In the early 1980s, Allan Cumming wrote two short essays published as Understanding Nonviolence and How Nonviolence Works. These have been revised and integrated into this new volume with the original and additional photographs.

The essays were produced in response to the 1981 Springbok Tour of New Zealand, where a lack of understanding of the dynamics and images of violence within the campaign affected the outcome of the protests. It was written to improve the understanding of nonviolence in the many environmental and anti-nuclear groups active at the time.

Today, the environmental movement has emerged stronger than ever in the face of the threat of global warming. Active nonviolence has become the norm with groups such as the school strike movement and Extinction Rebellion demonstrating around the world. Once again a new generation of activists has taken up the challenge of nonviolent direct action, and this book is offered in the hope it will be of some use to them.

“Defining nonviolence is difficult because of the wide range of meanings given to the word. Many definitions treat the word as the negative of violence — “non-violence” — defining violence then allowing “non-violence” to mean everything else. Other definitions treat nonviolence as a positive force in its own right. People using it this way often omit the hyphen — as l have in this book. Let us look at each in turn.
Non-violence
Most people readily accept that violence is the sort of thing we do in war — killing, injuring, or imprisoning human beings. Non-violence is defined as any action that is not violent. This definition of non-violence is simple, easy to understand, and offends no-one. The difficulty with this definition is in defining violence. Does it include mental harassment, or depriving people of their possessions, for example? The inability to define violence can lead to interesting results. (…)
Nonviolence
The other view claims that nonviolence exists in its own right — not defined by, and certainly not limited by, definitions of violence. An act may be violent, it may be nonviolent, or it may be something else entirely. Definitions of violence are irrelevant in this approach. Most definitions of nonviolence will include some aspect of “nonharm” to the opponent. This is the quality that Gandhi referred to as “ahimsa”, often translated as “nonviolence”, although non-harm is probably a more accurate translation. Causing both physical and mental suffering is therefore excluded from our definition. Second, nonviolence includes a positive approach to conflict. It recognises conflict as natural within society, and maintains that it can be dealt with in a positive and “non-harming” fashion.”
- Allan Cumming