I find the use of the word nonviolent troubling. The word nonviolence assumes that violence is the norm and as long as we use words such as nonviolent the material conditions that create such a norm cannot be shifted. Using double negative language reinforces the very things we want to change; at best, it cancels out negative things. Our language should reflect the world we are trying to create. It should be superfluously affirmative and constructive. For example, we can engage in peaceful communication instead of nonviolent communication. The more we express what we desire, the more easily it will become the norm.
In social justice conversations and communications, how can we use language that is simultaneously 1) disruptive and 2) constructive that also 3) meets the litmus test of no conflicting or competing implicit assumptions? Should social justice language strive toward meeting these three criteria in order to be effective?
See my handout from a recent presentation for some more thoughts on this topic.