This study compares the concept of nonviolence with traditional rhetoric because both endeavor to establish civil discourse as a standard for social and political interaction. The five chapters in the study uncover suggestions by contemporary rhetorical theorists for establishing civil discourse, trace the development of classical rhetoric and the development of the nonviolence movement in the United States, argue that both nonviolence and rhetoric are symbolic process arts, and conclude that, in spite of broad similarities, there are two subtle but significant distinctions between rhetoric and nonviolence: nonviolence relinquishes the use of violence as a legitimate means of waging social action, while traditional rhetoric has no such proscription; and nonviolence alters the traditional adversary relationship by demanding that its advocates demonstrate attitudes of love and reconciliation toward those in opposition, while traditional rhetoric has often been used in support of competitiveness, winning and losing, and division among people. The major conclusion of the study is that these two distinctions are significant in fulfilling contemporary rhetorical theorists' prereguisites for civil discourse. (Author/JM)