Two Sides of Civil Disobedience
Civil disobedience is a form of peaceful protest advocated for by Henry David Thoreau's essay, fittingly titled “Civil Disobedience”. But is Civil Disobedience truly the best way to cause reform? As its name suggests, civil disobedience claims that people should be “disobedient” towards laws they view as “unjust” but only in a “civil” manner, this name itself being somewhat ironic. I agree that people shouldn't blindly follow all laws, and it is crucial for people to follow their moral responsibilities in order for the growth of a society. But, I don't think that absolutely everyone should always be trying to actively go against the law, as the very idea of a law being “unjust” is subjective, and people can often be irrational. This could even potentially lead to chaos and damage a society as a whole. Let's examine some real world outcomes of civil disobedience to see if truly is as useful as Thoreau claims.
in 1989. In this massacre, students favoring democracy staged the mass rally in Beijing to call for political change, and more freedom. After many weeks, soldiers cracked down on the protesters ruthlessly. Estimates suggest that violence claimed thousands of lives. This also resulted in a long term tightening of government control in China.
The inclusion of real historical events on both ends of the spectrum, (success and failure of civil disobedience) works perfectly with your claim about generally it should be up to the individual. It adds to the necessity of rationality and proper execution, but also proper response from the government being disobeyed (for example not massacring protesters).
ReplyDeleteI agree with your stance on civil disobedience being mired with ambiguity. Although Thoreau argues that civil disobedience is nobel in unjust circumstances, it also highlights the irony of modern protests and movements, where righteousness is constantly in flux, and sometimes even used to justify the unjust.
ReplyDeleteAarush, I really enjoyed reading you piece and agreed with it. I found it fitting that you used historical events that went well because of civil disobedience, and then one that ended poorly. It all comes up to make you claim that it must be done with rational/logical thinking with the proper execution. However it also shows what kind of government is running the place and how they handle civil disobedience.
ReplyDeleteI liked how you used one example of Civil Disobedience being successful, and one instance where it did not go to plan. This works to show both sides of a phenomenon which is conventionally portrayed as positive.
ReplyDeleteI also agree with your ideas of the different ways Civil Disobedience can have an impact. I also wrote about this in a different way and your reasoning and examples gave me a new way of thinking about it.
ReplyDelete