Henry David Thoreau is the esteemed elucidator of civil disobedience; he conceived his ideas in the late 1840s, because he felt compelled to exercise the extent of his personal rights, which he believed was the purpose of American democracy. In addition, Thoreau perceived his peaceful refusal to pay taxes to the government, which he could not support because it allowed slavery and invaded smaller countries to perpetuate that vile institution, as an expression of his conscience. Thoreau had judged the government’s actions as immoral and unjustifiable based upon his own rectitude; thus, he believed acting upon his conscience would not only effectuate the greatest change but also promote justice.
In application, his theories proved correct, when prodigious amounts of people began to engage in the process of civil disobedience and act upon their sentiments. For example, Dr. Martin Luther King led the Civil Rights movement, in which many blacks and whites underwent and carried out the process of civil disobedience. In result, society’s institutions were desegregated and lawful racism was eradicated.
Thoreau and King’s contributions manifest that civil disobedience is justified in all instances that one’s sensibilities to natural moral law are discordant with certain laws or adjudications; furthermore, it is the obligation of every individual who desires to proactively contribute to the beneficent growth and alteration of society to undergo the process of civil disobedience. However, those acting disobediently must be willing to accept the consequences of their transgressions, despite the moral correctness of the transgression.
Defining Civil Disobedience
The act of civil disobedience only springs from a love for justice. When a law becomes pernicious to the character of any individual it has transgressed the line of natural morality; transgression of natural moral law should not be sanctioned by citizens under a government. Therefore, when a law is judged by one’s consciences as iniquitous, civil disobedience is the expedient path to express discontent with that law and, in time, cause that law to be rescinded or revised.
Civil disobedience is justified because it promotes the moral character of a nation and results in the strengthening of justice because of the magnanimous self-sacrifices made by the individuals who let their internal compass, known as a conscience, guide their courses of action. Government is the progeny of the human mind and its contrivances; thus, every citizen fulfilling their duty to carry out the process of civil disobedience acts as a parent for his or her government, instead of succumbing to the whim of the government. In addition, civil disobedience is not simply showing disregard for a law that is discordant with one’s conscience, but rather a process with defined internal steps, which incite realizations that every individual should experience if they have a desire for justice in their government. Furthermore, civil disobedience preserves one’s personal integrity.
The Process of Civil Disobedience
As stated above, civil disobedience is a process; King sets down four basics stages for the civil disobedience. The four steps he states are 1) Collection of the facts to determine whether injustices are alive. 2) Negotiation. 3) Self-Purification and 4) Direct action. Great change has been achieved through this process. For example, in the early twentieth century Gandhi employed the process of civil disobedience to eliminate the caste system in India.
Not all four steps have to be completed to successfully provoke change but if the government adheres to their unjust law after the first two steps then the former two steps must be performed. However, it is imprudent to perform these steps in rapid succession; patience is also warranted in the practice of civil disobedience. Because civil disobedience will provoke tensions, sometimes violent ones, the first three stages must be completed to justify the fourth.
Conscientious citizens should all practice the process of civil disobedience, even if they do not reach the fourth step, because, in so doing, they will have assessed the problems with their government and helped improve its integrity. A government that is corrupt and iniquitous or has characteristics of injustice, should, rightfully, be protested. Because each individual in a democracy has an inherent power of laws and civil disobedience is a process by which beneficent change is achieved, it is the obligation of a citizen to practice civil disobedience as a democratic process to regulate the government. However for these valiant actions in civil disobedience, each individual must understand that a reaction will occur and affect them as well as others.
Thoreau’s Civil Disobedience
Thoreau willingly went to jail, with a most peculiar calmness, which he describes in “On the Duty of Civil Disobedience”. Thoreau’s reaction to the acceptance of his consequences is astounding. What sane man would willingly embrace incarceration? The answer: a man whose conscience is content with the choice of action against injustice would willingly accept any commensurate punishment because he realizes that his punishment makes a statement to government and will inspire other individuals to delve deep inside themselves and undergo a similar process. For instance, Dr. King said he “openly” and “lovingly” broke unjust laws “with a willingness to accept the penalty.” King was influenced by Thoreau’s work, a paradigm of civil disobedience. Thus, the prodigious effects of civil disobedience have been manifested. As long as the appropriate process is performed and the consequences accepted and learned from, the delicate process of civil disobedience is justified.
Are There Negative Consequences?
What problems or dangers could civil disobedience possibly create? In 1963, during a siege of civil protest, eight clergymen of Birmingham, Alabama wrote a letter to Dr. King presenting their concerns about the practice of civil disobedience in Birmingham. Their first indictment against the principles of civil disobedience is that it improperly circumvents the route to change a law that is perceived unjust.
The proper route, considered by the clergy, is negotiations through the court system; however, this indictment fails to recognize that diplomatic negotiation is a stage within the process of civil disobedience. The letter by the clergy further accuses civil disobedience of precipitating violence and hatred. Although, direct action while practicing civil disobedience is supposed to cause tension so as to provoke change, the violence and hatred that sometimes occurs, as in the occurrences in Birmingham, are because of the government and other people’s rejection of the concept and brutal suppression of the expression of one’s conscience. Each individual engaged in a peaceful protest should have undergone the four steps of civil disobedience individually; they chose to unite because their conscience points to the same moral answer.
Thus, the principles of civil disobedience, when understood and applied correctly (which they are not always due to human folly, vice, or passion), will not be destructive to human character. Instead, human character will be promoted and justice will be infused in government.
America’s government has legislated iniquitous laws throughout its history: laws that have protected slavery, created prejudices, oppressed women, and refused to protect the rights the Constitution guarantees. These unjust laws have no place in a government controlled by the people. It is the responsibility of citizens to eradicate the injustice in their government.
Government is a vehicle supposed be conducted by conscience down the street of justice and to the highway of virtue; if ever government refuses to proceed in the direction conscience desires it to, conscience must stop the vehicle and manipulate the engine until it will respond to the conducting of justice before it veers of into an accident with corruption. If each citizen desires to take on their responsibility to the people of the country, they must practice civil disobedience to provoke the necessary change. An individual who passionately believes in the sentiments of one’s conscience will act upon it because one perceives one’s conscience as a tool to measure morality. Thus if one does not act upon the sentiments of one’s conscience and chooses to follow mandates by the government regardless of their discordance with natural moral law, then he or she has accepted injustices and failed his or her own conscience.
Civil Disobedience Today
Today’s world throws us deep into confusion with the perfusion of mass media and culturally exported values in popular culture. It becomes harder and harder to sustain individualistic ideologies unless they serve an avaricious purpose. This trend can and should be reversed. Perfection is never achieved, which means the process of improvement should be perpetual. Part of the process the improvement process for society is to have individuals participating in civil disobedience in the correct manner, which is not formulaic but individualistic. Thoreau’s advice is to, “Let your life be the counter friction to stop the machine.”
Sources:
- Henry David Thoreau "On the Duty of Civil Disobedience"
Join the Conversation