English363: Counterculture: Civil Disobedience (Week 5 Topic) ID: dkim131 At face value, civil disobedience seems a relatively negative

undertaking. Within a democratic society, people are conditioned to perceive the government as an authoritative entity, and one whose rules they are not permitted to break. However, defying the law through non-violent resistance has rightfully become a justifiable act in the face of immoral, corrupt and generally unfair conduct, and social commentators, street artists and normal civilians alike have all expressed contempt for politically debauched rules through varying forms of resistance. Indeed, it has been demonstrated through numerous instances of civil disobedience that challenging the law without physical brutality has yielded successful and positive results, invoking tremendous social change. Civil disobedience is an extremely broad term, encompassing many different types of noncompliance with the law. Generally described as the professed refusal to obey certain governmental demands, the disobedience can be seen to exist in varying forms of non-violent and violent behaviour, with the former usually serving to be more efficacious than the latter. It is also linked to the term counterculture, in that both aspire to achieve social change by running counter to the norms of the day. Because countercultures relate more specifically to diverging from social norms as opposed to the law, it can be seen as the cultural equivalent of political opposition. Regardless, the underlying ethos of both came about long before the emergence of modern societies. In 399BC, Socrates was put to trial after being vocally opposed to the might makes right attitude prevalent of the time, and was subsequently sentenced to death. He was found guilty of corrupting the minds of the youth, but he felt himself morally bound to continue to defend his teachings despite the courts having deemed it an illegal practice (Socrates Way, 2011). In this way, it could be perceived that the Greek philosopher Socrates launched the tradition of non-violent civil disobedience by

challenging the Athenian sense of justice. French sociologist Emile Durkheim also examined the trial of Socrates, and was a strong advocate of the belief that this type of civil deviance served a social function, in that it served to prepare a new morality and faith that the Athenians needed. (Appelrouth & Edles, 2011) and acted as an introduction to reforms. Durkheim had correctly observed that the purpose of civil disobedience was that of societal progression, moving away from injustice and corruption. Despite having lived in an era of Ancient philosophy, the Greek philosopher has become a prominent figure for modern day proponents of civil disobedience. Martin Luther King, Jr. speculated in his open letter written during his incarceration that to a degree, academic freedom is a reality today because Socrates practiced civil disobedience (Irish, 2010). Socrates committed a crime against the state and willingly accepted the consequences imposed onto him, and King followed suit. Despite having taken a path of non-violent resistance, King was ultimately successful in his plight. Political theorist Lawrence Quill notes that non-violent movements in a democratic context appear together as revolutionary and complementary . . . a global trend away from brutal, authoritarian government, directly attributing it to the movements such as the one spearheaded by King. (Quill, 2009) Socrates and Martin Luther King Jr. are far from being the only two individuals to have contributed to the evolution of civil disobedience. Henry David Thoreau was a 19th Century philosopher who can be credited with popularising the practice and also of introducing King to the theory of nonviolent resistance. His thesis entitled On the Duty of Civil Disobedience was published in 1849, and stemmed from a strong distrust of the government and stressed the importance of following ones personal conscience over the law, if the former dissented from the latter. That government is best which governs least (Thoreau Reader, 2009). Thoreau founded his argument on the somewhat contradictory notion of resistance being the epitome of patriotism as it demonstrates the willingness

to construct to better, but not overthrow, the ruling system. Non-violent resistance was utilised and encouraged by Thoreau, who recognised that people are entitled to disobey the law in the face of unjust rules. If... the machine of government... is of such a nature that it requires you to be the agent of injustice to another, then, I say, break the law. (Thoreau Reader, 2009) He protested against war and slavery through tax resistance, and noted how sharply his non-aggressive methods of remonstration contrasted with the States use of brute force after being thrown in jail overnight. The superiority of non-violent methods was realised as the American author noted that although he could not change his imprisonment, he also could not be compelled to change his beliefs as the State was bereft of moral authority. While not perceived as a successful man in his own lifetime, Thoreau has been cited to have been an influence on political activist Martin Luther King Jr., authors Leo Tolstoy, Marcel Proust, Ernest Hemingway and President John F. Kennedy (Barksdale, 2005). The debate of whether civil disobedience can be justified in the modern world has been ongoing since its inception, and the reasons for why it can be are manifold. In a democracy, leaders are not infallible creatures. Historically and in contemporary society, those wielding power within the State have succumbed to corrupt forms of ruling. As the effects of civil disobedience become farreaching, the awareness of its powerful influence on the social order may dissuade politicians from abusing their powers. Another motive for practising civil disobedience is that simply, there may not be any other way to effect change. Martin Luther King Jr. lived in a time where politicians did not believe that his cause warranted any attention, until the non-violent methods utilised by King and his supporters in the Civil Rights Movement finally succeeded in transforming society for the better . It could also be said that as humans are imperfect, the laws they create may also be inadequate and flawed. The fact that the laws are a human construct may also

serve as a justification for bringing about change, as other humans have the right to contribute to what appropriate societal regulations are. We can look to alternative forms of action to see that civil disobedience is often the wisest path to take. In the face of an unjust law, we can also recognise uncivil disobedience or civil submission as options. Immediately, we can see that the course of action and the results offered by the two are less than desirable, as the first permits violence and the second leads to continued anguish and unrest. Another prominent advocate of civil disobedience was Mohandas Gandhi who pioneered a resistance to tyrannical dictatorship through mass nonviolent civil disobedience. He believed that anyone who passively stood by as a corrupt government took hold over a nation was also guilty of lawlessness. Civil disobedience becomes a sacred duty when the state has become lawless or corrupt. And a citizen who barters with such a state shares in its corruption ...Every citizen is responsible for every act of his government...There is only one sovereign remedy, namely, non-violent non-cooperation. (IEER, 2001) Gandhi fought for the rights of the disenfranchised Indian immigrants, and sought to improve both the state and civil society. Because of the Indian leader, the countrys independence was finally granted in 1947, seventeen years after a mass march to the sea demonstrating the oppressive British monopoly on salt. While it can be a time-consuming process, the positive effects from such acts can be seen to endure in not just India, but in many other countries where others have retaliated with non-violent rebellion. Until his death, Gandhi resiliently pushed civil disobedience as a successful alternative to murder, and was determined that ultimately, it would be the route that everyone would take in overthrowing immoral and corrupt leaders. Despite having shown on many occasions that civil disobedience is both just and successful, it would be foolish to disregard the failings and negative consequences that can occur as a direct result of non-violent resistance. On a more local and historical context, a group of Maori sailed into the

unfamiliar South Pacific several hundred years ago. They arrived on a remote archipelago and proceeded to form an egalitarian community and lived in such a way that war would have been unsustainable due to the small amount of resource on the Chatham Islands. In 1835, a group of Maori discovered the island and showed no qualms in slaughtering and enslaving every single member of the Moriori. The Moriori had always used non-violent methods to resolve disputes, and therefore did not attempt to fight back physically. (Diamond, 1997) British philosopher William Paley asserted that any movement of resistance to the government must be carefully thought over, in terms of the risks and negative consequences involved. Due to this matter-of-fact approach, civil disobedience was generally not encouraged as the probability of personal costs may have been greater than the injustice. It can be disputed whether this type of pragmatism is superior to Thoreaus idea of following ones conscience, but then easily deduced that progress would only ensue once taking chances despite the risks involved. Another point of contention within the realm of civil disobedience is that it can interpreted as a politically unreasonable move. In most westernised countries, individuals sacrifice their absolute liberty to gain the states insurance of social liberties. I lose the right to punch my neighbour just as he loses the right to punch me. (Sonfar, 2008). We are obligated to follow the laws of the state upon implicitly agreeing to this contract, and any nation in which individuals followed what they personally believed to be unjust could lead to a speedy descent into anarchy. This is a political stance that maintains that if everyone defied the law on the grounds that they personally disagreed with them, democracy could potentially be perceived as being superfluous as individuals put their private values over those of the law. Instead, a more practical option could be said to lie in the judicial system, in which those who feel wronged can seek recourse in court. While this could be an option for some, again it can be seen through the example of the Civil Rights Movement that this was not possible, as surely if

the issue could have been easily resolved in court, King would not have had to take to the streets with his peaceful demonstrators. King also overthrows the notion that government wield supreme moral authority, as seen throughout history to be patently untrue. We should never forget that everything Adolf Hitler did in Germany was "legal" and everything the Hungarian freedom fighters did in Hungary was "illegal." (Luther King Jr., 1963) A form of civil disobedience that could also be perceived to be damaging the cause is that of that of through the medium of street art, led by the underground artist Banksy. World renowned for his protest art, Banksys importance has been disputed due to the fact that the artist does little in actively trying to change what he believes is a contentious social climate, as the art he sprays on the walls can only raise an amusing form of social awareness. His messages left anonymously on social responsibility and ethics can be overshadowed due to his ironic fame, which greatly affects the potency of the causes he supports. In perpetuating an overtly passive type of protest, Banksy has done little to directly motivate any change and often just states the obvious. Ultimately, it should be considered the likes of King and Gandhi that best epitomise what it means to be a triumphant activist of civil disobedience. Civil disobedience has demonstrated its efficacy through the likes of Martin Luther King Jr., Gandhi, and its positive effects can still be seen in democratic societies in the present day. However, due to its nature of its being founded upon principles supporting the defiance of law, others may find even non-violent resistance hard to justify and question its need. This argument can easily be overruled when we perceive that civil disobedience serves the purpose of improving a society and certainly, a perfect society would be in no need of such civil infractions. But as Henry Thoreau put so succinctly, such a State has been visualised but not yet anywhere seen. (Thoreau Reader, 2009)

Works Cited (APA Referencing Style)

Socrates Way. (2011). Socrates Life and Times. Retrieved from http://www.socratesway.com/history.html Thoreau Reader. (2009). Resistance to Civil Disobedience. Retrieved from http://thoreau.eserver.org/civil.html Barksdale, Maynard. (2005). Walden Pond: A History. United Kingdom: Oxford University Press. IEER. (2001). Selected Quotes of Mahatmi Gandhi. Retrieved from http://www.ieer.org/latest/oct2quot.html Appelrouth, S. & Edles, L. (2011). Classical and Contemporary Sociological Theory: Text and Readings. US: Pine Forge Press. Irish, C. (2010). King, Socrates, and Civil Disobedience. Retrieved from http://lifeexaminations.wordpress.com/2010/09/20/king-socrates-and-civil-disobedience/ Quill, L. (2009). (Un)Common Sense in Mass Democracies. Retrieved from http://www.palgraveconnect.com.ezproxy.auckland.ac.nz/pc/doifinder/10.1057/9780230234369 Diamond, Jared. (1997). Guns, Germs and Steel: The Fates of Human Societies. New York: W.W. Norton. Sonfar, Larik. (2008). Is civil disobedience just in a democratic society?. Retrieved from http://www.helium.com/debates/166679-is-civil-disobedience-just-in-a-democratic-society/side_by_side? page=2 Luther King Jr., Martin. (1963) Letter from a Birmingham Jail. Retrieved from http://www.africa.upenn.edu/Articles_Gen/Letter_Birmingham.html