Today we discussed the issue of civil disobedience. We had an interesting debate over the subject, but I’d like to continue it further. The debate was primarily focused around civil disobedience as a principal, and also the effectiveness of civil disobedience. My argument is that although civil disobedience might not always be effective, it is an important part of a democratic society, and can be effective on some occasions. The reason why I think civil disobedience is so important is that it is one of the only ways we have to petition against our government. What civil disobedience does, that written petitions can not really do to the same extent, is it gets the media involved. When the media becomes involved, and an event becomes publicized it is much more likely to gain support just by the nature of the fact that it makes more people aware of the cause. Even if we look at the Presidential elections of this past year, it is obvious that Obama’s victory was in part due to the fact that he spent more than any other candidate who ran against him. This spending went in to commercials, posters, banners, and a variety of other instruments of propaganda to persuade people to support his cause. Just like Obama relied on superior press to support his cause, so do other causes that wish to institute “change” (haha how ironic). As I said before, one of the only ways of getting publicity is through stunts that get media attention.
I would never support some of the measures that have been taken in some acts of civil disobedience, such as protesting at soldier’s funerals. Nor will I defend many acts of civil disobedience because it is true that they are sometimes done for the wrong reasons or with the wrong intentions. Still, I do believe that civil disobedience can be an effective tool to institute reform, and can not imagine what would happen if forms of protest were done away with. Protests and riots have been effective in the past, and are a means of creating political pressure for those who have no other way of applying it. These are my views. What do you all think?
(Kevin Trainer)
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
5 comments:
As it stands, I really don't think that civil disobedience is that important, simply because it is not effective as it stands. Sure, Obama's campaign was successful because of the media, but campaigning and civil disobedience are entirely different.
Civil disobedience tends to be overly reliant on symbolism (flag burning etc) that does not seem to have a direct link to the issue. Political campaigns, however, are very direct and relateable to the issue, which makes it so appealing to the media.
Additionally, while I cannot deny that it has some effectiveness, civil disobedience rarely embodies what it is meant to be. The principle of civil disobedience is all well and good, but it is only that in theory. In reality, it is just a toolf for humans, and as a result, is just as prone to human error.
While you might argue that the government is also a human creation, and thus subject to the same pitfalls, my biggest quibble with civil disobedience is the lack of accountability, which the government has. Governments have a responsibility to their people, and they fulfill it for the most part. (I'm talking strictly in the US, seeing as that is where most of our examples are originating.) They are ultimately held responsible for their actions by the people. Pandering & pork, anyone? On the other hand, people who engage in acts of civil disobedience are more likely to be considered loose cannons. They are held accountable by themselves only. Thus, when their actions start becoming less anti-"this cause" and more anti-government & general society, civil disobedience becomes a dangerous tool.
While many people like to believe in themselves and in the whole sanctified power derived from the people spiel, it really is dangerous. The people are defining their own morals, taking their own actions, and completely unaccountable for the consequences of their actions.
Grace
The reason civil disobedience has embedded itself in our society as the most common method to protest against any cause is that it has worked before, or at least people think it has been effective to some extent. We discussed how dumb people can be sometimes in class today;however, I do not think that people are so stupid that they cannot realize that a tool they have been using for years and years does not work at all. There are examples of successful civil disobedience, and regardless of what it stands for, a protest seems the most appropriate or even the best method for people who are trying to gain supporters.
Therefore, in a sense I think the anti-war protesters who went the soldiers' funerals were successful. Oviously their goal was to get more publicity, and they achieved what they were looking for. It was very rude to do so, but the protesters spread the word out through the media.
Though I agree that the most common form of civil disobedience practiced these days has lost its impact on the public, and therefore becoming less and less effective. With this notion, people are developing other ways of protesting because they began to realize that civil disobedience has lost some of its true meaning. Soon the kind of civil disobedience we see now may disappear and evolve into something more creative.
Jennifer Park
It may have worked in the past, but shock value does decrease over time. Just think about Hayakawa. When we first studied semantics, we found it astonishing to identify different uses of language in the texts we were reading. Now we cite Hayakawa as if it's in our nature to do so. This example isn't related to civil disobedience, but it works!
Now replace Hayakawa with protests. When they were first introduced, they must have been something mind-blowing. But the question is: Where do we draw the line. Can we even draw a line? The answer seems to be no, considering those who protested the solder's funeral. But I think I'm missing some essential knowledge. Could the family members of the soldier sue those who were causing a disruption to their priavte event? I wasn't able to contribute much to the discussion that day in class because I think I'm very out of touch with this topic...
Like Grace said, civil disobedience may be tolerated when it is among the people. In this way, it allows the government to step in when it needs to. If the protest goes against the government, however, we have a problem. How can any civilian stop the conflict then?
Even though a cause gains publicity, what happens next? Do we actually think that the protest of the funeral will gain any more followers? I think the majority of our class agreed that it was rude and...odd.
(Sam Maliha)
I agree with Grace that civil disobedience often relies much too heavily on symbolism. Symbolism is clearly an issue because, as Hayakawa stated "the symbol is not the thing symbolized." (And amusingly, I just proved Sam's point about shock value.) Therefore, while the burning of a flag will probably get the desired point across, it may not be the strongest or most effective method of doing so. Yet a large majority of people have not read LITAA (let alone studied semantics), so perhaps this is one possible explanation as to why flag burning is still a common tactic of civil obedience. What say you?
(Janet Lee)
Grace makes a good point in that too often civil disobedience relies upon shock value and flashy symbolism to make a point. Other than the civil rights movement several decades ago, it also has limited effectiveness.
However, as Kevin stated, I don't believe that we should entirely rule out civil disobedience's legitimacy as a principle merely because some of the methods of implementing are unsatisfactory. In a democracy, things always move slowly. Consensus must always be built and compromise is valued over conflict. Of course, all of those traits are good, but occasionally, democracies can be paralyzed by politics and hyperpartisanship. Sometimes, civil disobedience might just be the last resort. After all, the civil rights movement would not have succeeded without using civil disobedience.
But naturally, if we accept civil disobedience's legitimacy as a principle, we also give credence to such distasteful actions as protesting at a funeral. It is difficult to separate "civil disobedience" as a concept or principle from the actual actions that are performed, because we judge the principle by the actions. So do we bar civil disobedience completely or do we allow the bad in along with the good?
There's no right answer to that, but I'm inclined to feel that like freedom of speech, sometimes you have to accept both the positives and the negatives.
Post a Comment