Civil disobedience and lawbreaking
In this chapter we are concerned with justifications for civil disobedience, and
naturally it makes sense to start with a definition of ‘civil disobedience’. However,
as we shall see, definition and justification are closely related, so that a particular
definition implies a certain understanding of the role civil disobedience plays in the
political system. What we offer here is an initial definition, which will require further
clarification: civil disobedience is morally justified lawbreaking, normallyintended
to change a particular law or policy. Civil disobedience has then these components:
(a) it involves breaking the law – it is not simply legal protest; (b) there are moral
reasons justifying the action; (c) the aim is to change a law or policy; it is not
intended to bring down an entire political system – civil disobedience is not
revolution.
Of all the concepts discussed in this book, civil disobedience is among a relatively
small group where theory and practice are closely related, and indeed where some
of the most important theorists of the concept have been its practitioners. American
Henry David Thoreau (1817–62) is credited with offering the earliest theory of civil
disobedience. Thoreau was imprisoned for refusing to pay a tax that was intended
to fund what he regarded as an unjust war by the United States against Mexico. In
his essay ‘Civil Disobedience’ (1849), Thoreau argued that an individual had a moral
duty to break an unjust law – you should, he suggests, ‘let your life be a counter-
friction to stop the machine’ (Thoreau, 1991: 36). In other words, civil disobedience
was intended to obstruct the implementation of immoral policies. Thoreau’s
argument was highly influential. Mahatma Gandhi (1869–1948) read ‘Civil
Disobedience’ while in prison, and developed both its theory and practice in his
struggle against British rule in India. But the theories of Thoreau and Gandhi are
problematic because although they were directed at a political situation – war and
occupation – they were motivated by a sense of personal integrity rather than an
appeal to the sense of justice of their respective publics. A more promising political
justification for civil disobedience was advanced by Martin Luther King.
As with Gandhi it was also from a prison cell that in 1963 King wrote what
became known as the ‘Letter from Birmingham City Jail’ (King, 1991), a plea to
fellow church leaders to accept the legitimacy of non-violent lawbreaking in pursuit
of equal rights for US citizens. Although inspired by Thoreau and Gandhi, King
offers a two-level justification of civil disobedience: one level couched in theological
terms and directed at church leaders, the other level expressed in secular language
and aimed at his fellow citizens. Later in this chapter we will look in detail at King’s
letter.Lawbreaking
Criminals break laws, and so do people who engage in civil disobedience. How
then do we distinguish the civilly disobedient from the merely criminal? In part, the
distinction will rest on howthe law is broken, in part on whyit is broken. Reasons
for breaking the law fall into four categories, although the fourth is a subcategory
of the third:424 Part 4 Contemporary ideas