The term “nonviolent resistance” is frequently assumed to refer to a single and coherent theory about the proper way to manage conflict. There are, however, two quite different theories subsumed by this general term. One assumes a basic human harmony and denies the morality of or necessity for either coercion or violence. The second regards conflict as normal, even healthy; nonviolence is perceived as an economic way of testing strength and the only limit set upon means is that of threatening or using physical force. Because activists, advocates, and observers often fail to distinguish these views, the effectiveness of nonviolent resistance is frequently impaired. This is because resisters of differing views fail to find a common basis for cooperation and because the spectator is confused by apparently contradictory professions and acti