There are several important takeaways that the author wishes us to absorb from chapter 6 on civil disobedience. The first is that the term “civil disobedience” is described and defined very broadly by its famous users to incorporate many behaviors. These more famous users include the likes of Henry Thoreau, Ghandi, and MLK. Their definitions range from “to wash one’s hands of [an enormous wrong]… and not give it practically his support,” to disobeying an “unjust” law because it violates a “higher law,” such as moral conscience, the constitution, or the bible.
The next point of absorption is that due to this vagueness of terms, civil disobedience can be can be overused, both as a term and a practice, and be employed by both sides of the same argument. This becomes problematic because anything can be rationally justified as civil disobedience and Americans tend to view it as the trademark of a justified cause, which can lead to misconceptions. For example, the author uses the example of pro and anti-abortion demonstrators and how they both use acts of “civil disobedience.” If I were an American with a positive stigma towards “civil disobedience” due to our countries history of it, I would not be able to rationally choose, with those definitions, which side of the abortion argument was truly civil disobedience and which one was a protest of a justified practice or non-practice. Also because users of civil disobedience appeal to “higher laws” the users believe, sometimes falsely, that no secular authority can ever disagree with them. In other words, labeling something civil disobedience is highly subjective.
Next, the author wishes for us to recognize the many instances of successful use of civil disobedience. MLK’s tactics, the story of Lysistrata, and Ghandi’s practices are the most famous. The author also wants to point out several characteristics of these usages. The first is people who did not otherwise have voice in society carried them all out. This shows that civil disobedience is often a last resort and a way for an outsider or marginalized person to affect the status quo. After all, “Dissidents are unlikely to march outside the White House if the can have a meaningful audience inside.” (114) The second is that civil disobedience was not the cause of the positive results of each movement; civil disobedience was used to generate publicity that eventually got the people who could change the status quos to change them. This is significant because it reveals that even though civil disobedience itself goes outside of a system to affect it, the real actual act of changing the system still comes from within. Thirdly, Civil disobedience is the most effective when the participants have strong emotional or personal connections to each other. I found this interesting because OWS does not have this characteristic. Finally, civil disobedience can be adapted and employed in any number of social movements with good affects, however, they tend to be more successful when they share the above characteristics.
So, keeping in mind the main ideas of this chapter, I was wondering what the forum has to say about civil disobedience and anything else the chapter discussed. Is “civil disobedience” overused? Do you think Americans have been overexposed to those types of actions and don’t take them as seriously as they once did? Does anyone have good answers for the questions that the book poses on the bottom of page 111? “Do the politics and government of the United States encourage the development of certain kinds of strategies for social movements? Do the dominant strategies change over time? Are there certain kinds of constituencies who will choose to use civil disobedience, or are there certain issue areas for which the tactic is most relevant?” (111)
-JP Shannon
Hi JP! Fabulous blog post, nice review of the chapter.
What I struggled the most with in this chapter was the government’s role in civil disobedience. Immediately on the first few pages it talks about judges overturning civil disobedience cases because they personally connected with the perpetrators. Judges are supposed to make decisions based on the facts. The facts are that these people broke laws and put other people in harms way. I by no means condemn civil disobedience I think it is an important way to protest but who has the right to decide which civil disobediences are okay and which are not? Rosa Parks was thrown in jail for refusing to give up her seat yet Elizabeth Ann Tilson was pardoned for harassing women outside of an abortion clinic and trespassing? I know this is not the purpose of the chapter, it’s to explain the tactics and components of civil disobedience, but this is something that has always perplexed and bothered me. It may be I find this upsetting because I am pro-choice but I don’t believe in nuclear war and I still disagree with the judges ruling in that case. This is a very difficult topic to grapple with and I hope I’m making some sense. Basically this all comes down to the question of where are we supposed to draw the line on which civil disobediences are permitted and which are not, and who gets to make that decision? Is there any way to be completely fair and unbiased? Honestly, I would say no.
In response to JP’s first question: No I do not think civil disobedience is overused. I think the USA has made great strides because we are allowed to practice civil disobedience more often than in the past. Civil disobedience has allowed for more viewpoints to be acknowledged as well as educates people on various hot button issues.
Hey Lucie!
I believe that you bring up a great point when you say, “…where are we supposed to draw the line on which civil disobediences are permitted and which are not, and who gets to make that decision?” I believe the answer can be found within your question itself. Supposedly, as Meyer points out in his chapter, it falls on the courts attempt to decide which civil disobediences are permitted and which are not. This answer is deeply unsatisfying, but Meyer’s use of the nuclear weapons and abortion clinic examples is designed to point out the inadequacy of this solution and to prompt readers such as yourself to ask your question “is there any way to be completely fair and unbiased?” Frustratingly enough, I searched the chapter for the answer to your question and Meyer offered none. However the conclusion he wishes us to draw seems to be that it is impossible to decide which are justified unbiasedly and which are not because the definition and practice of civil disobedience is so based in opinion. Long gone are the movements of woman’s suffrage, civil rights, and Lysistrata where one side held obvious moral high ground over the other with which to use civil disobedience.
Btw, that was JP haha
Whats up JP! great post! To answer one of your questions whether the government actually encourages social movements or not, i believe that they do. For example, i wrote in my blog that a democracy encorages participation in government from its citizens and if a citizen believes that a law is wrong then the government allows them to make a stand on the issue. When a citizen takes action on a certain law this is how laws get amended in the first place. The government was set up to allow change from everyone who affected by the government.
I agree with you, JP, when you said in your reply that ” it is impossible to decide which are justified unbiasedly and which are not,” when referring to acts of civil disobedience. I think that you hit the nail on the head in your original post when identifying the “higher laws” that different groups appeal to in order to justify their civil rebellion. Interestingly enough, we cannot justify unbiasedly because we all have a differing view on what “higher laws” are the standard, and which “higher laws” have more precedents over the others. In the case of pro-life and pro-choice, each of the groups can appeal to a greater cause to rationalize their side of the fight. Pro-life constituents use the value of a human life as their cause, and pro-choice constituents use the freedom of free will and personal choice for their side of the argument.
The problem lies in the fact that people have not agreed upon one set standard. We will always have countermovements to movements, often equally as justifiable, because there is usually a “greater cause” or “higher law” that seems to morally permit the action on both sides. While I don’t believe we can ever all agree upon a system of set standards, because every individual values different things, I think interesting questions to pose are, “Why do people value certain morals about others? To what extent does culture influence these values? Is there any set standard or universal truth out there?”