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 think 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?