Rousseau and Civil Disobedience

http://xroads.virginia.edu/~hyper2/thoreau/civil.html

Civil Disobedience is an essay by Henry David Thoureau.  In it, he discusses the merits of disobeying society's rules.  He explains that it is necessary to disobey in some cases, as the community is not always right.  He does not believe that the majority is by necessity the wisest, because the simple fact that most people agree on something does not make it correct.  He cites slavery as a most excellent example of how the majority is not always correct, and how it is best to disobey when such injustices arise in a society.  He believed that there could be something better than democracy.

Rousseau was a major proponent of democracy.  It is Rousseau's belief that in a virtuous society that the minority will always be mistaken.  Thoureau seems to believe that no society can be so virtuous as to avoid making wrong decisions.  Rousseau does, however, say that it is necessary to incite revolutions when there are inequalities in the government.  It seems to me that it would be difficult to determine when to incite revolution if one is meant to be coerced into being free.  Essentially, obedience is freedom.  This is in direct contradiction to Thoureau's thesis that it is necessary to disobey the law sometimes in order to be free.

20 Years later: The Million Man March

Its been 20 years since the 1995 Million Man March in Washington DC and on Saturday thousands of Americans reconvened at the Washington memorial to celebrate its 20th anniversary. With Louis Farrakhan as the keynote speaker, the topic was clear: "America has no future for you or for me. She can't make a future for herself, much less a future for us" (Grinberg). While many were there to discuss the social unrest and lack of justice that plagues the black community, an underlining theme of freedom swept through the crowd.

What is justice without freedom? Nothing. It seems that for the average Black person in America, Rousseau is right:"Man is born free, and everywhere else he is in chains." The black community has been opressed and stressed since being dragged halfway across the world and even after fighting for their own freedom from the chains of slavery, they are still under the socioeconomic and racist chains of White America. The constant degradation, mass incarceration and killing of black men and women calls for the freedom of black america from the chains that they still find around their necks even in "modern" America. This recent fight for freedom ties with the chant for "Justice or Else!". While the or else part is unanswered the fight for justice, freedom and equality has been sparked again and the conversation of who holds the right in the fight for freedom and liberty is brought round table.

Whose Freedom?

The current discussion on Senate Bill 11, which would allow for concealed carry license owners to bring their concealed firearms into college campus buildings in the state of Texas, brings forward two differing ideas of freedom. While laws already allow for concealed carry firearms to be carried on campuses for the past twenty years, the new law, set to go into effect on August 1, 2016, would allow them inside buildings. The bill states that only owners of a concealed carry license who are twenty-one years of age will permitted to carry firearms. The supporters of the bill argue that this will help individuals protect themselves and others in campus buildings in the event of an armed attack or other emergency situation. Opponents of the bill argue whether it is right for firearms to be allowed into the classroom. One of the strongest arguments against the bill is the effect it will have on the right of free speech in Texas college classrooms. Because of the amount of discussion that occurs in classrooms, many controversial topics are discussed. If certain certain individuals are permitted to carry a concealed weapon into class, it could lead to a situation which stifles discussion, as many might be afraid to argue with a person chatting a weapon.

Link: http://www.cnn.com/2015/10/09/us/texas-campus-carry-law/

This controversy over the effect of the bill in the classroom can be connected to Rousseau’s ideas of both civil and natural freedom that we went over in class. The supporters of the bill are looking out for the ability of individuals to protect themselves, just as a personal freedom in a state of nature would be concerned only with the needs or desires of an individual. Those who argue against the bill are thinking about the greater good of society and not just about what is best for specific individuals. In their opinion, the right of everyone to free speech is a more important one than the right to be armed in public spaces. In a state of nature one can do what one wants and thinks about themselves and their freedom, but in a civil society, you have the same freedom as others in you society. The laws that affect your freedom are meant to help the whole community rather than just the individual. A healthy civil society is able to balance the freedom of individuals with the larger freedoms of the society itself.

Freedom

http://41.media.tumblr.com/bd91c8af77b7030812684995efdcf191/tumblr_nsqh7diiWs1qggdoyo1_500.jpg

This is a photo from Star War Episode III: Revenge of the Sith. In this photo, Senator Padmé Amidala sits as The Republic is taken over by the Sith Lord, as he declares martial law. By doing this, he has effectively turned the then democracy into an empire dictatorship. During this speech, Padmé remarks the famous quotes, “So this is how liberty dies...with thunderous applause”. This became a famous quote in the series as well as in our everyday life as it has been referred to during views of major decisions. The quote implies that people may not know the actual implications of what is going on, and just because something sounds appealing and attractive at the time doesn't mean it actually is. All the people in the theater during the speech were in their positions as part of a democracy. They were meant to impose democracy and maintain it throughout their term. However, as they supported what then turned out to be the end of democracy, this did not turn out the be the case.

This scene, in addition to this quote relates to what our class has learned and studied about Rousseau. In class we were presented with several quotes including “All ran toward their chains, believing they were securing their freedom”. This is very similar to the described scene as it shows that people will approve and be attracted something that sounds appealing but is in no way is what it seems. “Ran towards chains” is not at all what freedom is supposed to be or what people should what. However, when presented in a way in which it seems that the act is in the name of freedom, people don't disapprove. This is the same with “liberty dies in thunderous applause” as people are supporting what they think is democracy, when in reality it is in fact to opposite. Another quote we looked at by Rousseau was “Citizens let themselves be oppressed, only insofar as being carried away by blind ambition, and looking more beneath then above themselves, domination becomes more previous to them than independence, and they consent to bear chains so that they in turn can give them to others”. This again shows the same point, as people believe that they are all free by having restrictions placed upon them. These two examples along with the photo show that democracy, liberty, and freedom, can not be attended through restriction.    

  

Christopher McCandless was a man who wanted badly to give up all material goods and live in the wild. The book Into the Wild depicts McCandless journey of giving up his standard American life to take on the wild. The book depicts how he lives off of nature, hunting his own food, but mainly has to pick berries for food. McCandless loses a lot of weight and eventually dies of starvation because he is unable to successfully hunt food.
Rousseau argues that man in the state of nature is faster stronger and happier. He believes they would be stronger and faster because they have to acquire their own food and build their own shelters. He believes they would be happier because they have not been affected by material goods and don't have to worry about other people trying to take advantage of them. Rousseau argues that when men come together and learn how to enhance their lives they have become more evil than when they are solitary. In Rousseau's state of nature men are stronger men, but looking at the story of McCandless it seems to be the opposite. McCandless fails trying to live in the state of nature because he is unable to effectively gather food for himself. McCandless lost extreme weight, while trying to live on his own. Instead of McCandless getting faster and stronger, he got physically weaker. It seems that men not living in the state of nature will be stronger because they are able to acquire food easily and depending on their standard of living will be able to become stronger. McCandless died in the state of nature because of his lack of strength. Therefore, Rousseau's argument that men are stronger and faster in the state of nature is not accurate.

Let kids be kids

As reported by a recent study published in the Journal of Family Psychology, kids who were giving too much heavy work and caregiving roles without letting them simply be a carefree child in their childhood, tends to be less sensitive towards their own children’s needs too. Professor Amy K. Nuttall from the Michigan State University said,“People who raised up by giving too many stresses and burdens, would feel confused when they educate their own children in the scope of understanding children’s needs and expectations. According to an online parenting blog named let kids be kids, Childhood is a time marked by playing, making friendships, getting messy, creativity and exploration. It then  stated that, "It also happens quite quickly. Lets get back to basics and bring back childhood!" 

Jean-Jacques Rousseau, in my opinion, had expressed a lot similar thinkings related to the study above. In Rousseau’s mind, people in the state of nature, on the contrary to what Hobbes once stated is vicious, nasty, and wicked, is actually happier, stronger, and more virtuous; they are not constrained by the repressive apparatus and factitious needs of the society. Kids in their childhood are just like people in the state of nature, they are happy, carefree, and easy to be satisfied. However, once they got chained and restrained by the pressure of real life and the lessons that their parents exerted on, they would lose the valuable peacefulness that the childhood granted to them and gradually became less sensible towards their own children when they take on the role as parents. The whole scenario here is just like what Rousseau said, people once get civilized and well informed of the real world, they would tend to be less happy and limited by the artificial needs of the society. 

Link:http://www.parentherald.com/articles/10622/20150930/heres-why-you-should-let-kids-be-kids.htm