A Primer on Domination Systems and the Myth of Redemptive Violence

Many human societies have domination systems, as explained by American theologian Walter Wink – interlocking structures which allow one group to dominate and exploit others. This can permeate across political, social and economic spheres.

Those who benefit from these systems often propagate a “myth of redemptive violence”. This refers to the narrative that violence is a morally purifying and redemptive act to uphold order and law. Systems of inequality indoctrinate the privileged to believe their violence against the marginalised serves the greater good.

However, thinkers like Martin Luther King Jr. and Mohandas Gandhi challenged this myth. They spearheaded nonviolent civil resistance against injustice in America and British-ruled India respectively. Both believed redemptive violence was an untruth – it only perpetuated further harm without achieving moral redemption.

Gandhi pioneered satyagraha or “truth-force”, inspiring India’s independence struggle through nonviolent protest, civil disobedience and economic non-cooperation. Rather than defeating the British, the goal was to convert them from wrong to right.

Martin Luther King was profoundly influenced by Gandhi. King described nonviolence as the most powerful means for oppressed minorities to reclaim basic dignity and rights. As with Gandhi, King’s vision was for nonviolent activism to transform social consciousness and achieve justice without bloodshed.

Tragically, extremists assassinated Gandhi in 1948 and King in 1968. However, their movements succeeded in dismantling unjust systems nonviolently. India gained independence in 1947 after decades of Gandhian civil resistance. In America, landmark civil rights legislation was passed prohibiting racial discrimination.

Through sustained truth and love, Gandhi and King’s seminal campaigns proved domination systems perpetuate themselves by making violence seem routine, necessary and even honourable. And that nonviolent change is not only possible, but a moral obligation.

Do you see how this makes the world a violent place, and so also for organisations?