[Vulnerability and Power - XXX]
The definition of coward is the lack of bravery. Bravery means courageous behavior. To be a coward, then, is to be someone that is deficient of bravery or backs down from instances that require bravery.
Common perspective: running from violence is cowardice.
But this is not always true, especially if engaging in violence requires less bravery than avoiding it. True cowardice is not running from violence but engaging in the *imbalance* of violent potential.
I can think of many examples of this.
Consider war. Is it brave to engage in warfare when the power imbalance is extraordinarily one sided? Is it brave to wield vastly more violent potential? No. True bravery might mean waging peace with a much weaker adversary (and risking public scrutiny).
Consider relationships. Is it brave to intimidate someone with far less power? Is it an example of bravery to charge into relational conflict when the negative consequences are disproportionate? No. It’s far more brave to relinquish the potential to damage or abuse someone that is younger, smaller, less powerful, or less influential.
Don’t accept the common perspective.
