Principled nonviolence is the nonviolence of those who feel that it is a calling, as opposed to strategic nonviolence. In this view nonviolence is not merely a strategy nor the recourse of the weak, it is a positive force that does not manifest its full potential until it is adopted on principle. Often such practitioners feel that it expresses something fundamental about human nature, about whom they wish to become as individuals or as a people.
To adopt principled nonviolence is not a quick and easy decision one can make through logic but a slow, perhaps lifetime endeavor. Nonetheless, we focus on that kind of nonviolence because we think it has the potential for creating permanent, long-term change, ultimately for rebuilding many of our institutions on a more humane and sustainable foundation. In the long run nonviolence is, as Gandhi said, an “experiment with truth.” We have all to try that experiment in the way that seems best to us, and in the end the world will need all our experiences to arrive at a new order that we all desire.
Probably the most important lesson we have learned since – and from – Gandhi is that nonviolence is a positive force. It is a way to alter violent situations and influence others by persuasion rather than coercion, a way to resolve differences so that all parties grow in the process as human beings – and become more open rather than more closed to each other
Almost everyone today is familiar with the principle that “the ends don’t justify the means.” It is this recognition that differentiates a principled nonviolence-based effort, which is a mutual learning process for change, from a power struggle. “Means are ends in the making,” Gandhi explained, meaning that the kind of means we use – violent or nonviolent, with secrecy or transparency, democratic or authoritarian, deceivable or truthful – are already building the foundations of the society we want to live in. While some would say means are just means to an end, to the principled nonviolent actor they are, he said, “everything.” In the case of a revolutionary struggle, for example, he held that “violent revolution will bring violent swaraj [independence].” Nobel Prize-winner Adolfo Perez Esquivel was just as emphatic: “Nonviolent action implants, by anticipation within the very process of change itself, the values to which it will ultimately lead … it does not sow peace by means of war.”
See Also:
Strategic Nonviolence
Ahimsa
Nonviolence

Thank you for this fantastic summary of an important idea. I take the notion to a further extent–or, rather, flesh out the full implications of the idea–by arguing that we live in a fundamentally nonviolent universe where violence always and necessarily leads to unnecessary suffering because it violates, in effect, the very laws of physics–in my book Our Tragic Flaw: A Case for Nonviolence, which just came out.
I urge two further distinctions, which do not explicitly appear in my book but which I think are useful. One is the notion of “orthodox nonviolence”–the view that violence is categorically bad, under any and all circumstances. I, for example, espouse principled nonviolence but am not quite comfortable with being orthodox about it. (My nuanced position is that violence is always and necessarily exorbitantly expensive in terms of suffering, but may, in some particular instance, be less expensive than any available nonviolent response. I doubt that, but I also can’t prove otherwise. (You can’t prove a negative.))
The other distinction involves the notion of “radical nonviolence.” I regard both Gandhi and King as proponents of this, though it often gets lost in mainstream thinking about these men. Radical nonviolence espouses that true nonviolence requires a radical response, both on the personal and political level. In short, many of the current institutions and lifeways are fundamentally violent and will have to pass away before true nonviolence can be achieved as a society.
Dear Parke Burgess,
Thank you for your comments. If by ‘orthodox’ you mean ‘based on dogmatic belief,’ I agree with you and I think Gandhi would, also. He always worked from experience, and tested every hypothesis constantly. He also describes the emergency situation of ‘the madman with the sword’ wherein one must use even lethal force, if necessary, but can do so without violence of heart or mind.
Not knowing what you mean, exactly, by a radical response, I can’t comment on your last point. But thanks again for your thoughts. I will watch for your book.