After having seen the movie Born in Flames, and having followed the Occupy movement as a journalist student this past fall, I am continually turning the question over in my mind: is revolution ever right, or acceptable, and if so, in what situations?
A professor named Dick Howard gave a talk earlier this year to the Political Science department, called "From Protest to Revolution," essentially saying that protests helps modify the standing order and achieve change and reform, but that revolution is not a good idea because there is a danger that the party wanting to change something, like let's say women's rights, will make THEIR platform the entire new regime, when it is really just a part of the social dynamic.
Obviously he was against it, but I can't help wonder what happens when the means to effect change are clogged or otherwise unresponsive-- Congress is overloaded and pushes decisions onto the courts, the people feel as if their votes and preferences in election are not taken into account or adopted...what is a girl (or boy..or man or woman) to do?
I think that in any scenario, whether it's protesting illegally without a permit or blowing up a building, one must have a clear conscience and reasoning ability, be realistic about the consequences and outcomes, and be ready to accept all of them before acting. If you assume the responsibility of your public act as a means to convince others or highlight an injustice to the public and appeal to their sense of justice, then it is a legitimate act of civil disobedience (or terror) that is well-aimed to achieve a desired result.
Most of my ideas stem from this article on civil disobedience by John Rawls, which I have read for another class, alongside Martin Luther King's letter from Birmingham Jail.
http://www0.hku.hk/philodep/courses/law/Rawls%20Civil%20Disobedience.htm
No comments:
Post a Comment