| | |
| Table of Contents Next Article Previous Article Contributors Search |
| “Let us put our minds together and see
what kind of life we can make for our children.” –– Sitting Bull | |
| 1 | By any standards, religious, ethical, or moral, humans yearn to be free. We look upon freedom as the means for expressing our own individuality and making our own choices. We view freedom as the ultimate vision by which we define and shape our lives and those of our loved ones, and we make the assumption that such freedom is our birthright. Chief Joseph of the Nez Perce spoke eloquently of freedom when he said, “ All men were made by the same Great Spirit . . . The earth is the mother of all people, and all people should have equal rights upon it. You might as well expect the rivers to run backwards as that any man who was born a free man would be content when penned up and denied liberty to go where he pleases” (186). Unfortunately, the wish for freedom doesn’t always mesh with reality. Recorded history is rife with instances of human oppression and cruelty, and even today, racism, cultural stereotyping, and religious intolerance continue to assure that specific groups of people are not only denied their personal freedom, but are deprived of the very ability to exercise that freedom, namely, the ability to practice their own free will. |
| 2 | The American Heritage Dictionary (4th edition) defines free will as “free choice; the ability or discretion to choose; the power of making free choices that are unconstrained by external circumstances or by an agency, such as fate or divine will.” To human beings who treasure freedom, free will represents the most personal expression of that freedom. In the centuries-old debate over free will, a recurring thread has focused on the fine line between a citizen’s free will of expression and their obligation to obey the laws that govern their society. On one side are those who say that we have an absolute responsibility to obey all laws, whether those laws are fair or unfair. On the other side of the argument are those who believe that while just and fair laws should be obeyed, the disobedience of unjust or unfair laws is not only our responsibility, but is often the most effective way to change such laws. Historically, while resistance to unjust laws has often been accomplished through violent means (the Revolutionary War being an obvious example), episodes of peaceful civil disobedience are also sprinkled liberally throughout recorded United States history, and have stood the test of time as a means for asserting freedom and inspiring social change. |
| 3 | To understand civil disobedience, we must first explore the concepts of ‘freedom’ and ‘obedience.’ According to the American Heritage Dictionary, freedom is defined as “the condition of being free of restraint; liberty from slavery, oppression or dependence; exemption from the arbitrary exercise of authority; the capacity to exercise choice or free will.” In his speech to Congress, Chief Joseph of the Nez Perce said, “Let me be a free man—free to travel, free to stop, free to work . . . free to choose my own teachers, free to follow the religion of my fathers, free to think and talk and act for myself” (187). Chief Joseph’s words provide an elegant vision of what freedom should be. Writing in his famous, “Letter from the Birmingham Jail,” Martin Luther King claimed that freedom was the “constitutional and God-given” right of all people and stated his belief that freedom was rarely given by the oppressor and must often be demanded by the oppressed (720). He described peaceful civil disobedience as a citizen’s responsibility, a shared obligation among those with common interests in the community. King said, “We are caught in an inescapable network of mutuality; tied into a single garment of destiny. Whatever affects one directly, affects all indirectly” (718). King believed that the act of arousing public consciousness by defying a morally unjust law was one of the highest expressions of a citizen’s respect for the law (722). King’s words imply that obedience is not always the best or the most responsible choice that a citizen can make, and suggest(s) that there are times when one must not obey unquestioningly, but must exercise the inherent rights of their personal freedom and free will in fomenting change. |
| 4 | The American Heritage Dictionary defines obedience as, “dutiful compliance with commands, orders, or instructions of an authority.” When we take action in response to a directive, or when our actions are proscribed by an existing rule or agency, we are behaving obediently. Obedience is often reasonable, as when a parent directs their child not to walk into the street without looking both ways, or when a military officer issues orders to his rank and file and (rightly) expects exacting and rapid obedience. When we follow civic law, we exercise reasonable obedience, making the decision to surrender our free will at that moment in order that we may obey the requirements of the law in question. Obedience can also be unreasonable, e.g., as happens when humans are enslaved, or forced to obey laws that are unjust, or even cruel. When citizens find themselves concerned over unfair constraints on personal freedom imposed by unreasonable laws, and when they decide to act out peacefully against those laws, civil disobedience is the result. |
| 5 | According to the American Heritage Dictionary, civil disobedience can be defined as, “The refusal to obey laws in an effort to induce a change in government policy or legislation; . . . characterized by the use of passive resistance or other nonviolent means.” Civil disobedience allows citizens to object to or show their displeasure to unreasonable laws in a peaceful fashion, i.e., in a means that is unlikely to cause harm to others through violent action. Freedom of speech and freedom of assembly are critical parts of the civil disobedience process, as they provide all citizens (regardless of financial status, occupation or other socioeconomic factors) a mechanism for assembling and being heard. In his discussion of racist speech, Charles Lawrence wrote, “Freedom of speech is the lifeblood of our democratic system. It is especially important for minorities because often it is their only vehicle for rallying support for the redress of their grievances” (41). We can assume that our country’s founding fathers agreed that freedom of speech and assembly were of extreme importance, for their protection was woven directly into the Bill of Rights. |
| 6 | Those who oppose civil disobedience fear that disregard of the law might eventually lead to societal collapse. This belief is based on the assumption that an ordered, peaceful society demands absolute obedience of existing law. Socrates believed in unquestioning obedience to the authority of the law as a whole, suggesting that doing “right” does not depend on circumstances and saying, “ . . . to do wrong is in every sense bad and dishonorable” (692). Socrates asked, “Do you imagine that a city can continue to exist and not be turned upside down, if the legal judgements which are pronounced in it have no force but are nullified and destroyed by private persons?” (693). His commitment to this concept is evident in his willingness to accept his own death sentence from the Athens court, even though the verdict that sentenced him to death was probably incorrect and unfair. Milgram said that obedience was a basic element in social structure, and added that some degree of authority was required in all communal or societal situations (731). Even King appeared to agree, at least in part, stating his belief that complete defiance of the law could lead to societal collapse and anarchy (722). |
| 7 | Is defiance of the law always wrong? Martin Luther King clearly differentiated between just and unjust law. He described just law as that which squared with moral law, uplifted humans, and exemplified “sameness [among all men] made legal.” In contrast, King described unjust law as that which degraded or marginalized humans, exemplified as “difference made equal” (722). He believed that it is a human duty to help one another in the search for freedom, and saved some of his harshest criticism for the multitudes who sat by passively and observed injustice, allowing it to continue, i.e., “ . . . the appalling silence of the good people” (724). |
| 8 | In further discussing free will and civil disobedience, Milgram talked about the differences between conservatives, who viewed civil disobedience as a threat to the very fabric of society, and humanists, who yielded to the primacy of individual conscience and advocated civil disobedience as a personal responsibility. Milgram seemed to lean toward the latter position, asking the question, “Should one obey when command conflicts with conscience?” (731). Milgram’s words suggest that when obedience and conscience conflict, free will must rightly come to the forefront in an act of civil disobedience. In discussing oppression, King noted that, “Oppressed people can’t stay oppressed,” and said that eventually something would remind oppressed people of their birthright to freedom and that such freedom was theirs to gain through exertion of their free will (725). King believed that justice was a vital urge, and said that, “injustice must be rooted out by strong, persistent, determined activity” (726). King’s words suggest that, given time and impetus, human beings have a natural tendency to resist injustice and seek personal freedom, and that civil disobedience will occur almost as an inevitable response to constraints on that freedom. |
| 9 | When the Nez Perce people faced relocation from their ancestral lands to government reservations, one of their tribe, Too-hool-hool-suit, faced the local Army council as the tribal representative. Because he would not acquiesce to the Army’s demands, the General ordered him thrown into the stockade. To this, Too-hool-hool-suit replied, “I don’t care. I have expressed my heart to you. I have nothing to take back. I have spoken for my country. You can arrest me, but you cannot change me or make me take back what I have said” (Joseph 166). Too-hool-hool-suit resisted the Army’s demands and, by obeying his conscience and that of his tribal nation, exercised his free will with an act of civil disobedience. |
| 10 | Martin Luther King believed that humans share a common interest in freedom and in the personal expression of free will. He believed that law and order exist to establish justice and fairness, and felt that if the law conflicted with those higher goals, it was a citizen’s duty to try and change it by exerting their free will through civil disobedience. As a leader of the United States civil rights movement, King himself was at the forefront in seeking justice and freedom for all, and continually worked to set the example and to imbue people everywhere with the spirit of watchful care of one another. |
| 11 | Today, those of us who participate in peaceful civil disobedience as a way to right what we see as “wrongs” are living out the legacy that King and others have left us. Every time we exercise our free will and oppose an unfair or unjust law, we’re standing shoulder to shoulder with the colonists who threw the tea into the Boston harbor in protest of taxation without representation. We’re picketing with the trade unionists who struck against unfair labor practices. We’re marching with the people who protested the injustice of the war in Viet Nam. We’re even sitting with Martin Luther King in the Birmingham jail. King’s hand is on our shoulder. As he says, “The time is always ripe to do right” (724). |
|
Nominated by Amanda Coffey, Writing Instructor
|
