Nonviolence
"Nonviolence" is a potentially misleading term, for its
meaning is not at all self-evident.  Several adjectives need to
be mentally added before this term will begin to reflect all the
weight that it has been made to carry.  Add to this the
numerous stereotypes and misunderstandings that have been
growing up around this term like wild mushrooms, and the
problems surrounding its usage become even more
complicated.  Yet, there is so far no better alternative.
"Nonviolence" does not have a single definition, for its
connotation seems to vary significantly from one context to
another, and from one perspective to another.  It may
therefore be seen as part of a constellation of terms with
rather overlapping meanings that includes, among others,
non-harming, non-killing, pacifism, and war resistance.  

Having noted the wide semantic field of this term, I will now
drop the quotation marks.  

Nonviolence may be understood as purely a spiritual-moral,
or religious, concept; in which case it may have additional
connotations, intentional or unintentional, of passivity,
avoidance of conflict, and even powerlessness.  On the other
hand, nonviolence has also been defined in purely strategic
and pragmatic terms; in which case it is seen as having
nothing to do with spirituality, morality, or religion, and
everything to do with practical efficiency and utility as a tool
in political conflicts.
I will not define nonviolence, for I feel that drawing
conceptual boundaries and then insisting on the legitimacy of
those boundaries will prematurely inhibit us from
experiencing the full richness and promise of nonviolence as a
concept and a practice.

I will, however, suggest that we take the following points into
account as we explore nonviolence.

First, whatever else it might be, nonviolence cannot be a
method of avoiding conflicts.  It so happens that conflicts are
unavoidable, given the human condition.  Nonviolence, then,
would include the use of particular methods for carrying out,
or engaging in, a conflict, with the only condition that the
methods are, in one sense or another, nonviolent.

Second, if we define the word "violence" broadly (e.g., if we
take it to mean "harm" in a general sense), then we would
have to acknowledge that it too may be unavoidable.  If we
live in the world, how can we ever avoid causing harm to
someone, or something, in some way?  This means that the
rejection, or avoidance, of violence that is implied in the term
nonviolence would have to be understood in a limited, and
very specific, sense.  

Third, to avoid or transcend violence, however defined,
cannot be synonymous with avoiding the exercise of power,
or even of force.  Like conflict, power is an inherent part of the
human condition; we are all political beings.  Unlike violence,
which I said must be defined narrowly if we are to avoid it,
power would have to be defined as broadly as possible because
we cannot avoid using it.  The question, then, would take the
following form: What kind of violence do we reject, and what
kind of power do we embrace, when we insist on being
nonviolent in both theory and practice?
Support the Department of Peace banner- 250w