Different as are the positions of the absolute and the relative pacifists, in practice they find themselves united in their logical condemnation of violence as an effective means for bringing about social change. Hence there is no reason why they cannot join forces in many respects. Only a relatively small proportion, even of the absolutists, have no interest whatever in bringing about social change, and are thus unable to share in this aspect of pacifist thinking. FOOTNOTES: [1] Ernest L. Meyer, "_Hey! Yellowbacks!_" (New York: John Day, 1930), 3-6. [2] Krishnalal Shridharani, _War Without Violence_ (New York: Harcourt Brace, 1939); _Selections from War Without Violence_ was published by the Fellowship of Reconciliation, 2929 Broadway, New York, as a pamphlet, in 1941. [3] Jessie Wallace Hughan, _If We Should Be Invaded: Facing a Fantastic Hypothesis_ (War Resisters League, New York, 1939). A new edition with the title _Pacifism and Invasion_ was issued in 1942. [4] Many later writers have selected their examples from the large number presented by Adin Ballou, _Christian Non-Resistance: In All Its Important Bearings_ (Philadelphia: Universal Peace Union, 1910); first published in 1846. [5] Richard B. Gregg, _The Power of Non-Violence_ (Philadelphia: Lippincott, 1934). A new and revised edition of this book is to be published by Fellowship Publications, N. Y., 1944. [6] Aldous Huxley, _Ends and Means: An Inquiry into the Nature of Ideals and the Methods Employed for Their Realization_ (New York: Harpers, 1937). [7] John Lewis, _The Case Against Pacifism_ (London: Allen and Unwin, 1940), 23. Definition of Terms Both in pacifist thought and in the criticisms of pacifism, a great deal of confusion arises because of the inexact use of terms. We have already seen that pacifists of many shades of opinion are united in their refusal to participate in war. In this objection there is a negative quality. The very word "non-violence" used in the title of this study suggests this same negative attitude, and it was not long ago that pacifists were generally known as "non-resistants." Although some of those who oppose participation in war still insist upon calling themselves "non-resistants"[8] many of the modern pacifists disclaim the term because it is negative, and insist that the essence of pacifism is the element of active goodwill toward all men.[9] Yet when confronted with evil, even he who thinks of his pacifism as a positive attitude must decide not only what means he _will_ use to oppose evil, but what means he _will not_ use. At the moment when the society of which he is a part insists that every one of its members participate in an enterprise to employ these proscribed means, the pacifists of all shades of opinion become "conscientious objectors." To what is it exactly that they object?