This paper examines how Moon-Young Lee’s conception of nonviolence differs from Gene Sharp’s theory of nonviolent action. Sharp’s nonviolent action excludes only physical violence, while Lee’s nonviolence does not allow verbal, emotional, or psychological violence either. The former is not verbal but behavioral, whereas the latter involves expressing oneself only in words. The weak must say the strong the right things, which even an evil ruler dares not rebuff, minimally and without provoking him/her. Lee’s nonviolence is grounded in general standards and procedures, including common sense and agreement, but Sharp’s nonviolent action is not necessarily. Sharp’s nonviolent action is designed to change the sources of power and subjects’ consents and, thus, control the ruler’s power abuse. Lee’s transcendence framework of nonviolence, personal ethic, social ethic, and self-sacrifice aims to avoid an all-out confrontation between rulers’ tyranny and subjects’ rampage and, thus, pursue rationality and eventually peace. An illegitimate regime devoid of self-correction will collapse in on itself in the end as a result of self-enlargement and power hypertrophy. The weak ought not to ask too much but, instead, to keep telling the truth to the ruler, while enduring violence and waiting patiently to the end. Lee’s nonviolence together with minimalism makes his transcendence framework distinct from other theories of nonviolent action.

Abstract
Introduction
Sharp’s Nonviolent Action and Lee’s Nonviolence
Popular Sovereignty and Power Abuse
Goals of Nonviolent Struggles
Logics of Sharp’s Nonviolent Action
Logics of Lee’s Nonviolence
Conclusion
References

• Hun Myoung Park(Internation University of Japan)