One of the reasons for the weakening of the family and the community in the modern world and the strengthening of destructive and violent patterns in children is the absence of accepted norms that provide a clear and united stance. Society, therapists, families, and even individuals within themselves move between conflicting moral poles toward the aggressive and violent child. This polarization paralyzes the adults' authority. The conflicting values typically represent opposite extremes, such as the “soft way” versus the “tough way,” “making demands” versus “acceptance,” “permissiveness” versus “authoritarianism,” or “discipline” versus “therapy.” We think much of the potential of nonviolent resistance comes from its ability to bridge these extremes. This makes nonviolent resistance morally and practically acceptable to the vast majority of parents, teachers, and therapists in our divided society.

Nonviolent resistance enables parents who are conflicted over their child-rearing attitudes to cooperate with each other, not by offering them a lukewarm compromise between the “tough” and the “soft” approaches but by a real synthesis that reinforces both. With nonviolent resistance, the “tough” parent may set limits without falling into an escalating spiral, while the “soft” one may conciliate without submitting. Moreover, the “tough” parent gets an opportunity to conciliate, and the “soft” one receives tools to protect himself and his other children against violence. In this way, the opposing approaches merge and enrich each other.