Gandhi spoke of nonviolence rather than peace and emphasized the necessity of overcoming injustice. Gandhi’s meaning was deftly summarized by Jonathan Schell: “Violence is a method by which the ruthless few can subdue the passive many. Nonviolence is a means by which the active many can overcome the ruthless few.” Yet the word nonviolence is “highly imperfect,” wrote Schell. It is a word of “negative construction,” as if the most important thing that can be said about nonviolence is that it is not something else. It is a negation of the negative force of violence, a double negative which in mathematics would yield a positive result. Yet English has no positive word for it. Schell attempted to resolve this dilemma by defining nonviolence as “cooperative power” – collective action based on mutual consent, in contrast to coercive power, which compels action through the threat or use of force. Peace does not mean the absence of conflict, argued peace researcher and former Australian ambassador John W. Burton. Conflict is intrinsic in human relationships, although it does not have to be and usually is not violent. The challenge for peace practitioners is to find ways in which communities can resolve differences without physical violence. In this context peace is understood as a dynamic process not an absolute end point. The goal of peacemakers is to develop more effective ways of resolving disputes without violent conflict, to identify and transform the conditions that cause war.
Peace, a Deceptively Simple Notion
