{"id":{"repo_id":"bradford","oai_identifier":"oai:bradscholars.brad.ac.uk:10454/20598"},"canonical_url":"https://search.dev.ndltd.org/etd/bradford/oai:bradscholars.brad.ac.uk:10454/20598","repository":{"repo_id":"bradford","name":"University of Bradford","base_url":"https://bradscholars.brad.ac.uk/oai/request"},"display":{"title":"Dialogue and Resistance. An Evaluation of Two Approaches to Peace Campaigning at RAF Molesworth (1980-1987)","abstract":"Mohandas K. Gandhi believed that by engaging in various forms of nonviolent direct action a campaigning group could win over, or convert, even the hardest opponent to their cause. He also suggested that strict adherence to a discipline of nonviolence was necessary if such a group was to wield sufficient political power to coerce their opponent to accede to their demands. The efficacy of nonviolent direct action was put to the test over a seven-year period at RAF Molesworth in Cambridgeshire, in a series of campaigns which were attempting to stop deployment of Cruise Missiles there. Some campaigns concentrated on efforts to convert, others relied on the power of nonviolent direct action to coerce. None were particularly 'successful', though in the end the missiles were withdrawn. A careful examination of what went on at RAF Molesworth suggests that, in fact, the Gandhian conception is flawed. The requirements for conversion seem to preclude confrontation of the sort normally associated with nonviolent direct action, while effective coercion may demand a greater freedom from constraint than is normally acceptable in Gandhian terms. Dialogue, or the effort to convert, is an appropriate strategy for winning over the hearts and minds of neutral third parties (ie. the general public) to one's cause. Resistance, or the effort to coerce, then becomes an appropriate strategy only when the forces are stacked overwhelmingly against an opponent who still refuses to yield. Both approaches have a role to play in the ongoing struggle for social change. In the Gandhian conception, however, the two approaches are confused, diminishing the efficacy of both.","abstract_html":"Mohandas K. Gandhi believed that by engaging in various forms of nonviolent direct action a campaigning group could win over, or convert, even the hardest opponent to their cause. He also suggested that strict adherence to a discipline of nonviolence was necessary if such a group was to wield sufficient political power to coerce their opponent to accede to their demands. The efficacy of nonviolent direct action was put to the test over a seven-year period at RAF Molesworth in Cambridgeshire, in a series of campaigns which were attempting to stop deployment of Cruise Missiles there. Some campaigns concentrated on efforts to convert, others relied on the power of nonviolent direct action to coerce. None were particularly 'successful', though in the end the missiles were withdrawn. A careful examination of what went on at RAF Molesworth suggests that, in fact, the Gandhian conception is flawed. The requirements for conversion seem to preclude confrontation of the sort normally associated with nonviolent direct action, while effective coercion may demand a greater freedom from constraint than is normally acceptable in Gandhian terms. Dialogue, or the effort to convert, is an appropriate strategy for winning over the hearts and minds of neutral third parties (ie. the general public) to one's cause. Resistance, or the effort to coerce, then becomes an appropriate strategy only when the forces are stacked overwhelmingly against an opponent who still refuses to yield. Both approaches have a role to play in the ongoing struggle for social change. In the Gandhian conception, however, the two approaches are confused, diminishing the efficacy of both.","abstract_has_math":false,"creators":["Wallis, Timmon Milne"],"institution":"University of Bradford","degree_name":null,"degree_level":null,"degree_discipline":null,"degree_department":null,"school":null,"contributors":[],"advisors":["Not named"],"committee_chairs":[],"committee_members":[],"year":null,"date_issued":"","date_published":null,"updated_at":"2026-07-24T01:13:57Z","subjects":["Nonviolence","Dialogue","Nonviolent direct action","Social movements","Resistance","Conversion","Peace movement","Molesworth","Gandhi","Coercion","Peace campaigning"],"languages":["en"],"rights":["\"Creative
The University of Bradford theses are licenced under a Creative Commons Licence."],"rights_urls":[],"identifier_entries":[]},"links":{"outbound_url":"https://bradscholars.brad.ac.uk/handle/10454/20598","outbound_label":"Repository record","outbound_source":"dc:identifier.uri"},"metadata_groups":[{"id":"people","label":"People","entries":[{"key":"dc:contributor.advisor","label":"Advisor","values":["Not named"]},{"key":"dc:creator","label":"Author","values":["Wallis, Timmon Milne"]}]},{"id":"academic_context","label":"Academic Context","entries":[{"key":"dc:date.accessioned","label":"Dc Date Accessioned","values":["2025-10-07T13:44:32Z"]},{"key":"dc:date.available","label":"Dc Date Available","values":["2025-10-07T13:44:32Z"]},{"key":"dc:publisher.department","label":"Dc Publisher Department","values":["Department of Peace Studies"]},{"key":"dc:publisher.institution","label":"Dc Publisher Institution","values":["University of Bradford"]},{"key":"dc:type","label":"Dc Type","values":["Thesis"]},{"key":"dc:type.qualificationlevel","label":"Dc Type Qualificationlevel","values":["doctoral"]},{"key":"dc:type.qualificationname","label":"Dc Type Qualificationname","values":["PhD"]}]},{"id":"subjects_keywords","label":"Subjects and Keywords","entries":[{"key":"dc:subject","label":"Dc Subject","values":["Nonviolence","Dialogue","Nonviolent direct action","Social movements","Resistance","Conversion","Peace movement","Molesworth","Gandhi","Coercion","Peace campaigning"]}]},{"id":"language_rights","label":"Language and Rights","entries":[{"key":"dc:language.iso","label":"Language (ISO)","values":["en"]},{"key":"dc:rights","label":"Dc Rights","values":["\"Creative
The University of Bradford theses are licenced under a Creative Commons Licence."]}]},{"id":"identifiers","label":"Identifiers","entries":[{"key":"dc:identifier.uri","label":"Identifier URI","values":["https://bradscholars.brad.ac.uk/handle/10454/20598"]}]},{"id":"additional","label":"Additional Metadata","entries":[{"key":"dc:description.abstract","label":"Abstract","values":["Mohandas K. Gandhi believed that by engaging in various forms of nonviolent direct action a campaigning group could win over, or convert, even the hardest opponent to their cause. He also suggested that strict adherence to a discipline of nonviolence was necessary if such a group was to wield sufficient political power to coerce their opponent to accede to their demands. The efficacy of nonviolent direct action was put to the test over a seven-year period at RAF Molesworth in Cambridgeshire, in a series of campaigns which were attempting to stop deployment of Cruise Missiles there. Some campaigns concentrated on efforts to convert, others relied on the power of nonviolent direct action to coerce. None were particularly 'successful', though in the end the missiles were withdrawn. A careful examination of what went on at RAF Molesworth suggests that, in fact, the Gandhian conception is flawed. The requirements for conversion seem to preclude confrontation of the sort normally associated with nonviolent direct action, while effective coercion may demand a greater freedom from constraint than is normally acceptable in Gandhian terms. Dialogue, or the effort to convert, is an appropriate strategy for winning over the hearts and minds of neutral third parties (ie. the general public) to one's cause. Resistance, or the effort to coerce, then becomes an appropriate strategy only when the forces are stacked overwhelmingly against an opponent who still refuses to yield. Both approaches have a role to play in the ongoing struggle for social change. In the Gandhian conception, however, the two approaches are confused, diminishing the efficacy of both."]},{"key":"dc:title","label":"Title","values":["Dialogue and Resistance. An Evaluation of Two Approaches to Peace Campaigning at RAF Molesworth (1980-1987)"]}]}],"canonical_facts":{"dc:contributor.advisor":["Not named"],"dc:creator":["Wallis, Timmon Milne"],"dc:date.accessioned":["2025-10-07T13:44:32Z"],"dc:date.available":["2025-10-07T13:44:32Z"],"dc:description.abstract":["Mohandas K. Gandhi believed that by engaging in various forms of nonviolent direct action a campaigning group could win over, or convert, even the hardest opponent to their cause. He also suggested that strict adherence to a discipline of nonviolence was necessary if such a group was to wield sufficient political power to coerce their opponent to accede to their demands. The efficacy of nonviolent direct action was put to the test over a seven-year period at RAF Molesworth in Cambridgeshire, in a series of campaigns which were attempting to stop deployment of Cruise Missiles there. Some campaigns concentrated on efforts to convert, others relied on the power of nonviolent direct action to coerce. None were particularly 'successful', though in the end the missiles were withdrawn. A careful examination of what went on at RAF Molesworth suggests that, in fact, the Gandhian conception is flawed. The requirements for conversion seem to preclude confrontation of the sort normally associated with nonviolent direct action, while effective coercion may demand a greater freedom from constraint than is normally acceptable in Gandhian terms. Dialogue, or the effort to convert, is an appropriate strategy for winning over the hearts and minds of neutral third parties (ie. the general public) to one's cause. Resistance, or the effort to coerce, then becomes an appropriate strategy only when the forces are stacked overwhelmingly against an opponent who still refuses to yield. Both approaches have a role to play in the ongoing struggle for social change. In the Gandhian conception, however, the two approaches are confused, diminishing the efficacy of both."],"dc:identifier.uri":["https://bradscholars.brad.ac.uk/handle/10454/20598"],"dc:language.iso":["en"],"dc:publisher.department":["Department of Peace Studies"],"dc:publisher.institution":["University of Bradford"],"dc:rights":["\"Creative
The University of Bradford theses are licenced under a Creative Commons Licence."],"dc:subject":["Nonviolence","Dialogue","Nonviolent direct action","Social movements","Resistance","Conversion","Peace movement","Molesworth","Gandhi","Coercion","Peace campaigning"],"dc:title":["Dialogue and Resistance. An Evaluation of Two Approaches to Peace Campaigning at RAF Molesworth (1980-1987)"],"dc:type":["Thesis"],"dc:type.qualificationlevel":["doctoral"],"dc:type.qualificationname":["PhD"]},"updated_at":"2026-07-24T01:13:57Z"}