Is Civil Disobedience Really So Radical?
posted by: Ryan Kerian 353 days ago
Many of us are deeply motivated to fight for the causes we believe in. Our motivations lead us to take different types of action; some sign petitions, others donate money and still others protest in the streets. Civil disobedience is often considered the most radical, least understood and least performed of all actions. Yet, it may also be one of the most powerful actions–an expression of courageous commitment to a cause and a display of the raw emotions underlying that commitment. And, really, is it so radical?
Civil disobedience has played a rich role in social and civil rights movements. It is defined as the “refusal to obey civil laws in an effort to induce change in governmental policy or legislation, characterized by the use of passive resistance or other nonviolent means.” Certainly, the concept conjures vivid images of Rosa Parks refusing to leave her seat on the bus or even anti-war activists protesting the Vietnam war. Simply, such acts of civil disobedience have transformed movements and helped shape public opinions.
It is likely that you maintain a strong view on the virtues of civil disobedience, on one end of the spectrum or the other. I do not have the benefit of survey statistics to guide me, but I feel comfortable asserting that a majority of my readers view civil disobedience as a rather radical means to achieve a desired end.
Yet, is civil disobedience so radical? You may be surprised to learn what Al Gore recently said on the issue. In an address at the Clinton Global Initiative meeting in September, Gore stated:
[i]f you’re a young person looking at the future of this planet and looking at what is being done right now, and not done, I believe we have reached the stage where it is time for civil disobedience to prevent construction of new coal plants….
Al Gore is many things, but radical does not come to mind. Yet, could the former Vice President of the United States be openly suggesting that young Americans violate the law in the name of the environment?
I raise this question because it is one which I have struggled with. I was raised in a relatively conservative, predominantly Catholic suburb in New Jersey. Today, I live in San Francisco in the wake of the passage of Proposition 8, which stripped away my right to marry and left me feeling dehumanized and unequal. To my own great surprise, I found myself engaging in civil disobedience with 14 other civil rights advocates on November 15, 2008. My visceral emotions and principled beliefs–my motivation to fight for equality–led me to block a highway off-ramp in San Francisco. I delivered our message in a way that even I thought was radical at the time.
I’ve changed my mind. To me, civil disobedience is not so radical after all. In fact, it’s merely necessary. Take a moment to evaluate your views on civil disobedience. Then, take another moment to share those views and your stories in the comments section that follows this post. I want to hear them and will choose from a few comments on each side of the spectrum to feature in a future post. Take this opportunity to be heard!
Read more: marriage, protest, environment, algore, disobedience, civil rights, proposition8
comments
I do believe civil disobedience can be, and often is, radical, and unnecessary. For instance, when the U.S. declared war on Iraq shortly after 9/11, I can remember hundreds of individuals in Chicago forming a human barrier across Lake Shore Drive in protest of the war, which ultimately caused massive delays and even accidents on one of Chicago's busiest roads.
While I appreciate the need, right and obligation to express one's views, I question whether civil disobedience is an effective (or safe) medium of communication. What about the innocent victims that were in accidents on Lake Shore Drive as a result of the protest, or the minor injuries that resulted from them? What about the doctor who couldn't get to the hospital to perform a procedure because he was stuck in hours of traffic? Or the mother who couldn't get to the soccer field to pick up her child? Or the man who couldn't get to his partner's birthday celebration? Or the crimes that may have been committed elsewhere while a large number of the City's law enforcement were forced to restore civility to a major highway.
I question if civil disobedience is really a glorified term for "an eye for any eye, a tooth for a tooth." And if so, is that really a state of society civil rights activists are promoting?
send green star
why is this inappropriate?
It is our right to demonstrate our dislike for what the government does. It also our duty to show we are not alright with current policies. The constitution and Bill of rights tells us (the people) have every right to demonstrate our dislike in a peaceful way.
If you don't use it...you lose it.
send green star
why is this inappropriate?
I agree with Clara - it depends entirely on an individual's definition of the word 'radical'. The word has undergone many changes from the 60s to the 80s to the present.
I think one of the major advantages to civil disobedience is to bring attention to a cause, whatever it may be.
I grew up in San Francisco, I was a teenager in the late 60s, a time when sit-ins, marches, etc were almost commonplace. It saddens me more than I can express that almost a decade into the 21st century we *still* discriminate against those who do not think, look. believe or love like 'me'. Drawing attention by creating a disturbance alerts the unaware, can lead to public dialogue - at the very least makes peolpe think.
Thanks for your blog Ryan.
send green star
why is this inappropriate?
... and as long as you are ready to stand up for your sake in court. Civil disobedience is sometimes necessary to point out laws with nonacceptable effects (such as discrimination, dehumanization etc), but it is still against the law. As laws are the foundations of a working, pluralistic society, the disobedient civilian must accept to pay the set prize for the disobedience.
How radical it is depends, I think, of the general feel in society regarding the cause. If most people are against the specific law, disobedience is not necessarily very radical. It also depends on the punishment - to stand up for your rights in the face of a lifetime in jail is rather radical no matter what the public feel is.
send green star
why is this inappropriate?
I'd like to critique a small aspect of your article: you said, "To my own great surprise, I found myself engaging in civil disobedience with 14 other civil rights advocates on November 15, 2008." You're painting with a rather broad brush; perhaps your generality about CD and radicalism causes readers to miss the nuance of what really happened on November 15. The fact is, it was not only the 15 of you who were engaged in CD, but rather, several thousand people in SF (the large protest march from which your group splintered), and hundreds of thousands of people in every state, were engaged in CD that day. I'd bet that most of those marchers lacked proper permits, marched outside of predetermined/approved routes, and otherwise acted at least in some ways outside of the civil law. What your group of 15 did, granted, was more radical than what the other several thousand SF marchers were doing. But both, the larger and smaller groups, were engaged in some form of CD - some just more radical on the spectrum than others. Looking at November 15 in that light and with that nuance, perhaps a more definable gradation of civil disobedience emerges. Radical and non-radical may be an oversimplified and unhelpful binary. Instead, the better approach might be to calculate and utilize the appropriate amount of radicalism on the spectrum in the appropriate circumstance. I'll leave it to others to determine whether your group was too radical under the circumstances.
send green star
why is this inappropriate?
I've been interested to hear from a few friends that my use of the term "radical" seems to have a negative connotation in the post. I hadn't thought about that implication when I wrote the piece. Does anyone have any thoughts on the use of the term -- is the word radical the wrong word to use here? How do you feel about radical action?
send green star
why is this inappropriate?
I've never considered civil disobedience a radical approach. Sometimes, we have to make a strong statement in order to get our points across. As long as we do this without violence and without damaging the property or livelihood of others, I just don't see how it could ever be considered radical. I think, though, a lot depends on the comfort level of the individual(s) involved -- if you *feel* it's radical, then to you, it's radical.... Very good blog, Ryan. Made me think.
send green star
why is this inappropriate?
Facebook account:
Disclaimer: The views expressed above are solely those of the author and may not reflect those of Care2, Inc., its employees or advertisers.
987635