Supporting Civil Disobedience in the Society - Essay Example

In Defense of Civil Disobedience Civil disobedience is acting out with a purpose and should be not only respected but permitted. The reason it should be more acceptable than it is, is that without a voice, the people of any state, country or nation will go unheard and therefore fall will under the tyranny of said state, country or nation, “Practitioners of civil disobedience basing their actions on moral right and usually employ the nonviolent technique of passive resistance in order to bring wider attention to the injustice”(Infopleaseencyclopedia.com, 2008). Additionally, if civil disobedience never occurred, women would not have the right to vote, emancipation of the slaves would not have occurred and segregation would still be firmly in place. The oxymoron present within the term “civil disobedience” immediately grabs anyone’s attention, who hears it. Civil disobedience alludes to breaking the law in the spirit of religious or political change with a fundamental belief that one’s disobedience is justified as they are adhering to a higher law than that of their government or any other humanized institution. Essentially, it means to break the law in a civil way. When looking back through history, numerous activists paved the way for the advancements and liberties that exist today. Individuals such as the Reverend Martin Luther King, Mohandas Gandhi and Socrates were heard and were able to initiate change through civil disobedience. Martin Luther King himself, willingly and knowingly went to jail for allegedly starting anarchy or civil uprising (Lopach et al, 409) Incidentally, this was exactly what was required in order to make sure that his voice was heard and change could then be catalyzed. In fact, from a jail cell, he was quoted as saying “A just law is a man made code that squares with the moral law or the law of God…An unjust law is a human law that is not rooted in eternal law or natural law”(Martin Luther King, 1963)(Lopach,409). Equally, Socrates accepted his punishments for his alleged acts of civil disobedience, “While sometimes willful and defiant and sometimes passive to the point of self extinction (Socrates did not protest his punishment) the heroes of civil disobedience believed in the need to obey a higher authority, and to be cleansed of self interestedness”(Lopach et al, 409). Like Gandhi and King, it was trouble that Socrates sought to initiate, but change he sought after. He is still remembered for his contributions to philosophy, government and even language. Individuals like Socrates, King and Gandhi are remembered for their greatness but had they not made waves in their own time, they would have been long forgotten by now. The race riots of 1972 are an example of more modern civil disobedience, where often times protesters taunted the authorities and authorities lashed back with sometimes brute force. These riots were not only race related but were also students and other like minded individuals engaging in protesting the war. Christian based communities and unions also engage in civil disobedience or a nonviolent form of uprising in order to protest publicly the powers that be. An example of one common type of civil disobedience that takes place today is the type which take place outside of abortion clinics. Similarly, though not due to moral issues, writer’s strikes and union strikes have been on the rise over the past year or two. An aspect of civil disobedience that may not be considered very often is that of teaching the idea of civil disobedience in the classroom. If our children are taught to not make waves and to always believe and listen to police officers, government officials and those in “authority” then without an actual act of disobedience, nothing would ever change. Change does not come from nothing, but must come from something. Some type of catalyst is required to move the wheels of change through history. Where we are at today is not entirely ideal, we still live in a country where not everyone is able to marry the person that they choose to marry. We live in a country that should be separated state from church but often is not. We may not live in the most ideal political environment there is but we have also come a long way. Women who were once viewed more like a male’s possession are now free to vote and are no longer bound to arranged marriages. It is however a fact, that women make substantially less then men in the work force, even when doing the exact same job and having gone through the same college training. The achievements made by minorities, women and even groups with concerns about sexual orientation have been made not through simple suggestions or letters to congress but through forming strength in numbers and having their voices heard. According to Gandhi, there were three parts to non violent conflict; identify the unfair law or rule, refuse to obey that particular rule and finally, to accept the certain consequences. School books may teach the previous three steps in a sedate sort of way, but according to Gandhi, there was another step which was crucial. This step was known as self-purification. Gandhi felt that one must not just partake in a civil uprising for some political reason or superficial defiance, but that one must defy the unjustness of laws based on the higher powers of a god or being. He felt that one must make an absolute commitment and devote one’s self to the rightness of defying a given law while also suffering the consequences of not following it.(Lopach et al, 411). Continuing with the discussion of how and if civil disobedience is taught in schools, it is often briefly talked about but often places an act of civil disobedience in the same category of criminal activity. The student is then left to ponder whether one is truly doing the right thing by acting out in civil disobedience, even if it is blatantly obvious to them that disobediences towards that particular law is undoubtedly the right thing to do. Many college classes at this point in time will teach on Henry David Thoreau and his virtual bible on civil disobedience. Essentially, it was argued by Thoreau that people should not allow government to make their decisions for them or to do their thinking for them. He was also opposed to the concept of democracy as he felt that even that was unhealthy for the group as a whole. Thoreau felt that the best type of government was one which did the least amount of governing. Another substantiation for the opinion that civil disobedience should not be considered disobedience at all but rather an act of public expression, is that many laws which exist are in fact terrible and should not exist in the first place. In the days of Rev. King, laws of segregation were in place. These laws of course were horrible and nature and merely served to demean and oppress a particular group of individuals. How many African American men and women defied the law and entered a bus, finding a seat at the front? How many African American men and women entered establishments which read “no colored folk”? These brave individuals saw a law which was not only unnecessary but served to damage and separate instead of bring harmony or peace within a country. Their civil disobedience is remembered and honored today, and surely will be for many decades to come. When discussing what it is that schools are teaching in reference to civil disobedience, it is crucial to understand that in most cases, students are taught that civil disobedience merely means peaceful and legal forms of non violent protest. More accurately however, and in line with the teachings of Gandhi, civil disobedience is fundamentally the challenging of a law seen as a violation of or an intrusion on a human rights, by a large group of people. One such example can be said to be same sex marriage. For several decades, the high courts of America have played a virtual tug of war with the idea of same sex marriage. Recently, the state of California has brought down the ban on same sex marriage to the delight of many same sex couples living in the sate who seek the same right to enter into the bonds of marriage just like every one else. This came after quite a bit of deliberating and controversy as well as some civil disobedience here and there through protests, marches and so on. Interestingly enough, most of history’s most unforgettable and integral figures were in fact movers and shakers (involved in civil disobedience in one way or another). As a matter of fact, if one follows the teachings and parables of the Bible, the very beginning of man and woman began with an act of disobedience! It was the first woman, Eve who thought outside of the box and dared to eat the fruit offered to her by the serpent against the commands placed on the fruit by God to not eat of the fruit of the forbidden tree. (Fromm, 402). If it weren’t for Eve, we just might still be wandering around in a garden wearing loin cloths with no personal identity or freedom. The leaving of the garden then symbolizes a harmony created by man with other humans as well as with nature and is referred to as “the end of days”(Fromm, 402). It is because of this separation from the greater power, in this case being God, that man and woman are able to experience autonomy and a will of their own. The ability to choose is then developed which defines humanity. From the beginning of time, Rulers of all sorts including kings, tyrants, lords, priests and even parents have not only commanded obedience but upheld it as a virtue. (Fromm, 402). It is however, those who have challenged the laws and decrees, even at the expense of their own life, that have accomplished many of the liberties and freedoms that we enjoy today and will further enjoy in the future. There is a sense of safety however, which exists in obedience. An individual who obeys in all manners, is the same as a slave. (Fromm, 405). On the inverse, an individual who consistently disobeys is considered a rebel and may be merely disobeying for the sake of being contrary, not because they are bound to the laws or rules of a higher power or idea. The person who is disobedient civilly, does so intrinsically to remain true to their idea of self and to what they feel that they represent. It is virtually impossible to ask of someone for them to simply stop being who they are or to deny everything that makes them human. In the case of individuals who have acted in civil disobedience for the sake of preserving human rights to certain groups of people, they have done so because having not done so would be everything that they are against. Ultimately, they are acting on a moral decision that they feel is right and just even though the laws of their state or government may disagree and enforce punishment because of it. During the time of the Holocaust, numerous soldiers were ushered into the Gestapo. Many were fascist and in agreement with the game plan of the Third Reich, but many fulfilled their duty out of fear and a sense of self preservation. There were also many who disobeyed direct orders by helping or releasing prisoners. This act of civil disobedience would have most likely claimed their lives, and in many cases did. These individuals however, did what they felt was right and ultimately answered to a higher authority or even to their own consciences while completely defying the laws of the land. This is precisely the point of why civil disobedience is not only necessary at times, but also unavoidable. Even in present times, we still find laws which prohibit same sex marriages and laws which allow oil companies to charge outrageously high gas prices to the point of leveling the economy. Changes have never come without actions which catalyze change. In conclusion, civil disobedience has been illustrated to be an almost fundamental facet of human behavior which has developed as an evolutionary socio-immune response to tyranny and laws which deprive individuals of their human rights. From ancient times when people saw fit to enslave other people, simple obedience was not an option. By abiding in a spirit of obedience, one is merely a slave or mechanical so to speak. Acting however, in disobedience towards laws which serve to enslave, demean, prevent or oppress human beings, is often a choice of moral correctness by those that take part in it. In many cases, it is of the un most necessity in order to bring about real and permanent change. This was true in the case of Rev. Martin Luther King. This was true in the case of Socrates and also in the case of Gandhi.” The justification for civil disobedience stems from the moral imperative to resist immoral laws. Given the subjective nature of morality, it becomes possible to justify civil disobedience in protest of just about anything you can imagine”(Secular Web Library, 2008). Without individuals who are brave enough to stand up for what they feel is right, not just for themselves but for humanity, the world would not be moving in a progressive direction. Literature Review: Secular Web Library, This site is quite interesting as it discusses where the line should be drawn on the topic of civil disobedience. It causes one to think whether or not one is protesting or not honoring a law due to moral reasons or other less noble reasons. If nothing else, it really causes one to think about where they stand on drawing the line. Infopleaseencyclopedia.com This site explains how civil disobedience can be dated as far back as the Bible. In times of enforced laws or decrees form Pharoes and Kings, individuals would protest the injustice bayoneting the laws or by not honoring the decrees. This piece also hoes on the explain hoe heavily Thoreau influenced the modern day ideals of such actions. A History of Mass Non Violent Action by: Act Up This web site first provides a complete history of civil disobedience, primarily focusing on that of Mohandas Gandhi. Gandhi was very clear in his teachings that the 4 components of bringing about change were to first undergo a self cleansing process or a sort of ridding one’s self of selfishness and selfish motivations. The next step being to identify a law or rule which is unjust or in opposition of human rights. It is then that one should choose to not follow that law and then one must accept the consequences. The civil disobedience of Harriet Tubman is also brought to light in this site as, if it were not for her, many freed or escaped slaves would have had no place to go. During the Vietnam War, opposes would burn their draft cards thus symbolizing their protest against the war. The history time line goes on and on. Summary of Civil Disobedience by: Henry David Thoreau Thoreau is of course famous for his works such as Walden and Civil Disobedience. Incidentally, Thoreau makes many mentions of Gandhi and King throughout his work. Thoreau felt overall, that the less the government was involved, the better it was. He felt that governments with little jurisdiction over its people was the most optimal form of government. One can then assume that his advocacy for civil disobedience came from his knowledge that multiple government laws in place were unjust and oppressive to the human race. Thoreau took specific aim at the American government in his work as he saw it as a country merely seeking global power and the number one spot at that. He felt that as America continued on the path that it was taking, it slowly lost more and more of its integrity. Lastly, Thoreau did not mean to say that he felt that there should be no such thing as a government at all, but he did feel that we should have a better government. Works Cited: Act Up, A History of Mass Nonviolent Action, retrieved 30 June, 2008 from website at:http://www.actupny.org/documents/CDdocuments/HistoryNV.html Info Please Encyclopedia, Civil Disobedience, retrieved 4 July, 2008, from website at: http://www.infoplease.com/ce6/society/A0909663.html Fromm, Erich. “Disobedience as a Psychological and Moral Problem” Writing and Reading Across the Curriculum 10th edition, Bentley College, New York, 2008, Pfarson Lapoch, James L. Luckowski, Jean. Uncivil Disobedience: “Violating the Rules for Breaking the Law“, Writing and Reading Across the Curriculum, 10th edition, Bentley College, New York, 2008, Pfarson Secular Web Library,(2008) “ Is Civil Disobedience Protest or Terrorism?”, retrieved 4 July, 2008 from website at: http://iidb.infidels.org/vbb/showthread.php?t=207410 Thoreau, Henry David. “Civil Disobedience“ Resistance to Civil Government, Lenat, Richard - republished 1999-2008. Originally published 1849. Read More