Agency, pacifism, and the anniversary of the Tiananmen Protests

Tomorrow, June 4^th, marks the anniversary of the Tiananmen Square protests of 1989.  Many of you may recognize the photo below, often dubbed “Tank Man,” which serves as a reminder of the protests’ peaceful beginnings and violent end. 

The protest began as a peaceful, student-led demonstration.  The students gathered in Tiananmen Square to express their dissatisfaction with the current regime, and called for government accountability and freedom of speech.  The peaceful protest and hunger strike attracted international attention, and within weeks hundreds of similar protests had spread across China.  The protests divided the Chinese government, which had decided to use force to dissuade protestors.  On June 4^th, Chinese police violently broke up the demonstrators with live ammunition, killing anywhere from a hundred to over a thousand people.  Official numbers vary, since the dead were cremated quickly in order to skew the official body count and limit public outcry.

Agency, as Professor Jackson defines it, is an actor’s capacity to have acted otherwise.  The Tiananmen Square protestors had agency.  Instead of choosing violence, or simply inaction, they chose to stage a nonviolent peaceful sit-in and hunger strike.  Their action can be considered a collaborative effort that, as Prof. Jackson mentioned, is often seen in social movements.  Demonstrating their dissatisfaction through nonviolence inspired Chinese citizens and brought about support for their cause.  Peace activist and scholar David Cortright argues, “nonviolent resistance has indeed become a force more powerful, because it offers a third way, distinct from war and inaction, for addressing the challenge of injustice” (Peace: A History of Movements and Ideas, pg. 213).  The demonstrators suffered through their hunger strike in order to make their concerns known, and were able to attract international attention and sympathy through their pacifism.  The nature of nonviolent agency promoted the integrity of the demonstrators, garnered the support of Chinese citizens, and turned them against the government. 

The structure of China’s government resisted the fundamental change asked for by the protestors.  Their decision to react with violence suggests that they were threatened by the uprisings and what it could mean for China’s future.  Many liberal Chinese government officials who sympathized with the protestors were purged, and the Chinese government tried to expunge the June 4^th events from its history through immediate propaganda supporting police action and vilifying demonstrators.   Their structure at the time was strong enough to reign in the protestors without threat of retaliation or loss of power, exemplifying the impractical possibility of fundamental change as well as the continuity of the Chinese Communist Party.

The Tiananmen Square protest was a defining moment for the Chinese government, and resulted in increased conservatism of leaders and a push to maintain public confidence in the Chinese Communist Party through economic reforms.   The protests of 1989 are not taught in school, and to speak of it, even 25 years after the event itself, is considered taboo and worthy of punishment, serving as a reminder to the strength of the Chinese government.