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.

Moon-Young Lee’s transcendence ethics are compared to Pondy’s (1962) conflict episode and Fisher, Ury, and Patton’s (2011) principled negotiation. Lee’s nonviolence, like conflict episode, posits various phases of a conflict between the weak and the strong and requires the weak to persevere with persecution and wait patiently for the right time. Like principled negotiation, Lee’s nonviolence adheres to rationality and objective standards without release of emotional enmity. Personal ethic to obtain knowledge and pursue agreement is consistent with principled negotiation, which suggests inventing options for mutual gain. Social ethic and self-sacrifice do not appear in conflict episode and principled negotiation. A conflict episode, “Lieutenant‘s Gentle Revolt,” illustrates how Lee’s nonviolence and principled negotiation can be effectively applied, especially to a bureaucratic model of conflict in which the counterpart is bad and powerful. Lee’s nonviolence is a likely choice for those who do not have power and who are persecuted by the strong, but must deal with violence of the strong. In fact, nonviolence, although sounding only theoretical and idealistic, provides practical and realistic guidance for conflict management.

This paper examines Professor Moon-Young Lee’s academic achievement, which has been less highlighted than his popular image of a pro-democracy fighter. In fact, Lee was a puritan and dissident intellectual who studied public administration and believed in God throughout his lifetime. Lee employed ‘who-what-how’ categorization and transcendence ethics (i.e., nonviolence, personal ethic, social ethic, and self-sacrifice) to describe and analyze administrative phenomena. Lee’s nonviolence in particular plays a key role in his framework of transcendence ethics and is used in unique ways. His nonviolence is (1) not to use violence but to use ‘word,’ (2) to tell the truth (right things), (3) to tell right things only, (4) to use complete nonviolence, and (5) grounded in laws, common sense, and agreements. Nonviolence will be a likely option for those who do not have strong power and must address an evil counterpart. Citizens’ rational resistance and nonviolence will protect themselves from and correct the power abuse of evil regimes. However, the weak must persevere against the violence of the strong and wait patiently on the long road from nonviolence to self-sacrifice. Accordingly, it is not easy to practice Lee’s framework of transcendence ethics in reality. Nevertheless, his transcendence ethics, nonviolence in particular, appear to provide practical and realistic guidance for public administration reform.