ion of some difference between oneself as defying and another party as defied. More precisely: in order to be "defiant" in the ordinary sense of the term, the defiant party must know (1) something about his or her own actions or commitments; (2) something about the actions or commitments of the party being defied; and (3) that there is a meaningful difference between these two. But even this informed or knowing assertion of difference is not enough to qualify as "defiance" in the ordinary sense of the word; in order for there to be "defiance" in the ordinary sense, it must also be the case that there is some general rule or expectation that-in most instances-would lead the would-be defiant party to acquiesce in, or defer to, the party being defied. "Defiance," in its ordinary usage, denotes not only the knowing assertion of difference by the defiant party, but also the knowing assertion of difference precisely in a context where a lack of difference or a lack of divergence-that is, where a kind of deference-is normally to be expected.' To illustrate: It might be the case that the actions and commitments of devout Hindus in India differ from the actions and commitments that some other party-say, an American beef-producing company-would regard as desirable. The American beef-producing company may devoutly wish to increase its sales by convincing Hindus to give up their beliefs and begin eating cow meat. The company's marketing efforts might even be bound up with the most altruistic of intentions; these efforts might be guided by the genuine conviction that a beef-rich diet is healthier for individuals and for the planet than is a diet altogether devoid of It is for this reason that we speak colloquially about the "gravity-defying" properties of gyroscopes or the death-defying feats of motorcycle daredevils. To defy gravity is to behave in a way that diverges from the way that bodies with mass normally-or for the most part-behave when gravitational forces are present; to defy death is to behave in a way that diverge