20fundamental%20injustice%20is%20occurring. Accessed 21 December 2025.

The King Center. “The King Philosophy – Nonviolence365.” The King Center, n.d., https://thekingcenter.org/about-tkc/the-king-philosophy/. Accessed 21 December 2025.

USC Dornsife. “Thinking vs Feeling: The Psychology of Advertising.” USC Dornsife, 17 November 2023, https://appliedpsychologydegree.usc.edu/blog/thinking-vs-feeling-the-psychology-of-advertising#:~:text=The%20Number%20of%20Ads%20We,those%20on%20a%20yearly%20basis. Accessed 23 December 2025.

Weinstein, Netta and Itzchakov, Guy. “The Significance of Listening Well: Why the Listener is at the Heart of Social Agency.” Torch: The Oxford Research Centre in the Humanities, 13 October 2021, https://www.torch.ox.ac.uk/article/the-significance-of-listening-well-why-the-listener-is-at-the-heart-of-social-agency. Accessed 21 December 2025.

Vago, Steven et al. Law and Society. Fifth Canadian Edition, Routledge Taylor & Francis Group, 2018.

Valle, Orvelin. “The military department you didn’t know Samsung had.” The Mighty, 5 December 2022, https://www.wearethemighty.com/intel/samsung-military-department/. Accessed 21 December 2025.

“Resistance is the act of not surrendering oneself to systems with which one does not agree. Rebellion is the act of trying to overcome that system and produce another one. There can be no rebellion without resistance, with resistance being the first test for people toward developing an agenda of rebellion. To move from being a person in society to resistance and then to rebellion requires elements of transformation.” – From Vijay Prashad’s 2022 book Struggle Makes Us Human Edited by Frank Barat

While the radical transformation of a dictator’s heart—or any anti-democratic minded leader for that matter—would be an ideal situation, there is no precedent for such fantastical thinking. According to Tim Hjersted, there is another way and the good news is it contains historical precedent: nonviolent resistance (e.g., American Civil Rights Movement, ANC’s fight against South Africa’s apartheid regime, Solidarity movement in Poland against Communist Party hardliners, Philippine People Power Revolution against Ferdinand Marcos). If you want to bring about social change consider planning a nonviolent strategy that involves withdrawing support from the pillars of society that repressive regimes require to rule over the masses. In the words of Hjersted, “[…] nonviolent resistance has never depended on touching the hearts of tyrants. It succeeds by making tyranny unsustainable.”

Whether or not the repressive regime has a conscience social change can be initiated and achieved through the process of dismantling all the institutional and labour support (e.g., finance, media, police, military, etc.) that the regime in question requires to maintain control and dominance. Conversely, the use of violence against the regime plays right into a repressive regime’s overall strategy. Once violence is initiated as a tactic of social change the regime in question has a justification to clamp down even harder. The power of nonviolent political action does not depend on the heart, feelings or capacity of the regime in question; but rather, the conscience, consciousness, organization, planning and commitment to question and fundamentally disobey business as usual practices.

Dismantling the governing infrastructure from within leaves the regime in question with no other choice but to admit defeat. Once the regime’s apparatus and legitimacy is removed the carpet is pulled from under and plans for a new government structure and subsequent cooperation can be consciously reinstituted. Ultimately, the power resides in the masses – that is, the intelligent and hardworking people that make up the essence of every single industry within a given society. Think about it in practical terms. Without workers willing to fulfill the role and responsibilities of a soldier, bank teller or engineer, for instance, there is no army, bank or weapons manufacturer. All of these industries depend on worker obedience. Everyday people who show up to work constitute the heart of the entire socio-economic political system. If you want social change, carve out a collective vision, educate, organize, plan and make a commitment to the virtue of individual and collective disobedience. Succinctly stated, if obedience is the master’s greatest weapon, disobedience is the slave’s greatest counter-tactic.

As outlined in the work of Tim Hjersted, there are at least four strategies awaiting labour organization: (1) economic disruption, (2) defection of regime pillars, (3) backfire effects & institutional pressure and (4) mass non-cooperation making systems ungovernable. Below is a brief summary of each strategy:

(1) Economic disruption

Whether we are talking about boycotts or strikes, Hjersted is clear, none of these strategies rely on the regime’s conscience, feelings or capacity. Economic pressure is a force to be reckoned with and will generate a massive blow to any anti-democratic regime attempting to maintain power and control. As a case in point, Hjersted states, “When workers strike, production stops. When consumers boycott, profits fall. When communities practice economic non-cooperation, local economies seize up. These are mechanical consequences, not moral ones.” Hjersted adds, “A regime can be utterly amoral and still feel the pain of economic collapse.”

(2) Defection of regime pillars

It is a fact of the socio-economic and political structure: regimes depend on various “pillars of support.” Without institutions and individual people (e.g., police, bureaucrats, corporations, religion and the military) to carry out the commands of the regime in question the regime is rendered powerless. In the words of Hjersted, “Nonviolent resistance works by peeling away these pillars one by one. When police are asked to brutalize peaceful protesters, some refuse. When bureaucrats are ordered to implement unjust policies, some resign. When business leaders see the writing on the wall, some withdraw cooperation. When judges face national scrutiny, some find their spine. When soldiers are commanded to fire on their own people, some defect.” Hjersted adds, “When a critical mass of these pillars begin to crack, the whole structure becomes unstable.”

(3) Backfire effects & institutional pressure

A regime’s tactics can backfire on them and generate pressure that leads to change. For instance, when an anti-democratic regime uses violence against peaceful protesters sympathy and support from other local and global parties arises – that is, a movement from a so-called neutral position to a potentially outspoken position against repression. As discussed by Hjersted, “International observers, allied governments, religious institutions, business interests, and domestic political actors who prefer stability all face pressure to intervene when violence against nonviolent protesters becomes visible and sustained.” Hjersted adds, “This isn’t primarily about their moral sensibilities – it’s about the political costs of being associated with brutal repression.”

(4) Mass non-cooperation making systems ungovernable

At the level of mass non-cooperation the entire socio-economic and political system comes to a grinding halt. As observed by Hjersted, “The system depends on compliance.” Under such conditions citizens refuse to obey unjust laws, taxpayers stop paying their taxes and various officials stop following the regime’s commands. At this point, it is game over for the anti-democratic regime in question. Structures fall because everyday people refuse to make society functional for the regime in question. This is people power. In the words of Hjersted, ultimately, “[t]he question is whether we can make resistance widespread and disruptive enough that crushing it becomes impossible – even though they [the regime in question] will try.

“Activists are human beings who have confidence, who feel confident enough to resist adverse social forces and to try to overcome them, to transform the world.” – From Vijay Prashad’s 2022 book Struggle Makes Us Human Edited by Frank Barat

“Part of being political is not to run away from the people but to draw the people into confrontation with the present toward the future.” – From Vijay Prashad’s 2022 book Struggle Makes Us Human Edited by Frank Barat

Reference: Hjersted, Tim. “Why Nonviolent Resistance Doesn’t Require Your Opponent to Have a Conscience.” Tim Hjersted’s Substack, 31 January 2026, https://znetwork.org/znetarticle/why-nonviolent-resistance-doesnt-require-your-opponent-to-have-a-conscience/. Accessed 2 February 2026.