Can civil disobedience be violent?

Post Reply New Topic

I was in philosophy class today and we had to put together an essay about civil disobedience. I said in my group when they were giving a definition about civil disobedience that it can be violent as well. Someone else said that the only form of violent dissent is revolution which I disagree with.
So can civil disobedience be violent?

Only if/when the violence is somehow made civil:

------------
Civil, a. (Webster)
4. Civilized; courteous; complaisant; gentle and obliging; well-bred; affable; kind; having the manners of a city, as opposed to the rough, rude, coarse manners of a savage or clown.
5. Grave; sober; not gay or showy.
------------

...

Last edited by 0_equals_true on 11 Jan 2010, 9:08 am, edited 1 time in total.

Civil disobedience is supposed to be nonviolent.

Rather than acts of violence, it's more acts of non-compliance.

A "sit in," for example, is non-violent. You're obstructing entrance to a place (say a manufacturing plant), they order you to leave, you refuse by not moving. They go to arrest you, you all sit down, offer no resistance, let them carry you away one at a time.

The cost in manpower and effort to "disperse" the protest eventually wears down and sends a message.

Yeah, raiding the place with pitchforks and torches tends to get better immediate results, but it doesn't curry favor with the general public.

Yes, in 1963 I was taught civil disobedience had to be civil!

There is violence, of course, but it originates in the police with truncheons and tear gas in most reported incidences.

Yes. The police state that is coming is nothing new.

Incidentally my comment involved current events, not the future.

Civil disobedience can become violent, but is not supposed to include violent acts.

Revolution isn't the only form of violent dissent though.

Oops! Please forgive. I only meant to suggest nothing ahead will be greatly different from things already known.

By definition, no. Civil disobedience is nonviolent direct resistance to the state. Attending a protest, starting a revolution, and committing terrorist acts are all examples of opposition to the state that are not civil disobedience. Civil disobedience began with Thoreau, who refused to pay his taxes on the grounds that he could not support the current Mexican-American war. He did not go about sabotaging military efforts or blowing up factories that made weapons, he just refused to support the war effort.

Ah ok that does make sense. I thought that it was possible for violence to occur during civil disobedience though...

Thanks for the replies.

It is often expected that violence will occur, however this is usually initiated by the state. If you are participating in civil disobedience, you are expected normally to remain nonviolent even when attacked. Gandhi was famous for this approach, as he used it to great effect to gain sympathy for his cause.

But revolution isn't the only means of using violence to achieve moral ends, and not all revolutions have to be violent. We do prefer the term 'direct action', though, thankyouverymuch.

Case in point - blowing up the buildings of an organisation which practises unjustified torture on unwilling subjects. When the government refuses to act, anyone destroying that organisation through acts of violent would be morally justified, if they only targeted those who are guilty. Not sure how much collatoral damage it would need for it to be on shaky ground.

I am, of course, making a thinly veiled reference to the JRC....