ABSTRACT As one of many scholars who have situated their research in terms of nonviolence (a mode of action) rather than pacifism (a philosophical position), I ask, what do we gain instead by adopting an explicitly pacifist stance, especially as a response to forms of violent extremism? First, I respond to three common dismissals of pacifism, interrogating the misguided assumptions about violence/nonviolence upon which they depend. Second, exploring recent violent encounters between white nationalist and antifa activists in the US, as well as insights from Ruddick’s “maternal thinking,” I argue that taking a principled stance against collective violence (1) has practical utility, including a protective effect, (2) forces us to wrestle with the humanity of our adversaries and our inability to ever fully control them, and (3) enables radical inclusion by requiring sustained attention to difference but also resistance to the forms of injustice and oppression this “difference” might entail. The pacifism that emerges here is messy and power laden, demanding that we continually wrestle not only with one another but with the tensions inherent in human interaction, difference, and conflict.

中文翻译：

---

与另一个人摔跤：凌乱、充满权力的和平主义的优点

摘要 作为将他们的研究置于非暴力（一种行动方式）而非和平主义（一种哲学立场）的众多学者中的一位，我问，通过采取明确的和平主义立场，我们会得到什么，尤其是作为对和平主义立场的回应？暴力极端主义的形式？首先，我回应了对和平主义的三种普遍否定，质疑他们所依赖的关于暴力/非暴力的错误假设。其次，探索最近美国白人民族主义者和反法运动分子之间的暴力冲突，以及拉迪克“母性思维”的见解，我认为，对集体暴力采取有原则的立场 (1) 具有实际效用，包括保护作用，( 2）迫使我们与敌人的人性和我们无法完全控制他们作斗争，(3) 通过要求对差异的持续关注以及对这种“差异”可能带来的不公正和压迫形式的抵抗，实现激进的包容。这里出现的和平主义是混乱和充满权力的，要求我们不仅要不断地相互斗争，还要不断地与人类互动、差异和冲突中固有的紧张局势搏斗。