civil disobedience movement essay

Civil Disobedience Movement: Essay & Important Notes

Beginning of the movement.

The Salt Satyagraha was one of the factors that led to the initiation of the Civil Disobedience Movement. The Dandi March was conducted by Mahatma Gandhi and his several followers to break the salt law. The Salt Satyagraha led to the extraction of salt from seawater and it was on the culmination of the Dandi March that Gandhiji announced the Civil Disobedience Movement. The announcement of this movement filled the people of India with new energy to fight for their independence.

Activities During the Movement

The sole aim of Mahatma Gandhi was to organize non-violent protests across the nation to attain the aim of Purna Swaraj. For this, several non-violent protests and activities were undertaken across the nation. The objective of the movement was to defy the British government and its laws that were imposed on Indians. Boycott of foreign goods, clothes, and liquor marked the movement and its protests.

In Bihar and other states, anti-Chowkidari tax campaigns were launched wherein villagers refused to pay any money for protection to the local guards. In Gujarat, a no-tax campaign was carried out. As per this campaign, no revenue was paid to the British government. Forest laws were also defied in many regions where the tribal population was pre-dominant. In Uttar Pradesh as well, no tax and no-rent campaigns were organized.

Martial Law

Mahatma Gandhi was arrested after the Dandi March and the people of India were outraged. There were widespread arrests across the country and the people participated in the Civil Disobedience Movement with more fervor. The British government used highly repressive measures like mass arrests, lathi charges, and police firing. However, people continued to defy the British laws by continuing strikes and therefore a martial law was imposed in the country in 1930.

The Political and Economic Policy of Mahatma Gandhi and the Reaction of the British Government

After the release, Mahatma Gandhi launched another phase of the Civil Disobedience Movement by specifying a political and economic policy. This policy stated the abolition of salt tax and reduction in land revenue by 50%. The policy also indicated the demands on the middle-class in terms of reserving coastal land for Indians and keeping a check on the rupee-sterling exchange rate. The political demands of the policy were to bring changes in the Arms Act, changes in the working of the Central Intelligence Department, prohibition of intoxicants in the country, and reduction on military expenditure.

To address the policy reforms, the British government formed the Simon Commission and convened the First Round Table Conference in the year 1930. This was boycotted by the Indian National Congress, but attended by the Muslim League, Hindu Mahasabha, and others.

However, without the participation of the Congress, the conference did not have any meaning, so the Congress was persuaded to join the Second Round Table Conference. It was made clear that the government was not interested in India’s independence and the conference met with a failure.

In 1939, the Civil Disobedience Movement was withdrawn as the government repression intensified. A resolution was passed by the leaders in India to form a constituent assembly elected by the people of India. The movement laid down the foundation for an independent India and ignited the right to freedom in every Indian.

Important Notes

Under the leadership of Gandhiji, the Civil Disobedience Movement was launched in 1930. It began with the Dandi March.
Gandhiji and his followers protested against the Salt Law.
In Tamil Nadu, C Rajagopalchari led a similar march from Trichinopoly to Vedaranyam. In Gujarat, Sarojini Naidu protested in front of the salt depots. Lakhs of people including a large number of women participated actively in these protests.

Practically the whole country became involved in the movement. There were large-scale boycotts of schools, colleges, and offices. Foreign goods were burnt in bonfires. People stopped paying taxes.

French Revolution: Essay & Important Notes

The Idea of Satyagraha

Quit India Movement: Essay and Important Facts

Khilafat Movement: Essay & Important Notes

Political History of Greece

10 Most Important Movements For the Independence of India

Add comment cancel reply.

Civil Disobedience Movement, Causes, Impacts, Limitations

Civil Disobedience Movement is a crucial chapter in the history of India's struggle for independence, led by Mahatma Gandhi. Know all about Civil Disobedience Movement its Causes, Impacts, Limitations

Table of Contents

A pivotal moment in the Indian Nationalist movement was the civil disobedience movement. The Civil Disobedience Movement began with Mahatma Gandhi’s well-known Dandi March . Gandhi set out on foot from the Sabarmati Ashram in Ahmedabad on March 12, 1930, with 78 other Ashram members for Dandi, a village on India’s western seacoast about 385 kilometres from Ahmedabad. On April 6, 1930, they arrived in Dandi.

We’re now on WhatsApp . Click to Join

Civil Disobedience Movement Overview

What is civil disobedience movement.

The Civil Disobedience Movement is a peaceful protest strategy against unjust laws or policies, popularized by Thoreau and Gandhi. Participants intentionally break laws, typically in a nonviolent manner, to challenge authorities and advocate for change. Key features include nonviolent resistance, conscious law-breaking, acceptance of legal consequences, and appeals to morality. This tactic has been instrumental in various movements globally, including civil rights, social justice, and political reform. By openly defying unjust laws, individuals or groups aim to bring attention to their cause and inspire others to join in challenging oppressive systems through peaceful means.

Causes of Civil Disobedience Movement

These were some of the main reasons that paved the way for the Civil Disobedience Movement.

The formation of the Simon Commission
The rejection of the demand for Dominion Status
The demonstrations against the detention of social revolutionaries, etc.

The British government’s lack of genuine interest in giving Dominion Status was evident to the nationalist leaders. In an emergency meeting held in Lahore in December 1929, the INC under Jawaharlal Nehru’s leadership announced PurnaSwaraj, or “Complete Independence,” as the Congress’s main objective.

The Congress Working Committee (CWC) was authorized by the Lahore Congress of 1929 to start a campaign of civil disobedience, which included not paying taxes. At Sabarmati Ashram in 1930, Gandhi was given full authority by the CWC to start the Civil Disobedience Movement whenever and wherever he chose. Additionally, it enabled Mahatma Gandhi the freedom to start a national campaign of civil disobedience whenever and wherever he pleased.

Civil Disobedience Movement Year and Viceroy Irwin

Viceroy Irwin received a letter from Mahatma Gandhi on January 31, 1930, in which he outlined and imposed eleven demands. The most compelling of all the requests was to get rid of the salt tax, which is paid for by both the rich and the poor. By March 11th, the demands had to be satisfied, or Congress would start a campaign of civil disobedience. 78 of his dependable volunteers marched with Mahatma Gandhi in the well-known salt march.

The march travelled more than 240 kilometres from Gandhiji’s ashram in Sabarmati to the coastal town of Dandi in Gujarat. He landed in Dandi on April 6 and ceremonially breached the law by salting seawater by scalding it. This movement served as the catalyst for the Civil Disobedience Movement.

Impact of Civil Disobedience Movement

The Civil Disobedience Movement (CDM) had a significant impact on India’s struggle for independence. It was a turning point in the movement, and it forced the British to take the Indian demand for independence more seriously. The CDM was not immediately successful in achieving Indian independence.

However, it was a major step towards that goal. It weakened British authority and laid the groundwork for India’s eventual freedom. Here are some of the key impacts of the CDM:

It popularized new methods of nonviolent resistance. The CDM was the first time that Gandhi’s principles of nonviolence were used on a large scale in India. The movement involved a variety of nonviolent tactics, such as boycotts, strikes, and civil disobedience. These tactics were effective in disrupting British rule and raising awareness of the Indian independence movement.
It united Indians from all walks of life. The CDM brought together people from different religions, castes, and social classes. It also attracted the participation of women and children. This unity was a major source of strength for the movement.
It weakened British authority. The CDM showed the British that the Indian people were determined to achieve independence. It also led to the loss of British revenue and the erosion of British prestige.
It laid the groundwork for Indian independence. The CDM helped to prepare India for independence. It showed that Indians were capable of organizing and carrying out a mass movement. It also helped to raise international awareness of the Indian independence movement.

British Government’s Response on Civil Disobedience Movement

In November 1930, the British government called the first round table conference to discuss the reforms proposed by the Simon Commission. However, the Indian National Congress chose to boycott it. Indian princes, the Muslim League , the Hindu Mahasabha, and a few others attended the summit. Nothing, though, came of it. The British understood that without Congress’ involvement, no substantive constitutional changes would be made.

Viceroy Lord Irwin tried to convince Congress to participate in the second round table congress. Gandhi and Irwin came to an arrangement in which the government promised to free all political prisoners who weren’t accused of using violence, and Congress promised to put an end to the civil disobedience movement.

Vallabhbhai Patel presided over the Karachi session in 1931, where it was determined that the congress would take part in the second round table congress. Gandhi was the delegate for the September 1931 session.

Why was Salt chosen by Gandhiji as a Weapon?

Because salt was considered to be a basic right of every Indian, it was chosen to represent the beginning of the civil disobedience movement. Gandhi once famously said, “There is no other product besides water that the government can tax in order to feed the millions of people who are starving, as well as the sick, the injured, and the totally defenceless. It is the cruellest poll tax that man has ever devised.”

Salt made a quick connection between the swaraj ideal and a very genuine and common complaint of the rural poor (and with no socially divisive implications like a no-rent campaign). Similar to khadi, salt gave the poor a small but psychologically significant source of income through self-help and gave urban believers a chance to symbolically relate to widespread misery.

Limitations of Civil Disobedience Movement

Despite its significant impact on India’s struggle for independence, the Civil Disobedience Movement had certain limitations:

The movement primarily involved the urban middle class, while the peasantry and other marginalized groups remained largely uninvolved. This limited the movement’s reach and its ability to mobilize the masses.
The movement ignored the untouchables.
Because Muslim political organisations do not participate, the gap between Hindus and Muslims widened.
Muslim’s demand for special seats led to disputes between Congress and Muslims.
A large number of Muslims have been turned away from the conflict because they were afraid of becoming a minority group in India.
The movement faced challenges in reconciling the aspirations of different sections of society.
The movement primarily focused on specific grievances and demands, but it did not address the underlying structural inequalities that perpetuated British rule. This limited the movement’s long-term impact.
The movement heavily relied on the leadership of Mahatma Gandhi. His charisma and influence were crucial in mobilizing support, but the movement’s effectiveness diminished when he was imprisoned or absent.

Sharing is caring!

Civil Disobedience Movement FAQs

Civil disobedience movement date.

The civil Disobedience Movement was started in 1930, on March 12.

How many people participated in Dandi March?

In March 1930, Gandhi and 78 other ashram members set off on foot for Dandi, a village on Gujarat’s western seaboard, from the Sabarmati Ashram in Ahmadabad.

Where was Dandi March started?

Mahatma Gandhi launched the Dandi March on March 12, 1930. From his Sabarmati Ashram in Ahmedabad to Dandi, a seaside town in Gujarat, was a nearly 385-kilometre march.

What was the main cause for Dandi March?

The 1882 Salt Act gave the British a monopoly over salt manufacturing and allowed them to start taxing salt heavily. On March 12, 1930, from Sabarmati Ashram, Mahatma Gandhi and his supporters began the Dandi March to protest this salt tax.

When did CDM start and end?

On July 14, 1933, Gandhi Ji discontinued the mass Satyagraha, but on April 7, 1934, the campaign came to an end completely. Although the civil disobedience movement may not have had a successful outcome, it was crucial as India regained its power and confidence to oppose the British.

BPSC Exam 2024

BPSC 70th Notification
BPSC 69th Exam Analysis
BPSC Admit Card
BPSC Syllabus
BPSC Exam Pattern
BPSC Cut Off
BPSC Question Papers

IB ACIO Exam

IB ACIO Salary
IB ACIO Syllabus

CSIR SO ASO Exam

CSIR SO ASO Exam 2024
CSIR SO ASO Result 2024
CSIR SO ASO Exam Date
CSIR SO ASO Question Paper
CSIR SO ASO Answer key 2024
CSIR SO ASO Exam Date 2024
CSIR SO ASO Syllabus 2024

IMPORTANT EXAMS

Terms & Conditions
Return & Refund Policy
Privacy Policy

Table of Contents
Random Entry
Chronological
Editorial Information
About the SEP
Editorial Board
How to Cite the SEP
Special Characters
Advanced Tools
Support the SEP
PDFs for SEP Friends
Make a Donation
SEPIA for Libraries
Entry Contents

Bibliography

Academic tools.

Friends PDF Preview
Author and Citation Info
Back to Top

Civil Disobedience

From the Boston Tea Party to Mahatma Gandhi’s Salt March, and from suffragists’ illegally casting their ballots to whites-only lunch counter sit-ins, civil disobedience has often played a crucial role in bending the proverbial arc of the moral universe toward justice. But what, if anything, do these acts, and countless others which we refer to as civil disobedience have in common? What distinguishes them from other forms of conscientious and political action?

On the most widely accepted account, civil disobedience is a public, non-violent and conscientious breach of law undertaken with the aim of bringing about a change in laws or government policies (Rawls 1999, 320). On this account, people who engage in civil disobedience operate at the boundary of fidelity to law, have general respect for their regime, and are willing to accept the legal consequences of their actions, as evidence of their fidelity to the rule of law. Civil disobedience, given its place at the boundary of fidelity to law, is said on this view to fall between legal protest, on the one hand, and conscientious refusal, uncivil disobedience, militant protest, organized forcible resistance, and revolutionary action, on the other hand.

This picture of civil disobedience, and the broader accounts offered in response, will be examined in the first section of this entry, which considers conceptual issues. The second section contrasts civil disobedience, broadly, with other types of protest. The third focuses on the justification of civil disobedience, examining upstream why civil disobedience needs to be justified, and downstream what is its value and role in society. The fourth examines states’ appropriate responses to civil disobedience.

1.1 Principled Disobedience

1.2.1 communication, 1.2.2 publicity, 1.2.3 non-violence, 1.2.4 non-evasion, 1.2.5 decorum, 1.3 fidelity to law, 2.1 legal protest, 2.2 rule departures, 2.3 conscientious objection, 2.4 immigration disobedience.

2.5 Digital Disobedience
2.6 Uncivil Disobedience

2.7 Revolutionary Action

3.1 the problem of disobedience, 3.2 justificatory conditions, 4.1 punishing civil disobedience, 4.2 a right to civil disobedience, 4.3 accommodating civil disobedience, 5. conclusion, acknowledgments, other internet resources, related entries, 1. features of civil disobedience.

Henry David Thoreau is widely credited with coining the term civil disobedience . For years, Thoreau refused to pay his state poll tax as a protest against the institution of slavery, the extermination of Native Americans, and the war against Mexico. When a Concord, Massachusetts, constable named Sam Staples asked Thoreau to pay his back taxes in 1846 and Thoreau refused, Staples escorted him to jail. In a public lecture that Thoreau gave twice in 1848, he justified his tax refusal as a way to withdraw cooperation with the government and he called on his fellow townspeople to do the same. Thoreau’s lecture, titled “The Rights and Duties of the Individual in relation to Government,” formed the basis of his 1849 essay, “Resistance to Civil Government.” In 1866, four years after Thoreau’s death, the essay was republished under the title “Civil Disobedience.” Some scholars believe the new title was provided by Thoreau’s sister Sophia, his sole literary executor and sole editor of his posthumous edited works (Fedorko 2016). But others have provided evidence for Thoreau’s authority over the edits in the 1866 text (Dawson 2007).

Whereas Thoreau understood the “civil” in civil disobedience to characterize the political relations between civilian subjects and their civil government, today most scholars and activists understand the “civil” to relate to civility – a kind of self-restraint necessary for concord under conditions of pluralism. The next sub-sections review central features of civil disobedience.

Lawbreaking : First, for an act to be civilly disobedient, it must involve some breach of law. In democratic societies, civil disobedience as such is not a crime. When an agent who engages in civil disobedience is punished by the law, it is not for “civil disobedience,” but for the recognized offenses she commits, such as disturbing the peace, trespassing, damaging property, picketing, violating official injunctions, intimidation, and so on.

When civil disobedients directly break the law that they oppose – such as Rosa Parks violating the Montgomery, Alabama, city ordinance requiring African Americans to sit at the back of public buses and give up those seats to white riders if the front of the bus filled up – they engage in direct civil disobedience. By contrast, when disobedients break a law which, other things being equal, they do not oppose, in order to demonstrate their protest against another law or policy – such as anti-war protesters staging sit-ins in government buildings – they engage in indirect civil disobedience. The distinction between direct and indirect civil disobedience is mainly relevant to the possibility of mounting constitutional test cases, since one cannot test the constitutionality of a law in court without actually breaching it. Although some scholars argue that direct civil disobedience is preferable to its indirect counterpart because it is most clearly legible as an act of protest against the law breached (C. Cohen 1966, 4–5), most scholars maintain the acceptability of indirect disobedience given that not all unjust laws or policies can be disobeyed directly (M. Cohen 1970, 109–110; Rawls 1999, 320; Brownlee 2012, 19–20). For instance, a same-sex couple living in a jurisdiction that forbids same-sex marriage cannot get married in violation of the law. Black Lives Matter activists cannot directly disobey police brutality, stop-and-frisk policing, or the acquittal of police officers who killed unarmed Blacks. Also, even when a person can engage in direct disobedience of a law, doing so may be unduly burdensome, such as when the punishment for the breach would be extreme.

Principledness : An act of lawbreaking must be deliberate, principled, and conscientious, if it is to be civil and, hence, distinguishable from ordinary criminal offenses. Civil disobedience cannot be unintentional (say, done in ignorance of the fact that one is violating the law): it must be undertaken deliberately. Principled disobedience can be distinguished from ordinary criminal offending by examining the motives that underlie the disobedient act. The person must intend to protest laws, policies, institutions, or practices that she believes are unjust on the basis of her sincerely held moral or political commitments. The agent may not be correct or even entirely reasonable about her convictions, but she holds them sincerely. In these ways, principled disobedience is distinct from garden-variety criminal activity, which is generally self-interested and selfish, opportunistic and unprincipled.

Conscientiousness : The deliberate and principled features of civil disobedience are often brought together under the umbrella of conscientiousness and equated with seriousness, sincerity, depth of conviction, and selflessness – again, in order to contrast civil disobedience with criminal lawbreaking. In response, some scholars highlight the pervasiveness of self-interested civil disobedience – of the ‘not in my backyard’ variety (e.g., people protesting against a new highway passing through their neighborhood) – as a challenge to the supposed conscientiousness of all civil disobedience (Celikates 2016, 38). Others insist that civil disobedience need not be selfless: oppressed groups indeed have a lot to gain from their anti-oppression struggles, including better life prospects, improved material conditions, and heightened self-respect (Delmas 2019, 183–4). And, unsurprisingly, many of the most famous civil disobedients – Mohandas Gandhi, Rosa Parks, Martin Luther King, Jr., Nelson Mandela – were members of the groups whose rights they sought to champion. But conscientiousness – understood as sincerity and seriousness – does not require selflessness, and ordinary crime should not be equated with selfishness, as the example of Robin Hood illustrates. That said, some thinkers also challenge the requirement of seriousness by regarding, for example, the DDoS (distributed denial-of-service) attacks undertaken by Anonymous, such as Operation: Avenge Assange , as acts of civil disobedience, despite their ‘lulz-seeking’, playful and non-serious motivations (Celikates and de Zeeuw 2016, 211–3).

1.2 Civility

What makes an act of disobedience civil ? Scholars commonly consider all or some of the five features below to define civil disobedience.

Typically, a person who commits an offense has no wish to communicate with her government or society. This is evinced by the fact that usually such a person does not intend to make it known that she has offended. In contrast, civil disobedience is understood as a communicative act – a kind of symbolic speech, which aims to convey a message to a certain audience, such as the government and public. Civil disobedients are thought to contribute arguments to the public sphere. Typically, their message is a call for reform or redress; and their audience is the majority. Civil disobedience is variously described as an act by which “one addresses the sense of justice of the majority of the community” (Rawls 1999, 320), as “a plea for reconsideration” (Singer 1973, 84–92), and as a “symbolic… appeal to the capacity for reason and sense of justice of the majority” (Habermas 1985, 99). Even when scholars expand the central criteria for civil disobedience, they agree that civil disobedience is essentially communicative. In comparison, other types of principled disobedience are not necessarily communicative. For instance, animal rescue primarily seeks to relieve the suffering of the rescued animals; the tactic of environmental sabotage known as ‘tree-spiking’ primarily seeks to prevent or stall the cutting down of trees (Delmas 2018a, 44–45). Both types of action can of course be understood in terms of their messages, too, but communicating such a message is not their primary aim in each case.

On many accounts, civil disobedience must be not only communicative, but also public in a specific way. Publicity may designate different features: (i) the openness of the act, (ii) non-anonymity of the agent, (iii) advance warning of planned action, (iv) responsibility-taking for the action, or (v) an appeal based in publicly shared principles of justice. The first four requirements may be classified together under the umbrella of publicity-as-visibility , while the fifth can be dubbed publicity-as-appeal . Since the latter requirement matters mainly for the justification of civil disobedience, it is discussed below (§3.2). That said, Rawls (1999, 321), for one, clarifies the publicity of civil disobedience by describing it as a “political act,” to wit, “an act guided and justified by political principles, that is, by the principles of justice which regulate the constitution and social institutions generally,” thereby suggesting that publicity-as-appeal is in fact part of the definition of civil disobedience.

Rawls and Hugo Bedau (1961, 655), on whom Rawls relies, defend all of the features of publicity-as-visibility, arguing that civil disobedience could never be covert or secretive but could only ever be committed in public, openly, and with advance warning to authorities (per (i)–(iii); and additionally that it involves responsibility-taking (iv). The thought is that publicity is crucial to the civil disobedient’s communicative aims and that any violation of these features of publicity would obscure or muddy the nature of civil disobedience as a communicative act. Critics have rejected the requirement to give advance warning as a defining criterion of civil disobedience. If a person publicizes her intention to breach the law, by giving advance notice about it, then she provides legal authorities with the opportunity to abort her action (Dworkin 1985, 115; Smart 1991, 206–7). For instance, anti-nuclear activists who advertise their planned trespass on military property would simply be prevented from executing their action. In this case, not giving advance warning is necessary to accomplish the communicative act.

Some theorists have also denied the first two publicity requirements above that civil disobedients need to act openly and non-anonymously. Some argue that publicity is compatible with covertness and anonymity, so long as agents claim responsibility for their actions after the fact (Greenawalt 1987, 239; Brownlee 2012, 160; Scheuerman 2018, 43–5). For instance, Edward Snowden’s leaks of classified information about the National Security Agency (NSA)’s massive surveillance programs constitute acts of civil disobedience in this view because, although Snowden obtained and leaked the documents covertly, he eventually claimed responsibility and sought to publicly justify his actions (Scheuerman 2014, 617–21; Brownlee 2016, 966). In this view, the only publicity requirement is (iv) that agents take self-identifying responsibility for their actions after the fact. The other requirements of publicity-as-visibility – openness, non-anonymity, and advance warning – can in fact detract from or undermine the attempt to communicate through civil disobedience and are therefore not necessary to identify civil disobedience. Given, however, that there is often widespread reluctance to regard as “civil” covert and anonymous acts of disobedience such as assistance to undocumented migrants or anonymous hacktivism, other thinkers accept (i), (ii), and (iv) as standard requirements of publicity-as-visibility and deem covert acts to be uncivil without pre-judging their degree of justifiability (Delmas 2018a, 44–5).

Like publicity, non-violence is supposed to be essential to the communicativeness of a civilly disobedient act, non-violence being part of its legibility as a mode of address. “To engage in violent acts likely to injure and to hurt is incompatible with civil disobedience as a mode of address. Indeed, any interference with the civil liberties of others tends to obscure the civilly disobedient quality of one’s act” (Rawls 1999, 321). (The strategic and tactical value of non-violence is discussed in §3.3.) Critics have objected to the supposed incompatibility between violence and communication, arguing that violence, depending on its form and targets, does not necessarily obscure the communicative quality of a disobedient’s act. Burning a police car or vandalizing a Confederate monument, as some protesters did under the Black Lives Matter banner, conveys a clear message of opposition to police brutality and anger at the state’s failure to address systemic racism. The compatibility between violence and communication is further underscored in cases of self-directed violence: self-immolation may provide “an eloquent statement of both the dissenter’s frustration and the importance of the issues he addresses” (Brownlee 2012, 21–2). On this basis, some scholars deny altogether the requirement that civil disobedience be non-violent (M. Cohen 1970, 103; Brownlee 2012, 198–9; Moraro 2019, 96–101).

Some scholars also see nothing inherently contradictory in the notion of “violent civil disobedience” independent of its communicative aims. John Morreall views a person’s physical assault on a slave owner chasing a runaway slave, in violation of the Fugitive Slave Act of 1850, as a case of “justifiable violent civil disobedience” (1976, 42–3). Jennifer Welchman considers “violence, threats of violence, covert acts of sabotage, blackmail, and even assault” as means that civil disobedients can justifiably use to obstruct and frustrate injustice (2001, 105). But, arguably this route is too hasty, as it disregards what seems to be an essential and powerful association between civil disobedience and non-violence: the civility of civil disobedience seems to entail non-violence. The difficulty is to specify the appropriate notions of violence and non-violence .

This is a difficult task in part given its high political stakes: protests labeled as non-violent are more likely to be perceived favorably; protests labeled as violent are more likely to alienate the public and to be met with violent repression. In addition, the labeling of protests, as Robin Celikates notes, “far from being a neutral observation, is always a politically charged speech act that can reproduce forms of marginalization and exclusion that are often racialized and gendered” and tends to serve the interests of socially dominant or mainstream voices (2016, 983). On this basis, Celikates casts doubt on the usefulness of “a fixed category of non-violence … for a philosophical analysis of disobedience informed by its social and political reality” (ibid.). Nonetheless, specifying the categories of violence and non-violence is important to push back against disingenuous uses of these categories, as when the police declare a peaceful protest a ‘riot’ – a common occurrence in the 2020 Black Lives Matter protests (ACLED 2020).

One way to conceive of violence is as the use of physical force causing or likely to cause injury (Rawls 1999, 321). However, non-violent acts or even legal acts may indirectly yet foreseeably cause more harm to others than do direct acts of physical force. A legal strike by ambulance workers or a roadblock on an important highway may well have more severe consequences than minor acts of vandalism (Raz 1979, 267). Psychological violence can also cause injury to others. Philosophers typically reject the childhood chant that “sticks and stones may break my bones, but words will never hurt me,” recognizing that harm and injury do not come solely from the use of physical force. For one thing, words can incite physical violence. Words can also hurt even without the threat of physical injury, such as verbal insult and harassment, which can undermine the recipient’s sense of equal standing, self-worth, and safety. The implication for civil disobedience is that the requirement of non-violence prohibits the use of tactics likely to inflict psychological violence on one’s opponents. Aggressive confrontations designed to denigrate and humiliate (distinct from attempts to elicit shame through displays of unearned suffering and appeals to conscience) are incompatible with the civility and non-violence of civil disobedience.

Rawls does not mention, and it is unclear whether, non-violence prohibits certain actions that don’t physically or psychologically injure others but still cause harms, such as property damage (e.g., vandalism), violence to self (e.g., hunger strikes), and coercion (e.g., forceful occupation).

Property damage : Authorities, much of the public, and many scholars tend to conceive of non-violence strictly, as excluding any damage to property (Fortas 1968, 48–9, 123–6; Smith 2013, 3, 33; Smith and Brownlee 2017, 5; Regan 2004). Two broad reasons may explain the inclusion of property damage within the category of violence. One is the classical liberal understanding of private property as an extension of one’s person; the other is the assumption that property damage is likely to lead to violence against persons. John Locke formulates both when he argues it is “lawful for a man to kill a thief, who has not in the least hurt him, nor declared any design upon his life … [because] I have no reason to suppose, that he, who would take away my liberty, would not, when he had me in his power, take away every thing else” (Locke 1690, III §18). By counting all instances of property destruction as violent, such a view dissuades one from drawing evaluative distinctions among different cases, methods, targets, and aims. However, not all property damage is or should be viewed as equal: burning one’s Selective Service card to protest the military draft is not equivalent to burning crosses to intimidate African Americans and Jews; smashing a stained-glass window depicting enslaved persons in a cotton field (as a Yale janitor did in 2016) is not equivalent to smashing the windows of a store in order to loot it. For some thinkers, such differences are not only issues of justification. They insist that violence and non-violence simply do not exhaust the descriptive possibilities and that we should think of property damage as a third conceptual category distinct from the other two and requiring its own evaluative assessment (Sharp 2012a, 307; Delmas 2018a, 49, 244–5). Other scholars have instead argued that non-violence can encompass property damage (Milligan 2013, ch. 2; Scheuerman 2018, 46–7, 77, 87). They hold that civil disobedients can remain non-violent while engaging in selective destruction of property, assuming the damage is minor and relates clearly to the civil disobedient’s message, such as when pacifists hammer warhead nose cones.

Self-violence : Self-violent protests include tactics such as lip-sewing, self-cutting, hunger strikes, self-exposure to the elements, and self-immolation. When theorists list hunger strikes among the tactics of civil disobedience, they often do not address the question of whether self-violence is compatible with non-violence properly conceived, but simply assume an affirmative answer. Some scholars cast doubt on this notion, given the violence of self-destructive protests and given activists’ self-understanding of their own actions (see Bargu’s 2014 critical ethnographic study on the 2000–2007 death fast by left-wing militants in Turkish prisons). A notable exception to the theoretical neglect of self-violence is Gandhi (1973, 103–5, 120–5), who thought that hunger strikes were coercive and violent but that fasts of moral pressure and Satyagrahic fasts were persuasive and non-violent (Sharp 2012a, 134, 151, 262); and likewise, that self-immolation could accord with non-violence ( ahimsa ) and be fueled by satyagraha (‘Truth-force’ in Sanskrit) under the right circumstances (Gandhi 1999, 79.177; Milligan 2014, 295–9).

Coercion and persuasion : Theorists often complete the dichotomy between violence and non-violence by seeing violence as a means of coercion, non-violence as a means of persuasion, and the two as incompatible. Coercion can be defined as “any interference by an agent, A, in the choices of another agent, B, with the aim of compelling B to behave in a way that they would not otherwise do” (Aitchison 2018a, 668; see also entry on coercion ). Persuasion, by contrast, requires initiating a dialogue with an interlocutor and aiming to elicit a change of position or even their moral conversion. Coercive tactics impose costs on opponents. For instance, land occupation by environmental activists is designed to prevent or delay oil pipeline construction. Boycotts are also considered to be coercive tactics to the extent that they impose acute costs on businesses (through lost revenue) and sometimes involve intimidation and the threat of force to ensure maximum compliance with the boycott (Umoja 2013, 135–42). Some theorists of civil disobedience hold that civil disobedients cannot resort to coercion; they can only seek to persuade and appeal to their opponent’s moral conscience, which excludes confrontational and coercive tactics (Lefkowitz 2007, 216; Brownlee 2012, 24).

Practitioners and other critics maintain that this dichotomy between non-violent persuasion and violent coercion is false on the grounds that there is such a thing as ‘non-violent coercion’, which is furthermore compatible with the goal of moral suasion. Non-violence appeals to the conscience of the public, by eliciting shame and indignation at the witnessing of civil disobedients’ suffering and their discipline in the face of violent repression. After the 1955–56 Montgomery bus boycott, which unleashed spectacular white retaliatory violence, Martin Luther King, Jr., saw appeals to conscience as insufficient without disruption and “some form of constructive coercive power” (King 1968, 137). “Nonviolent coercion always brings tension to the surface”, he wrote (ibid.), affirming “the coercive face of nonviolence” along with its persuasive face (Livingston 2020a, 704; see also Terry 2018, 305). “The purpose of our direct action program,” King proclaimed in his ‘Letter from a Birmingham Jail’, “is to create a situation so crisis packed that it will inevitably open the door to negotiation” (King 1991). Non-violent action is thus the means to the goal of both forcing negotiations – an essential “mechanism for social change” (Atack 2012, 139) – and of persuading – its corresponding mechanism for moral and cultural change. This leaves open the question whether confrontational attacks that single out particular persons through harassment, doxing, and ‘calling out’ are compatible with non-violence. Such acts are coercive and, like verbal insults, they may be said to inflict psychological violence on the target.

Civil disobedients are standardly expected to take responsibility for, and accept the legal consequences of, their lawbreaking. Their evading punishment would make their acts ordinary crimes or acts of rebellion; their willingness to invite punishment is supposed to demonstrate their endorsement of the legal system’s legitimacy and their “intense concern over the issue at hand” (C. Cohen 1966, 6; see also Brownlee 2012 ch. 1; Tai 2017, 146). Non-evasion is an essential correlate of the conscientiousness and non-violence of civil disobedience: submitting to law enforcement is part of the dramatic display of suffering required by non-violence. That said, theorists have fleshed out this requirement of non-evasion in different ways, arguing variously that the agent must (i) willingly submit to arrest and prosecution, (ii) plead guilty in court, (iii) not try to defend her crime, and/or (iv) not complain about the punishment received (Delmas 2019, arguing that only (i) is necessarily entailed by non-evasion). Some theorists reject (ii) and (iii), proposing instead that agents plead ‘not guilty’ in court, so as to deny the state’s characterization of the civil disobedient act as a public wrong (in this view, disobedients should either deny responsibility of having committed the action as alleged by the prosecutor or admit responsibility but deny criminal liability) (Moraro 2019, 143–7). Indeed, while the civil disobedient who pleads ‘guilty’ and does not try to defend her ‘crime’ highlights her willingness to self-sacrifice, a ‘not guilty’ plea accompanied by a defense of her action might be more effective at communicating her convictions and persuading others, including by inviting jury nullification. By contrast, some thinkers reject (i) and (iv) on the grounds that when civil disobedience is morally justified, the state’s imposition of punishment is itself problematic and arguably impermissible, so that further protests against civil disobedients’ arrests, prosecutions, and sentences are justified (Zinn 2002, 27–31). Critics have also noted that punishment can be detrimental to dissenters’ efforts by compromising future attempts to assist others through protest (Greenawalt 1987, 239) and that willingness to accept punishment cannot be reasonably expected when agents know they risk heavy fines or very long sentences for their actions (Scheuerman 2018, 49–51).

In some views, being civil means that civil disobedients behave in a dignified and respectful manner by following the conventional social scripts that spell out displays of dignity and ways of showing respect in their society. Some theorists understand civility itself as respect for “minimal civil norms” (Milligan 2013, ch. 2); others count decorum as an additional, implicit requirement of civility in line with manifestations of self-restraint (Delmas in Çıdam, et al. 2020, 524–5). Decorum may be understood to prohibit conduct that would be seen as offensive, insulting, or obscene (with the standards for each varying widely across cultures). In Scheuerman’s view, Gandhi and King, but not liberals and democrats, thought that politeness and decorum had a role to play (2018, 11–31). Yet one reason to think that decorum has seeped into the common understanding of civil disobedience is that it helps to explain why some protests by Pussy Riot, ACT UP, and Black Lives Matter, among others, which were conscientious, communicative, public, non-violent, and non-evasive, were denied the label civil : to wit, because protesters shouted down their opponents, expressed anger, used offensive language, or disrespected religious sites (Delmas 2020, 18–9). Critics, however, deny that civil disobedience needs to be decorous and push back against denials of civility, insofar as these are often deployed to silence activists (Harcourt 2012; Zerilli 2014). They deem expressions of anger and offensive or obscene displays to be compatible with civility (Scheuerman 2019, 5–7; Çıdam, et al. 2020, 517–8) and insist on dissociating the politics of ‘respectability’ from civil disobedience (Pineda 2021a, 161–3).

What makes an act of civil disobedience special? On some accounts, an act that satisfies the criteria of civility identified above, especially non-evasion, signals disobedients’ respect for and fidelity to the legal system in which they carry out their protest, in contrast with ordinary offenders and revolutionary agents (Rawls 1999, 322). Signaling one’s fidelity to law by abiding the demands of civility is seen as necessary to thwart fears of disorder or counter the impression that civil disobedients are contemptuous of democratic procedures. Critics point out that agents do not necessarily respect, nor have any reasons to respect, the legal system in which they carry out their civil disobedience (Lyons 1998, 33–6). It is thus useful to distinguish the outward features of the civilly disobedient act from the inward attitudes of the civilly disobedient agent.

Many thinkers argue that the link between the disobedient act’s civility and her fidelity to law or endorsement of the legal system can indeed be pulled apart. For one thing, agents intent on overthrowing their government may well resort to civil tactics simply because civil disobedience works (Sharp 2012b). Some theorists nonetheless hold on to the connection between civility and fidelity to law. For instance, some discard some of the requirements of civility but maintain that the civilly disobedient agent can still be motivated by respect for law and act within the limits of fidelity to law while disobeying covertly, evading punishment, damaging property, or offending the public (Brownlee 2012, 24–9; Scheuerman 2018, 49–53; Moraro 2019, 96–101). Others hold that it is worthwhile to maintain the link between the act’s civility and its conveying fidelity to law, whether or not agents actually endorse the system’s legitimacy, insofar as its self-restraint holds the key to civil disobedience’s place in democratic culture (Smith 2013, 32–5; Delmas 2019, 173–4).

Other theorists deny that civil disobedients need to demonstrate fidelity to law, taking what Scheuerman (2015) dubs an anti-legal turn . Civility, on a number of recent accounts (Brownlee 2012 ch. 1; Moraro 2019, ch. 2; M. Cooke 2021), is satisfied when agents aim to communicate with an audience and engage with the public sphere. On a radical understanding, the civility of civil disobedience is compatible with tactics “that will be regarded as uncivil because of their confrontational or even violent character, including massive disruption, the destruction of property, and the use of restrained force in self-defense,” only excluding para-military confrontation (Celikates 2021, 143).

This anti-legal turn goes along with what we may call a critical turn in scholarship on civil disobedience. Not only do theorists critique the liberal account of civil disobedience as unduly narrow and restrictive (as contemporary critics of Rawls already did) and articulate a more inclusive concept; but they also critique the ideology that undergirds the common account, uncovering the ways in which it distorts the reality of the practice, deters resistance, and buttresses the status quo (Celikates 2014, 2016; Delmas 2018a, ch. 1; Pineda 2021b, ch. 1). In this vein, several scholars have reassessed the complex legacy of Thoreau and Gandhi to the civil disobedience tradition, in order to both show the misappropriation of their writings on political resistance and to call for a reappropriation and appreciation of their visions (Mantena 2012; Hanson 2021; Livingston 2018; Scheuerman 2018, ch. 1, 4). Scholars have also reconsidered the historical record of the American Civil Rights Movement to excavate the radical understanding of civil disobedience forged by actors themselves, in lieu of the romantic and sanitized version that dominates public perception of the Movement (Hooker 2016; Livingston 2020a, 2020b; Pineda 2021b, ch. 2–5; Mantena 2018; and Shelby and Terry 2018). Setting the record straight matters not just for historical accuracy but also because the Civil Rights Movement is used as the benchmark to judge contemporary protest movements such as Black Lives Matter, unfavorably comparing today’s activists with an idealized standard with the effect of prejudicing the public against them.

2. Other Types of Protest

Although civil disobedience often overlaps broadly with other types of dissent, nevertheless some distinctions may be drawn between the key features of civil disobedience and the key features of these other practices.

The obvious difference between legal protest and civil disobedience is that the former lies within the bounds of the law, but the latter does not. Legal ways of protesting include, among many others, making speeches, signing petitions, organizing for a cause, donating money, taking part in authorized demonstrations, and boycotting. Some of these can become illegal, for instance when law enforcement declares an assembly unlawful and orders the crowd to disperse, or under anti-boycott legislation. Some causes may also be declared illegal, such that one cannot be associated with the cause or donate to it (such as the Communist Party in the U.S.). Most of the features exemplified in civil disobedience – other than its illegality – can be found in legal protest: a conscientious and communicative demonstration of protest, a desire to bring about through moral dialogue some lasting change in policy or principle, an attempt to educate and to raise awareness, and so on.

A practice distinct from, but related to, civil disobedience is rule departure on the part of authorities. Rule departure is essentially the deliberate decision by an official, for conscientious reasons, not to discharge the duties of her office (Feinberg 1992, 152). If an official’s breach of a specific duty is more in keeping with the spirit and overall aims of the office than a painstaking respect for its particular duties is, then the former might be said to adhere better than the latter does to the demands of the office (Greenawalt 1987, 281). Rule departures resemble civil disobedience in that both communicate the agent’s dissociation from and condemnation of certain policies and practices. Civil disobedience and rule departure differ mainly in the identity of their practitioners and in their legality. First, whereas rule departure typically is done by an agent of the state (including citizens serving in juries), civil disobedience typically is done by citizens (including officials acting as ordinary citizens and not in the capacity of their official role). Second, whereas the civil disobedient breaks the law, the official who departs from the rules associated with her role is not usually violating the law, unless the rule she breaks is also codified in law. For instance, jurors may refuse to convict a person for violating an unjust law. When they do, they nullify the law. However, many judges forbid any mention of jury nullification in their courtroom, so that jurors are not allowed to advise each other of the possibility to refuse to convict (Brooks 2004).

Conscientious objection may be defined as a refusal to conform to some rule, mandate, or legal directive on grounds of personal opposition to it. Examples include conscripts refusing to serve in the army; public officials refusing to issue same-sex marriage licenses; and parents refusing to vaccinate their children as mandated by state law. Public officials’ conscientious objection is indistinguishable from rule departures insofar as the agent refuses to discharge the set of duties associated with her official role. Conscientious objectors’ non-conformity may stem from very different kinds of motives: the conscript’s religious pacifism or moral and political opposition to a particular war or military occupation, for instance, has little in common with anti-vaxxers’ pseudo-scientific beliefs. But, in many views, conscientious objection is conscientious in the sense identified above, that is to say, sincere, serious, and reflecting the depth of the person’s conviction. In other views, however, when an objector seeks to keep her act private and to avoid detection, this casts doubt on her sincerity and seriousness (Brownlee 2012, ch. 1). As an objection, conscientious objection also shares with civil disobedience the agent’s opposition to the law, since the conscientious objector refuses to conform with the law because she considers it bad or wrong, totally or in part, and thus seeks to disassociate herself from it.

Conscientious objection is often considered to be the private counterpart of civil disobedience: where civil disobedients address the public, are motivated by and appeal to general considerations of justice, and seek to bring about reform, conscientious objectors are supposed to be animated by personal convictions and to simply seek to preserve their own moral integrity through exemption (Smith and Brownlee 2017). For instance, consider that the refusal of Jehovah’s Witnesses to salute the flag is a matter of private religious morality; they do not seek to abolish the practice of saluting the flag for all citizens. Their example is instructive in another way: Jehovah’s Witnesses’ refusal is legally protected. Conscientious objection, unlike civil disobedience, is not necessarily unlawful. Indeed, the law protects conscientious objectors in many contexts, including in the military and healthcare, by carving out exemptions for them.

Some thinkers distinguish conscientious objection from conscientious evasion and stress that we should not overstate the private and personal characteristics of the former. Conscientious objectors often act openly and non-anonymously and take responsibility for their non-conforming act by attempting or being willing to justify it to authorities. To that extent, they may be said to meet the publicity-as-visibility requirement. Some agents, in contrast, undertake their conscientious objection covertly and evasively as conscientious evasion. A young man drafted to fight a war he opposes, for instance, may openly refuse to serve and be arrested and charged for his refusal, or covertly dodge the draft by going AWOL. While conscientious evasion is incompatible with the intention to communicate, conscientious objection may have a public or communicative component, as Thoreau clearly did with his conscientious tax refusal, in a way that blurs the distinction with civil disobedience. Moreover, when such actions are taken by many people – as they often are – their collective impact can approximate the kind of communicative protest exemplified in civil disobedience (Delmas 2018a, ch. 7). In this vein, Emanuela Ceva (2015) highlights the public and political character of conscientious objection (what we call publicity-as-appeal above), which she conceives of as ‘a form of political participation’.

Writings on immigration and on civil disobedience have merged into an area of research devoted to principled disobedience in response to anti-immigration policies. One view, which focuses on what individual actors should do about immigration, examines various unlawful tactics of resistance, including evasion, deception, use of force against state officials, and smuggling (Hidalgo 2019, chs. 5–6). Another view conceives of illegal migration as a form of resistance to global poverty (Blunt 2019, ch. 4), while a third sees unauthorized border crossing as a type of conscientious evasion (Cabrera 2010, 136–43, 165). It is further useful to distinguish transnational civil disobedience from global civil disobedience. Transnational (or trans-state) civil disobedience is the principled violation of a state’s law or policy (a) by individuals who are not citizens or authorized permanent residents of that state, such as asylum-seekers marching from Hungary to Austria against E.U. regulations; or (b) by the state’s own citizens on behalf of outsiders, such as U.S. citizens active in the Sanctuary movement who provided illegal assistance to asylum-seekers from Central America in the 1980s. Both kinds of cases involve at root the “principled claim… that the state’s law is misaligned with the foundational moral principles of the current global system” (Cabrera 2021, 322). Acts of global civil disobedience, on this view, involve “claims implicating structural principles of the global system itself, as misaligned with its foundational moral principles” (Cabrera ibid.). For instance, when the sans-papiers in France openly protest against their socio-political and legal exclusion through occupations, demonstrations, and hunger strikes, they may be viewed as engaged in acts of global civil disobedience. One last useful category of principled disobedience that relates to immigration restrictions, although it overlaps with rule departures and conscientious objection, is official or local disobedience, as when local authorities declare themselves ‘Sanctuary cities’ to protect immigrants by refusing to cooperate with federal authorities (Blake and Hereth 2020, 468–71. See also Applbaum 1999, ch. 9 on ‘official disobedience’ and Scheuerman 2020 on ‘state-based’ or ‘political institutional civil disobedience’).

2.5 Digital disobedience

Digitalization – access to personal computers and the Internet – has transformed not only our lives and interactions, but also our disobedient practices. From piracy to DDoS attacks and from open-access coding to Digital Care Packages (which provide tools to circumvent censorship and surveillance), digital disobedience has emerged as a rich terrain for theoretical inquiry. Scholars disagree about the application of the defining features of civil disobedience to the digital, e.g., whether client-sided DDoS actions, which involve only voluntary botnets, amount to “virtual sit-ins”; whether hacktivists such as Anonymous may be considered civil disobedients despite their covert and evasive actions, their penchant for pranks, and their singling out of particular individuals for doxing and retaliation (such as in Operation Hunt Hunter which targeted ‘revenge porn’ magnate Hunter Moore); or whether the use of zombie botnets in DDoS attacks and the cost of updating security systems for the target evinces the violation of non-violence (see, e.g., Critical Art Ensemble 1998; Himma 2006; Scheuerman 2018, ch. 6; Celikates 2015, 2016; Sauter 2016; Delmas 2018b; Züger 2021).

These debates aside, it is useful to distinguish different kinds of digital tools, sites, strategies, and aims. First, activists use digital technology as tools to organize, document, communicate, raise funds, and make decisions. For instance, Black Lives Matter activists use social media to promote their cause, raise consciousness about systemic racism, and publicize instances of police brutality. They use crowdfunding platforms for fundraising to cover bail and other legal expenses for those arrested. They encourage people to use police scanner apps to watch police activity and legal assistance apps to record encounters with law enforcement officials. Second, the digital is itself a crucial site and object of activism. Hacktivists envision a different Internet – one that is democratic and democratically controlled, free, respectful of privacy, and creative. They protest against the digital architecture of surveillance and control that has been imposed on netizens without their consent. For instance, a number of websites, search engines, and online communities launched coordinated actions in 2012 to protest against the Stop Online Piracy Act (SOPA) and the Protect IP Act (PIPA), whose overbroad scope they saw as threats to online freedom of speech. Third, some properly digital strategies of principled disobedience have emerged, such as DDoS actions, web defacement, and hacking. For instance, the No Border network created a fake Lufthansa website touting its “Deportation Class service … the most economic way to travel the world” (“special restrictions apply … no round trips available”). The Open Access Movement, which advocates for open-source software and an open-source repository of academic and scientific research, combines all three dimensions of digital disobedience: it uses networked computers to organize and communicate; it seeks to bring about a free Internet characterized by the free flow of software, science, and culture and has developed a coherent political platform in its defense; and it deploys properly digital strategies, such as illegal downloads and peer-to-peer file sharing (which is illegal when the content torrented is copyrighted material). The Open Access Movement epitomizes a public, geeks-and-grassroots mass movement that not only promotes online democratic governance, but also enacts it within the movement (Swartz 2008 [Other Internet Resources]; Delmas 2018b, 79–80).

2.6 Uncivil disobedience

Uncivil disobedience is not a distinct category of political action, but a cluster concept or umbrella term that can be used to designate acts of principled disobedience that may or may not be communicative, and which violate one or more of the marks of civility by being covert, violent, evasive, or offensive (Delmas 2018a, 2020; Lai 2019). Examples include animal rescue, Sanctuary assistance, sabotage, ecotage (e.g., monkeywrenching and tree-spiking), graffiti, leaks, government whistleblowing, hacktivism (including DDoS attacks), guerrilla protests, and riots. These various act-types do not share any essential property, besides violating one or more of the commonly accepted criteria of civility. Each form of uncivil disobedience must be examined (conceptualized and assessed) on its own. By conceptualizing uncivil disobedience, scholars intend to counter the theoretical impetus to make the concept of civil disobedience ever broader to encompass protests that one approves of, but which do not fit the standard account and may not even fit activists’ self-understanding either. For instance, in her 1913 speech “Freedom or Death”, the suffragist Emmeline Pankhurst described herself as a “soldier” in a “civil war” waged against the state and defended the use of militant tactics, including heckling, window-smashing, sabotage, arson, and hunger strikes: radical defiance was the point of such uncivil tactics. Identifying some principled disobedient acts as uncivil makes room to focus on their justification. Scholars have defended such uncivil disobedience as political rioting (Pasternak 2019), vandalism (Lim 2020; Lai 2020), violent protest (Kling and Mitchell 2019), coercive strike tactics (Gourevitch 2018), and direct action (Smith 2018).

While a civil disobedient does not necessarily oppose the regime in which she acts, the revolutionary agent is deeply opposed to that regime (or a core aspect of that regime). Revolutionary agents may not seek to persuade others of the merits of their position – communication is usually not their primary aim, although they convey the urgency of a regime change. When revolution is called for, such as under colonial occupation, there is no need to justify constrained acts of protest like civil disobedience. Indeed, more forceful resistance can be justified as we pass into the realm of just war theory (Buchanan 2013; Finlay 2015). This is not to say that all violent tactics, including terror, are permissible, since the use of violence must not only pursue a just cause but also accord with proportionality and necessity (i.e., be undertaken in last resort and with a reasonable chance of success). As will be discussed in the next section, revolutionary activists and thinkers like Frantz Fanon (2004, ch. 1) and Gandhi disagreed about the effectiveness of violence in emancipatory struggles, but not about its justifiability, as Karuna Mantena (2018, 83–4) has shown.

3. Justification

The task of defending civil disobedience is commonly undertaken with the assumption that in reasonably just, liberal societies people have a general moral duty to follow the law (often called political obligation ). It is on the basis of such an assumption that civil disobedience requires justification. This section examines common understandings of the problem of disobedience (3.1), before presenting prominent accounts and critiques of the conditions under which civil disobedience may be justified (3.2). Whether or not theorists assume that civil disobedience is presumptively impermissible and in need of justification, their analyses also articulate the value and role of civil disobedience in non-ideal, nearly just or less-than-nearly-just liberal democracies (3.3).

Philosophers have given many arguments in favor of the moral duty to obey the law (see entry on political obligation ). Despite the many critiques of, and general skepticism toward, arguments for the moral duty to obey the law, most prominently following A. John Simmons (1979), theorists of civil disobedience have continued to conceive of the practice’s illegality as a hurdle to surmount (see Lyons 1998 for an analysis of the endurance of such a problematic assumption). They conceive of principled disobedience in general as presumptively wrong because it violates political obligation, undermines the rule of law, and destabilizes society both through example, by signaling to others that anyone can disobey if they feel the urge, and in principle, by expressing disrespect for law’s authority. They contend that civil disobedience in particular is presumptively wrong because of its anti-democratic nature. The agent who violates the outcomes of democratic decision-making processes because she disapproves of them puts herself above the law and threatens the legal and democratic order. Some see in it a violation of reciprocity, a kind of political “blackmail” and a sign of “moral self-indulgence” and arrogance, insofar as a minority, whose views didn’t prevail, disregards democratic processes and imposes on the majority its own view of the good and just (C. Cohen 1971, 138–45; Dworkin 1985, 112; Weinstock 2016, 709; for a response to the charge of ‘epistemic arrogance’, see Hindkjær Madsen 2021).

Recent scholarship on civil disobedience has taken what may be dubbed an anarchist turn , as theorists tend to no longer approach civil disobedience as presumptively wrong and in tension with political obligation. Although some theorists still defend the latter (Smith 2013), most start from skepticism vis-à-vis the moral duty to obey the law (Brownlee 2012; Celikates 2014, 2016). Others defend a disjunctive moral duty to obey the law or disobey it civilly (Lefkowitz 2007); and still others argue that the grounds commonly used to support political obligation – the natural duty of justice, the principle of fairness, the Samaritan duty, and associative obligations – yield duties to resist injustice, through civil and uncivil disobedience, under non-ideal circumstances, and that such duties should be considered among our political obligations (Delmas 2018a). Likewise, on a virtue-ethical account, political obligation can be understood as an obligation to respect rather than to obey the law, which can sometimes give rise to a duty to engage in civil disobedience (Moraro 2019, ch. 6).

Given the assumption that people have a moral duty to obey the law and the concern that civil disobedience has the potential to destabilize society, Rawls famously raised the bar for the justified use of the practice, requiring acts of civil disobedience 1) to target serious and long-standing injustice and at the same time appeal to widely accepted principles of justice, 2) to be undertaken as a last resort, and 3) to be done in coordination with other minority groups with similar grievances (Rawls 1999, 326–9). These conditions for the justification of civil disobedience, which are critically examined in this part, are closely tied not only to the ostensible need to diffuse its destabilizing potential and discourage proliferation of the practice, but also to the efficacy and role of civil disobedience in society (which is explored further in 3.3).

Longstanding Injustice : Why did Rawls restrict the target of civil disobedience to entrenched, longstanding injustices – in particular, violations of the principle of equal basic liberties? For Rawls, civil disobedience’s chance of success rests on the clarity of the injustice: everyone must be able to recognize the violation as an injustice, given widely accepted principles of political morality. Racial segregation fell in this category, according to Rawls, but not economic inequality. Rawls thinks that appeals to publicly shared principles of constitutional morality (per the publicity-as-appeal requirement) are more likely to persuade the majority and succeed to bring about reform. Rawls, Jürgen Habermas, and Ronald Dworkin restrict both civil disobedients’ appeals and their possible targets: they exclude matters of policy, as well as injustices that do not consist of incontrovertible violations of widely accepted principles of justice.

Critics reject this justificatory condition because it arbitrarily excludes both progressive but not widely shared conceptions of justice (such as cosmopolitanism) and appeals to other principles of morality besides justice (say, regarding the ethical treatment of animals; Singer 1973, 86–92). And whereas Dworkin (1985, 111–2) finds anti-nuclear protest unjustifiable to the extent that it turns on judgments of policy instead of appealing to fundamental principles of political morality, Robert Goodin (1987) counters that the justice/policy distinction is flimsy and arbitrarily drawn and insists that civil disobedients should pursue the common good by protesting international and climate policies. Scholars also include in the class of justifiable targets private agents such as trade unions, banks, health insurance companies, labs, farm factories, and private universities (Walzer 1982, ch.2; Smith 2013, 55–6; Milligan 2013, ch. 11–12; S. Cooke 2016). Finally, observation of past and present social movements, including the Abolitionist movement, #MeToo, and Black Lives Matter, suggests that, rather than appealing to the public principles of political morality, civil disobedients may in fact seek to transform common sense morality.

Last Resort : What grounds the widely accepted requirement that civil disobedience be undertaken as a last resort? How do we know agents have met it? One position is that, in a liberal democracy, citizens should use proper legal channels of political participation to express their grievances (Raz 1979; though Raz grants that individual acts of disobedience can be justified in liberal regimes). But, since causes defended by a minority are often those most opposed by persons in power, legal channels may be less than wholly effective (Rawls 1999, 327). Moreover, it is unclear when a person could claim to have reached a situation of last resort; she could continue to use the same tired legal methods without end. To ward off such challenges, Rawls suggests that, if past actions, including by others, have shown the majority to be immovable or apathetic, then further attempts may reasonably be thought fruitless and the dissenter may be confident her civil disobedience is a last resort (1999, 328).

Minority Group Coordination : The coordination requirement is designed to regulate the overall level of dissent (Rawls 1999, 327). The idea is that since minority groups are equally justified in resorting to civil disobedience when they have sufficiently weighty objections, these groups should avoid undermining each other’s efforts through simultaneous appeals to the attention of society and government. While there is some merit to this condition, arguably civil disobedience that does not meet it can still be justifiable. In some cases, there will be no time or opportunity to coordinate with other minorities. In other cases, other minority groups may be unable or unwilling to coordinate. The refusal or inability of other groups to cooperate should arguably not affect the ultimate defensibility of a person’s or group’s use of civil disobedience.

A reason for Rawls to defend this coordination requirement is that often coordination serves a more important concern, namely, the achievement of good consequences. It is often argued that civil disobedience can only be justified if there is a high probability that it will produce positive change, since only such change can justify exposing society to the risks of harm usually associated with civil disobedience – namely, its destabilizing and divisive potential and the risk that it could encourage lawbreaking or escalate into uncivil disobedience. In response to these challenges, one might question the empirical claims that civil disobedience is divisive and that it has the consequence of leading others to use disobedience to achieve changes in policy. One might also question whether it necessarily would be a bad thing if civil disobedience had these consequences. Concerning likelihood of success, civil disobedience can seem most justifiable when the situation appears hopeless and when the government refuses to listen to conventional forms of communication. Additionally, even when general success seems unlikely, civil disobedience might be defended for any reprieve from harm that it brings to victims of a bad law or policy. Tree-hugging, for example, can delay or curtail a clear-cut logging scheme and thereby prolong the protection of an ecosystem.

The justification of civil disobedience further articulates the conditions for its effective role in society. Far from undermining the rule of law or destabilizing society, civil disobedience could strengthen the social and legal order. Civil disobedience can have a justice-enhancing value: it can serve “to inhibit departures from justice and to correct them when they occur” (Rawls 1999, 336). Equally, it can have a legitimacy-enhancing function, with some thinkers conceiving of civil disobedience as ‘the guardian of legitimacy’ (Habermas 1985, 103). Both ideas deem the practice of civil disobedience to be a valuable component of the public political culture of a near-just constitutional democratic society. Habermas even took the state’s treatment of civil disobedience as a ‘litmus test’ for the maturity of the political culture of a constitutional democracy: “Every constitutional democracy that is sure of itself considers civil disobedience as a normalized – because necessary – component of its political culture” (Habermas 1985, 99).

While Habermas’s account resembles Rawls’s liberal approach in many ways, its distinctive deliberative strand has also influenced democracy-based accounts, which defend the justification and role of civil disobedience on the basis of its contribution to democracy. Deliberative democrats (Markovits 2005; Smith 2013, ch. 1–3), republican democrats (Arendt 1972), and radical democrats (Celikates 2014, 2016) focus on the potential of civil disobedience to enhance democratic legitimacy and to constitute in itself a form of democratic empowerment. Agents engaged in civil disobedience can enhance democratic legitimacy in a number of ways, including by putting a heretofore-neglected issue on the political agenda and raising awareness about its stakes; contributing to and informing democratic deliberation; highlighting the outsize influence of powerful players and the exclusionary effects of certain processes of public deliberation, and working to make the latter more inclusive. Civil disobedience does not only aim to invigorate democratic sovereignty, but also can constitute a form of democratic empowerment in itself – an exercise of political agency that is especially meaningful for marginalized groups. Through civil disobedience, individuals discover and realize their power. They work together and forge bonds of solidarity. They engage in democratic politics. Theorists’ examples to illustrate democratic civil disobedience include: the Occupy Movement, pro-democracy movements around the world, anti-globalization and anti-austerity protests, climate justice activism, and Campesino movements for land redistribution and agrarian reform. Many activists further enact within their movement the norms and values that guide their struggles, for instance through radical inclusion, direct democratic decision-making, aspiration to consensus, and leaderless organizational structures. Some theorists insist on the need to align the means of protest with its aims, by deploying only persuasive, non-violent forms of protest that reflect democratic ideals (Habermas 1997, 383–4; M. Cooke 2016), while others contend that civil disobedience can be confrontational and coercive without betraying its democratic aims (Smith 2021; Fung 2005, 409).

A third approach to the value of civil disobedience, besides the liberal and democratic lenses, comes from the political realist perspective. Robert Jubb (2019) critiques Rawlsian accounts of civil disobedience for the binary theory of political authority they rest on: they take the whole political order to be either legitimate or illegitimate, and thereby ignore or deny the possibility that a regime may be authoritative in virtue of having a democratic mandate, yet fail to protect everyone’s basic liberties or to treat all its members as equals, for example. Jubb proposes instead to “disaggregate” political authority, that is, to distinguish between the different forms of authority which a political order may possess or lack, in order to make sense of the conditions under which different forms of protest and resistance may be appropriate. Other realists criticize both liberal and deliberative democratic perspectives for their deductive, top-down approach to moral analysis, their quest for rational consensus, and their assumption that people can be persuaded by rational arguments alone (Sabl 2001, 2021; Mantena 2012). Realist accounts of civil disobedience stress instead “the ubiquity of moral disagreement and the permanence of political conflict” (Sabl 2021, 153). Andrew Sabl, for instance, envisions civil disobedience as a properly ‘political technology’ (2021, 165), situated between submission and revolution, through which agents seek to effect change in the basic allocation of burdens and benefits by raising costs for adversaries, but without undermining the state’s basic functions such as its provision of public goods.

For her part, Mantena debunks the common understanding of Gandhi and King as committed in principle and absolutely to non-violence, showing that their endorsement of non-violence reflected concerns of political efficacy. They considered political violence to be “futile”, that is, ineffective for social change and likely to bring about “dangerous and perverse consequences in politics” (Mantena 2018, 84). In Gandhi’s view, violence would cultivate the wrong kind of independence for India and breed the wrong kind of polity, amounting to a mere change of personnel in a violent state and generating unstable conditions. Mantena identifies “three faces of nonviolent action”, which we can reframe as realists’ account of the triple value of civil disobedience: 1) morally, civil disobedience is the right means by which oppressed people can regain dignity and self-respect; 2) strategically, it is a necessary means to just and stable political results and future democratic concord; and 3) tactically, the dramatization of civil disobedients’ discipline works effectively to persuade opponents. Recent social scientific research has corroborated the effectiveness of non-violence in campaigns of civil resistance, which seek to topple dictatorships or colonial powers (Chenoweth and Stephan 2011; Schock 2015).

Many democratic theorists incorporate political realism in their approach as they strive to think about and “learn from the streets” (Celikates 2014), in a “bottom-up” approach designed to understand particular contemporary protest movements. This approach constitutes a stark departure from “top-down” liberal approaches like Rawls’s and Dworkin’s that require agents justify their disobedient protest before engaging in it. As Alexander Livingston puts it, many democratic and critical theorists today seek to draw “theoretical insights from protest movements themselves around the globe rather than legislating moral guidelines for activist praxis from the sidelines” (Çıdam et al 2020, 540). Guy Aitchison sees this as a central feature of the ‘new civil disobedience debate’, in which scholars seek to respond to ‘a new era of political protest and unrest’ characterized by “the proliferation and intensification of oppositional political action by groups challenging economic inequality, racist policing, immigration enforcement, austerity, war, climate change, financial oligarchy, privatization, and corporate domination of cyberspace” (Aitchison 2018b, 5, 7–8) – which theorists tend to be in broad sympathy with. Such bottom-up approach also diverges from David Lefkowitz’s and Kimberley Brownlee’s defenses of a moral right to civil disobedience that applies impartially to all acts of civil disobedience, justified or not (see 4.2).

4. Responding to Civil Disobedience

How should the state respond to civil disobedience? The question of appropriate legal response applies, first, to the actions of law-enforcers when deciding whether and how to intervene in a civilly disobedient action. It applies, second, to the actions of prosecutors when deciding whether to file charges and proceed to trial. Finally, it applies to the actions of judges (and juries) when deciding whether to convict and (for judges) how much to punish. All three contexts of legal sanctions beg the question of criminal law’s function.

How much punishment is appropriate for civil disobedients? Is punishment appropriate at all? If there is a right to civil disobedience, then, as we saw, it protects people from punishment. Even if there isn’t, is punishment indefensible if it sanctions morally justified civil disobedience? The tensions become clear when we consider the criminal law’s function, which is to punish and prevent crimes, that is, to tackle wrongful conduct. Unlike civil wrongs, which are privately brought, criminal wrongs are public wrongs: the polity, not the victim (there may not be any), prosecutes the alleged wrongdoer. Punishment, depending on one’s overarching account, serves to: dissuade people from committing the types of conduct identified as wrongful (Bentham 1789 [1970]); appropriately respond to those who culpably commit them (Moore 1997), including by engaging with them in a moral dialogue so that they repent and reform (Duff 1998); and/or express the community’s moral disapproval of such conduct (Feinberg 1994). So, we may ask, from the consequentialist, forward-looking standpoint, whether the state should deter civil disobedience; and, from a retributivist (desert-based) or communicative, backward-looking perspective, whether civil disobedients deserve the community’s censure (Bennett and Brownlee 2021).

If civilly disobedient breaches of law are public wrongs, comparable to or worse than ordinary offenses, then civil disobedients should be punished similarly or more severely than those who commit ordinary offenses. Kent Greenawalt lays out reasons to hold that civil disobedients deserve the same punishment as others who breach the same laws. First, the demands of proportionality would seem to recommend a uniform application of legal prohibitions. Since trespass is prohibited, persons who breach trespass laws in protest of either those laws or other laws would seem to be equally liable to persons who breach trespass laws for private purposes. Second, any principle that officials may use to excuse justified illegal acts will result in some failures to punish unjustified acts, for which the purposes of punishment would be more fully served. Even when officials make correct judgments about which acts to excuse, citizens may draw mistaken inferences, and restraints of deterrence and norm acceptance may be weakened for unjustified acts that resemble justified ones (Greenawalt 1987, 273). What follows is that all such violations, justified and unjustified, should be treated the same.

There also are reasons to believe that civil disobedients should be dealt with more severely than are others who have offended. First, as mentioned above, disobedients seem to have put themselves above the law in preferring their own moral judgment about a certain issue to that of the democratic decision-making process and the rule of law. Second, the communicative aspect of civil disobedience could be said to aggravate disobedient offenses since their communication usually is attended by much greater publicity than most covert violations are. This forces legal authorities to concern themselves with the possibility that law-abiding citizens will feel distressed, insecure, and perhaps imposed on, if no action is taken. So, notes Greenawalt, while authorities may quietly let minor breaches pass, failure to respond to violations performed, in some respect, in the presence of authority, may undercut claims that the rules and the persons who administered them deserve respect (1987, 351–2). Third, and related, civil disobedients often invite, and might inspire, other citizens to do what they do. Such risk of proliferation of civil disobedience and, further, of its escalation into lawlessness and violence, may support the imposition of more severe punishment for agents engaged in civil disobedience.

However, both the models of civil disobedience presented above, which stress its role and value in liberal democracies, and the arguments for the right to civil disobedience examined below, strongly push for the opposite view that civil disobedients, if punished at all, should be dealt with more leniently than others who have offended. The preceding discussion highlights that civil disobedience is in fact a public good – a crucial component of democratic culture, in Habermas’s words – and, hence, many theorists defend the state’s responsibility to treat civil disobedients leniently.

Dworkin argues that the state has a “special responsibility to try to protect [the civil disobedient], and soften his predicament, whenever it can do so without great damage to other policies” (Dworkin 1978, 260). The government can exercise its responsibility of leniency by not prosecuting civil disobedience at all, depending on the balance of reasons, including individual rights, state interests, social costs, and constitutional benefits. Reasons for prosecuting in any particular case are ‘practical’, not intrinsic or deontological, and always potentially defeasible. In general, prosecutors should not charge disobedients with the most serious offenses applicable and judges should give them light sentences. Leniency follows from the recognition of the special constitutional status of civil disobedience.

In this view, officials at all levels have the discretion to not sanction civil disobedients, and they should use it. Prosecutors have and should use their discretion not to press charges against civil disobedients in some cases, or to charge them with the least serious offense possible. Dworkin (1985) urges judges to engage in an open dialogue with civil disobedients (at least those who articulate legal arguments in defense of their actions) and dismiss their charges after hearing them, or to use their discretion in sentencing, for instance by accepting guilty pleas or guilty verdicts but imposing trivial punishments.

However, this proposal could amount to letting judges evaluate the worthiness of individual civil disobedients’ causes, which would not on its own guarantee judicial leniency. To the contrary, judges might well systematically decide against civil disobedients, upholding the special interests of the ruling class of which they are part. The proceduralist insistence on courts’ neutrality avoids this pitfall, and generally warns against turning courtrooms into political forums. Yet the transformation of courts into public fora might not be so insidious, and may indeed be part of a necessary institutional reform to provide civil disobedients with a platform, perhaps along the lines of Arendt’s (1972, 101–2) proposal to treat civil disobedients as a kind of people’s lobbyists (see Smith 2011).

For Rawls, there is only a moral right to engage in justified civil disobedience. But many other theorists defend at least a limited right to engage in civil disobedience irrespective of a particular act’s justification, given the general value of the practice. Dworkin (1978) outlines what such a right of conduct might look like, analogizing civil disobedients with Supreme Court justices, who test the constitutional validity of (unjust) law through direct disobedience of that law. In doing so, they can make law more faithful to the principles of justice and fairness that justify it (on Dworkin’s theory of law). Some theorists accept the value of constitutional challenges but argue that once the law is found by a high court to be constitutional and disobedients’ initial conviction is upheld, disobedients have a duty to accept their punishment and recognize the law’s validity (Fortas 1968; Nussbaum 2019, 177). In contrast, Dworkin argues that forcing citizens to obey court decisions – including the Supreme Court’s – would mean forcing them to do something their conscience forbids them to do, which would contravene the constitutional imperative, entrenched in the First Amendment and rooted in dignity, to respect individuals’ “right to conscience” and protect their freedom of speech.

The right to conscience, on this account, thus grounds a weak “right to break the law”. It is a right in the sense that one “does the right thing to break the law, so that we should all respect” the agent when she follows her conscientious judgment about doubtful law and refuses to comply with a law that requires her to do what her conscience forbids (Dworkin 1978, 228–37), but it does not ground a right in the strong sense that the government would do wrong to stop her from disobeying. In other words, on this view, the right to disobedience is deemed to be compatible with the state’s right to punish. Contra Cohen (1966, 6), Rawls (1999, 322), and others, however, Dworkin does not defend agents’ moral duty to accept punishment (1985, 114–5). He considers non-evasion of legal sanctions to be a good strategy for civil disobedients denouncing unconstitutional law and unjust policy ( justice - and policy -based civil disobedience on his view) but denies that accepting punishment is a conceptual, moral, or tactical requirement for civil disobedience motivated by personal convictions (‘integrity-based’ civil disobedience). For the latter, Dworkin argues that utilitarian reasons for punishing should be weighed against the fact that the accused acted out of principled convictions, and that the balance should generally favor leniency.

Joseph Raz puts forward a different account of the right to civil disobedience, insisting that this right extends to cases in which people ought not to exercise the right: it is part of the nature and purpose of rights of conduct that they give persons a protected sphere in which to act rightly or wrongly. To say that there is a right to civil disobedience is to allow the legitimacy of resorting to this form of political action for causes one opposes (Raz 1979, 268). That said, Raz places great emphasis on the kind of regime in which a disobedient acts, arguing that only in an illiberal regime could individuals have a right to civil disobedience to reclaim their political participation rights which their illiberal state is violating: they are entitled to “disregard the offending laws and exercise their moral right as if it were recognized by law.” Raz adds that “members of the illiberal state do have a right to civil disobedience which is roughly that part of their moral right to political participation which is not recognized in law” (Raz 1979, 272–3). By contrast, in a liberal state, the right to political activity is, by hypothesis, adequately protected by law and, hence, the right to political participation cannot ground a right to civil disobedience.

A different view of rights holds that when a person appeals to political participation rights to defend her disobedience, she does not necessarily criticize the law for outlawing her action. Lefkowitz maintains that members of minorities can appreciate that democratic discussions often must be cut short so that decisions may be taken, and those who engage in civil disobedience may view current policy as the best compromise between the need to act and the need to accommodate continued debate. Nonetheless, they also can point out that, with greater resources or further time for debate, their view might have held sway. Given this possibility, the right to political participation must include a right to continue to contest the result after the votes are counted or the decisions taken. And this right should include suitably constrained civil disobedience because the best conception of political participation rights is one that reduces as much as possible the impact that luck has on the popularity of a view (Lefkowitz 2007; see also Smith 2013, ch. 4; Ceva 2015).

An alternative response to Raz questions whether the right to civil disobedience must be derived from rights to political participation. Brownlee (2012, ch. 4) bases the right to civil disobedience on a right to object on the basis of sincere conviction. Whether such a right would fall under participation rights depends on the expansiveness of the latter rights. When the right to participate is understood to accommodate only legal protest, then the right conscientiously to object, which commonsensically includes civil disobedience, must be viewed as distinct from political participation rights.

A further challenge to a regime-focused account is that real societies do not align with a dichotomy between liberal and illiberal regimes; rather they fall along a spectrum of liberality and illiberality, being both more or less liberal relative to each other and being more or less liberal in some domains than in others. Perhaps, in a society that approximates a liberal regime, the political-participation case for a right to civil disobedience diminishes, but to make legally protected participation fully adequate, a liberal society would have to address Bertrand Russell’s charge that controllers of the media give defenders of unpopular views few opportunities to make their case unless they resort to sensational methods such as disobedience (1998, 635).

Philosophers have typically focused on the question of how courts should treat civil disobedients, while neglecting to apply that question to law enforcement. Yet the police have much discretion in how to deal with civil disobedients. In particular, they have no obligation to arrest protesters when they commit minor violations of the law such as traffic obstruction: accommodation of and communication with protesters is something they can but all too rarely decide to do. Instead, many governments practice militarized repression of protests. Local police departments in the U.S. often respond to demonstrations with riot gear and other military equipment. Also, the British government sought to strengthen public order laws and secure new police powers to crack down on Extinction Rebellion (XR), the global environmental movement whose street protests, die-ins, and roadblocks for climate justice have brought cities to a standstill.

One notable exception to the theoretical neglect of law enforcement is Smith’s (2013, ch. 5) articulation of a “policing philosophy” that orientates policing strategies toward accommodation, rather than prevention or repression, of civil disobedience. On Smith’s view, “the police should, where possible, cooperate with civilly disobedient activists in order to assist in their commission of a protest that is effective as an expression of their grievance against law or policy” (2013, 111). Accommodation requires communication channels between police and activists and involves strategies such as pre-negotiated arrests. While the U.S. often implements punitive and strong-handed law enforcement strategies, the U.K.’s current goal (at the time of writing) is, according to one senior police source, to develop ‘move forward’ – proactive and preventive – tactics that are designed to clear the streets of XR demonstrators. Neither approach respects anything like a right to civil disobedience.

A constitutional government committed to recognizing the right to civil disobedience would also have to reform part of its criminal laws and make available certain defenses. Brownlee proposes two. First, disobedients should have access to a “demands-of-conviction,” excusatory defense to point to the deep and sincere reasons they had for believing they were justified in acting the way they did (Brownlee 2012, ch. 5). Second, states should accept necessity as a justificatory defense for civil disobedience undertaken as a reasonable and parsimonious response to violations of and threats to non-contingent basic needs (Brownlee 2012, ch. 6). As these defenses suggest, constitutionally recognizing civil disobedience does not mean making civil disobedience legal. Disobedients would still be arrested and prosecuted, but they would get to explain and defend their actions in court. They would be heard.

There have been shifts in the paradigm forms and goals of civil disobedience over the past century, from the suffragettes’ militant activism in pursuit of their basic rights of citizenship to the youth climate movement’s school walkouts and mass demonstrations to demand governments take urgent action to combat the climate crisis. Even so, civil disobedience remains an enduring, vibrant part of political activism and, increasingly, benefits from transnational alliances.

Theorists have long assumed that civil disobedience only begs justification in liberal, democratic societies – the best real-world candidates for legitimate states. However, civil disobedience also raises questions in undemocratic and illegitimate contexts, regarding its overall role, strategic value, and tactical efficacy. For instance, disobedient protests in support of democracy in Hong Kong may not be presumptively impermissible given China’s authoritarian rule. Yet they still beg significant questions concerning the proper contours of extra-institutional dissident politics and the justification of uncivil and forceful tactics in repressive contexts, including violence against police and the destruction of pro-China shops and Chinese banks.

Finally, whereas theorists have tended to think of civil disobedience as generally undertaken to achieve worthy public goals, liberal democratic states have recently witnessed much disobedience in pursuit of anti-democratic and illiberal goals, including conscientious refusal to abide by antidiscrimination statutes and violations of, and protests against, laws requiring the provision of reproductive services and the public health measures enacted to slow the spread of the coronavirus. We may need a different lens than liberal and democratic theorists have offered to evaluate the full range of conservative social movements, counter-movements, and reactionary movements which resort to civil (and other forms of) disobedience.

ACLED, 2020, “Demonstrations & Political Violence in America: New Data for Summer 2020,” https://acleddata.com/2020/09/03/demonstrations-political-violence-in-america-new-data-for-summer-2020/
Aitchison, Guy, 2018a, “Domination and Disobedience: Protest, Coercion, and the Limits of an Appeal to Justice,” Perspectives on Politics , 16 (3): 666–679.
–––, 2018b, “(Un)civil disobedience,” Raisons Politiques , 1(69): 5–12.
Applbaum, Arthur, 1999, Ethics for Adversaries: The Morality of Roles in Public and Professional Life , Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Arendt, Hannah, 1972, Crises of the Republic: Lying in Politics, Civil Disobedience, On Violence, Thoughts on Politics and Revolution , New York: Harcourt.
Atack, Iain, 2012, Nonviolence in Political Theory , Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.
Bargu, Banu, 2014, Starve and Immolate: The Politics of Human Weapons , New York: Columbia University Press.
Bedau, Hugo A., 1961, “On Civil Disobedience,” The Journal of Philosophy , 58 (21): 653–147.
––– (ed.), 1991. Civil Disobedience in Focus , London: Routledge.
Bennett, Christopher, and Brownlee, Kimberley, 2021, “Law, Punishment, and Civil Disobedience,” in W. Scheuerman (ed.), The Cambridge Companion to Civil Disobedience , Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 280–312.
Bentham, Jeremy, 1789 [1970], An Introduction to the Principles of Morals and Legislation , J. H. Burns and H. L. A. Hart (eds.), London: Athlone Press.
Blake, Michael and Hereth, Blake, 2020, “Sanctuary Cities and Non-Refoulement,” Ethical Theory and Moral Practice , 23 (2): 457–474.
Blunt, Gwilym David, 2019, Global Poverty, Injustice, and Resistance , Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Brooks, Thom, 2004, “A Defence of Jury Nullification,” Res Publica , 10 (4): 401–423.
Brownlee, Kimberley, 2012. Conscience and Conviction: The Case for Civil Disobedience , Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Buchanan, Allen, 2013, “The Ethics of Revolution and Its Implications for the Ethics of Intervention,” Philosophy and Public Affairs , 41 (4): 291–323.
Cabrera, Luis, 2010, The Practice of Global Citizenship , Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
–––, 2021, “Global Citizenship, Global Civil Disobedience and Political Vices,” in W. Scheuerman (ed.), The Cambridge Companion to Civil Disobedience , Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 313–337.
Celikates, Robin, 2014, “Civil disobedience as a practice of civic freedom,” in D. Owen (ed.), On Global Citizenship: James Tully in Dialogue , London: Bloomsbury Press, pp. 207–228.
–––, 2015, “Digital publics, digital contestation: A new structural transformation of the public sphere?,” in R. Celikates, R. Kreite, and T. Wesche (eds.), Transformations of democracy: Crisis, protest, and legitimation , London: Rowman and Littlefield, pp. 159–174.
–––, 2016, “Democratizing Civil disobedience?,” Philosophy and Social Criticism , 42 (10): 982–994.
–––, 2021, “Radical Democratic Disobedience,” in W. Scheuerman (ed.), The Cambridge Companion to Civil Disobedience , Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 128–152.
Celikates, Robin, and Daniel De Zeeuw, 2016, “Botnet Politics: Algorithmic Resistance and Hacking Society,” in Hacking Habitat , Rotterdam: nai010: 209–217.
Ceva, Emanuela, 2015, “Political Justification through Democratic Participation: The Case for Conscientious Objection,” Social Theory and Practice , 41 (1): 26–50.
Chenoweth, Erica, and Stephan, Maria, 2011, Why Civil Resistance Works: The Strategic Logic of Nonviolent Conflict , New York: Columbia University Press.
Çıdam, Çiğdem, Scheuerman, William E., Delmas, Candice, Pineda, Erin R., Celikates, Robin, and Alexander Livingston, 2020, “Theorizing the Politics of Protest: Contemporary Debates on Civil Disobedience,” Contemporary Political Theory , 19 (3), 513–546.
Cohen, Carl, 1966, “Civil Disobedience and the Law,” Rutgers Law Review , 21 (1): 1–17.
–––, 1971, Civil Disobedience: Conscience, Tactics, and the Law , New York: Columbia University Press.
Cohen, Marshall, 1970, “Civil Disobedience in Constitutional Democracy,” Philosophic Exchange , 1 (1): 99–110.
Cooke, Maeve, 2016, “Civil obedience and disobedience,” Philosophy and Social Criticism , 42 (10): 995–1003.
–––, 2021, “Ethical dimensions of civil disobedience,” in W. Scheuerman (ed.), The Cambridge Companion to Civil Disobedience , Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 231–253.
Cooke, Steve, 2016, “Understanding Animal Liberation,” in R. Garner, and S. O’Sullivan (eds.), The Political Turn in Animal Ethics , London: Rowman & Littlefield, pp. 119–136.
Critical Art Ensemble, 1998, Electronic Disobedience and Other Unpopular Ideas , New York: Autonomedia.
Dawson, James, 2007, “Recently Discovered Revisions Made by Thoreau to the First Edition Text of ‘Civil Disobedience’,” The Concord Saunterer , New Series, 15: 1–23.
Delmas, Candice, 2018a, A Duty to Resist: When Disobedience Should be Uncivil , New York: Oxford University Press.
–––, 2018b, “Is Hacktivism the New Civil Disobedience?,” Raisons Politiques , 69(1): 63–81.
–––, 2019, “Civil Disobedience, Punishment, and Injustice,” in K. K. Ferzan and L. Alexander (eds.), The Palgrave Handbook of Applied Ethics and the Criminal Law , London: Palgrave Macmillan, pp. 167–188.
–––, 2020, “Uncivil Disobedience,” in M. Schwartzberg (ed.), NOMOS LXII: Protest and Dissent , New York: New York University Press, pp. 9–44.
Duff, Antony, 1998, “Desert and Penance,” in Principled Sentencing , Andrew Ashworth and Andrew von Hirsch(eds.), Oxford: Hart Publishing.
Duff, Antony and Garland David (eds.), 1994, A Reader on Punishment , Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Dworkin, Ronald, 1978, Taking Rights Seriously , 5th ed., Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
–––, 1985, A Matter of Principle , Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Fanon, Frantz, 2004 [1963], The Wretched of the Earth , trans. R. Philcox, New York: Grove Press.
Fedorko, Kathy, 2016, “‘Henry’s brilliant sister’: The Pivotal Role of Sophia Thoreau in Her Brother’s Posthumous Publications,” The New England Quarterly , 89 (2): 222–256.
Feinberg, Joel, 1992, Freedom and Fulfillment: Philosophical Essays , Princeton: Princeton University Press.
–––, 1994, “The Expressive Function of Punishment,” in A. Duff and D. Garland (eds.), A Reader on Punishment , Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Finlay, Christopher J., 2015, Terrorism and the Right to Resist: A Theory of Just Revolutionary War , Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Fortas, Abe, 1968, Concerning Dissent and Civil Disobedience , New York: Signet Broadside.
Fung, Archon, 2005, “Deliberation Before the Revolution: Toward an Ethics of Deliberative Democracy in an Unjust World,” Political Theory , 33 (2): 397–419.
Gandhi, Mohandas, 1973, Selected Writings of Mahatma Ghandi , R. Duncan (ed.), Glasgow: Fontana/Collins.
–––, 1999, The Collected Works of Mahatma Ghandi , Publications division Ministry of information and broadcasting Government of India. 98 vols.http://www.gandhiserve.org/e/cwmg/cwmg.htm
Goodin, Robert E., 1987, “Civil Disobedience and Nuclear Protest,” Political Studies , 35 (3): 461–466.
Gourevitch, Alex, 2018, “The Right to Strike: A Radical View,” American Political Science Review , 112 (4): 905–917.
Greenawalt, Kent, 1987, Conflicts of Law and Morality , Oxford: Clarendon Press.
Habermas, Jürgen, 1985, “Civil Disobedience: Litmus Test for the Democratic Constitutional State,” J. Torpey, trans. Berkeley Journal of Sociology , 30: 95–116.
Hanson, Russell L., 2021, “The Domestication of Henry David Thoreau,” in W. Scheuerman (ed.), The Cambridge Companion to Civil Disobedience , Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 29–55.
Harcourt, Bernard, 2012, “The Politics of Incivility,” Arizona Law Review , 54(2): 345–373.
–––, 1997, Between Facts and Norms: Contributions to a Discourse Theory or Law and Democracy , trans. W. Rehg, Cambridge: Polity Press.
Hidalgo, Javier S., 2019, Unjust Borders: Individuals and the Ethics of Immigration , New York: Routledge.
Himma, Kenneth Einar, 2006, “Hacking as politically motivated digital civil disobedience: Is hacktivism morally justified?,” in K. E. Himma (ed.), Readings on Internet Security: Hacking, Counterhacking, and Other Moral Issues , Boston: Jones and Bartlett.
Hindkjaer Madsen, Tine, 2021, “Are Dissenters Epistemically Arrogant?,” Criminal Law and Philosophy , 15 (1): 1–23.
Hooker, Juliet, 2016, “Black Lives Matter and the Paradoxes of U.S. Black Politics: From Democratic Sacrifice to Democratic Repair,” Political Theory , 44 (4): 448–469.
Jubb, Robert, “Disaggregating Political Authority: What’s Wrong with Rawlsian Civil Disobedience?,” Political Studies , 67 (4): 955–971.
King Jr., Martin Luther, 1968, Where Do We Go From Here? Chaos or Community? , New York: Harper and Row.
–––, 1991, “Letter from Birmingham Jail,” in H. A. Bedau (ed.), Civil Disobedience in Focus , London: Routledge.
Kling, Jennifer, and Mitchell, Megan, 2019, “Bottles and Bricks: Rethinking the Prohibition against Violent Political Protest,” Radical Philosophy , 22 (2): 209–237.
Lai, Ten-Herng, 2019, “Justifying uncivil disobedience,” in D. Sobel, P. Vallentyne, and S. Wall (eds.), Oxford Studies in Political Philosophy , Vol. 5, pp. 90–114.
–––, 2020, “Political Vandalism as Counter-Speech,” European Journal of Philosophy , 28 (3): 602–616.
Lefkowitz, David, 2007, “On a Moral Right to Civil Disobedience,” Ethics , 117 (2): 202–233.
Lim, Chong-Ming, 2020, “Vandalizing Tainted Commemorations,” Philosophy and Public Affairs , 48 (2): 185–216.
Livingston, Alexander, 2018, “Fidelity to Truth: Ghandi and the Genealogy of Civil Disobedience,” Political Theory , 46 (4): 511–536.
–––, 2020a, “Power for the Powerless: Martin Luther King, Jr.’s Late Theory of Civil Disobedience,” The Journal of Politics , 82 (2): 700–713.
–––, 2020b, “Tough Love: The Political Theology of Civil Disobedience,” Perspectives on Politics , 18 (3): 851–866.
Locke, John, 1980 [1690]. Second Treatise of Government , C. B. Macpherson (ed.), Indianapolis: Hackett Publishing Co.
Lyons, David, 1998, “Moral Judgment, Historical Reality, and Civil Disobedience,” in Philosophy and Public Affairs , 27 (1): 31–49.
Mantena, Karuna, 2012, “Another Realism: The Politics of Ghandian Nonviolence,” American Political Science Review , 106 (2): 255–470.
–––, 2018, “Showdown for Nonviolence: The Theory and Practice of Nonviolence Politics,” in T. Shelby and B. M. Terry (eds.), To Shape a New World: Essays on the Political Philosophy of Martin Luther King , Jr., Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, pp. 78–104.
Markovits, Daniel, 2005, “Democratic Disobedience,” The Yale Law Journal , 114 (8): 1897–1952.
Milligan, Tony, 2013, Civil Disobedience: Protest, Justification, and the Law , New York: Bloomsbury Publishing.
–––, 2014, “Civility and politicized love in Gandhi,” Religions of South Asia , 8 (3): 285–300.
Moore, Michael, 1997, Placing Blame: A General Theory of the Criminal Law , Oxford University Press.
Moraro, Piero, 2019, Civil Disobedience: A Philosophical Overview , London: Rowman & Littlefield International.
Morreall, John, 1976, “The Justifiability of Violent Civil Disobedience,” Canadian Journal of Philosophy , 6 (1): 35–47.
Nussbaum, Martha, 2019, “Civil Disobedience and Free Speech,” In J. Lackey (ed.), Academic Freedom , Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 170–185.
Pasternak, Avia, 2018, “Political Rioting: A Moral Assessment,” Philosophy and Public Affairs , 46 (4): 348–418.
Pineda, Erin, 2021a, “Civil disobedience, and what else? Making space for uncivil forms of resistance,” European Journal of Political Theory , 20 (1): 157–164.
–––, 2021b, Seeing Like an Activist: Civil Disobedience and the Civil Rights Movement , New York: Oxford University Press.
Rawls, John, 1999 [1971], A Theory of Justice , Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Revised edition.
Raz, Joseph, 1979. The Authority of Law: Essays on Law and Morality , Oxford: Clarendon Press.
Regan, Tom, 2004, “The Case Against Vandalism and Violence,” Satya , April: http://www.satyamag.com/apr04/regan.html.
Russell, Bertrand, 1998. Autobiography , London: Routledge.
Sabl, Andrew, 2001. “Looking Forward to Justice: Rawlsian Civil Disobedience and its Non-Rawlsian Lessons,” The Journal of Political Philosophy , 9 (3): 307–330.
–––, 2021, “Realist Disobedience,” in W. Scheuerman (ed.), The Cambridge Companion to Civil Disobedience , Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 153–177.
Sauter, Molly, 2014, The Coming Swarm: DDOS Actions, Hacktivism, and Civil Disobedience on the Internet , New York: Bloomsbury Publishing.
Schock, Kurt, 2015, Civil Resistance Today , New York: Polity.
Scheuerman, William E., 2014, “Whistleblowing as civil disobedience: the case of Edward Snowden,” Philosophy and Social Criticism , 40 (7): 609–628.
–––, 2015, “Recent Theories of Civil Disobedience: An Anti-Legal Turn?,” The Journal of Political Philosophy , 23 (4): 427–449.
–––, 2018, Civil Disobedience , New York: Polity.
–––, 2019, “Why not uncivil disobedience?,” Critical Review of International Social and Political Philosophy , published online 16 November 2019. doi:10.1080/13698230.2019.1693158
–––, 2020, “Can Political Institutions Commit Civil Disobedience?,” The Review of Politics , 82 (2): 269–291.
Sharp, Gene, 2012a, Sharp’s Dictionary of Power and Struggle: Language of Civil Resistance in Conflicts , Oxford: Oxford University Press.
–––, 2012b, From Dictatorship to Democracy , Cambridge, MA: Albert Einstein Institute.
Shelby, Tommie, and Terry, Brandon M. (eds.), 2018, To Shape a New World: Essays on the Political Philosophy of Martin Luther King, Jr. , Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
Simmons, A. J., 1979, Moral Principles and Political Obligations , Princeton: Princeton University Press.
Singer, Peter, 1973, Democracy and Disobedience , Oxford: Clarendon Press.
Smart, Brian, 1991. “Defining Civil Disobedience,” in Civil Disobedience in Focus , Hugo A. Bedau (ed.), London: Routledge, pp. 189 –211.
Smith, William, 2011, “Civil Disobedience and the Public Sphere,” The Journal of Political Philosophy , 19 (2): 145–166.
–––, 2013, Civil Disobedience and Deliberative Democracy , Abingdon: Routledge.
–––, 2018, “Disruptive Democracy: The Ethics of Direct Action,” Raisons Politiques , 69 (1): 13–27.
–––, 2021, “Deliberative Democratic Disobedience,” in W. Scheuerman (ed.), The Cambridge Companion to Civil Disobedience , Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 105–127.
Smith, William, and Brownlee, Kimberley, 2017, “Civil Disobedience and Conscientious Objection,” Oxford Research Encyclopedia of Ethics .
Tai, Benny Yiu-ting, 2017, “Civil Disobedience and the Rule of Law,” in M. H. K. Ng and J. D. Wong (eds.), Civil Unrest and Governance in Hong Kong: Law and Order from Historical and Cultural Perspectives , New York: Routledge, pp. 141–162.
Terry, Brandon M., 2018. “Requiem for a Dream: The Problem-Space of Black Power,” in T. Shelby and B. M. Terry (eds.), To Shape a New World: Essays on the Political Philosophy of Martin Luther King, Jr. , Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, pp. 290–324.
Umoja, Akinyele Omowale, 2013, We Will Shoot Back: Armed Resistance in the Mississippi Freedom Movement , New York: NYU Press.
Walzer, Michael, 1982, Obligations: Essays on Disobedience, War, and Citizenship , Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Weinstock, Daniel, 2016, “How democratic is civil disobedience?,” Criminal Law and Philosophy , 10 (4): 707–720.
Welchman, Jennifer, 2001, “Is Ecosabotage Civil Disobedience?,” Philosophy & Geography , 4 (1): 97–107.
Zerilli, Linda M. G., 2014, “Against Civility, A Feminist Perspective,” in A. Sarat (ed.), Civility, Legality, and Justice in America , Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press, pp. 107–131.
Zinn, Howard, 2002 [1968], Disobedience and Democracy: Nine Fallacies on Law and Order , New York: Random House.
Züger, Theresa, 2021, “Coding Resistance: Digital Strategies of Civil Disobedience,” in W. Scheuerman (ed.), The Cambridge Companion to Civil Disobedience , Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 359–383.

We thank Adrian Blau, Adam Cureton, Alan Hamlin, Jonathan Quong, Ben Saunders, Hillel Steiner, Zofia Stemplowska, John Tasioulas, Joseph Raz, and an anonymous referee for their useful suggestions. Thanks to Kelsey Vicar for research assistance.

How to cite this entry . Preview the PDF version of this entry at the Friends of the SEP Society . Look up topics and thinkers related to this entry at the Internet Philosophy Ontology Project (InPhO). Enhanced bibliography for this entry at PhilPapers , with links to its database.

Swartz, Aaron, 2008, Guerilla Open Access Manifesto , (Internet Archive)
Comprehensive website on Mahatma Gandhi , maintained by the 3 institutes: Bombay Sarvodaya Mandal, Gandhi Book Centre, and Gujarat Vidyapith Ahmedabad
The Martin Luther King Jr Research and Education Institute

Accessibility

Support SEP

Mirror sites.

View this site from another server:

Info about mirror sites

Library of Congress Catalog Data: ISSN 1095-5054

Home — Essay Samples — Social Issues — Martin Luther King — Civil Disobedience Rhetorical Analysis

Civil Disobedience Rhetorical Analysis

Categories: Discrimination Martin Luther King

About this sample

Words: 727 |

Published: Mar 14, 2024

Words: 727 | Pages: 2 | 4 min read

Cite this Essay

Let us write you an essay from scratch

450+ experts on 30 subjects ready to help
Custom essay delivered in as few as 3 hours

Get high-quality help

Dr. Karlyna PhD

Verified writer

Expert in: Social Issues

+ 120 experts online

By clicking “Check Writers’ Offers”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy policy . We’ll occasionally send you promo and account related email

No need to pay just yet!

Related Essays

2 pages / 954 words

2 pages / 687 words

3 pages / 1293 words

4 pages / 1749 words

Remember! This is just a sample.

You can get your custom paper by one of our expert writers.

121 writers online

Still can’t find what you need?

Browse our vast selection of original essay samples, each expertly formatted and styled

Related Essays on Martin Luther King

In conclusion, the use of biblical allusions in Martin Luther King Jr.'s "I Have a Dream" speech exemplifies the power of language and symbolism to inspire social change and progress. By drawing on the moral authority and [...]

Martin Luther King Jr. was a prominent figure in the American civil rights movement of the 1960s. On August 28th, 1963, he gave a speech at the Lincoln Memorial in Washington D.C. that has become known as one of the most [...]

In his iconic "I Have a Dream" speech, delivered on August 28, 1963, at the Lincoln Memorial in Washington D.C., Martin Luther King Jr. utilized various literary devices to effectively convey his message of equality and justice [...]

Martin Luther King Jr. and Malcolm X were two prominent figures in the American civil rights movement during the 1950s and 1960s. Although they had similar goals of achieving racial equality and justice for African Americans, [...]

In his renowned "Letter from Birmingham Jail" penned in 1963, the author, Martin Luther King Jr., employs extended allusions to various philosophers, including Aquinas and Socrates, which might imply an affinity with them. [...]

Conventional wisdom claims that racism is a belief that a racial group considers itself superior to other racial groups. The highest rates of racism in advanced countries. When it comes to racism, our minds go unconsciously to [...]

Get Your Personalized Essay in 3 Hours or Less!

We use cookies to personalyze your web-site experience. By continuing we’ll assume you board with our cookie policy .

Instructions Followed To The Letter
Deadlines Met At Every Stage
Unique And Plagiarism Free

Thoreau, Emerson, and Transcendentalism
Literature Notes
Summary and Analysis
What Is Transcendentalism?
Introduction
Major Tenets
Reasons for the Rise of the Movement
Forms of Expressing Transcendental Philosophy
Lasting Impact of the Movement
Introduction to the Times
Ralph Waldo Emerson
Life and Background of Emerson
Introduction to Emerson's Writing
Selective Chronology of Emerson's Writings
Emerson's Reputation and Influence
Emerson's "Nature"
Major Themes
Emerson's "The Divinity School Address"
Emerson's "Experience"
Emerson's "Hamatreya"
Henry David Thoreau
Life and Background of Thoreau
Introduction to Thoreau's Writing
Selected Chronology of Thoreau's Writings
Thoreau's Reputation and Influence
Thoreau's "A Week on the Concord and Merrimack Rivers"
Thoreau's "Civil Disobedience"
Thoreau's "Walden"
Thoreau's "Walking"
Essay Questions
Practice Projects
Cite this Literature Note

Thoreau's "Civil Disobedience" Summary and Analysis

Having spent one night in jail in July of 1846 for refusal to pay his poll tax in protest against slavery and the Mexican War, Thoreau lectured before the Concord Lyceum in January of 1848 on the subject "On the Relation of the Individual to the State." The lecture was published under the title "Resistance to Civil Government" in Elizabeth Peabody's Aesthetic Papers , in May 1849. It was included (as "Civil Disobedience") in Thoreau's A Yankee in Canada, with Anti-Slavery and Reform Papers , published in Boston in 1866 by Ticknor and Fields, and reprinted many times. The essay formed part of Anti-Slavery and Reform Papers as edited by British Thoreau biographer Henry S. Salt and issued in London in 1890. "Civil Disobedience" was included in the Riverside Edition of 1894 (in Miscellanies , the tenth volume), in the Walden and Manuscript Editions of 1906 (in Cape Cod and Miscellanies , the fourth volume), and in the Princeton Edition (in Reform Papers , the third volume) in 1973. One of Thoreau's most influential writings, it has been published separately many times (Walter Harding's The Variorum Civil Disobedience , for example, appeared in 1967), included in volumes of selections from Thoreau (among them the 1937 Modern Library Edition of Walden and Other Writings of Henry David Thoreau , edited by Brooks Atkinson), and translated into European and Asian languages.

Thoreau opens Civil Disobedience with the maxim "That government is best which governs least," and he speaks in favor of government that does not intrude upon men's lives. Government is only an expedient — a means of attaining an end. It exists because the people have chosen it to execute their will, but it is susceptible to misuse. The Mexican War is an example of a few people using the government as their tool. Thoreau asserts that government as an institution hinders the accomplishment of the work for which it was created. It exists for the sole purpose of ensuring individual freedom. Denying an interest in abolishing government, he states that he simply wants a better government. Majority rule is based on physical strength, not right and justice. Individual conscience should rule instead, and civil government should confine itself to those matters suited to decision by majority rule. He deplores the lack of judgment, moral sense, and conscience in the way men serve the state. A man cannot bow unquestioningly to the state's authority without disregarding himself.

Thoreau introduces the right of revolution, which all men recognize, and reflects on the American Revolution, the origins of which he finds less morally compelling than the issues at hand. Having developed the image of the government as a machine that may or may not do enough good to counterbalance what evil it commits, he urges rebellion. The opponents of reform, he recognizes, are not faraway politicians but ordinary people who cooperate with the system. The expression of opposition to slavery is meaningless. Only action — what you do about your objection — matters. Wrong will be redressed only by the individual, not through the mechanism of government. Although Thoreau asserts that a man has other, higher duties than eradicating institutional wrong, he must at least not be guilty through compliance. The individual must not support the structure of government, must act with principle, must break the law if necessary.

Abolition can be achieved by withdrawing support from the government, which may be accomplished practically through the nonpayment of taxes. If imprisonment is the result, there is no shame in it — prison is the best place for a just man in an unjust society. In the current state of affairs, payment of taxes is violent and bloody. Nonpayment constitutes a "peaceable revolution." Thoreau comments on the corrupting influence of money and property, and urges a simple, self-reliant lifestyle as a means of maintaining individual freedom. He describes his experience in the Concord Jail in some detail, commenting upon the folly of the state's treatment of a man as if he were a physical entity only, rather than an intellectual and moral one. A man can be compelled only by one who possesses greater morality. In Civil Disobedience as throughout his other writings, Thoreau focuses on the individual's ultimate responsibility to live deliberately and to extract meaning from his own life; overseeing the machinery of society is secondary.

Thoreau asserts that he does not want to quarrel or to feel superior to others. He wants to conform to the laws of the land, but current laws are not honorable from a higher point of view. Politics and politicians act as though the universe were ruled by expediency. In the progression from absolute monarchy to limited monarchy to democracy, Thoreau observes an evolution in government toward greater expression of the consent of the governed. He notes that democracy may not be the final stage in the process. His emphasis at the end of the essay is firmly on respect for the individual. There will never be a "really free and enlightened State" until the state recognizes the preeminence of the individual.

Previous Major Themes

Next Major Themes

98 Civil Disobedience Essay Topics & Examples

Crafting a civil disobedience thesis or writing about historical figures and social movements? Get some original topics and read some samples on government resistance gathered by our team .

📝 Tips on Writing Stellar Civil Disobedience Essay Examples

🏆 best civil disobedience essay examples & topics, 📌 good civil disobedience topics for research, 👍 interesting civil disobedience essay topics, ❓ civil disobedience questions.

Civil disobedience has been a controversial topic since 1849 when the term first appeared in Thoreau’s essay.

Writing an essay on civil disobedience may be a challenging task because there are still many questions and unresolved issues around this concept. However, there are some useful tips that can help you to write excellent civil disobedience essays.

Here are some civil disobedience essay titles and topics we can suggest:

Civil disobedience as a way to combat injustice
Civil disobedience in the arguments of Martin Luther King
Resistance movement and civil disobedience
The question of nonviolence in civil disobedience
How civil disobedience can shape society
Civil disobedience as a form of passive resistance
The meaning and significance of civil disobedience
Gandhi and civil disobedience: A discussion

Once you have selected one of civil disobedience essay topics and titles, you can start working on your paper. Here are some key points you can use to write an excellent paper:

Start with defining civil disobedience before writing your paper. Think of what this term means to you and research available sources to learn more about it.
Study the topic you have selected thoroughly, even if you think that you know a lot about it. It is always a good idea to check out the latest news articles on civil disobedience along with scholarly sources. Remember that Wikipedia is not a reliable source of information.
Do not hesitate to check out essay examples online. Civil disobedience essay examples can help you to evaluate the relevance of the issue you have selected for discussion and see how you can structure your paper. Avoid copying the works you will find online.
Now you can start to develop an outline for your paper. Think of the main points you want to include and organize them within the essay. Do not forget to present a thesis statement at the end of the introductory paragraph. The number of body paragraphs will depend on the size of the paper. We would recommend including at least three body paragraphs.
Clearly define the objectives of your essay or the message you want to convey in the paper.
Do not forget to define civil disobedience and explain the meaning of this term. Providing examples is a good idea, too. You can also reflect on why individuals decide to disobey and what causes such behavior.
Discuss the consequences and legal aspects associated with civil disobedience. The goal of your paper should be to help the reader understand the topic better and develop an opinion on it. Outline your perspective clearly.
Remember to support your claims with evidence. Cite articles using appropriate citation style (MLA, APA, Harvard, or other). Ask your professor about the sources you can use for the essay.
Remember to provide a civil disobedience essay summary or a simple concluding paragraph at the end of your paper. In this paragraph, you should state the main ideas and findings of your essay and research. You should not include in-text citations in this section.
Include recommendations in a separate body paragraph or as a part of the concluding section, if applicable. Make sure that the recommendations are relevant to the topic you have selected and can potentially solve the issue.

Remember that you can check out some samples on our website. They are free and have the best ideas for your essay.

Civil Disobedience: Advantages and Disadvantages Even without being told, people have to be obedient to the rules, laws and guidelines that have been set out by social institutions to ensure that there is peace and harmony in the society.
Political Obligation and Civil Disobedience The disparity between the issues of legal political obligation and moral obligation makes it hard for liberal political theorists to analyze the natural duty and the moral basis of any person’s submission to his or […]
Civil Disobedience and Pride in “Antigone” by Sophocles The play effectively depicts the theme of civil disobedience through the personality of Antigone, who is willing to break the rules to satisfy her morals standards and conscience. Therefore, the author uses the characters of […]
Environmentalism and Civil Disobedience What the current society is enjoying today is considered to be because of the good care of the environment by the previous generations and the future generations are hence expected to either enjoy or suffer […]
Thoreau, Socrates, and Civil Disobedience The striking difference in these two essays is that Thoreau is more rebellious when it comes to the government and he feels that the government is wrong and it must be subjected to criticism to […]
Gandhi, ‘Satyagraha’ and Thoreau’s ‘Civil Disobedience’ Gandhi proposed some principles for the members of the Satyagraha and insisted that these principles must be followed to achieve the desired effect.
“Civil Disobedience” by Henry David Thoreau He is worried about so many problems that exist in the system of law and the justice of the state. At the beginning of his argument, Thoreau states that some laws in the country are […]
King ‘s “Letter From Birmingham Jail” and Thoreau’s “Civil Disobedience” Despite this fact, both King and Thoreau had a common goal to expose the unjust laws that govern a society of civil resistance to unjust laws It should be stressed that both King and Thoreau […]
Self-Reliance Versus Civil Disobedience Thoreau says that he is a monarch of the survey, and it is his right to explore nature that no one can dispute.
Mahatma Gandhi’s Salt Walk and Civil Disobedience The act signified the end of salt laws and allowed Indians to harvest saltwater and produce salt locally. Mahatma protested unfair salt laws imposed by staging a peaceful walk from his hometown in Ahmedabad to […]
“Sit-Ins” in the US: The Civil Disobedience Civil disobedience is an opportunity to change the situation for better, at least in a challenging way. Moreover, to date, “Sit-Ins” are unlikely to bring many benefits, and people solve the problem of inequality in […]
The Essay “Civil Disobedience” by Henry David Thoreau He claims that the government’s power is based more on the influence that the majority possesses rather than on the desire to act legitimately and fairly, which makes it overall unreliable as a source of […]
Why Civil Disobedience Is Morally Justified Thus, civil disobedience becomes a morally justified act since it seeks to openly and non-violently address wrong and problematic phenomena in society.
Good Samaritan vs Civil Disobedience in Law Bill of Rights asserts that the authority of a government is derived from the consent of the governed, and whenever any form of government becomes destructive, it is the right and duty of the people […]
Emerson’s The American Scholar, Thoreau’s Walden and Civil Disobedience, Douglass’ Narrative of the Life‎ The importance of literature in our lives is impossible to exaggerate, partly because it represents the accumulated knowledge of the best minds of mankind through the whole course of human history, partly because it is […]
Civil Disobedience: Gandhi Non-Violent Campaigns It can be said that passive resistance or civil disobedience is the most harmonious way to fight for one right and achieve the goals.
Henry David Thoreau: On the Duty of Civil Disobedience It also goes against some of society and the state’s outlook and is opposed to statism and collectivism which is that of conforming to the community and national goals.
Civil Disobedience, Protests, and Heroism Gandhi travelled to London to learn the law in the University of London in the year 1888. He says that he had wished for the white moderates to recognize that the existence of law and […]
Unjust Laws and Civil Disobedience I consider accepting the unjust penalties enacted by the state a part of the activity that promotes the awareness of the injustice of certain laws and regard it as the demonstration of the person’s respect […]
Civil Disobedience in Contemporary Society He lived in a society that valued the whites and ignored the black American citizens. When Socrates knew that he was going to die, he was not afraid of the afterlife.
Violence and Bloodshed in “Civil Disobedience” by Henry Thoreau Overall, it is possible to argue that violence cannot be regarded as a legitimate way of civil disobedience because it implies that an individual rejects the idea of law and dialogue between a person and […]
Rights to Civil Disobedience If the rights to civil disobedience are to be guaranteed, the values that accompany it would be prescribed in the legal code of ethics.
Thoreau and his idea of civil disobedience The struggle for civil governance has been the most challenging aspect in several governments across the globe with the urge for better governance becoming a hotly contested subject internationally. However, the overriding reason is; should […]
Civil Disobedience And Nonviolence It is the gist of this very long quote that answers the question and leaves the necessary action to be taken by the oppressed.
Concept of Civil Disobedience In most cases, this kind of disobedience comes through organizing people to act in a nonviolent manner to force the government to heed to their demands.
Nonviolent Action Protests: Civil Disobedience Thus, ordinary protest is for the intetrst of the organizer and has no respect to the implications of the actions on the wider society.
An Analysis of Kirkpatrick Jennet’s Uncivil Disobedience: Studies in Violence and Democratic Politics In the case of John Brown and other militant abolitionists, the real picture is that they had failed to allow the responsible institutions to handle the matter of abolition within the limits of law and […]
Describing Civil Disobedience Through the Acts of Martin Luther King
A Description of Civil Disobedience as the Refusal To Obey Civil Laws
Civil Disobedience: Are We Morally Obliged to Obey Unjust Laws?
Civil Disobedience, Postmodernism and Globalization
The Demonstration of Civil Disobedience in the Dialogue Between Socrates and Crito
The Civil Rights Movement: Civil Disobedience Vs. Violence
The Methods of Protecting Civil Rights in The Narrative of the Life of Frederick Douglass: An American Slave and Henry David
Thoreau’s Civil Disobedience
The Rhetorical Analysis Of Henry Thoreau’s Civil Disobedience
To What Extent is Civil Disobedience Justified in a Democracy
A Literary Analysis of Civil Disobedience by Henry David Thoreau
A Comparison of Theories of Civil Disobedience of Gandhi and Fanon
The Civil Disobedience in Resistance to Civil War by David Thoreau
The Factors to Consider When Justifying Civil Disobedience
Should Civil Disobedience Be Permitted In A Democracy
Civil Disobedience : Effective And Non Violent Government
The Use of Civil Disobedience to Protest Against the Destruction of Endangered Trees
Civil Disobedience as a Basic Human Right in Antigone, a Play by Sophocles
The Justification of the Civil Disobedience During the Vietnam War
Should Civil Disobedience Be Violent or Non-Violent
The Ineffectiveness of Civil Disobedience in a Non-Democratic Government
Nelson Mandela: The Art of Civil Disobedience
The Ideologies of Henry David Thoreau in the Essay Civil Disobedience
The Underlying Meaning of Civil Disobedience
Modern Technology Critiques by Henry David Thoreau in Civil Disobedience
Transcendentalism in Civil Disobedience
The Reasons Why Civil Disobedience and Uncivil Disobedience Are Effective Ways to Solve Problems
The Influence of Henry David Thoreau’s Civil Disobedience on Martin Luther King Junior
An Analysis of the Topic of Civil Disobedience and Racism in the United States of America
An Overview of the Civil Disobedience and Passive Resistance of Mohandas Gandhi
An Argumentation Against Civil Disobedience
A Look at the Justification of David Thoreau’s Civil Disobedience Act Against Paying Taxes
Thoreau on How to Use Civil Disobedience to Advance Justice
Promoting The Use Of Civil Disobedience
The Significance And History Of Civil Disobedience
Democracy in Civil Disobedience, Slavery in Massachusetts, Benito Cereno and Bartleby the Scrivener
Civil Disobedience: Freedom Fighters or Criminals?
The Advantages and Disadvantages of Civil Disobedience and Uncivil Disobedience
A Christian Philosophy on Civil Disobedience
Ecoterrorism and Eco Sabotage vs. Civil Disobedience
The Role and Contribution of Slavery on the Civil Disobedience in the U.S
What Are the Two Main Claims of Civil Disobedience?
Is Thoreau’s Conception of Civil Disobedience Compatible With Democratic Government?
What Does Civil Disobedience Argue?
Why Is Civil Disobedience Not Morally Justified?
How Was Civil Disobedience Used in the Civil Rights Movement?
What Is Thoreau’s Opinion on Wealth and Consumption? Why Does He Say That the Rich Are Less Likely to Practice Civil Disobedience?
How Does Civil Disobedience Help a Social Movement?
Was the 1989 Tiananmen Square Massacre a Failure of Civil Disobedience?
How Does Civil Disobedience Work?
What Is the Tone of Thoreau’s “Civil Disobedience”?
How Does Stoicism Support Civil Disobedience?
What Were the Limitations of Civil Disobedience?
Which Type of Action Is More Effective, Taking Small Steps in Improving Your Livelihood or Taking Part in Climate Marches?
How Does Disobedience Promote Social Progress?
What Can Political Theory Tell Us About the Relationship Between Democracy and Protest?
Is Every Unjust Law an Appropriate Target for Civil Disobedience?
What Question Is at the Heart of Civil Disobedience?
Is Civil Disobedience Ever Justified?
How Effective Is Civil Disobedience?
Why Should We Obey the Law?
Is Civil Disobedience a Moral Responsibility of a Citizen?
How Does Civil Disobedience Affect Society?
What Would Happen Without Civil Disobedience?
When Should Civil Disobedience Be Used?
Why Is There a Need for Civil Disobedience?
Is Disobedience Necessary for a Well Functioning Society?
Does Civil Disobedience Have to Be Peaceful?
Is Civil Disobedience a Crime?
Can Civil Disobedience Lead to Violence?
Chicago (A-D)
Chicago (N-B)

IvyPanda. (2023, September 26). 98 Civil Disobedience Essay Topics & Examples. https://ivypanda.com/essays/topic/civil-disobedience-essay-examples/

"98 Civil Disobedience Essay Topics & Examples." IvyPanda , 26 Sept. 2023, ivypanda.com/essays/topic/civil-disobedience-essay-examples/.

IvyPanda . (2023) '98 Civil Disobedience Essay Topics & Examples'. 26 September.

IvyPanda . 2023. "98 Civil Disobedience Essay Topics & Examples." September 26, 2023. https://ivypanda.com/essays/topic/civil-disobedience-essay-examples/.

1. IvyPanda . "98 Civil Disobedience Essay Topics & Examples." September 26, 2023. https://ivypanda.com/essays/topic/civil-disobedience-essay-examples/.

Bibliography

IvyPanda . "98 Civil Disobedience Essay Topics & Examples." September 26, 2023. https://ivypanda.com/essays/topic/civil-disobedience-essay-examples/.

Sexual Abuse Essay Titles
Abuse Research Topics
Violence in Video Games Research Topics
Drug Abuse Research Topics
Domestic Violence Paper Topics
Civil Rights Movement Questions
Youth Violence Research Topics
Anarchy Titles
Discrimination Essay Titles
Drunk Driving Essay Ideas
Gambling Essay Titles
Illegal Immigration Topics
Bullying Research Topics
School Violence Ideas
Victimology Research Ideas

Skip to main content
Skip to secondary menu
Skip to primary sidebar
Skip to footer

Study Today

Largest Compilation of Structured Essays and Exams

Article on Civil Disobedience Movement | Essay | PDF Download

December 25, 2017 by Study Mentor Leave a Comment

Civil disobedience is the professed and active refusal to obey the laws which are made by external forces. It is also meant to disobey the commands and demands of either a government or international powers which are ruling over the nation. Civil disobedience is also referred as to become non violent and promotes its benefits.

Table of Contents

Civil Disobedience

It is one of many criteria’s which is taken by many people who are not willing to accept the laws and regulations made by foreign body and they rebelled against those laws. In India civil disobedience got its face in the era of Mahatma Gandhi who was fighting with British Empire for the independence of Indian citizens.

Other examples of civil disobedience include Velvet Revolution in Czechoslovakia. In early stages Bangladesh also fought for its independence by movement against East Germany and Pakistani repression to oust their mean and communist governments.

In South Africa also there was a fight against apartheid, and Civil rights movement in America, Baltic countries help to gain independence by singing revolution from Soviet Union.

Violent V/S Non-Violent

There were debates on the issue that whether civil disobedience was necessarily to be non-violent. Non-violence was added as the definition of civil disobedience in Black’s law dictionary.

Christian Bay’s encyclopedia says that it requires carefully chosen as well as legitimate means but this is not compulsory that they should be non-violent too.

Civil Disobedience Movement in India

As per the record on 31 st January 1930, Mahatma Gandhi gave an ultimatum to Lord Irwin. Gandhiji announced popular demands without changing the constitution as preceding with reduction in expenditure of military, land tax should by decreased by 50 percent and the removal of salt tax moreover monopoly of its sale by the government. The salt tax was paid by every sector of India either a poor or a rich.

As per the result Lord Irwin rejected the eleven point ultimatum of Gandhi. In response Gandhiji started Salt March from March 12 th till April 6 th across Gujarat, which started from Ahmadabad till salt works of Dandi. During the March seventy-one persons accompanied by him which were the members of his own ashram. The Salt March got positive response from whole states of India.

In every region of state, salt seller decided to make and sell salt directly and farmers stopped giving their land taxes. This radicalism evoked militant revolutionaries in Bengal and Punjab.

The civil disobedience movement made a visible impact in its first phase which was from 1930 to 1931 which was more encouraging than ten years old non-cooperation movement. In several areas of state, British administration became paralyzed due to the resignation of functionaries.

Constant protests were went which happened sometimes on large scale also. Ninety thousand and more people were arrested within that period.

Till the end of May month, government became harsher and cases of brutality by police over unarmed crowd were widely reported by the international press. The movement remained alive without any fear which ultimately increased the influence of Gandhiji on masses and the Congress.

Civil Disobedience and Non-cooperation Movement

The disobedience movement was different from non-cooperation movement. Participation of students, involvement of working class and urban intelligentsia was limited. Big cities like Ahmadabad and Bombay were became the strong back of the movement.

Its popularity was increasing every day. It touched new regions too. Abdul Gaffar of Northwestern Frontier Province came to be known as Frontier Gandhi. His followers wore red kurtas since then they were known as ‘red shirts’. Gaffar was a follower of Gandhiji and hence became the rising member of Congress.

The most advantageous feature of the movement was the participation of women. But Muslim declines their participation in the movement.

In order to suppress the first phase of the movement, Lord Irwin government made negotiations with Gandhiji. All political parties got invitation for the Round table conference which was held in November, 1930. But congress refused to attend, hence meeting got no purpose.

Reader Interactions

Top Trending Essays in March 2021

Essay on Pollution
Essay on my School
Summer Season
My favourite teacher
World heritage day quotes
my family speech
importance of trees essay
autobiography of a pen
honesty is the best policy essay
essay on building a great india
my favourite book essay
essay on caa
my favourite player
autobiography of a river
farewell speech for class 10 by class 9
essay my favourite teacher 200 words
internet influence on kids essay
my favourite cartoon character

Brilliantly

Content & links.

Verified by Sur.ly

Essay for Students

Essay for Class 1 to 5 Students

Scholarships for Students

Class 1 Students Scholarship
Class 2 Students Scholarship
Class 3 Students Scholarship
Class 4 Students Scholarship
Class 5 students Scholarship
Class 6 Students Scholarship
Class 7 students Scholarship
Class 8 Students Scholarship
Class 9 Students Scholarship
Class 10 Students Scholarship
Class 11 Students Scholarship
Class 12 Students Scholarship

STAY CONNECTED

About Study Today
Privacy Policy
Terms & Conditions

Scholarships

Apj Abdul Kalam Scholarship
Ashirwad Scholarship
Bihar Scholarship
Canara Bank Scholarship
Colgate Scholarship
Dr Ambedkar Scholarship
E District Scholarship
Epass Karnataka Scholarship
Fair And Lovely Scholarship
Floridas John Mckay Scholarship
Inspire Scholarship
Jio Scholarship
Karnataka Minority Scholarship
Lic Scholarship
Maulana Azad Scholarship
Medhavi Scholarship
Minority Scholarship
Moma Scholarship
Mp Scholarship
Muslim Minority Scholarship
Nsp Scholarship
Oasis Scholarship
Obc Scholarship
Odisha Scholarship
Pfms Scholarship
Post Matric Scholarship
Pre Matric Scholarship
Prerana Scholarship
Prime Minister Scholarship
Rajasthan Scholarship
Santoor Scholarship
Sitaram Jindal Scholarship
Ssp Scholarship
Swami Vivekananda Scholarship
Ts Epass Scholarship
Up Scholarship
Vidhyasaarathi Scholarship
Wbmdfc Scholarship
West Bengal Minority Scholarship
Click Here Now!!

Mobile Number

Have you Burn Crackers this Diwali ? Yes No

If you're seeing this message, it means we're having trouble loading external resources on our website.

If you're behind a web filter, please make sure that the domains *.kastatic.org and *.kasandbox.org are unblocked.

To log in and use all the features of Khan Academy, please enable JavaScript in your browser.

Course: US history > Unit 8

Introduction to the civil rights movement.

African American veterans and the Civil Rights Movement
Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka
Emmett Till
The Montgomery Bus Boycott
"Massive Resistance" and the Little Rock Nine
The March on Washington for Jobs and Freedom
The Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Voting Rights Act of 1965
SNCC and CORE

Black Power

The Civil Rights Movement
The Civil Rights Movement is an umbrella term for the many varieties of activism that sought to secure full political, social, and economic rights for African Americans in the period from 1946 to 1968.
Civil rights activism involved a diversity of approaches, from bringing lawsuits in court, to lobbying the federal government, to mass direct action, to black power.
The efforts of civil rights activists resulted in many substantial victories, but also met with the fierce opposition of white supremacists .

The emergence of the Civil Rights Movement

Civil rights and the supreme court, nonviolent protest and civil disobedience, the unfinished business of the civil rights movement, what do you think.

See Richard S. Newman, The Transformation of American Abolitionism: Fighting Slavery in the Early Republic (Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 2002).
See C. Vann Woodward, The Strange Career of Jim Crow (New York: Oxford University Press, 1955).
See Edward L. Ayers, The Promise of the New South: Life After Reconstruction (New York: Oxford University Press, 1992).
See Daniel Kryder, Divided Arsenal: Race and the American State during World War II (New York: Cambridge University Press, 2000); and Stephen Tuck, Fog of War: The Second World War and the Civil Rights Movement (New York: Oxford University Press, 2012).
See Michael J. Klarman, Brown v. Board of Education and the Civil Rights Movement (New York: Oxford University Press, 2007).
See Peniel E. Joseph, Waiting ‘Til the Midnight Hour: A Narrative History of Black Power in America (New York: Henry Holt, 2006).
See Michael Eric Dyson, The Black Presidency: Barack Obama and the Politics of Race in America (Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin Harcourt, 2016).
See Michelle Alexander, The New Jim Crow: Mass Incarceration in the Age of Colorblindness (New York: The New Press, 2010).
See Tavis Smiley, ed., The Covenant with Black America: Ten Years Later (Carlsbad, CA: Hay House, Inc., 2016).

Want to join the conversation?

Upvote Button navigates to signup page
Downvote Button navigates to signup page
Flag Button navigates to signup page

Photo Essay: Portlanders Young and Old Celebrate Earth Day With Making Earth Cool

Under the pomp and ceremony of a costume parade on a beautiful spring day lay a deep reservoir of disquiet for what the future might hold..

On Saturday, a parade of Portlanders marched from Sunnyside Environmental School through quiet inner Eastside residential blocks, celebrating Earth Day with the pageantry of handmade costumes and musical accompaniment from Portland’s own Unpresidented Brass Band.

Led by a decommissioned fire engine, the procession of approximately 200 people—most dressed as animals and plants—drew neighbors and diners out to watch the passing spectacle.

The event was organized by climate crisis-focused art collective Making Earth Cool , Portland Youth Climate Strike, Sunnyside Environmental School, and Extinction Rebellion PDX (a local chapter of the global nonviolent civil disobedience movement), among others.

At the parade Angela McIlvain, Mel Shea, and Nora Colie—wearing their respective ensembles as a globe with sunglasses "Earthy," a yellow flower "Dandy," and a pink wildflower "Clover"—emphasized the importance of this event being a multigenerational gathering and celebration. Under the pomp and ceremony of families in costumes and the communal celebration of Earth on a beautiful spring day, lies a deep reservoir of disquiet for what the future might hold.

“The youth are going to experience a lot more climate change than we have,” Shea told the Mercury . “There is an anxiousness to it, and we hope to help people not feel alone.”

More In Environment

Portland is Updating its Tree Management Plan, Last Edited in 2004

Portland Elections Office Finds Zenith Energy Violated City Lobbying Rules

City of Portland to Form a Designated Climate Commission

Portland's Plan To Spur Housing Development by Relaxing Regulations Has Political Implications

Portland Preservationists Think the Future of New Housing is in Old Buildings

Editors' picks.

THE TRASH REPORT: Debt Ceiling, Toilets, and Bears, Oh My!

Your Sassy-Ass Local Trivia Quiz About Famous Flops, Creepy Bird Lovers, and the (Hurrah) Death of Capitalism!

Portland Street Response Sees 700 Percent Increase In Workload After Citywide Expansion

POP QUIZ PDX: Creepy-Crawly Trivia About Portland Murder, Mayhem, and MONSTERS (the Type You Marry!)

Hall Monitor: Soft on Crime

Proposed Ballot Measure Would Tank Portland’s New Police Accountability Board

Popular articles, asbestos found in northeast portland fire debris, stoking neighborhood health fears, parkrose high school students speak out against planned freight development, the portland clean energy fund is fast becoming the city’s fiscal lifeline, just can't get enough, sign up for our newsletter for news recaps, updates, and more.

Support Portland Mercury

IMAGES

Civil Disobedience Movement
Participants OF Civil Disobedience Movement
Civil Disobedience Movement , Date, Causes, Effects, Impacts, Limitations
Civil disobedience essay sample
The Legacy of Civil Disobedience: From Thoreau to Gandhi and King Free
Civil Disobedience Movement The Run up to Civil Disobedience Movement

VIDEO

Write a short note on the Civil Disobedience Movement ?
What Is Civil Disobedience Movement? #CDM #civildisobediencemovement #mintossmood
CIVIL DISOBEDIENCE MOVEMENT STATUE || VIZIANAGARAM || ALL IN ONE SHORTS
8. Civil Disobedience Movement| 8th History & Civics Maharashtra Board
Chapter 8 :- Civil Disobedience Movement
civil disobedience movement women role class 10 easy trick

COMMENTS

Civil Disobedience Movement: Essay & Important Notes
In 1939, the Civil Disobedience Movement was withdrawn as the government repression intensified. A resolution was passed by the leaders in India to form a constituent assembly elected by the people of India. The movement laid down the foundation for an independent India and ignited the right to freedom in every Indian.
Civil Disobedience Essay Examples
8 pages / 3553 words. Gandhi's civil disobedience campaigns of the 1920's and 1930's were pivotal factors in attaining independence. Gandhi, a "central figure in the relationship of Congress and the Raj" was able to awaken Indians into political movements. However, he was "interested primarily in social matters".
Civil Disobedience
The term 'civil disobedience' was coined by Henry David Thoreau in his 1848 essay to describe his refusal to pay the state poll tax implemented by the American government to prosecute a war in Mexico and to enforce the Fugitive Slave Law. ... the suffragette movement, the resistance to British rule in India led by Gandhi, the US civil ...
Civil disobedience
Civil disobedience is a symbolic or ritualistic violation of the law rather than a rejection of the system as a whole. The civil disobedient, finding legitimate avenues of change blocked or nonexistent, feels obligated by a higher, extralegal principle to break some specific law. It is because acts associated with civil disobedience are considered crimes, however, and known by actor and public ...
Civil Disobedience Movement, Causes, Impacts, Limitations
A pivotal moment in the Indian Nationalist movement was the civil disobedience movement. The Civil Disobedience Movement began with Mahatma Gandhi's well-known Dandi March.Gandhi set out on foot from the Sabarmati Ashram in Ahmedabad on March 12, 1930, with 78 other Ashram members for Dandi, a village on India's western seacoast about 385 kilometres from Ahmedabad.
Civil Disobedience Key Ideas and Commentary
Thoreau wrote "Civil Disobedience," first titled "Resistance to Civil Government" when it was published in the periodical Aesthetic Papers , in response to questions about why he had gone ...
Salt March
Salt March. Gandhi leading his followers on the famous Salt March to abolish the British salt laws. The Salt march, also known as the Salt Satyagraha, Dandi March, and the Dandi Satyagraha, was an act of nonviolent civil disobedience in colonial India, led by Mahatma Gandhi. The 24-day march lasted from 12 March 1930 to 5 April 1930 as a direct ...
Civil Disobedience
Civil disobedience, given its place at the boundary of fidelity to law, is said on this view to fall between legal protest, on the one hand, and conscientious refusal, uncivil disobedience, militant protest, organized forcible resistance, and revolutionary action, on the other hand. This picture of civil disobedience, and the broader accounts ...
Civil Disobedience: Full Work Summary
Full Work Summary. Henry David Thoreau's Civil Disobedience espouses the need to prioritize one's conscience over the dictates of laws. It criticizes American social institutions and policies, most prominently slavery and the Mexican-American War. Thoreau begins his essay by arguing that government rarely proves itself useful and that it ...
Civil Disobedience Movement
Civil Disobedience Movement and Non-Cooperation Movement were two crucial movements that occurred during India's struggle for independence. The fundamental difference between Non-Cooperation and Civil Disobedience is that Civil Disobedience Movement was established on 12th March 1930, whereas Non-Cooperation Movement was embarked on 5th ...
Civil Disobedience (Thoreau)
In 1866, four years after Thoreau's death, the essay was reprinted in a collection of Thoreau's work (A Yankee in Canada, with Anti-Slavery and Reform Papers) under the title Civil Disobedience. Today, the essay also appears under the title On the Duty of Civil Disobedience, perhaps to contrast it with William Paley's Of the Duty of Civil ...
Civil Disobedience
In Henry David Thoreau: Move to Walden Pond of Henry David Thoreau. …his most famous essay, "Civil Disobedience," which was first published in May 1849 under the title "Resistance to Civil Government.". The essay received little attention until the 20th century, when it found an eager audience with the American civil rights movement.
Civil disobedience
e. Civil disobedience is the active, professed refusal of a citizen to obey certain laws, demands, orders or commands of a government (or any other authority). By some definitions, civil disobedience has to be nonviolent to be called "civil". Hence, civil disobedience is sometimes equated with peaceful protests or nonviolent resistance.
PDF On the Duty of Civil Disobedience
Essay: "On the Duty of Civil Disobedience" Author: Henry David Thoreau, 1817-62 First published: 1849. The original essay is in the public domain in the United States and in most, if not all, other countries as well. Readers outside the United States should check their own countries' copyright laws to be certain they can legally ...
PDF ESSAY ON CIVIL DISOBEDIENCE
Although Thoreau's writing achieved little fame during his lifetime, his essay on civil disobedience was later "re-discovered" by Mohandas Gandhi, who came across it while studying law at Oxford as a young man. Gandhi later used the essay as a foundation for his efforts in India resisting the British government through civil disobedience.
Civil Disobedience Rhetorical Analysis: [Essay Example], 727 words
Civil disobedience has long been a powerful tool for individuals to challenge unjust laws and social norms. As a form of protest rooted in moral principles, civil disobedience can spark meaningful change and provoke important discussions about justice and equality. In this rhetorical analysis essay, we will delve into the strategies and techniques used by historical figures such as Mahatma ...
Civil Disobedience: Suggested Essay Topics
What principles does he rely on in his justification? Many leaders (Mahatma Gandhi, Martin Luther King, Jr.) have used Thoreau's ideas on civil disobedience as the guiding force of political movements. Is such a use of these ideas consistent with Thoreau's skepticism about politics? Which (if any) of Thoreau's ideas are valuable in the context ...
Thoreau's "Civil Disobedience" Summary and Analysis
It was included (as "Civil Disobedience") in Thoreau's A Yankee in Canada, with Anti-Slavery and Reform Papers, published in Boston in 1866 by Ticknor and Fields, and reprinted many times. The essay formed part of Anti-Slavery and Reform Papers as edited by British Thoreau biographer Henry S. Salt and issued in London in 1890.
Civil Disobedience: Study Guide
Civil Disobedience is an essay by the transcendentalist writer and philosopher Henry David Thoreau.It was published in 1849 under the title, Resistance to Civil Government.In the essay, Thoreau espouses the need to prioritize one's conscience over the dictates of laws and criticizes American social institutions and policies—especially slavery and the Mexican American War.
98 Civil Disobedience Essay Topics & Examples
Here are some civil disobedience essay titles and topics we can suggest: Civil disobedience as a way to combat injustice. Civil disobedience in the arguments of Martin Luther King. Resistance movement and civil disobedience. The question of nonviolence in civil disobedience. How civil disobedience can shape society.
Article on Civil Disobedience Movement
The civil disobedience movement made a visible impact in its first phase which was from 1930 to 1931 which was more encouraging than ten years old non-cooperation movement. In several areas of state, British administration became paralyzed due to the resignation of functionaries. Constant protests were went which happened sometimes on large ...
Introduction to the Civil Rights Movement
The Civil Rights Movement is an umbrella term for the many varieties of activism that sought to secure full political, social, and economic rights for African Americans in the period from 1946 to 1968. Civil rights activism involved a diversity of approaches, from bringing lawsuits in court, to lobbying the federal government, to mass direct ...
Photo Essay: Portlanders Young and Old Celebrate Earth Day With Making
At the parade Angela McIlvain, Mel Shea, and Nora Colie—wearing their respective ensembles as a globe with sunglasses "Earthy," a yellow flower "Dandy," and a pink wildflower "Clover ...
PDF Civil Disobedience by Henry David Thoreau
By Henry David Thoreau. 1849. heartily accept the motto, "That government is best which governs least"; and. should like to see it acted up to more rapidly and systematically. Carried out, it finally amounts to this, which also I believe- "That government is best which governs not at all"; and when men are prepared for it, that will be the kind ...

Civil Disobedience Movement: Essay & Important Notes

Activities During the Movement

Martial Law

The Political and Economic Policy of Mahatma Gandhi and the Reaction of the British Government

Important Notes

Related Posts

French Revolution: Essay & Important Notes

The Idea of Satyagraha

Quit India Movement: Essay and Important Facts

Khilafat Movement: Essay & Important Notes

Political History of Greece

10 Most Important Movements For the Independence of India

Civil Disobedience Movement, Causes, Impacts, Limitations

Civil Disobedience Movement Overview

Causes of Civil Disobedience Movement

Civil Disobedience Movement Year and Viceroy Irwin

Impact of Civil Disobedience Movement

British Government’s Response on Civil Disobedience Movement

Why was Salt chosen by Gandhiji as a Weapon?

Limitations of Civil Disobedience Movement

Civil Disobedience Movement FAQs

How many people participated in Dandi March?

Where was Dandi March started?

What was the main cause for Dandi March?

When did CDM start and end?

Recent Posts

BPSC Exam 2024

IB ACIO Exam

CSIR SO ASO Exam

Study Material Categories

IMPORTANT EXAMS

Bibliography

Civil Disobedience

1.1 Principled Disobedience

2.7 Revolutionary Action

1.2 Civility

2. Other Types of Protest

2.5 Digital disobedience

2.6 Uncivil disobedience

3. Justification

4. Responding to Civil Disobedience

Support SEP

Civil Disobedience Rhetorical Analysis

Cite this Essay

Related Essays

Still can’t find what you need?

Related Essays on Martin Luther King

Related Topics

Get Your Personalized Essay in 3 Hours or Less!

Thoreau's "Civil Disobedience" Summary and Analysis

98 Civil Disobedience Essay Topics & Examples

📝 Tips on Writing Stellar Civil Disobedience Essay Examples

Article on Civil Disobedience Movement | Essay | PDF Download

Civil Disobedience

Violent V/S Non-Violent

Civil Disobedience Movement in India

Civil Disobedience and Non-cooperation Movement

Reader Interactions

Top Trending Essays in March 2021

Brilliantly

Essay for Students

Scholarships for Students

STAY CONNECTED

Scholarships

Course: US history > Unit 8

Black Power

The emergence of the Civil Rights Movement

Want to join the conversation?

Photo Essay: Portlanders Young and Old Celebrate Earth Day With Making Earth Cool

More In Environment

Portland is Updating its Tree Management Plan, Last Edited in 2004

Portland Elections Office Finds Zenith Energy Violated City Lobbying Rules

City of Portland to Form a Designated Climate Commission

Portland's Plan To Spur Housing Development by Relaxing Regulations Has Political Implications

Portland Preservationists Think the Future of New Housing is in Old Buildings

THE TRASH REPORT: Debt Ceiling, Toilets, and Bears, Oh My!

Your Sassy-Ass Local Trivia Quiz About Famous Flops, Creepy Bird Lovers, and the (Hurrah) Death of Capitalism!

Portland Street Response Sees 700 Percent Increase In Workload After Citywide Expansion

POP QUIZ PDX: Creepy-Crawly Trivia About Portland Murder, Mayhem, and MONSTERS (the Type You Marry!)

Hall Monitor: Soft on Crime