Good question. Civil disobediance is an often misunderstood concept. Here's a brief description:
Sometimes laws--or social conditions--are unjust. People who wnant to change these have a range of strategies they can use. Thoreau (Essay on Civil Disobedience" (an absolute must-read) laid out much of the idea. Essentially it is that, when (and ONLY wen) other means of bring about change have filed, individuals--either alone (as Gandhi did often ) or as a group (as with some of the civil rights protests) deliberately force the government to confront an issue by refusing to comply with relevant laws.
One thing tha tcannot be emphasized enough is that this must be nonviolent. The second, as Gandhi stressed, is that civil disobedience is part of a process--and can ethically come into play only after other avenues of action have filed. A third--this is not--EVER--an excuse for breaking the law without taking the consequences. An activist who resorts to civil disobedience does not seek to escape the legal penalties. The point is to chalenge the law/the system--not to engage in or encourage random lawlessness. That is a point stressed by Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. and his ideas on "nonviolent resistance."
One of the most important--and best--examples that illustrate all these points is Gandhi's (pre-WW2) "Slalt Tax" protest. The British in India taxed the manufacture of salt. Besides being a hardship for the poor, it ws (for a number of reasons) symbolic of the British domination of India.
Gandhi set out on a march (along one--several hundred miles) having announced he was going to the seashore to make salt--in violation of the law--as a protest. His march drew not only wide attention in India, but all over the world. When Gandhi reached the sea, he went about making salt. The British arrested him--and Gandhi cooperated and accepted his imprisonment without anger. The British actually did NOT WANT to arrest him. That they were stuck with havig to enforce their own law--and punish Gandhi--was an international relations embarassment and brought pressure on the British to make refrorms. Which was exactly what Gandhi intended.
The point, of course, is that this was not random disobedience--but a carefully calculated protest strategy designed to force the power structure to confront an injustice and make changes. And--Gandhi's imprisonment, rather than being something he sought to avoid, was in fact, the most important element in his entire strategy: to maneuver the British into committing an unjust act in full view of the entire world where it coud nt be dismissed or ignored.
In addition to Thoreau, check out Gandi's life and philosophy (easy to find stuff on this) as well as that of MLK, Jr.
2007-12-08 07:53:26
·
answer #1
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
0⤋
Civil disobedience is the neglect of the people to follow laws as a form of protest and defiance against perceived erroneous government acts.
2007-12-08 15:35:45
·
answer #2
·
answered by FRAGINAL, JTM 7
·
0⤊
0⤋
A politically correct way of saying "breaking the law"
2007-12-08 15:34:56
·
answer #3
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
0⤋
Well, going by the Federalist Papers, it's our duty when we no longer get honest, legitimate, services of good government, which is our intangible right.
2007-12-08 21:00:27
·
answer #4
·
answered by dumbme 2
·
0⤊
0⤋