POLS 250 Reading Summaries PDF

Part one civil disobedience Rawls Definition of civil disobedience -​ A public, nonviolent, conscientious, and political act that breaks the law but maintains a commitment to the principles of the legal system -​ Civil disobedience involves deliberately breaking the law, not just testi...

Part one civil disobedience Rawls Definition of civil disobedience -​ A public, nonviolent, conscientious, and political act that breaks the law but maintains a commitment to the principles of the legal system -​ Civil disobedience involves deliberately breaking the law, not just testing whether a law is constitutional. Problem with cd: -​ Only happens within a just democratic state for citizens who accept the constitution -​ The problem of civil disobedience arises in a mostly fair democratic state, where citizens accept the legitimacy of its constitution. It involves a conflict of duties: when does the obligation to follow laws created by a majority end no longer apply, especially when defending one’s freedoms or opposing injustice? Theory on cd 1.​ Defines this kind of disobedience and separates it from other forms of opposition to authority 2.​ Sets the conditions for which cd is justified in a democratic regime 3.​ A theory should explain the role of cd within a constitutional system Conditions for cd -​ Substantials, you must have already tried to make appeals to the majority (letters to the parliament) -​ If you are willing to engage in cd you have to acknowledge that others will participate in cd. -​ The individual must accept the punishment for cd Random -​ If the government creates a vague and harsh law against treason, it's not right to commit treason just to protest it, especially since the punishment could be much worse than someone should be willing to face. -​ In some cases, the government's actions can't be directly opposed, such as in foreign affairs or issues affecting another region. -​ In justifying civil disobedience an individual is not appealing to political principles (principles of justice that regulate the govt and laws), personal morality or religious beliefs and these can coincide with and support the claim -​ Thus, cd cannot stem solely from self or group interest Mlk letter from Birmingham Jail -​ Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere -​ You have to accept the consequences when you commit cd -​ After receiving a broken promise from the authority (leaders of Birmingham economic community) they had no choice but to prepare for direct action (cd) -​ First, they underwent self-purification, doing a series of nonviolence workshops. Then they asked themselves if they were willing to accept the consequences; “Can you accept blows without retaliating?” “Are you able to endure jail?” -​ nonviolent direct action arises when a community refuses to negotiate the issue, forcing them to confront the issue -​ Nonviolent criticism creates the needed tension in society to combat prejudice -​ “Freedom is never voluntarily given by the oppressor; it must be demanded by the oppressed” -​ When concerned about a group's willingness to break laws, you may ask “How can you advocate breaking some laws and obeying others?” -​ The answer is that there are just laws and unjust laws. Thus, one has a legal and moral responsibility to obey just laws and a moral responsibility to disobey unjust laws. As “an unjust law is no law at all” -​ Eg: everything Hitler did in Germany was legal and everything the Hungarian freedom fighters did to help the Jews was illegal -​ Those who engage in nonviolent direct action are not the creators of tension, they are just bringing hidden tensions to the surface so they can be dealt with Just vs unjust laws -​ A just law is a manmade law that aligns with the moral law or the law of god -​ Any law that uplifts human personality is just -​ A just law is a law that a majority persuades minority groups to follow and they’re willing to follow it too. -​ An unjust law is a law that is unaligned with the moral law -​ Any law that degrades human personality is unjust; all segregation laws are unjust -​ An unjust law is a law that a powerful majority group persuades a minority group to obey but lacks the ethical foundation that would obligate people to follow it Four steps to a nonviolent campaign ​ Collection of facts to determine if injustices exist ​ Negotiation ​ Self-purification (prayers, meditation, fasting etc) ​ Direct action Dewey Clayton- BLM and the Civil Rights Movement Blm -​ Sort of started when George Zimmerman (white neighborhood watchman) unjustly shot and killed Trayvon Martin. Zimmerman was found not guilty because “he felt threatened” -​ Really gained popularity when a white police officer, Darren Wilson, unjustly shot and killed an 18-year-old black teenager; Michael Brown. -​ Through social media, BLM organized freedom rides for more than 500 people over 18 cities in the US -​ The protests began peacefully but were met by armed resistance from the authorities. When this happened, some protests turned violent. Resulting in the governor declaring a state of emergency -​ As more unjust killings of black people at the hands of the police occurred, BLM began using primarily Twitter and Facebook to organize protests. The movement shifted to a social movement. -​ However, the movement started facing criticism when in 2014 two police officers were killed in New York, and the social movement faced strong backlash from the police -​ The guy who killed them^^ posted about his intentions to kill the police as retribution for the unjust deaths of Eric Garner and Michael Brown, as both of the police officers who killed them did not face consequences. -​ Blm condemned the shootings -​ As a social movement, BLM has been criticized for not having an organized set of goals Civil rights movement -​ The crm relied on the energy and enthusiasm of the youth -​ At the start of the movement, 4 black college students performed a sit-in to protest Jim Crow laws. They were criticized by some black people and white liberals as being too radical -​ Within weeks the sit-in movement spread and black and white students engaged in nonviolent passive resistance -​ Diane Nash, a student who led the Nashville student movement said that people refer to the crm as Martin Luther King’s movement, but youth should realize that it was people like them that formed the goals and strategies and actually developed the movement -​ These students played a huge role in the crm through freedom rides, marches, and sit-ins, which led to the Civil Rights Act Similarities and differences Inclusive and exclusive messaging Both activists have been criticized for being too militant by both black and white ppl BLM: -​ Oprah criticized blm for not having a defined leadership figure -​ Blm has been criticized for its extreme forms of cd (eg; interrupting presidential campaigns, “shut it down” slogan)  -​ More exclusive, only anti-police CRM: -​ MLK was called a troublemaker by the local newspaper -​ More inclusive, made it an american identity problem Leadership styles BLM: -​ Rejected the hierarchical style of leadership (not one person at the top giving orders), instead encouraged leaders from communities across the country -​ Unstructured movement, no set list of goals -​ Focuses on intersectionality -​ Stemmed from social media CRM: -​ MLK at the top -​ Set list of goals -​ Male-dominated -​ Stemmed from the African American church BOTH; -​ Combating systematic racism and prejudice -​ Both faced resistance from law enforcement Framing CRM: equality is a crucial part of American identity so fighting for racial equality is every American’s problem BLM: is framed as a racial bias in the criminal justice system (only impacts black people) Scheuerman- Snowden & Civil Disobedience Summary -​ In 2013 Edward Snowden revealed secrets about the National Security Agency’s invasive surveillance methods -​ Resulting in some viewing him as a traitor and others as a hero. Sparked a worldwide political debate about state surveillance -​ His consequences were the cancelation of his passport, and preventing many foreign countries from granting him asylum thus he found asylum in Russia. He sacrificed his job and his comfortable life -​ Scheuerman’s main argument is that “we should interpret Snowden’s actions as meeting most of the demanding tests outlined in sophisticated political thinking about civil disobedience.” Snowden as civil disobedient -​ Textbook definition of cd; ‘public, nonviolent, conscientious yet political act contrary to the law usually done with the aim of bringing about a change in the law or policies of the government’,  -​ Snowden anticipated that his revelations would result in him being accused of espionage, treason and severe punishment by the US gov -​ His actions represent an “indirect yet potentially legitimate resistance or civil disobedience”. Direct is typically aimed at preventing unjust law enforcement -​ He views his whistleblowing as a necessary way to bring attention to the unjust surveillance methods. Thus, he felt morally and legally obliged to snitch even though it was contrary to the law, as the spying impacted everyone. He said his sole motivation was to inform the public about what was being done to them. -​ He isn't condoning breaking the law, but instead upholding basic rights -​ Snowden’s main claim is that his actions protect fundamental rights and laws and embody core legal virtues (publicity and openness) Recipe for lawlessness -​ In a democracy, citizens are usually expected to respect laws. If they break them, it needs strong justification, not just personal disagreement with a policy. -​ Liberal and democratic theories of civil disobedience require those breaking the law to meet tough standards. Snowden seems to have made an effort to meet these by acting non-violently and reflecting deeply on his decisions. -​ Snowden’s decision wasn’t impulsive or selfish. He sacrificed a comfortable life, avoided harming people, and aimed to reveal injustices in government surveillance. -​ His goal was to provoke debate and reform US policies, not to cause harm or incite violence. Non-violence aligns with the principles of civil disobedience, where the focus is on rational debate and democratic persuasion. -​ Critics argue Snowden endangered people, but evidence for this claim is weak. Instead, Snowden carefully selected documents to avoid harm. -​ Snowden’s actions align with both liberal and republican views of civil disobedience: Liberal View: His actions counter systemic violations of basic rights, like those protected by the US Constitution. Republican View: He aimed to challenge public complacency and institutional inertia about surveillance. Civil disobedience without penalties -​ Because Snowden fled to Russia and refused to turn himself in (not accepting the consequences of cd) many do not view this is as a legit example of cd -​ By accepting the punishment (even for unjust laws) law breakers show their respect for the rule of law -​ Thus, accepting punishment distinguishes civil disobedience from other illegal acts, like secretive or harmful crimes. -​ However, his self-sacrifice (e.g., living in exile) shows moral seriousness without formal punishment. -​ Critics argue that treating Snowden like a spy ignores his intent to inform the public, not harm the nation. Civil disobedience in a global age -​ Snowden’s statement about his actions appeals to global parameters of law ( he discussed both the US Constitution and the Declaration of human rights) -​ He claims that the U.S.'s attempt to force Hong Kong to return him violated international law -​ Snowden connects his actions to ideas from the Nuremberg Trials, which declared that individuals must sometimes disobey national laws to prevent greater harm like crimes against humanity. -​ Like civil rights leaders Gandhi and Martin Luther King Jr., Snowden appeals to global moral values and human rights, but he takes this approach further by assuming a deeply interconnected global legal and political system. -​ He said that he fled to Russia not to escape accountability but because he believed the U.S. would not give him a fair trial under laws like the Espionage Act. Part two social contract Hobbes Leviathan Chapters State of Nature: -​ Human beings are naturally not suited for politics. They degrade and compete with each other, are easily influenced by persuasive leaders, and have an inflated sense of self-worth. -​ Emotions cause humans to prioritize their immediate interests over others' needs. -​ People lack the power to overcome their competitors and can't rely on a common standard of behavior. -​ Even those with moderate desires can be forced into violent action by ruthless individuals, leading to chaos and aggression. -​ 3 causes of disagreement; competition, diffidence and glory -​ No one is exempt from this cycle of violence and disorder. -​ in the state of nature, where no central authority exists, everyone has a right to everything, including others’ lives and possessions -​ Hobbes compares humans to social animals like bees and ants, noting key differences. Humans' competition for honor, use of reason, and ability to deceive prevent them from naturally living in harmony without a central authority. Social Contract: -​ political authority is justified by a hypothetical social contract where individuals give up certain freedoms in exchange for the safety and well-being provided by the sovereign (monarch or legislature). -​ Hobbes argues that war is more natural for humans than political order. Political order can only exist when individuals relinquish their personal judgment and delegate it to the sovereign.  -​ In Hobbes’s social contract, individuals trade their liberty for safety. The right to govern oneself is surrendered to the sovereign, who has absolute power over laws, the economy, crime, punishment, and even religion. -​ Subjects must accept the sovereign's rule, even if unpopular or flawed, as long as their lives aren't in danger. -​ The sovereign’s authority is unquestionable unless it fails so completely that the subjects feel their condition outside the state would be no worse. -​ People seek self-preservation and security to escape the miserable conditions of nature. Hobbes argues that in nature, individuals are constantly at war with one another. -​ Thus, to secure peace and stability, individuals must give up certain freedoms in exchange for the protection of a governing power. This agreement is what Hobbes calls the social contract. -​ The social contract is an agreement to; 1. Surrender certain rights to sovereign authority 2. Submit to the authority of the sovereign who will enforce laws and ensure peace. 3. Establish a common power to settle disputes, protect life and property, and maintain order -​ The sovereign does not have to abide by the social contract because they are not a party to it but rather the product of it -​ the social contract is motivated by the fear of death and the desire for self-preservation -​ Even if the sovereign is unjust, subjects cannot lawfully resist or overthrow the sovereign, because doing so would disrupt the stability of society. (no room for cd) Locke Chapters State of nature -​ Everyone (all men) are in a state of equality where no one person has more power over another -​ In the state of nature there is no formal government or authority but its not lawless and chaotic because it is governed by the law of nature, which is accessible to all through reason. -​ The law of nature obliges everyone to behave morally and respect the life, liberty, and possessions of others. -​ People should have the right to govern themselves -​ no one has a right to dominate or harm another, as all humans are equally servants of the Creator and part of the same natural order. -​ Locke argues that individuals may only harm others to enforce justice—for example, to punish those who violate the law of nature -​ Punishment is only justified for 1. Reparation 2. Restraint (to prevent someone from from harming someone else) State of war  -​ Anyone who attempts to enslave another creates a state of war against that person -​ Thus when someone enslaves someone, the victim has the right to defend themselves- by any means -​ The state of war arises when force is used without justified right and there is no authority to mediate fights -​ slavery is unnatural and not justified unless it was consensual (person agreed to be a slave) or a person was a criminal and you were punishing him Property -​ Believed in individual property rights but only to a certain degree, you have right to property by mixing your labour with the land -​ Legitimacy of private property under 2 conditions; 1. When theres enough left for everyone else 2. Resources are used efficiently and not wasted -​ The invention of money changed the dynamics of property by enabling accumulation beyond natural limits. Murphy on Hobbes -​ individuals in the state of nature cant see the long-term consequences of their actions. This shortsightedness leads to irrational behavior that undermines peace in the state of nature -​ If rationality leads individuals to conflict (as the rationality account suggests), it contradicts the idea that reason can lead people out of the state of war. -​ Rationality account; argues that conflict arises because individuals, driven by the rational desire for self-preservation and power, act to protect themselves from others. Since everyone is roughly equal, this leads to mutual distrust, where attacking others first seems the safest option. Without a common authority to enforce agreements, people rationally break promises, ensuring the continuation of conflict and a state of war. -​ individuals are short sighted and focused on immediate gains; there’s no real incentive to cooperate -​ having a sovereign is how we can ensure that we avoid short sightedness -​ Overall, in Hobbes state of nature short sightedness is a main source of conflict stemming from ppl focusing on immediate desires rather than long-term preservation, leading to impulsive actions and conflict. The only solution is to impliment a powerful sovereign to help restrain these impulses and maintain control Kropotkin- Mutual Aid -​ People are always ready to fight with each other and are only prevented by the intervention of authority -​ state of nature is not as harsh as hobbes describes, its one of cooperation People continue to engage in acts of mutual support subconsciously rejecting the harsh individualism promoted by modern society ^^  -​ cooperation and mutual support are fundamental aspects of human nature and have played a crucial role in the development of societies, mutual aid is a natural instinct Emma goldman- anarchism -​ Hobbes is too pessimistic about the state of nature and too optimistic about the states -​ states enslave and subordinate individuals and sacrifice their liberties -​ real freedom is being emancipated from the government -​ religion, property, and state - threats to social equality -​ state fails to diminish crime bc its a result of misdirected energy (people do bad things because of the structure of the state, not bc it's their nature) -​ Violence arises from ignorance not from anarchism -​ supports anarchy, anarchism is practical because it aims to remove the wrong and foolish aspects of society and build new life -​ the reason it doesn't work is because ppl don't understand anarchy properly -​ also, anarchy doesn't stand for violence the way people believe, it is the misunderstanding of anarch that leads to violence, not the structure of anarchy -​ anarchism - practical and does away with wrongs and sustains new, life the most violent things in society are ignorance -​ Anarchism cannot and should not impose a rigid, detailed blueprint for the future because the future is inherently unpredictable and shaped by the needs and struggles of each new generation. -​ the strength of anarchism lies in its flexibility—allowing future generations to develop their systems -​ the current economic system is based on the exploitation of workers resulting in greater wealth for the few while the majority remain poor -​ Anarchism is a system where individuals can choose their work and society can function harmoniously. -​ The state is only needed to protect and maintain property -​ The state is the biggest criminal of them all, as they break every written and natural law (stealing in the form of taxes, killing in the form of war) -​ In politics, the majority’s support is sought through deceit and manipulation, with success being the primary goal rather than justice or principles -​ only the courage and intelligence of minorities can lead to meaningful social and economic progress (used MLK as an example) Barbara Arneil on Locke -​ Locke's piece on government was simply a justification for his colonial past -​ Locke dismisses indigenous peoples' use of land because it does not meet his criteria of improvement through agriculture or enclosure.  -​ In Locke’s view, if the land is not actively cultivated, it doesn’t count as properly owned. So, even though Indigenous people may have lived on or used the land for centuries, their way of life (such as hunting or gathering) doesn't qualify for property rights -​ This reasoning supports colonialism (European colonizing indigenous) as Locke basically says only European agriculture methods qualify for private land ownership -​ Arneil argues in response to Locke’s ideas on money and spoilage that this financial system—which the Indigenous people didn’t have—becomes the justification for European colonial powers to appropriate large areas of land, justified by the lack of trade and money among the Indigenous population. -​ The labor Locke praises for creating value ignores the injustices faced by indigenous peoples and enslaved Africans, whose labor was the backbone of the colonial economy. Mills and the Racial Contract -​ The idea of a social contract is misleading because it assumes a starting point where people are isolated from each other as if they were living in a state of nature without any social connections. -​ the contract is supposed to be about equality but it often represents and justifies inequalities such as racial or gender-based oppression that people don't consent to -​ Calls the social contract the domination contract and describes it as theory that explains and justifies how inequalities are perpetuated- inequalities become embedded in society under the pretense of social agreements. -​ the racial and sexual contracts show how racial and gendered domination are built into the structure of society. -​ Race is a product of social/ institutional norms -​ The social contract justifies gender and racial division -​ The social contract emphasizes that the only people who could really prosper in society is white men -​ This division enforces the idea that government is made by and for white people who exploit nonwhite people's land and resources -​ white ppl (and men specifically) are able to prosper more than minorities -​ colonization, slavery etc are the reason why white people today are so wealthy, black people contributed to millions of dollars of wealth bc of slavery -​ Under the racial contract, white people learn to see the world in a specific way, which helps justify the genocide, slavery, and colonization that bring them power and privilege. -​ The social contract encourages non-white people to accept their inferior status -​ Mills hopes that philosophers can help undo this teaching by analyzing society through a racial contract rather than a social one Carol Pateman- Women and Consent -​ The social contract knowingly excludes women -​ The sexual contract; the subordination of women -​ Politics are defined in the opposition of traits associated with women -​ the liberation of the “sons” is based on and perpetuates the subordination of their wives, sisters, and daughters -​ For those reasons, the social contract perpetuates the patriarchy and male domination -​ Critiques Locke for excluding women in the state of nature- he assumes that women consent to their husbands becoming monarch -​ “This means that women are excluded from the status of “individual” that is basic to consent theory; if a wife’s subjection to her husband has a “natural” foundation, she cannot also be seen as a “naturally” free and equal individual.” -​ Is it believed that when a woman marries a man she automatically consents to all of her husband's sexual demands, perpetuating the notion that rape is impossible in a marriage -​ Rape law had been referred to as the “parody of justice” because the only defense women have is that they didn't consent, but its often really hard to convince the public of this if they do not have physical injuries to prove this -​ The public is convinced that “naturally” sexually aggressive men should disregard a woman's refusal as it’s just a guise to hide her true desires -​