MOVE CURSOR TO DISCOVER HIDDEN Details
DO NOT SCROLL
ON ITS OWN MERITS:
PARTICULARISM AND DISOBEDIENCE
"Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security."
The Declaration of Independence is often considered a radical document, but it was actually quite conservative by modern standards. Its writers opposed revolution for the sake of revolution. In fact, they were inclined to let a slightly subpar government endure to avoid instability. Disobedience, they argued, should not be valorized excessively: societies cannot function without respect for existing laws and traditions. But, they added, this does not mean people should ignore a constant pattern of abuse. When the circumstances require it, disobedience can be permissible, or even obligatory.
The founders’ particularist model of disobedience recognizes that rules and norms have a purpose. Citizens cannot break the law as a matter of course to fit a grand narrative, because that would destroy the rule of law. However, disobedience is necessary in specific, extraordinary circumstances, like the American Revolution. This tension between the rule of law and the American conscience persists to the present day.
The Declaration of Independence is often considered a radical document, but it was actually quite conservative by modern standards. Its writers opposed revolution for the sake of revolution. In fact, they were inclined to let a slightly subpar government endure to avoid instability. Disobedience, they argued, should not be valorized excessively: societies cannot function without respect for existing laws and traditions. But, they added, this does not mean people should ignore a constant pattern of abuse. When the circumstances require it, disobedience can be permissible, or even obligatory.
The founders’ particularist model of disobedience recognizes that rules and norms have a purpose. Citizens cannot break the law as a matter of course to fit a grand narrative, because that would destroy the rule of law. However, disobedience is necessary in specific, extraordinary circumstances, like the American Revolution. This tension between the rule of law and the American conscience persists to the present day.
The Declaration of Independence is often considered a radical document, but it was actually quite conservative by modern standards. Its writers opposed revolution for the sake of revolution. In fact, they were inclined to let a slightly subpar government endure to avoid instability. Disobedience, they argued, should not be valorized excessively: societies cannot function without respect for existing laws and traditions. But, they added, this does not mean people should ignore a constant pattern of abuse. When the circumstances require it, disobedience can be permissible, or even obligatory.
The founders’ particularist model of disobedience recognizes that rules and norms have a purpose. Citizens cannot break the law as a matter of course to fit a grand narrative, because that would destroy the rule of law. However, disobedience is necessary in specific, extraordinary circumstances, like the American Revolution. This tension between the rule of law and the American conscience persists to the present day.
The Declaration of Independence is often considered a radical document, but it was actually quite conservative by modern standards. Its writers opposed revolution for the sake of revolution. In fact, they were inclined to let a slightly subpar government endure to avoid instability. Disobedience, they argued, should not be valorized excessively: societies cannot function without respect for existing laws and traditions. But, they added, this does not mean people should ignore a constant pattern of abuse. When the circumstances require it, disobedience can be permissible, or even obligatory.
The founders’ particularist model of disobedience recognizes that rules and norms have a purpose. Citizens cannot break the law as a matter of course to fit a grand narrative, because that would destroy the rule of law. However, disobedience is necessary in specific, extraordinary circumstances, like the American Revolution. This tension between the rule of law and the American conscience persists to the present day.
- DECLARATION OF
INDEPENDENCE
One may well ask: "How can you advocate breaking some laws and obeying others?" The answer lies in the fact that there are two types of laws: just and unjust. I would be the first to advocate obeying just laws. One has not only a legal but a moral responsibility to obey just laws. Conversely, one has a moral responsibility to disobey unjust laws.
Martin Luther King, Jr.’s model of disobedience was especially effective because it understood the importance of particularism. Despite all the abuses he had suffered from the U.S. government, he condemned total anarchy; instead, he worked strategically to undermine specific unjust laws while upholding legitimate rulings from the Supreme Court. The Southern Christian Leadership Conference was successful precisely because it took pains to portray itself as a fundamentally American institution, unlike other unsuccessful organizations such as the Nation of Islam. For King, the centuries of oppression faced by African-Americans in the South were the epitome of “a long train of abuses and usurpations.” Like the taxes imposed on British colonists, segregation was an “unjust law,” which citizens had no obligation to follow.
- MARTIN LUTHER
KING JR.
Poem in the American Manner
Dorothy Parker’s “Poem in the American Manner” criticizes narrow-minded, simplistic views of the universe. The speaker living in a “House o Dreams” dismisses starvation, war and labor crises as unimportant blips in modern society. Parker argues that it is wrong to label agitators “little tykes” without a specific analysis of their individual acts of disobedience, because the world cannot be simplified into grand narratives. The world itself is not an inherently good or bad place, so casual statements like “this world uv ours…[i]s a purty good ol' place t' live” ignore very real problems elsewhere in the world.
I dunno yer highfalutin' words, but here's th' way it seems
When I'm peekin' out th' winder o' my little House o Dreams;
I've been lookin' 'roun' this big ol' world, as bizzy as a hive,
An' I want t' tell ye, neighbor mine, it's good t' be alive.
I've ben settin' here, a-thinkin' hard, an' say, it seems t' me
That this big ol' world is jest about as good as it kin be,
With its starvin' little babies, an' its battles, an' its strikes,
An' its profiteers, an' hold-up men—th' dawggone little tykes!
An' its hungry men that fought fer us, that nobody employs.
An' I think, "Why, shucks, we're jest a lot o' grown-up little boys!"
An' I settle back, an' light my pipe, an' reach fer Mother's hand,
An' I wouldn't swap my peace o' mind fer nothin' in the land;
Fer this world uv ours, that jest was made fer folks like me an' you
Is a purty good ol' place t' live—say, neighbor, ain't it true?