It wasn’t the rain that stopped 36 people from getting arrested last month at a Keystone XL pipeline protest in Boston — it was likely State Department officials. After protesters blocked the front entrance to the Tip O’Neil Federal Building, security officials refused to arrest anyone. Intent on committing civil disobedience, however, the protesters moved and blocked another entrance — all while organizers announced with a bullhorn that the group was breaking federal law. But the security officials remained unwilling to accommodate the protesters. Eventually the situation dissipated and all 36 walked away without incident.
This recent experience begs the question: Has civil disobedience lost its effectiveness?
As intellectual historian Lewis Perry details in his new book Civil Disobedience: An American Tradition, last month’s Keystone XL protest was far from the first time civil disobedience has failed to provoke its desired reaction. In 1961, the civil rights movement used civil disobedience in attempts to desegregate Albany, Ga. However, Sheriff Laurie Pritchett had read Martin Luther King, Jr.’s memoir of the Montgomery bus boycott and understood that nonviolence was especially effective when it evoked a violent response. Publicly, the sheriff met “nonviolence with nonviolence” and denied the movement much-needed media attention. Later, Pritchett even bailed King out from jail to undercut his publicity. Fortunately for the movement, there were far more Bull Connors — the infamous safety commissioner who unleashed attack dogs and fire hoses on civil rights protesters in Birmingham, Ala. — than Laurie Pritchetts.
Examining the “practice, justification, and criticism of civil disobedience in the United States,” Perry claims his work is the first to analyze the grand narrative of extralegal protest. As a sympathetic historian, he hopes illuminating the subject’s origins and history will allow readers to grapple with the profound moral, political and legal dimensions of civil disobedience.
Although Perry admits civil disobedience is “an odd and elusive concept,” he is firm to distinguish it from forms of violent resistance or less direct actions like boycotts. “We cannot understand civil disobedience,” he contends, “if we generalize it to include all forms of resistance, day-to-day or extraordinary.” Like most respected theorists of dissent, Perry concludes civil disobedience entails a commitment to nonviolence, openness, respect for the law and subjecting oneself to the legal consequences. However, he does explore the most prominent fault lines: fleeing arrest, property destruction, self-defense and coercion.
Tracing the earliest examples of disobedience, Perry argues that the tradition originated when personal conscience — informed by “religious conviction” — was challenged by the power of the state. This delicate dance resulted in a “paradoxical feeling of wanting to respect the law and institutions of civil society while being unable to acquiesce in or ignore immoralities in those laws and institutions.” As a middle ground between acquiescence and rebellion, Perry argues civil disobedience emerged as “conservative law-breaking,” which “actually intensified respect for law.” Its widespread use transformed civil disobedience into an “extension of public life,” evolving from a tactic primarily concerned with private conscience in the 19th century to one “increasingly linked to power” in the 20th century.
For students of nonviolence, Perry’s scholarship offers both familiar and unexplored examples. His accounts of the civil rights movement and 1960s student protests are excellent but well-traveled territory. Perry excels when he explores those confrontations that have evaded historians for far too long. His first chapter details the case of Samuel Worcester, a missionary sent to “civilize” the Cherokee and was later arrested resisting their removal. Perry then restores the forgotten agency of black abolitionists, who straddled the line between obedience in striving for citizenship and disobedience in resisting slavery. He continues tracing the tradition through an overdue analysis of civil disobedience during the struggle for women’s suffrage and an investigation of extralegal dissent in the pro-life movement.
There is much to recommend in Perry’s scholarship, especially for active practitioners of nonviolent direct action. While Civil Disobedience offers a useful history for activists, readers should be warned it is not a quick read or one that elicits easy lessons. But broad parallels can be made — most importantly, as creativity is the lifeblood of nonviolence, thinking about past controversies can inspire activists in the present.
Perry’s scholarship affirms that nonviolent direct action has more in common with conflict than peace. Gandhi especially respected the discipline, coordination and preparation of soldiers. This lesson is quite relevant for climate justice advocates in light of evidence raised by Josh Fox’s disturbing new documentary film Gasland II. At a natural gas conference, a hidden camera reveals a fracking industry representative encouraging the use of U.S. Army counterinsurgency tactics against the populace of resisting towns. Clearly, the fossil fuel companies know the extraction of every last hydrocarbon means war. Therefore, activists must prepare to meet them on the battlefield of nonviolent conflict.
In both the abolition and the civil rights movements, effective use of nonviolent direct action emboldened advocates of slavery and Jim Crow. The current campaign against the fossil fuel regime reveals a similar recalcitrance. Despite increasing evidence and activism, the industry has doubled-down on denial and anti-renewable lobbying. As Has-Werner Sinn argues in The Green Paradox: A Supply-Side Approach to Global Warming, efforts by environmentalists have, perversely, accelerated the extraction of fossil fuels — with companies scrambling to extract as much as possible before social pressure blocks the carbon spigot. But rather than let this news dishearten their resolve, climate activists should heed the famous message — which Perry recalls — of an Industrial Workers of the World activist on death row: “Don’t mourn … organize!”
The biggest lesson offered by Perry’s scholarship concerns the dilemma Keystone XL opponents faced last month in Boston. He notes, “Every day’s newspaper includes an example of someone invoking a right of civil disobedience.” Although legitimate, Perry observes, it has also become circumscribed. And therein lies the great dilemma of civil disobedience: Its ubiquitous and orthodox practice is undermining its effectiveness.
However imperfect the parallel, the predictable deployment of civil disobedience at the Boston sit-in last month may have precipitated something similar to Pritchett’s outmaneuver of King and the civil rights movement. Organizers informed the State Department days beforehand and allowed federal officials to strategize a defensive posture. The sit-in was formulaic — a textbook action that might have only had a few minutes in the limelight. As an exceedingly civil protest, the action fell short of unbalancing authorities and provoking an embarrassing reaction.
A. Phillip Randolph — the famous civil rights leader, astute strategist of nonviolence and architect of the 1963 March on Washington — sought to avoid these kinds of actions. Instead, he counseled that nonviolent direct action must be “revolutionary, unusual, extraordinary, dramatic and drastic in order to be effective in placing the cause of a minority into the mainstream of national and international opinion.”
There are, of course, examples of such innovative dissent within the climate movement. Tim DeChristopher’s bold disruption of a corrupt oil and gas lease auction in 2008 saved thousands of acres of Utah public lands and invigorated the climate justice movement. Similarly, Ken Ward and Jay O’Hara’s blockade of a bulk coal freighter — with the small fishing vessel Henry David T. — precipitated a grassroots movement this summer that influenced the decision to shut down a Massachusetts coal-fired power plant. Then there’s the recent interference of coal trains in Montana, the disruption of tar sands extraction in Utah, and the valiant efforts of the Tar Sands Blockade in Texas and Oklahoma — not to mention the efforts of indigenous peoples reasserting their land rights. Each has shown how a new generation of activists can evolve time-tested tactics and directly target fossil fuel infrastructure.
After reading Perry’s Civil Disobedience, the challenge facing the climate movement is clear: It must make civil disobedience increasingly assertive and imaginative, and it must avoid descending into mindless permissiveness or counter-cultural antics. Practitioners must remember that disobedience is a means to an end — not an end in itself. Disobedience must remain radical — in the literal meaning of the word, “striking at the root” — while also appealing to a broad audience and encouraging solidarity. At best, actions should evoke empathy and stir the public’s conscience.
The paradox and dilemmas of civil disobedience will always remain, but so will the imperative for citizens to challenge unjust laws and promote the public welfare. As Perry argues, the atrocities of the last century affirm “a defense of civil disobedience as obligatory for citizens” and accentuate “the urgency of individual moral choice not to be a bystander.”
In short, civil disobedience will always remain necessary, but it falls to practitioners and theorists keep it relevant.
Thanks for this thought-provoking summary of Perry’s book (can’t wait to read the whole thing)!
On the topic of the recent Boston Keystone XL protest, I’ll add another wrinkle to the speculation around law enforcement decisions not to arrest: the protest occurred in the midst of the government shutdown, which could have had unforeseen and perhaps unknowable impact on authorities responses.
That wrinkle aside, this piece raises some crucial questions about the role of civil disobedience in social movements and transformative change, especially vis-a-vis law enforcement and keepers of the status quo. There’s a lot to chew on here, thanks for the article!
Philip,
We are lucky to have you on our strategic advisory council.
Looking forward to your next piece,
Stephanie
Todd–You’re absolutely right that the government shutdown may have played a large role in their decision process. We certainly can’t marginalize that possibility.
Ironically, the shutdown may have also been another reason to avoid arrest, as I would imagine PR on the Keystone XL was the last thing the Obama administration wanted to see. It would have interrupted the endless media narrative of Republican intransigence! Thanks for your input and comments, and thank you for everything that you do with RAN– you are all awesome.
Stephanie– Thank you! I look forward to the next time I can return to Metta and see you and Dr. Nagler. PS, I greatly enjoyed your wonderful article/ interview on Nonviolent Peaceforce and its promise for Syria. I think everyone is eager for YOUR next essay!
This is a really helpful piece, thanks Philip. This is why movements need to be creative, flexible and adaptable to circumstances, even in the middle of actions. A month ago at the Swan Island Peace Convergence (http://swanislandpeace.org) we discovered that not only were police not arresting people for blockading the gate to the Swan Island military base, but they weren’t even going to attempt to remove us from the blockade. The military had also decided to have only skeleton staff at the base and to boat them in. On one level this was a win, but we realised this meant a) with no obvious ‘conflict’ there would be no media and b) given they had capitulated so far we had the opportunity to escalate and be even more disruptive.
So we quickly reassessed our strategy, and ended up blockading the wharves as well. When they didn’t arrest for that either, we escalated again, this time by getting 17 of us into the base. Not only were they forced to arrest us, but the media coverage exploded and with it the military’s carefully crafted strategy to keep the whole thing quiet.
Without the flexibility to change plans in mid stream (all credit to the whole crew involved) and the creativity to come up with evocative and effective alternatives, it would still have been effective, but not nearly as effective as it ended up being.
Great title, sorta lost the flame in the middle there.
This shouldn’t be a moment to categorize whether something is civil-disobedience or not, thats a waste of time. We should instead, as you said, ask ourselves what is working vs what is not working?
Telling those in power what we are going to do and when we are going to do it is not only noneffective, it’s pretty stupid. And this is the kind of bullshit that we have going on these days so that activist organizations can feel good about themselves meanwhile those in power can be safe and distant. They aren’t scared of that shit.
Please continue writing about this — but push the boundaries and definition of resistance. Non-violence is radical. This kind of civil disobedience is garbage.
call me when we plan on taking over their building.
Uhh, since when is the point to be arrested? This is a complete misunderstanding of direct action. Being willing to be arrested is great, but it should be to accomplish an actual goal not related to media. If your goal is to block a building entrance for as long as possible, fine. But being upset that no one is arrested is childish, and pathetic really. Block the building, hold the space, and actually prevent work from getting done. If the day ends and no one goes through the wringer of jail and court, plus no money is donated to the penal system, wonderful.
Daniel, I think you make a fair point. With many recent actions, you are right to conclude the aim is to shut down operations for as long as possible. Namely, I’m thinking about Tar Sands Blockade and resistance to Tar Sands development in Utah.
However, historically Civil Disobedience has been both symbolic and has directly targeted “unjust” operations. Both can be effective depending on the target and tactics. Just look at the 2011 White House sit-ins, where 1,253 people were arrested. They weren’t directly stopping any fossil fuel extraction, or violating a specific unjust law, but were rather using their bodies to bring attention to an injustice– the Keystone XL pipeline. And they were successful.
As Dr. King said (in one of the most quoted lines ever), “Nonviolent direct action seeks to create such a crisis and foster such a tension that a community which has constantly refused to negotiate is forced to confront the issue. It seeks so to dramatize the issue that it can no longer be ignored.”
There is more than one way to confront an issue. Indeed, remaining innovative and creative to find those ways are whats most important.
Sometimes we can be effective even when
a- the civil disobedience target says they are not listening
b- the media doesn’t cover us, except to say we are ineffective (as if they would know)
c- we ourselves think we have failed
d- no one is arrested
Sometimes the wheels turn inside the CD target in ways we don’t know. Daniel Ellsberg has a great anecdote about how Nixon stated during the Fall 1969 Moratorium that he was watching football, and everyone believed him.
Yet, being inside the frantic White House strategy sessions that day to create a PR campaign offensive, Ellsberg KNEW that was a lie.
Similarly, the”MNS Bill Moyer” (1933-2002) points out that movements often have periods when they think they have lost, yet are about to win. During 1986-’87, many anti-nuclear weapons activists were in a state of deep despair. This was just before the INF treaty of Dec. 1987 which led to the destruction of half the world’s nuclear weapons.
I don’t think Perry has studied nonviolent civil disobedience thoroughly enough to understand its strategic use today and throughout history. Both Gandhi and Dr. Martin Luther King, used sustained and long campaigns of imaginative civil disobedience, not previously conducted in such massive and sustained ways. Perry should have studied the work of Gene Sharp and looked more at the Global Nonviolence Database(http://globalnvdatabase.swarthmore.edu) at Swarthmore College. There are no guarantees that either nonviolent civil disobedience or armed struggle or many nonviolent campaigns or movements will always be successful. Being creative and strategic in utilizing campaigns, many campaigns in a coordinated way is the critical area we should focus on, not whether or not any one act of civil disobedience will make a difference or not. The area to focus on should be building a sustained movement of interlocking campaigns of massive civil disobedience, which involves more than just getting arrested for blockading or blocking a doorway, hall, office, street or road. Boycotts and the establishment of alternative commerce, businesses and services, to withdraw our money, consent and cooperation with the corrupt, multinational capitalist system, should be our focus, not whether or not any act of civil disobedience “works”.
Paul,
Certainly Perry isn’t an expert theorist on nonviolence like Dr. Sharp, George Lakey, Gordon Fellman, or Michael Nagler. He’s an intellectual historian whose interested in the “idea” of civil disobedience. I should also emphasize that Perry’s book is the raw material I use to make the argument that civil disobedience has become too relied upon and predictable. His excellent work provides the historic evidence to understand why and how its been most effective in the past.
I think Perry would agree with many of the points you’ve just made– especially concerning the uncertainty of civil disobedience’s effectiveness. After all, he notes how thousands of anti-abortion protesters were arrested in the 1990s, to little avail. He also spends a great deal of time discussing “America’s Gandhian moment” and King’s innovative use of nonviolence– so I would push back against your first point there.
Above all though, I think you are absolutely correct that our principal concern is not merely what kinds of civil disobedience to employ, but rather how to build a “sustained movement of interlocking campaigns,” as you aptly put it. Its more important for us to build an infrastructure of fossil-fuel resistance and employ the hundreds of methods of nonviolent dissent than merely focus on principled law-breaking. But when we do employ civil disobedience, let’s make sure we integrate the lessons of the past and make it as imaginative and effective as possible.
This annoys me- so few people are willing to take risks- i can’t see criticizing civil disobedience in any way to be helpful (o i can see it as a sort of academic criticism of tactics ) always helpful- as is this piece- so what if it fails- it does not fail for the people who are moved to take it?
it is quite predictable that people DO NOT take it- that is predictable.
If you get a chance to see the documentary on the draft actions: “Hit and Stay”, you can see some civilly disobedient tactics….also study Code Pink actions. We do not have enough of them.
Phil Berrigan spent 11 of the last 30 years of his life in jail and prison. Take that as an example and follow that, I suggest.
I would criticize civilly disobedient right wingers?!?!?
Great article, solid analysis. I think it’s critical to develop theories and practices of civil disobedience that go beyond the photo-op sit-in, but also don’t go so far in fetishizing obstruction of physical infrastructure, which is ultimately just a symptom and manifestation of a broader political system. Effective actions can be either communicative or instrumental, but more often need to be a blend of both.
Phil,
Great to meet you yesterday on the bus from the People’s Climate March; your insights on how civil disobedience can raise the cost of business as usual are are a worthy future blog topic.
Bob Morrison
Sudbury, MA
As Miss Alice Paul said, you must “create an acute situation.”