Principled Nonviolence


The Lokashakti Encyclopedia of Nonviolence, Peace, & Social Justice

Principled Nonviolence

A form of nonviolence in which practitioners (a) explicitly state their intention to conduct and resolve conflict without violence, (b) adopt many precautions to demonstrate and carry out that intention, and (c) are prepared to suffer, even sacrifice their lives, if need be, rather than inflict suffering on others while holding fast to the truths they believe. As such it characteristically develops out of religious or ethical rather than political or practical considerations and is expressed in witness for ideals.

Principled advocates of nonviolence are not first concerned about the likely success of their witness but rather wish to express moral rejection of a governmental or societal practice. In challenging such institutions as slavery, gender discrimination, war, and racial discrimination their witness has initiated many social change movements. They differ from practitioners of tactical nonviolence in that the latter may abandon either nonviolence or their objective in the face of an inadequate response or violent repression. Principled activists also differ from advocates of violence who seek to make others change their objectives through inflicting suffering and the loss of life. Advocates of principled nonviolence distinguish between the person and the evil they may do, seeking to draw out the moral ca pacity of each person.

To the extent that they participate in efforts to achieve social change, principled advocates face profound political, moral, and tactical issues. Perhaps all would agree that Mohandas K. Gandhi and Martin Luther King, Jr. successfully extended principled nonviolence into societal conflict, achieving fundamental change without violence, but there is far less agreement about answers to questions such as these:

  1. Is the principle "thou shalt not kill" applicable to all situations and found in all religions and secular systems of ethics? How should those who accept this principle resolve conflict with those who threaten their lives, property, country, or other values with violence? Can both pacifist and just war principles undergird principled nonviolence? Are there other principles as well?
  2. Is principled nonviolence a contribution to anarchistic, revolutionary, or democratic political ideologies? Is it a distinct ideology of its own?
  3. Once affirmed, what is the range of problems and situations to which it is applicable? What are the circumstances and situations that try advocates of principled nonviolence?
  4. Is there a distinctive strategy for conducting conflict without violence embodied in the principle itself or is there a wide range of not-violent tactics that qualify as principled nonviolence?
  5. Who in the twentieth century has led principled, nonviolent movements and how have they developed the tactics and strategies of nonviolent action?
  6. Is nonviolence successful only within democratic societies or can it, in certain conditions, successfully change dictatorships?
  7. Can nonviolence concepts of conflict resolution be extended into world politics, demonstrating how a world without war is possible?
Principles

The core value or principle underlying nonviolence is "thou shalt not kill," which is found in every religion, in secular humanism, and in philosophically based systems of ethics - for example, that of Socrates. The "golden rule" - do unto others as you would have them do unto you - precludes killing for most people in most circumstances.

In the Christian tradition, according to Geoffrey Nuttall's Christian Pacifism in History, five principles lead to the rejection of violence: (a) fear of idolatry - the refusal to worship a head of state, obey a military commander, or other leader; (b) the law of Christ, especially as stated in the "Sermon on the Mount"; (c) the ministry of suffering - Christianity entails the belief that people may suffer for their faith; (d) the dignity of man-participation in war requires subordination to authority and the demonization of the enemy; and (e) the redemptive power of love. Leyton Richards's Christian Alternative to War weaves together these principles in a set of contrasts: "War seeks to overcome evil by the infliction of injury on the evildoer or his agents, Jesus on the Cross by the endurance of the utmost injury that the evildoer cares to inflict; war treats men as things, Jesus always treated them as living souls capable of responding to the love of God; war operates by killing the enemy, Jesus sought to kill the enmity; war crushes men to achieve victory, Jesus lost the battle to win men.” But others have said that this underestimates the role of power between political communities, the ability of modern ideologies to blind their believers to the evil deeds they do, and those states that adopt this device will be defenseless against aggressors who would impose their creeds. Those advocating principled nonviolence have re sponded that the alternative of civilian-based defense is available, that whatever else the state can do, it cannot force one to kill, and they would rather deal with persecution than wage even a defensive war.

An alternative interpretation of Scriptures is the Catholic just war tradition that permits violence in self- or national defense if certain conditions are satisfied and thus provides a set of standards designed to limit the use of violence. The just war tradition, according to George Weigel's Tranquilatas Ordinis, provides a principled basis from which nonviolence ought to be pursued because one of the just war standards is that all nonmilitary options must be exhausted before violence can possibly be justified. Thus, as the peace research and nonviolent action communities develop additional options, like civilian-based defense, there is moral space in which nonviolence can operate while the option of violence and war is made harder to justify, although not abandoned altogether.

In the Protestant tradition, the Brethren, Mennonite, and Quaker faiths have rejected violence as incompatible with their understanding of the divine. The Islamic, Jewish, Hindu, and Buddhist traditions, at least, have their pacifist as well as just war traditions. In the contemporary world, the collapse of movements that accepted mass killing (such as Nazism and communism) could open a time of experimentation with principled nonviolence in resolving the many ethnic, nationalistic, class, religious, and other conflicts for which violence remains an all too available means.

Anarchy, Revolution, and Democracy?

The application of principled nonviolence to social change questions is varied and difficult. Does, for example, nonviolent action further anarchist, revolutionary, or democratic agendas? For some advocates, the principle guarantor of evil practices is the state, and their witness shades over into and is associated with anarchist thought understood in the maxim that that government is best which governs least. Others find themselves in apparent agreement with revolutionary goals, whether justified in the Puritan, Jeffersonian, or Marxist/Leninist traditions and seek to "humanize" the revolution, making the inevitable revolution as nonviolent as is possible. Still others believe democracy is the political system that best embodies the principled nonviolent value of conducting and resolving conflict without violence. These advocates seek in their witness to engage in "civil disobedience" that expresses a commitment to the community. Out of the latter group has come an attempt to extend principled nonviolence into conflict between states.

Advocates of principled nonviolence who share anarchist, revolutionary, or democratic goals disagree about the source of evil (in the state, in capitalism, or in human nature) but share a concern that the individual not get lost in the larger categories of historical conflict. They share a personal rejection of violence and a desire that the social change movements in which they are engaged remain nonviolent. They risk compromising their witness, however, when those movements become coalitions with others committed to violence in some circumstances. Each of these forms of principled nonviolence claims Mohandas K. Gandhi's developent of a distinctive strategy for conducting conflict, satyagraha, as a precursor of their own. Following Gandhi's example, each has sought to extend principled nonviolence beyond witness to provide an effective alternative to violence as a means of removing tyrannical governments, achieving significant social change, extending democracy, or resolving conflict in world politics. Each attempt to extend principled nonviolence beyond witness raises questions about whether its core values and central dynamics are retained.

When Is Principled Nonviolence in Question?

The question of whether nonviolence should be the norm in all situations arises only after it is acknowledged that nonviolence is the norm in most situations. Nonviolence is the principle on which we judge whether parent-child, spouse, small group, and domestic conflict is appropriately conducted. Conflict between business and labor, among ethnic groups, races, classes, and genders is expected to be processed and change achieved through democratic institutions and social practices. In these cases the principle of nonviolence was stated long ago and is now embodied in custom, administrative practices, and laws. The question of principled nonviolence is faced in these areas only in gaining recognition of the law's applicability, or challenging administrative practices that deny the law, or in punishing violators of societal norms.

At the root of the various principles rejecting or restricting the use of violence is the question of whether love can be extended from family, friends, and community to one's enemies. Is it possible to act in such a way as to express love toward those full of hatred and prepared to use violence against us? Since the outcome depends upon the response of others, it is inherently uncertain. Is it better to risk your own life and that of your followers than to inflict suffering on your enemies? Advocates of principled nonviolence have said yes, while seeking to address and change the adversary's will to use violence.

Among the circumstances most likely to try an advocate of principled nonviolence are self defense against a violent attack, risking killing someone who is in the act of killing others, challenging unjust social or political practices almost certain to be defended by violence (humanitarian intervention, for example, against genocide, mass starvation, widespread murder, or other human rights violations), and in conflicts between states for which violence remains the norm.

In response to the first two troubling situations above, advocates of principled nonviolence will disagree. The absolutist will say that in all cases violence is to be rejected, while others maintain that there is a sharp distinction between what an individual does when attacked or what one may do to prevent an individual from killing others and what one does on social issues when groups of people are involved. More selective advocates would conclude that self-defense or disarming a lethal adversary may well save lives and, in some circumstances, risk taking the adversary's life.

In social settings, civil disobedience to laws considered unjust is a strategy that principled advocates of nonviolence often adopt. Individuals and groups can acknowledge that democratic institutions have established laws that they consider unjust. After exhausting legal means to change the laws, and when obedience to the law impinges on conscience, principled advocates of nonviolence justify civil disobedience. In committing civil disobedience they do so in ways that respect the institutions that make laws but reject a specific law and refuse to obey it whatever the consequences. Thus, they seek to act in ways that affirm the need for law, knowing that the fabric of society can unravel once disrespect for law becomes widespread. For disobedience to laws to be civil it must be open, its practitioners must accept the penalty of the law, and it must be done in a manner that accepts the legitimacy of government. Henry David Thoreau's essay On Civil Disobedience is an eloquent defense of the legitimacy of civil disobedience, although he grounds his case on the anarchist principle that he "doesn't belong to any organization I didn't join" and therefore lacks an obligation to obey laws. Bayard Rustin, a precursor and colleague of Martin Luther King, Jr., developed the concept of civil disobedience and applied it in the civil rights movement, which challenged laws and built a consensus that they should be changed.

Induction notices to the army and taxes that support war, abortions, or other activities that impinge on fundamental beliefs also may raise the question of principled nonviolence. Induction notices, for example, used to include the question: "Are you a conscientious objector to war?" Some advocates of principled nonviolence thought through their response, making the case that their commitment to nonviolence precluded their participation in an army, but their commitment to the society enabled them to accept alternative service. Others, such as Jehovah's Witnesses, objected to all service on principled grounds.

Practitioners

Mohandas Gandhi and Martin Luther King, Jr., are the twentieth century's most prominent and successful advocates of principled nonviolence. In American social change movements, Jane Addams, Kirby Page, Alfred Hassler, A.J. Muste, Bayard Rustin, A. Philip Randolph, Joan Baez, Robert Pickus, Jim Forest, and Cesar Chavez are among those who initiated or led significant nonviolent movements for social change. In other countries, Danilo Dolci (Sicily), Albert Camus (Algeria), Lanzo Del Vasto (France), Thich Nhat Hanh (Vietnam), Dom Helder Camara (Brazil), Kenneth Kaunda (Zambia), Lech Walesa (Poland), and Vaclav Havel (Czechoslovakia) have led significant nonviolent movements for social change, each in a significant way acting out of principled commitment.

Two figures in American academic life have contributed to the understanding and practice of nonviolent action. Joan Bondurant, in Conquest of Violence: The Gandhian Philosophy of Conflict, carefully distinguishes principled nonviolence from coercive nonviolent strategies of change. Gene Sharp has extended the concept of nonviolence and with insight advanced the discussion of nonviolence as a means of national defense. They work in opposite directions. Bondurant, by clarifying Gandhi's concept of satyagraha as a strategy that Gandhi described as "intended to replace methods of violence" with a movement "based entirely upon truth," makes Gandhi the standard against which all others are measured. Sharp extends and catalogues as nonviolent almost two hundred forms of social change, protest, or witness activities. While Bondurant sharply contrasts Gandhi's form of nonviolencee as a method designed to transform an adversary with other forms of nonviolence that are coercive in seeking to limit the power, authority, or presence of an adversary, Sharp sees great benefit in including all nonviolent tactics as part of the nonviolent tradition. Bondurant maintains that Gandhi knew nonviolence was coercive and that the practitioner needed to state clearly what needed to change to enable the coercion to be removed. In addition, Gandhi, in his pursuit of truth, believed practitioners needed to admit the possibility that they might be wrong and also need to change.

Sharp, on the other hand, seeks an exhaustive list of situations and problems to which nonviolence might be applicable, making the concept, strategy, and tactics accessible to everyone. The principle involved is very much like the just war concept - the means, nonviolence, is an attempt to explore and implement all the alternatives to violence before violence can possibly be justified. Combined, both scholars have built a rich legacy of theory and interpretation of practice for new practitioners to draw upon.

The attempt to apply nonviolence to conflict between states has been explored by Robert Pickus. The extension of principled nonviolence from its origins in domestic conflict to world politics poses significant challenges. Traditional peace movement politics have rejected intervention in contests for power whether the adversary was Nazi Germany or a North Vietnam led by Ho Chi Minh. While that stance avoids participation in the horrors of conflicts like World War II and Vietnam, it leaves unaddressed the Holocaust and the tyranny imposed by Ho Chi Minh, from which more than 500,000 Vietnamese lost their lives in flight over the South China seas or in reeducation camps. Pickus argued that a nonviolent strategy could have been applied to the Vietnam conflict and more broadly to the cold war.

The Basic Concepts of Principled Nonviolence: Within Political Communities

M.K. Gandhi and Martin Luther King, Jr. developed nonviolence into a coherent strategy of change within their political communities. They offered theoretical arguments for principled nonviolence and demonstrated in specific campaigns how it might work. Both Gandhi and King brought into the political arena profound religious commitments. They argued that, despite the enormous coercive power of the state, governments cannot compel individuals to act. Whatever the state may do to you, you choose to obey its dictates. Individuals, when they withhold their consent to unjust laws, release a powerful dynamic into politics. If properly managed, this dynamic can be a powerful tool for achieving change without violence; if improperly managed, it can destroy a political community inviting rule by the most violent.

Gandhi's approach to conflict can be inferred from his Autobiography and from his newspaper articles. In Conquest of Violence, Joan Bondurant identifies "truth, nonviolence and self-suffering" as the key values in Gandhi's concept of satyagraha, which she defines as holding fast to truth. These values are applied in Gandhi's nonviolent campaigns in ways that ensure the campaigns will remain nonviolent and that open the possibility of success. These values are:

  1. Dialogue: Gandhi opened dialogues with persons or representatives of institutions that he wanted to change. He entered into a dialogue with a willingness to reformulate his own position should the person persuade him that he was, in part, mistaken.
  2. Nonviolent tactics: A wide variety of nonviolent measures could be adopted to open communication. These included fasting, personal witness, vigils, pickets, marches, even civil disobedience.
  3. Courage: A commitment by both leaders and followers to refrain from violence, not out of fear, but out of a conviction that accepting suffering, even death if need be, is preferred to either acquiescing to the injustice or inflicting suffering on those whom you would change.
  4. Love: A rejection of rhetorical or other forms of symbolic violence while expressmg love and support for the adversary but rejecting the evil they may be doing.
  5. Persistence: A commitment to pursue an objective for the long run in the face of obstacles while exploring a mutually acceptable solution.

 

The idea of accepting rather than inflicting suffering is clear in this set of principles, but the value of truth may be less obvious. Without attempting to state, much less unravel, the underlying epistemological assumptions, it is clear that the crucial element is the belief that you might be wrong. Making your own statement of objectives clear and getting from an adversary their statement is one element in this approach to realizing a higher truth than either of you enter into the conflict holding. Truth can be approached only when all the voices in the discussion are taken into account. Thus, Gandhi could engage in civil disobedience and encourage others to do so to open dialogues with adversaries; in doing so, a discussion of each party's partial truths would ensue with an agreement achieved, it is hoped, representing a higher truth. Violence does not advance truth; it ends the possibility of approximating it. Only through nonviolence and the discipline it imposes on yourself and the pressures it brings to bear on an adversary can the dialogue take place that can result in a higher truth's being achieved. These practices Gandhi referred to as his "experiments with truth."

In the early days of the civil rights movement, between 1948 and 1963, Bayard Rustin, Martin Luther King, Jr., and others sought to apply similar ideas to achieving needed change in race relations in the United States. Gandhi's picture adorned the King family home. Gandhi's influence as well as King's understanding of Christianity can be seen in the following rules excerpted from a "commitment card" signed by every volunteer in the King-led Southern Christian Leadership Conference campaign in Birmingham, Alabama:

I hereby pledge myself - my person and body - to the nonviolent movement. Therefore, I will keep the following ten commandments:

  1. Meditate daily on the teachings and life of Jesus.
  2. Remember always that the nonviolent movement in Birmingham seeks justice and reconciliation not victory.
  3. Walk and talk in the manner of love, for God is love.
  4. Pray dally to be used by God in order that all men might be free.
  5. Sacrifice personal wishes in order that all men might be free.
  6. Observe with both friend and foe the ordinary rules of courtesy.
  7. Seek to perform regular service for others and for the world.
  8. Refrain from the violence of fist, tongue, or heart.
  9. Strive to be in good spiritual and bodily health.
  10. Follow the directions of the movement and of the captain on a demonstration.

 

The explicit statement of principle, signed by every volunteer in the campaign, was communicated to friend and foe alike. The central dynamics of accepting, rather than inflicting suffering, of reconciliation, of dialogue, are all affirmed. In a specific demonstration, practitioners of principled nonviolence adopt precautions like the following:

  1. Asking permission to hold a demonstration, indicating that it will be nonviolent and seeking the cooperation of the police.
  2. Announcing in the call to the demonstration that nonviolence will be strictly adhered to - those who cannot commit to such a discipline are asked not to come; those who do come and find they cannot hold their commitment, to leave.
  3. Planning in advance specific precautions against the demonstrators becoming violent, even in response to violence:
    • Appointing monitors with arm bands to be responsible for a portion of the line of march.
    • Sitting down if provoked by outsiders.
    • Going limp but not resisting arrest in other ways.
    • Checking rumors and planning how best to call off the demonstration if discipline breaks down.
    • Expressing a willingness to end the demonstration should negotiations open a more fruitful method of pursuing your objectives.

 

These values and procedures help ensure that principled nonviolence can be a powerful and successful instrument of social change within a political community. Can they be transposed to conflicts between political communities?

Principled Nonviolence: Between Political Communities

The prevailing voices in the discussion of nonviolence have recommended the withdrawal of one side in contests for power between political communities. They and others skeptical about the applicability of principled nonviolence to international conflict point out that one obtains power in national politics only if one persuades the public that one can provide security and advance the national interest against adversary states, and that now means through the threat or use of violence. Compromise between states appears more difficult given that land, status, and economic benefits are less divisible in conflict between political communities than within them. But given the high stakes involved in waging war in the nuclear era and with conventional weapons of mass destruction, if there is a way to apply principled nonviolence to world politics it should be tried. A few thoughtful scholars, such as Charles Osgood, Amatai Etzioni, and Robert Pickus, have explored such a route. In discussion with peace movements as well as governmental leaders that application of principled nonviolence has been called a peace initiatives strategy.

In outline form, a peace initiatives strategy initiates a cease-fire in a conflict and combines that with a systematic and detailed attempt to bring pressure to bear on an adversary to reciprocate that cease-fire. In addition, a peace initiatives strategy seeks to open other, nonmilitary arenas in which the dialogue over what is at issue in the war can be carried on. Robert Pickus, for example, advocated such a strategy for world politics during the cold war. Such a strategy enunciates and opens for discussion a commitment to the goals essential to a world without war: reforming and transforming international organizations into instruments of world governance; strengthening a sense of world community to sustain those instruments; progress toward general and complete disarmament down to police levels; a world economic development effort capable of enabling the majority who are destitute to achieve self-sustained economic growth within broadening political freedoms sustained by democratic governments; developing nonviolent ways to force needed change; reaffirming basic shared political and religious values; and leadership by one country toward each of these goals. That leadership should be expressed in a series of interrelated initiative acts designed to induce reciprocation from whomever dialogue and negotiations do not bring into agreement.

Initiatives initiate (hence the name) progress toward each of the goals above by behavioral acts. These acts demonstrate a willingness to take risks, suffer, or bear costs for peace but invite reciprocation from others. As the first initiatives are reciprocated, additional initiatives are taken, building momentum toward the overall goals. Progress can be halted, reversed, or accelerated depending upon reciprocation. Initiatives may be partial measures, for example a commitment to 10 percent of a total goal in disarmament or development objectives, with an additional 10 percent offered to help induce reciprocation. Initiatives may be taken for a specified period of time and then rescinded if not reciprocated. Finally, initiatives may be mutually rewarding or positive, they may be neutral, or, in cases where the alternative appears to be war, coercive. Coercive initiatives include the use of many kinds of sanctions.

The vision of such a peace initiatives strategy - composed of a commitment to achieve the conditions essential to a world without war, of calibrated steps toward those goals designed to induce reciprocation, and of combining steps into an overall strategy-is a significant contribution to the discussion of how principled nonviolence can be applied in world politics. Critics point out, however, that such a strategy is principled in setting goals and in taking nonviolent steps toward them, but when it requires reciprocation for continued progress toward the goals, it becomes a form of tactical nonviolence. Advocates respond that they could become witnesses at that point, realizing that the conflict could not be resolved at that time by a nonviolent strategy, and yet would have demonstrated how such might be achieved. An initiative strategy would at least clarify who was responsible for the violence, and how, when they were willing, they could cooperate in resolving the conflict. In addition, many nonviolent measures could be developed and implemented that might help them become willing participants. Exploring those possibilities, not lamenting the response of the adversary or withdrawing, is what the advocates of principled nonviolence recommend.

Developing and Implementing a Principled Nonviolent Strategy

If there are concepts and disciplines to prepare for a principled nonviolent strategy of change, how does one decide to develop and implement such a strategy? The first question is, is this a setting in which an adversary is likely to be changed by a principled nonviolent strategy? Such strategies were successful in overthrowing Communist regimes in 1989. In Czechoslovakia the commitment to nonviolence was explicit and principled. But such a strategy worked only after the Communist Party elite lost faith in its own invincibility. Earlier efforts to reform communism from within were unsuccessful, and some of them, violently repressed. A principled nonviolent challenge to Nazism as well as communism might well have exposed many followers to death. Whether a discipline could have held a principled nonviolent movement together and succeeded with fewer deaths than occurred in World War II is unknown but unlikely. [Note: See the Lokashakti Encyclopedia entry on Nonviolent Strategy for ideas on how nonviolence, both principled and pragmatic, can be made more effective]

Principled nonviolence between political communities can be enhanced by the emergence of regional and global international organizations, such as the European Union and the United Nations. The UN has as one of its purposes "eliminating the scourge of war" from humanity’s affairs. Such international organizations, especially as they are increasingly influenced by democratic ideas, can serve as mediators or peacekeeping agencies. The UN has provided lightly armed peacekeeping forces to patrol borders and keep belligerents apart. Forces trained in nonviolent techniques might do more than this, but the world community has yet to agree to and apply the moral considerations that would make such a force and such institutions the instruments of principled nonviolence. Exploring in each religious tradition and ideology the basis of nonviolence may establish the needed consensus. More likely, the demonstration of successful, principled nonviolence on specific issues or conflicts will provide the impetus to reexamine and extend principled nonviolence into world politics.

Principled nonviolence is not universally applicable at this time. Few individuals or groups, much less entire political communities, are capable of the discipline. It has, however, proved remarkably successful within the democratic tradition. Skillful practitioners such as Gandhi, King, and Havel have demonstrated how change can be achieved in ways that express love for an enemy and build community among antagonists. The attempt to apply principled nonviolence to conflicts between states has been conceptually mapped out and isolated applications have been attempted. While the key concepts are clear in principled nonviolence, its applications to conflict between states is in the early stages of development. Much remains to be accomplished.

Robert Woito, reprinted with permission, from Protest, Power, and Change: An Encyclopedia of Nonviolent Action from ACT-UP to Women's Suffrage.  Roger Powers, William Vogele, Christoper Kreugler, and Ronald McCarthy, eds. New York: Garland Publishing, 1997.

Selected material about Principled Nonviolence
  • Bondurant, Joan V. Conquest of Violence: The Gandhian Philosophy of Conflict. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1958 (rev. ed. 1988).
  • Gandhi, Mohandas K. All Men Are Brothers: Autobiographical Reflections. Completed by Krishna Kripalani. New York: Continuum, 1980.
  • Havel, Vaclav, William M. Brinton, and Alan Ringler, eds. Without Force or Lies: Voices from the Revolution of Central Europe in 1989-90. San Francisco: Mercury House, 1990.
  • King, Martin Luther, Jr. Why We Can't Wait. New York: Harper and Row, 1964.
  • Nuttall, Geoffrey Fillingsham. Christian Pacifism in History. Oxford: Blackwell, 1958.
  • Pickus, Robert, and Robert Woito. To End War: An Introduction. Rev. ed. New York: Harper and Row, 1970.
  • Richards, Leyton. The Christian's Alternative to War: An Examination of Christian Pacifism. New York: Macmillan, 1929.
  • Rustin, Bayard. Down the Line: The Collected Writings of Bayard Rustin. Chicago: Quadrangle, 1971.
  • Sharp, Gene. The Politics of Nonviolent Action. Boston: Porter Sargent, 1973.
  • Weigel, George. Tranquilatas Ordinis: The Present Failure and the Future Promise of American Catholic Thought. New York: Oxford University Press, 1987.
  • Bios   ( 24 )
    Inspirational noteworthy figures in the history of nonviolence, peace, and social justice
  • Groups   ( 24 )
    Groups and organizations that have played significant roles in nonviolent movements
  • Concepts   ( 18 )
    Important concepts related to peace and nonviolence, especially in regards to nonviolent action
  • Movements   ( 26 )
    Movements and historical events where nonviolent action was used entirely or in large part
fuga mobilya