ABSTRACT
This chapter argues that the objection claims are mistaken and rely on flawed understandings of the history and dynamics of nonviolent social movements in the twentieth century. It reconstructs this argument as found in the work of George Orwell, Ward Churchill, and Peter Gelderloos. The chapter presents two responses to the “pacifism is a pathology” perspective. The first holds that these critics fail to understand the ways in which pacifism deploys power, which may include the use of coercive force. The second holds that these critics fail to understand the full range of nonviolent tactics for social transformation, which may in fact include some destructive tactics such as property destruction. The objection from the standpoint of pacifism as pathology is that pacifists have no other form of power available to them other than some kind of moral appeal to oppressing groups to stop their injustice.
