As time progresses, behaviors and perspectives constantly change, and with that change develops a need or a desire to implement that change throughout society. As individuals strive for their desired change, they look to methods, such as civil or uncivil disobedience, to acquire the attention necessary to initiate that change. Those who participate in civil disobedience are taking part in an action that is deliberately breaking the law in order to make societal changes, but through the use of non-violence.
On the other hand, individuals who participate in uncivil disobedience are violating the law through the pursuit of violent measures in order to achieve a movement’s end goal. When comparing the effectiveness between the actions taken between civil and uncivil disobedience, it can be seen that both are equally as effective. Civil disobedience should be the initial action implemented towards the fight against an issue, but if this action does not produce level of effectiveness necessary to create that change, then advocators should then resort to utilization of uncivil disobedience.
Civil disobedience demonstrates a method that could produce change without the use of violence and can potentially encourage individuals to take part in the cause more than if violence was being implemented. Although it can seem extreme at times, violence emphasizes the meaning and point of a movement or issue and can force those who oppose, such as the government, to react and implement a change to end the violence. In current news, issues have been vocalized concerning undocumented immigrants and the fact that they are being taken away from their homes and family and are being deported back to their country of origin.
Civil disobedience has the ability to illustrate a clear and comprehensible message to those who are targeted, as well as creating an environment that is more appealing and safer to join than of actions that revolve around violence. During the early 1960’s, a student led organization, known as SNCC, organized sit ins all across the south. These sit ins consisted of Black students who remained seated in a Whites-only counter despite the threats and violence that was acted upon them by the police and other “concerned” White folks.
The African-American students were proud to be thrown in jail because it represented that they fought for the civil movement and were not afraid of the risk that they would be attacked and arrested. Instead of resorting to violence after the various times that the students were provoked, they remained seated at the counter that denied them service because their skin color labeled them as inferior. The African-American students remained peaceful despite all the violence that was used against them to stop them from continuing their act of civil disobedience and their fight for equality.
The refusal to contribute to the violence displayed the message that they demanded change but they will not stoop down to using violence themselves. The lack of violence allowed for a clear message that people of the Black community are not the enemy, but they want what they deserve and that is the freedom of equality. Prior to the sit ins, Martin Luther King Jr. delivered a speech on October of 1959, called “The Social Organization of Non-violence”. MLK Jr. was an American Baptist Church minister, as well as an activist leader during the Civil Rights Movement. King was an advocate for fighting for civil rights by utilizing nonviolent civil disobedience.
In his speech, King emphasizes the importance in avoiding violence because, “The greatest danger is that it will fail to attract Negroes to a real collective struggle, and will confuse the large uncommitted middle group, which as yet has not supported either side. Further, it will mislead Negroes into the belief that this is the only path…” (The Social Organization of Non-Violence) King establishes the idea that violence would only pose as a distraction from the true reason for their cause and people may join for the intent of revenge against those who have wronged them instead fighting for justice in their cause.
The use of uncivil disobedience may also push those who are unsure of what side they agree with to avoid joining their cause due to the violent approaches they implement in their movement. The direct use of violence develops a mindset within the advocators that violence is the only way to acquire their rights.
Although civil disobedience can be just as effective, uncivil disobedience emphasizes and strengthens the issue or cause currently being fought for and forces officials to take action to prevent any more violence from transpiring from the event. When a movement gets to the point where civil disobedience is not getting the point across to the targeted individuals, people should then resort to uncivil disobedience to gain attention of the movement. During the colonial period, colonists struggled for their independence and natural rights.
After countless attempts to reason with the king, they have been rejected and denied representation and were ultimately forced to resort to taking up arms to fight for their rights as a nation. In July 6, 1775, representatives of the united colonies met and created the causes and necessity to initiate the use of violent actions. As the representatives conclude their document, they state, “In our own native land, in defense of the freedom that is our birthright, and which we ever enjoyed till the late violation of it… for the protection of the property… against violence actually offered, we have taken up arms.” (Declaration of the Causes and Necessity of Taking up Arms)
The colonist’s essentially were deprived of their natural rights and had to resort to fighting to regain those rights and gain independence for the “tyranny” of the king. The colonists had previously attempted numerous methods to get the change they deeply felt they deserved, but as they became aware that they would not receive the change they wanted through reasoning, they had to resort to uncivil disobedience to prove that they would not stand for this mistreatment and to be taken more seriously.
Similar to King, Malcolm X is an African-American Muslim minister and a human rights activist during the civil movement, but differed in the sense that Malcolm believed that protesters should do whatever is necessary to gain justice and achieve their goals. In 1964, Malcolm X presented a speech regarding the necessity of utilizing violence in the civil movement due to the ineffectiveness non-violence is posing, Malcolm X states, “ Revolutions are never fought by turning the other cheek.
Revolutions are never based upon love-your-enemy and pray-for- those-who-despitefully-use-you.” (The Black Revolution) If people of the Black community want to revolutionize the way the world treats they then they may have to resort to uncivil disobedience because being civil may not emphasize the point and the importance of their rights.
To some, nonviolence may display the perspective amongst others that these protesters are powerless and it will not lead to any significant change. In order to demand the change that is deserved, people may not be able to avoid the use of violence. Malcolm later mentions that, “America is the only country in history in a position to bring about a revolution without violence and bloodshed. But America is not morally equipped to do so…” (The Black Revolution)
Through this, Malcolm establishes the idea that individuals in America are capable and have the power to induce a necessary societal change without the use of violence but the mindset of others prevents this from taking place, ultimately making it difficult to acquire change through civil disobedience alone. When that change cannot be obtained through nonviolence, it is then when people need to resort to the use of uncivil disobedience. As immigration and deportation become a growing issue in the U.S., individuals from various background, whether they are immigrants, undocumented immigrants, or citizens of the United States, have come together to vocalize their concern with this issue.
People/families are being deported out of a country they built a life in and considered home, even though they did not possess the documentation to make it their permanent home. People struggled and had to overcome hardships and loss to make their way to the U.S. in hopes of a better future for them and their family. Congress should create a law granting total amnesty to all individuals and families immigrating or planning on immigrating to the United States seeking a better life.
It is also necessary to reduce or restrict the excessive amount of power ICE possesses towards the methods they use to gather and deport undocumented immigrants. Initially, advocators for immigrant rights should take part in civil disobedience to introduce and expose the movement to others and demand change by protesting at congressional meetings to allow for the law to be created to aid and support undocumented individuals.
If time progresses and no change seems to be set in action and more force has been exerted by ICE, protesters should then resort to violent measures to highlight the importance of this movement and that the protesters would not rest until necessary change has been met and force the government to compromise and take action to end the violence and actually lead to the desired change.
While both civil and uncivil disobedience can be just as effective as its counterpart, it is necessary that those who choose to fight for a cause initiate the movement through the use of civil disobedience to attempt to gain the change without the use of violence and harm, but if it is seen that overtime civil disobedience does not provide the necessary effectiveness to gain that change then protesters should then rely on uncivil disobedience to bring more attention to the movement.
The act of civil disobedience induces a clear message throughout society and demonstrates their goal effectively, as well as having the capability of attracting individuals to their cause because there is no use of violence that would discourage them, but uncivil disobedience can emphasize the issue that is being targeted and forces those officials to make the change to end the violence brought upon by the protesters.
