Civil Disobedience Rhetorical Analysis

As humans are imperfect and irrational, they throughout history have formulated governments to deter and prevent crime, organize communities, and act in the best interest of the ruling group [majority or minority]. Since governments can be irrational and humans are emotional, disobedience to authority has and shall always exist in civilised society. True civil disobedience according to Erich Fromm and Mr. Thoreau is against an irrational authority and the focus of protestation is irreconcilable with oneself. Civil disobedience by citizens is intended to evoke change but is drastically different in methodology depending on the government type. The consequences of civil disobedience in mind, in this essay I hereby advise civil disobedience solely

in democratic governments and only when: the authority is irrational, the issue is at odds with oneself, the opportunity cost for oneself is low, one’s family will not be harmed resulting from disobedience, and more good than harm will come out of change.
The relevance of the decision to disobey would be null if humans were completely rational. However, like all other animals, humans have emotions: love, fear, hatred, happiness, guilt, anger, serenity, et cetera. Emotions are what make us human, but they do impair rational thinking. Fictional characters like Vulcans from Star Trek are completely emotionless but also at the same time completely logical and rational. However, humans cannot be human without emotions and with emotions come vulnerability. Obedience to authority would be simple if it were always rational and wise. But as the parts make the whole, authority itself can lapse into irrationality, making obedience unsavory to some.
In both Henry David Thoreau’s Civil Disobedience and Erich Fromm’s “Disobedience as a Psychological and Moral Problem”, disobedience is primarily discussed concerning the government without delving into its many forms and roles in societies on Earth. There being over two hundred countries currently existing, it is impossible to discuss each government and the role of disobedience without destroying the brevity in which this paper is to have. Therefore, all governments are to be classified into two categories: democratic and authoritarian. Democratic nations are those which value the individual and are representative of the people. Authoritarian nations are those which suppress any unorthodox expression and force conformity onto society. These governments, like their makers, are imperfect and can be irrational and oppressive.
Democratic governments are those nations which are unequivocally secular and egalitarian in nature. Its citizens have the right to express themselves without fear of retaliation. Model democratic governments can be found in the United Kingdom and her former colonies in Canada, Australia, and New Zealand, Scandinavia, western and northern Europe, and the United States.
Concerning democratic governments, any injustices or concerns citizens have are theoretically taken up with their elected representatives to address.

If their performance is not satisfactory, the representative is voted out of office and replaced with a more agreeable one. Critics like Thoreau on page 366 in his Civil Disobedience argue against democracy, “I cast my vote, perchance, as I think right; but I am not vitally concerned that the right should prevail… It is only expressing to men feebly your desire that it should prevail. A wise man will not leave the right to the mercy of chance, nor wish it to prevail through the power of the majority. There is but little virtue in the actions of masses of men.” He has a valid point in that the right thing to do or candidate to be elected is left to the whole nation. The decision is honoured even if it is the wrong one; the consequence for having a free society. Representatives in the United States, though, vote and act in orthodoxy to Party doctrine or supporting special interest groups. Thusly, concerns of ideologically unorthodox constituents are often ignored. Even if the representative shares your concern about an issue, it can take months for a bill to get through Congress and is not guaranteed to succeed. Obedience through democracy can take you only so far, leading some in democratic societies to civilly

disobey.
Thoreau advocates to disobey completely and utterly against the government if the issue is truly against one’s conscience and is of importance.

However, conscience should be distinguished as the humanistic conscience, not the authoritarian conscience. The humanistic conscience is a subcategory of conscience created by Erich Fromm to distinguish it from the superego [internalized voice of a foreign authority]. Fromm defines it as, “... the voice present in every human being and independent from external sanctions and rewards. Humanistic conscience is based on the fact that as human beings, we have an intuitive knowledge of what is human and inhuman, …” (Fromm 379). The individual must dissociate himself from that government which is at fault and additionally refuse to support it in any way, including paying taxes. Contemporary Thoreauvian followers range on the scale of orthodoxy: from activists and strikers to anarchists and anti-government militias. Civil disobedience is often only targeted at a part of the government in democratic societies unlike in authoritarian societies which are completely

irrational.
Authoritarian governments are those nations which censor the opposition and force an ideology upon society itself, that either being religious or secular in nature. The state believes that it is in the right and will maintain itself through any means necessary. This form of government would be defined as an irrational authority by Erich Fromm, “Irrational authority has to use force or suggestion, because no one would let himself be exploited if he were free to prevent it.” (page 380). Authoritarian states include theocracies, dictatorships, illiberal democracies, Communism, et cetera. Any disobedience to the government could result in a number of unpleasant endings: jail, prison, labour in a labour camp, torture, exile, terror, execution, et cetera. Also, it is not uncommon for the dissident’s associates and family to be targeted as well with similarly harsh punishments; making the disincentive for disobedience much higher. Unlike in democratic governments, civil disobedience is practiced by dissenting citizens in the hopes of overthrowing the entire government and is rare. The rarity can be explained via subconscious human psychology.
Authoritarian governments are often internalized in the super-egos of their citizens. This is the authoritarian conscience according to Fromm, “... the internalized voice of an authority whom we are eager to please and afraid of displeasing.” (page 379). The citizens are alas unaware of this and assume it is the moral thing to do to serve the State, making the act of disobedience even harder. In authoritarian governments, the logical action is obey only as needed and quickly get out of the country. Martin Niemöller, a German citizen in the 1930s who was ambivalent about the persecutions undertaken by the Nazi regime and stayed behind, has a superb poem describing his fate:
When the Nazis came for the Communists, I remained silent; I was not a Communist. When they locked up the Social Democrats, I remained silent; I was not a Social Democrat. When they came for the Trade Unionists, I did not speak out; I was not a Trade Unionist. When they came for the Jews, I remained silent; I was not a Jew. When they came for me, there was no one left to speak out.
I feel it is important in this paper to mention a third, hypothetical form of government that would be syncretic to authoritarianism and democracy. This would be the benevolent dictatorship, or enlightened absolutism. The leader of the nation has unlimited power, yet he receives universal support from his people and makes decisions solely for the prosperity of the nation. There could be a semi-democratic system in place, where the citizens would vote for Parliament candidates approved by the leader and are ideologically orthodox . The Parliament would be a mere illusion to satisfy the masses; bread and circuses if you will. In this case, the authority would be rational as no force or suggestion is required and the government acts in the best interest of the nation. The humanistic conscience and the superego would be one and together. However, this form of government has not existed yet due to the corrupting influence of power upon leaders.
Disobedience, with caution, should only be practiced if the authority one is disobeying is irrational and the injustice real. Disobedience for the sake of disobedience is sheer folly; Erich Fromm writes, “... ; if he can only disobey and not obey, he is a rebel (not a revolutionary); he acts out of anger, disappointment, resentment, yet not in the name of a conviction or a principle.” (Fromm 379). The positive accomplishments of disobedience are tarnished when one rebels for no other reason than to rebel. In addition, the opportunity cost of disobedience should always be in the foreground. As Thoreau eloquently states in page 364:
All men recognize the right of revolution; that is, the right to refuse allegiance to and to resist the government, when its tyranny or inefficiency are great and unendurable. But almost all say that such is not the case now [1848 C.E.]. But such was the case, they think, in the Revolution of ‘75. If one were to tell me that this was a bad government because it taxed certain foreign commodities brought to its ports, it is most probable that I should not make an ado about it, for I can do without them: all machines have their friction; and possibly this does enough good to counterbalance the evil. At any rate, it is a great evil to make a stir about it.
Thoreau means that one should not make disobey and complain about a minor, insignificant issue. Such men are rebels and do not act out of righteousness, but base emotions according to Erich Fromm. I agree with both men about this as life is unfair and bad things will always happen. The opportunity cost of disobedience also means the risks and benefits of disobedience. If a disgruntled individual disobeyed and came out for the worse for it, the author advises against disobeying. However, if disobedience brings more good than harm, it would be rational if chosen. Above all, an individual considering disobeying an [democratic, irrational] authority should think of his family and the possible harm inflicted upon them. If there is any, woe be to him who disobeys an authority without any regards to his family.
In conclusion, disobedience has always been a natural part of civil society. As humans are irrational, injustices will occur. Citizens under different government types disobey in different ways and for different reasons. In democratic governments, disobedience takes place in the form of protests, militias, and minor criminal activity. In authoritarian governments, disobedience to the government is often justified due to the oppressive nature of the State and is revolutionary. Consequently, civil disobedience is met with harsh measures by the authoritarian government. An individual should decide to disobey only if the following criteria have been met: the authority is irrational, one’s conscience is of the humanistic nature, therein exists an injustice too great, no hardship will fall upon one’s family, the consequences have been reviewed extensively, and the government is not authoritarian.