What is nonviolence? A kind of power. Gandhi used the term “living force” because it is a force acting among living beings as opposed to a physical force like gravity that acts only on bodies. Nonetheless he regarded it as an entirely scientific phenomenon, capable of prediction and control if it were well enough understood. Nonviolence is both philosophy and action — one cannot be separated from the other.

Is there any scientific evidence for it? A great deal. Scientists using non-invasive techniques like Magnetic Resonance Imaging have even been able to show of late that selfless acts (the basis of all nonviolent action) are health-giving to the individual and have immediate effects on those around us.

What about history? Same thing. As Gandhi pointed out a century ago, what we call “history” studies only the breakdowns of the natural process of ahimsa or nonviolence. When you know where to look, real history is rife with examples of individuals, groups, and even nations using some degree of nonviolence with good effects.

Does nonviolence always work? No – unless you mean does it always have good results. As political scientist Hannah Arendt pointed out, “the practice of violence, like all action in the world, changes the world; but the most probable change is to a more violent world.” The practice of nonviolence does just the reverse: it may not “work” in the sense that it gets you just what you want (as violence also does not), but it always does progressive work (which violence never does).

Is nonviolence dangerous? Sometimes. It can be as dangerous as violence. The difference is that risks run and suffering endured in the context of nonviolent action produce positive results while those run and endured in acts of violence make relationships and situations worse. People have died offering nonviolence, but it can safely be said that they have not died in vain.

Who can offer nonviolence? Anyone. To be nonviolent is a human capacity, just as anger and fear are human endowments by nature. Nonviolence is, in fact, the creative management of those potentially disruptive tendencies. At the same time, it has also been mobilized by whole societies.

Isn’t it repression? It is not. It is neither expression nor repression; in the words of Martin Luther King, Jr. their movement neither expressed nor repressed anger but “harnessed anger and released it under discipline for maximum results.”

Couldn’t someone use nonviolence for a bad cause? Not really. They can use the tactics that are also used by nonviolence – for example, some years ago thousands of Californians refused to register their assault rifles and some claimed this was “civil disobedience” – but for a nonviolent actor means and ends are fused, neither is ignored and they cannot be incompatible.

Am I allowed to defend myself? You’re “allowed” to do anything you want. Nonviolence is not a moral thing, but a kind of power. A nonviolent person will be more concerned about defending his or her dignity – and that of his or her opponent – than just his or her physical well-being, and depending on his or her degree of preparation and confidence may completely renounce physical defense, partly for that reason.

Is nonviolence a religion? No, not exactly. A person who believes in and acts upon principled nonviolence will tend to believe that the world makes a kind of moral sense (such that, for example, work done with a desire to help others will have a good effect somewhere down the line) and that no individual is completely beyond reach of persuasive efforts (though their effects may not be immediately visible).

Are there different kinds of nonviolence? Yes, basically there are two. The term is sometimes used to mean nothing more than the absence of physical force, which can be provisional. This is sometimes called strategic nonviolence and sometimes spelled non-violence. While this, too, can be effective, what we are mainly talking about here is usually called principled nonviolence, offered by those who deeply feel that it is the right thing to do, in principle. The latter, despite what the term ‘strategic’ may convey, has more long lasting and deeper effects.