Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
How civil disobedience affects society
Civil disobedience and its consequences to the societal development
How civil disobedience affects society
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: How civil disobedience affects society
It was Malcolm X who said, “By any means necessary” when discussing the measures that needed to be enacted in order to bring change. However, determining which means are effective in bringing about change is crucial to the success of a movement. The evident reality is that peaceful acts of civil resistance have overall been much more successful than those that have been fueled by violence. A 2-year study conducted by political scientist, Erica Chenoweth, reveals just that. The study showed that: From 1900 to 2006, nonviolent campaigns worldwide were twice as likely to succeed outright as violent insurgencies… [In fact,] this trend has been increasing over time, so that in the last 50 years, nonviolent campaigns are becoming increasingly …show more content…
The provision of “safety in numbers” is enacted through the visibility of the tactics used through civil resistance, such as protests, which attract risk-averse people into the fray. Chenoweth reports that: ...visibility of civil resistance action allows them to attract more active and diverse participation from these ambivalent people, and once they become involved, it’s almost guaranteed that the movement will then have links to security forces, civilian bureaucrats, economic and business elites, state media, religious authorities, and the like, and those people start to re-evaluate their own allegiances. (Chenoweth) In simpler terms, civil resistance often develops from being seen as unfamiliar to growing to such an extent that people begin to understand the true purpose and goals of the movement. This is when the protest is most effective, because people then begin to come together as a community to advocate for this …show more content…
The follow-up argument often consists of statements regarding how because of this blatant disrespect, no true change or influence could stem from these demonstrations of civil resistance. However, protesting and advocating for the change and improvement of one’s nations branches off of the main basis of patriotism. Rather than conforming to the unjust and unequal systems set in place, those who participate in social movements and acts of civil disobedience are the group of people who most strive for the advancement and improvement of their nation. The influence these individuals have in regards to the progression of their nation shows that their resistance to injustice is not tied to disrespect or opposition to patriotism, but rather hope for the growth of one’s
In Cesar Chavez’s article “He Showed us the Way”, Chavez talks about Martin Luther King’s practices, how he stands with his nonviolent teachings and how king believed hate cannot driven out hate. Chavez explains how being nonviolent helped many members of the Civil Rights Movement get what they wanted. Throughout the article, Chavez uses religious and historical allusion, to show how nonviolence can be the best route to achieve what they want.
Justice is often misconceived as injustice, and thus some essential matters that require more legal attentions than the others are neglected; ergo, some individuals aim to change that. The principles of civil disobedience, which are advocated in both “Civil Disobedience” by Henry David Thoreau and “Letter from Birmingham Jail” by Martin Luther King Jr. to the society, is present up to this time in the U.S. for that purpose.
"The Role of Civil Disobedience in Democracy." Civil Liberties Monitoring Project. Web. 01 Oct. 2011. .
Chenoweth, Erica, and Maria J. Stephan. 2011. Why Civil Resistance Works : The Strategic Logic of
Civil disobedience has its roots in one of this country’s most fundamental principles: popular sovereignty. The people hold the power, and those entrusted to govern by the people must wield
Gandhi once said “An eye for an eye and the whole world is blind.” This is true in most circumstances but there are exceptions. By comparing acts of nonviolent civil disobedience with acts of violent civil disobedience it is apparent that force or violence is only necessary to combat violence but never if it effects the lives of the innocent. A recurrent theme in each of these examples is that there is a genuine desire to achieve equality and liberty. However, one cannot take away the liberties of others in order to gain their own. Martin Luther King Jr. believed that political change would come faster through nonviolent methods and one can not argue his results as many of the Jim Crow laws were repealed. Similarly, through nonviolent resistance Gandhi was able to eventually free India from the rule of Britain. It is true that sometimes the only way to fight violence is through violence, but as is apparent, much can be said of peaceful demonstrations in order to enact change. Thus, it is the responsibility of we as individuals to understand that nonviolence is often a more viable means to an end than violence.
As Dr. King stated in Letter from A Birmingham Jail, “Nonviolent direct action seeks to create such a crisis and establish such creative tension that a community that has constantly refused to negotiate is forced to confront the issue. I must confess that I am not afraid of the word, tension. I have earnestly worked and preached against violent tension, but there is a type of constructive tension that is necessary for growth. The purpose of direct action is to create a situation so crisis-packed that it will inevitably open the door to negotiation.” Such as in the case of the 1969 student site-in against the Vietnam W...
Andrew Calabrese, Virtual non-violence? Civil disobedience and political violence in the information age (2004) 6 Emerald Info 326 available at http://spot.colorado.edu/~calabres/Calabrese%20(civl%20dis).pdf
Likewise, violent protests raise awareness in a negative and oftentimes irrational light. Following the tragic shooting of Michael Brown in the fall of 2014***, countless riots shed light on a new twist on a century-old issue; race in America. The man shot was an African-American, unarmed, young adult. He was shot by a white police officer who believed the young man to be a threat to his safety. His death became the catalyst for the modern Black Lives Matter movement’s stance on equality in American justice systems. While the movement places an emphasis on a need for change, much like Martin Luther King did in the 1960’s, the mass riots from Ferguson, Missouri to Baltimore, Maryland contradict civil disobedience. The riots caused hundreds of vandalisms, countless injuries of police officers in both cities, and created fear for the movement. Awareness for the issues were raised because of this movement, but the violent initial spark of it derailed the solid proof of the need for change. This further proves the necessity that civil disobedience is on a free society; peaceable expression of views has a heavier weight when it comes to altering the course of a
Martin Luther King, Jr. advocated nonviolence to suppress oppression in his essay, “The Power of Nonviolent Action.” King's factual and reasoned approach is intended to win his adversaries over by appealing to their consciences. King realized that the best strategy to liberate African-Americans and gain them justice was to use nonviolent forms of resistance. He wanted to eliminate the use of violence as a means to manage and establish cooperative ways of interacting. Moreover, King states that the “oppressed people must organize themselves into a militant and nonviolent mass movement” in order to achieve the goal of integration. The oppressed must “convince the oppressors that all he seeks is justice, for both himself and the white man” (King, 345). Furthermore, King agreed with Gandhi that if a law is unjust, it is the duty of the oppressed to break the law, and do what they believe to be right. Once a law is broken, the person must be willing to accept the ...
Despite the belief that fighting with violence is effective, civil disobedience has been tried throughout history and been successful. Fighting violence with violence leaves no oppertunity for peace to work. By refusing to fight back violently, Martin Luther King Jr. took a race of people, taught them the value of their voice, and they earned the right to vote. Henry David Thoreau presented his doctrine that no man should cooperate with laws that are unjust, but, he must be willing to accept the punishment society sets for breaking those laws, and hundreds of years later, people are still inspired by his words. Mohandas K. Gandhi lead an entire country to its freedom, using only his morals and faith to guide him, as well as those who followed him, proving that one man can make a difference. Civil disobedience is the single tool that any person can use to fight for what they want, and they will be heard. After centuries of questioning it, it appears that the pen truly is mightier than the sword.
Sometimes civil disobedience can become violent as in the case in South Africa during the struggle to end apartied. It started out with passive resistance, but after years of struggling with no change, a violent group was formed and was willing to do anything to get the freedom they desired.
I believe that civil disobedience is justified as a method of trying to change the law. I think that civil disobedience is an expression of one's viewpoints. If someone is willing to break a law for what they believe in, more power to them! Civil disobedience is defined as, "the refusal to obey the demands or commands of a government or occupying power, without resorting to violence or active measures of opposition" (Webster's Dictionary). This refusal usually takes the form of passive resistance. Its usual purpose is to force concessions from the government or occupying power. Civil disobedience has been a major tactic and philosophy of nationalist movements in Africa and India, in the civil rights movement of U.S. blacks, and of labor and anti-war movements in many countries. People practicing civil disobedience break a law because they consider it unjust and hope to call attention to it. In his essay, "Civil Disobedience," American author Henry David Thoreau set forth the basic tenets of civil disobedience for the first time. The independence of India in the 1930's was largely a result of the nonviolent resistance by Mohandas Gandhi to the British colonial laws. In the United States, the nonmilitant efforts of Martin Luther King, Jr., helped bring about civil rights legislation. There are numerous examples that illustrate how civil disobedience is justified.
Cesar Chavez in an excerpt from an article published in the magazine of a religious organization asserted that nonviolence is a more effective method of resistance than violence. Chavez supports his assertion by introducing a poignant juxtaposition of violence and peaceful methods, then he employs an effectual allusion to a past peaceful civil rights leader, and finally he presents a compelling logical appeal to the audience about the consequences of violent retaliation. The author’s purpose is to persuade the audience to protest injustice through peaceful methods in order to avoid physical harm and gain public support. The author utilizes an urgent tone for all of society, specifically members of the farm worker’s movement.
Throughout the history of the world, there have been many fights, movements, and wars. The thing about these, though, is not all can be successful. Now, we can look back in history to all of these disputes and find that the most successful movements are missing one thing- violence. This has been shown through leaders such as Nelson Mandela, Martin Luther King Jr, and Mahatma Gandhi. Even though these great leaders live in vastly different locations, that one missing tactic helped each achieve their own goals. Non-violence as a tactic has historically been successful, but a few things are required in order to make it work. Complete submission, unity (through the leaders), and respect for their enemies are just a few things that helped them achieve their goals.