Violence In King's 'The Ballot Or The Bullet'

Violence has been a highly controversial topic in philosophical debate. There has been extensive debate about the concept of violence such as what is violence, what constitutes as violence, and what is the appropriate response to violence. Despite the extensive debate, the concept of violence is still unclear; there is no universal concept or idea for violence. This paper will address the concern about what is the appropriate response to violence.

The present account will do the following: (1) analyze a passage from Martin Luther King, Junior’s “Letter from Birmingham,” (2) compare King’s argument to Malcolm X’s “The Ballot or the Bullet,” and (3) express a position in relation to these two arguments. In order to preserve as much of the author’s

intentions as possible I will present their individual arguments in their entirety before evaluating them.
In “Letter from Birmingham,” Martin Luther King, Junior writes:
Nonviolent direct action seeks to create such a crisis and establish such a creative tension that a community that has consistently refused to negotiate is forced to confront the issue. It seeks so to dramatize the issue that is can no longer be ignored. I just referred to the creation of tension as part of the work of the nonviolent resister. This may sound rather shocking. But I must confess that I am not afraid of the word “tension.” I have earnestly worked and preached against violent tension, but there is a type of constructive nonviolent tension that is necessary for growth. Just as Socrates felt that it was necessary to create a tension in the mind so that individuals could rise from the bondage of myths and half-truths to the unfettered realm of creative analysis and objective appraisal, we must see the need of having nonviolent gadflies to create the kind of tension in society that will help men to rise from the dark depths of prejudice and racism to the majestic heights of understanding and brotherhood. So, the purpose of direct action is to create a situation so crisis-packed that it will inevitably open the door to negotiation. (p. 2)

Martin Luther King, Junior writes the “Letter from Birmingham” in response to the criticisms being raised against him, his presence, and his activities. King addresses the white moderates and the southern clergymen about their criticisms and reasons that his actions are, in fact, not “unwise and untimely.” He ultimately makes a defense for the use of nonviolent direct action. King claims that the goal of nonviolent direct action is “to create a situation so crisis-packed that it will inevitably open the door to negotiation” (p. 2). He explains that the white moderates’ initial refusal to negotiate left him and his fellow African American communities with no choice but to take stronger, direct actions. Thus, marches, sit-ins, and boycotts were orchestrated. King explains that these protests and demonstrations were part of a nonviolent campaign meant to create a crisis severe enough to produce a tension between both parties of the racial segregation (i.e., the whites and the blacks). He insists that this “creative tension” is necessary for progressive action, because it would bring attention to the issue of racial inequality to the point that it cannot be dismissed or ignored any longer and inevitably make the other party (white moderates) to open negotiation. Negotiations between both parties would lead to changes, which would eventually lead to growth. King illustrates this constructive nonviolent tension in his allusion to Socrates: If Socrates felt that creating tension was necessary and Socrates was correct in creating tension so that the mind could grow, then tension is necessary for motivating growth.
Before I compare King’s argument to that of Malcolm X, I will give a brief summary of Malcolm X’s speech “The Ballot or the Bullet.” In his speech, Malcolm X addresses his fellow peers about the injustice of being treated as second-class citizens.

He declares that such condition ought to be changed and calls for the African American communities “to stop singing and start swinging” (p. 3). In doing so, he embraces a confrontational approach with his endorsement of Black Nationalism (which is the idea that the black community should be the one in charge of their politics and economy) in the face of injustice and racial inequality. He claims that it is imperative that the African American communities be (more) active in the fight for freedom, because the only way to end the oppression by the white nationalism is to fight against the white nationalist government. He proposes a re-education on the political system and the economy in the black communities for the purpose of becoming informed about the options available to them and the possible consequences resulting from those options. Being educated would allow African Americans to be aware that they have the opportunity to make a difference with their voting—“It’ll be the ballot or it’ll be the bullet. It’ll be liberty or it’ll be

death.”
While Martin Luther King, Junior and Malcolm X share the same goal of equal rights for African Americans, they take drastically different stances with regards to the role that violence should play in responding to the racial inequality and the oppression by the white moderates. King preaches against violence and the use of violent tension, instead he proposes passive resistance. King believes that nonviolent direct action is the best possible course of action, because peaceful protests would inevitably lead to negotiations. Malcolm X, on the other hand, supports the use of violence. He believes that equality must be achieved by “any means necessary,” and in this case he felt that violence might very well be necessary in order to secure equal rights. Malcolm X believed that peace is only acceptable if the circumstance is fair and moral. If it is not the case that the actions of the white moderates are fair and moral, then violence could be the appropriate response to the social injustice.
Malcolm X’s view, then, seems to be that while violence might not be ideal, choosing violence over complacency is permitted (even required) in certain situations, specifically those in which injustice will exist in perpetuity if nothing is done. This can be seen as a utilitarianism-inspired view, insofar as Malcolm X seems wiling to let a few people suffer now (particularly those on the “front lines” of the civil rights movement such as himself) for the greater good—or the well being of future generations in the society. We can contrast this to King’s more rule-based (deontological) view of violence: that it is impermissible, regardless of the threat. The parallel to Socrates seems fitting here, as well—particularly in Socrates’ view that harming another person is always impermissible, regardless of what they’ve done to you. Socrates held this view based on his beliefs about the soul, and it’s safe to say that King was at least partly influenced by his religious views and his belief in an immortal soul.
Now that I have made a comparison between Martin Luther King, Junior and Malcolm X, I will express a position. While both King and Malcolm X make compelling points, I do not agree in entirety with either of the views. King’s view of nonviolence is almost too idealistic. While it would be ideal to not have to resort to force or violence, that is not always the case. In certain cases, violence is the appropriate action if all else has failed. Take war for example. If a country is under siege by a tyrannical dictator, the first step would be to try to negotiate and reason in hopes of coming to an amicable agreement or solution. However, if all peaceful demonstrations and passive resistance have been futile, then it may very well be the case that violence is the next step to address the issue considering all else has failed. Malcolm X, on the other hand, proposes too strong and too confrontational view. Instead, I propose a different perspective: a hybrid view that incorporates both nonviolence and violence. I propose a perspective that includes two possible responses in the face of oppression and social injustice. The first response incorporates King’s idea of nonviolence, while the second response incorporates Malcolm X’s idea of violence. The first response is to engage in nonviolent actions for the sake of opening negotiations. However, if passive demonstrations fail to elicit any progressive change, then the second response would be to use appropriate violence. An appropriate degree or level of violence would depend on the situation and the circumstances surrounding the situation. It would not include unnecessary violence (e.g., beating someone to near death, punching someone during a heated conversation); rather, it would involve proportionate degree or level of violence to cases of self-defense and/or protection of oneself and of others form harm (e.g., wrestling someone to the floor and disabling them, fighting back to defend oneself from an assault). I do acknowledge that this criterion is quite sloppy; however, not every situation is identical. There are various factors that may come into play that affects the degree of appropriateness for the use of violence. Hence, violence is only used as a last ditch effort. That being said, this hybrid perspective is a balanced medium between King and Malcolm X, which makes it the better view in comparison to King and Malcolm X.