Abstrakt
This article reinforces the criticisms I cast on civil resistance literature in my study "Debunking the Myths Behind Nonviolent Civil Resistance" through addressing issues on how scholars code violence, unarmed violence, and nonviolence. It justifies studying unarmed violence as a sole category and explicates the pathways through which unarmed violence can lead oppositional campaigns toward success.
In responding to Onken, Shemia-Goeke, and Martin, the article demonstrates that the dichotomization of nonviolence and violence is not premised on analytical equivalency and should be avoided if the study of resistance strategies is to progress onward and step away from the literature's intrinsic ideological bias. There is nothing idealistic about seeking to improve how we operationalize concepts to study resistance strategies, but if scholars in the civil resistance literature fail to move away from universalistic assumptions about nonviolence and social change, they will continue to misinterpret historical processes and produce policy suggestions that are neo-colonial in nature.