Henri David Thoreau - Civil disobedience

Extract

[...] Despite its long history dating back to Antigone, civil disobedience is a relatively new notion. It will therefore be interesting to see ( . ) while referring to the ideas of the above mentioned philosopher since this is the subject of intense debates nowadays. First and foremost, as a « social animal », we are offered two possibilities, obedience or disobedience within our society. If you happen to type civil obedience on your computer, the server will send you to synonyms such as « social control ». [...]

[...] This is called civil disobedience. Breaking the psittacism of a good citizen, civil disobedience is characterised by several elements. It is a collective, public, normally non-violent coercive action that lasts, and assumes the risks involved in order to achieve a social ideal. Secondly, the desire to make a community's voice heard and to achieve a social ideal is completely legitimate. Notwithstanding, there are still limits. First of all, acts of civil disobedience work to protect individual rights. In the past, those who disobeyed civil authority ended cruel punishment and prevented permanent segregation. [...]

[...] Everyone reacts to this feeling in their own way. Through laziness, fear or for instance self-restraint. To conclude the paragraph, some people do not disobey simply because they do not share the same opinion as those who do. Indeed, what is legitimate for one person is not necessarily legitimate for the other. In fine, we can observe that, contrary to popular belief, not all activities committed to oppose a government's policies are violent. The outcomes are frequently beneficial in this manner. [...]

[...] For example, in the United States, acts of disobedience are a counterweight to the system, which limits the power of the individual. However, the desire to act out of a sense of legitimacy sometimes leads to a lack of self-control and constitutes dangerous acts. In fact, even if movements are initially non-violent, they often become so at some point. Often, as in the Chari Chaura incident in 1922, this is due to retaliation. Indeed, when people are targeted with death threats, most respond with the same level of aggression. Furthermore, civil disobedience can lead to the strengthening of opposing viewpoints. [...]

[...] As mentioned earlier, civil disobedience originates in the desire to change things and achieve freedom. Thus, we can describe this disobedience as an act of sacrifice that leads to considerable change. It is true, why should we sacrifice and restrict some of our freedoms in a social contract if we can restrict them for a time, but in the end receive what we always wanted: a sense of deeper freedom. However, many people are not ready to take action. First of all, people refuse to lose their comfort and do not disobey out of self-interest. [...]