<p> Nonviolent strategies have been shown to be more effective than violent insurgencies for countering oppression while increasing the subsequent degree of democracy in the country and reducing its chances of civil war. But we still do not know why some campaigns work and others do not. This dissertation develops a methodology for reframing our understanding of nonviolent conflict according to the all quadrants all levels (AQAL) model of integral theory that can also be used to investigate other topics as well. </p><p> The literature review covers terms, definitions, and misconceptions about nonviolent conflict, a historical lineage, and an overview of current theories and personalities. The terms simple and complex AQAL are introduced, and the AQAL model is contextualized with current knowledge as relevant to the five elements of integral theory: quadrants, types, states, and lines and levels of development. The model is then overlaid with each of the five primary debates in the field to show how integral theory reduces the polarization that often defines academic disputes and better informs our understanding of nonviolent conflict by allowing inclusion of all valid lines of truth. Integral methodological pluralism (IMP) is then used to bring forth the disciplinary subquestions in each methodological zone that, if answered, would begin to fill in the disciplinary gaps in our knowledge and better complete the process of contextualizing the AQAL model. I then offer suggestions for six integral research projects that use IMP to take a transdisciplinary approach to researching the more complex dynamics that happen between all of the factors identified previously and in context of the evolving situation. This process advances our understanding of how to use integral theory to reframe our approach to a field of inquiry, reduces the confusion surrounding nonviolent conflict by basing the investigation on perspectives not perceptions, and produces a model that is inclusive of all valid lines of truth and weighs their importance based on the context of the situation.</p>

<p> "Might makes right," so the saying goes. What does this mean? What does it mean to say that humans live by this saying? How can this saying that is considered by almost all as an expression of injustice play a justificatory role practically universally and ubiquitously? How can it be repulsive and yet, nonetheless, attractive as an explanation of the ways of the world? Why its long history? </p><p> I offer a non-cynical explanation, one based on a re-interpretation of the saying and of both recognized and unrecognized related phenomena. This re-interpretation relies on the notion of a tacit justification for violence. </p><p> This non-cynical, re-interpretive explanation exposes the ambiguity of the saying and the consequential unwitting, self-deceptive, fallacious equivocations that the ambiguity makes possible under common conditions. While this explanation, furthermore, focuses on thinking factors&mdash;specifically on fallacious thinking, on humans' unwittingly and self-deceptively committing the fallacy of equivocation&mdash;it does not deny the possible role of non-thinking factors; it only tries to show that the thinking factors are significantly explanatory. </p><p> What is the ambiguity? "Might makes right" expresses two principles. The first principle is the common meaning, namely, that the dominance of the mightier over the weaker is right. This principle is generally considered to be not a definition of justice but an expression of injustice. The second principle, which is almost universally shared in a tacit and unreflective way, is a principle of life, namely, that it is right for any living being to actualize its potential. This second principle is originary and thus primary, while the first principle is derivative and thus secondary. The use of all powers, natural or social, can be ultimately derived legitimately or illegitimately from this primary principle. </p><p> A common manifestation of "might makes right" is the unwitting abuse of power, an abuse that is not recognized as such by the so-called abuser, but that is rather suffered by this latter, who misapplies the second principle in situations that fall under the first principle, thereby unwittingly living by the saying, tacitly justifying abusive ways by it. This unwittingness calls for critical control and forgiveness.</p>