In his 1849 essay, Civil Disobedience, American philosopher Henry David Thoreau provides a bold, well-reasoned criticism of American democracy. According to Thoreau, the overwhelming power of government unjustly silences the political agency of private citizens. A “cheap vote” is the only tool which individuals are granted to address the collection of critical issues which face society. Having shown the difficulty of creating change through American democracy, Thoreau poses a striking question to readers: In the face of unjust laws, “shall we be content to obey them, or shall we endeavor to amend them, and obey them until we have succeeded, or shall we transgress them at once?" While all three components have been exercised throughout American history in response to injustice, it is clear that non-confrontive acceptance has been the most common. There have only been a handful of circumstances in which pressing issues have been addressed through the transgression of law. Yet, despite the infrequency of these occurrences, they are often cited as the most valorant, effective displays of activism in our short history. The civil rights movement, characterized by illegal sit-ins, and the Boston Tea Party, a famous example of destruction of property, are two of the most notable examples. Such acts are what Thoreau refers to as civil disobedience. As we move into the age of social media, however, civil disobedience is gaining more traction as a powerful way to facilitate political and social change.
Underground networks of communication, hidden from the unknowing eyes of the public, have become incubators for political unrest. Mass sympathy surrounding political causes can now occur overnight and responses to injustice can be coordinated with no more than the click of a button. As a result, the United States has witnessed two of the largest instances of civil disobedience in its history within the past 10 months alone: The Black Lives Matter protests and the storming of the United States Capital. While the justification for these movements could not be more dissimilar, many of the tactics used by these groups were similar. Destruction of property, targeted assault of official buildings, and rare instances of violence were observed across both. Therefore, the place of civil disobedience in our modern society must be questioned. While it is undoubtedly effective at garnering public attention, civil disobedience has allowed large groups to mobilize around unfounded narratives, resulting in horrific scenes such as those recorded at the Capitol. On the other hand, civil disobedience has also allowed the crucial voices of minority communities to be heard more clearly, resulting in the mass rejection of police brutality and systematic racism. Thus, we face a dilemma. Should the voices of the disobedient be silenced, ensuring the prevention of violent disruption, or should such acts be more widely tolerated?
The recent siege of the US Capital was an especially sinister display of civil disobedience, and as a result, has done little to promote the importance of disobedient protest in American society. On January 6th, 2021, members of the alt-right violently stormed the US Capitol in an unwarranted effort to overturn the defeat of President Donald Trump, who they believed had been ‘robbed’ of the 2020 election. Their actions ultimately resulted in five deaths and American disgrace on the international stage. Recency bias, however, often plays a large role in shaping our responses to sociopolitical issues. It is important to remember that riots have played an important role in American political agency since the American revolution. Their necessity is even alluded to in the Declaration of Independence, with Thomas Jefferson stating that “it is the right of the people to alter or abolish” a destructive or inadequate government in order to preserve their “safety and happiness.” In this context, the actions at the Capitol are more understandable, if not more justified. Members of the right-wing mob at the capital clearly felt betrayed by a government which they had placed their trust in. Traditional democratic methods of political agency, such as voting, had proven to be ineffective in achieving a political outcome which they desired. As a result, they turned to riotous civil disobedience.
Despite its recent exploitation by members of the far right, Americans must remember that civil disobedience and the right to revolution is a cornerstone of American democracy. Just as those at the Capitol felt betrayed by the American election system, Black Lives Matter activists felt betrayed by a sociopolitical system complicit with decades of systemic racism. This two-sided nature of civil disobedience must be recognized. For every instance that civil disobedience contributes to the heightened awareness of systematic racism or facilitates the ratification of a civil rights act, similar methods of activism will naturally be utilized to promote movements which many of us find distasteful. Unfortunately, this trade off must be accepted in order to achieve such important social victories. If we cannot accept that non-traditional methods of political agency will be used with malicious intent, we will never be able to reap the benefits of the moments in which they are used for good.