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.

本文通过解决学者如何编码暴力、非武装暴力和非暴力的问题，加强了我在“揭穿非暴力公民抵抗背后的神话”研究中对公民抵抗文学的批评。它将手无寸铁的暴力作为一个单独的类别进行研究，并解释了手无寸铁的暴力可以引导反对派运动取得成功的途径。在回应 Onken、Shemia-Goeke 和 Martin 时，文章表明非暴力和暴力的二分法不是以分析对等为前提的，如果抵抗策略的研究要向前推进并远离文学的内在意识形态，就应该避免偏见。寻求改进我们如何操作概念以研究抵抗策略并没有什么理想主义的，