Assignment 3

Civil disobedience has a long history in the United States and in other countries. It is a slower method of perhaps achieving parity for those who feel disadvantaged by the current prevailing policies or practices. In some ways, civil disobedience meets the critieria of making the agent of change the cause or issue rather than focusing on a person or a radical movement.

Radical tactics and practices tend to polarize positions and focus attention on the tactic/practice rather than the issue of disadvantage. It is much easier for those in opposition to proposed changes in culture or practice to hate or dismiss more radical tactics and the persons that carry them out. Radical tactics often inspire equal radicalism from an opposing faction. Radical tactics and practices make it easier for societies and their governments to justify force to maintain the status quo. Throughout history, when an idea or "solution" to a problem has been forced upon a society through fear or intimidation, change occurs only when the persons forcing the change continue to have the power to intimidate, imprision or even kill those in opposition.

Radical tactics and practices are extreme measures used in social movements to create change but sometimes it is the only way to achieve means to an end. As was seen during the gay rights movement, the only way to stop the police from conducting raids was for gay activist to riot against the police. Radical tactics and practices should never be seen as acceptable means to end but are sometimes necessary to create change. If we were to look at the bigger picture one could make the argument that it was acceptable for gay activist to riot against the police and start the movement otherwise many of the changes in laws in favor of gays and lesbians would not exist today. Violence is never the answer to a solution but some times circumstances require for radical tactics and practices.

Any highly emotional issue generally seems to breed both those who engage in civil disobedience and those who behave radically. Dr. King and Malcom X believed in opposite actions to achieve a comparatively common goal. It may be necessary for the radical behavior to bring an issue to the forefront of a society's consciousness. In other words, the "status quo" is often extremely difficult to interrupt. While radical actions often harm both the innocent as well as the perceived oppressors, the issue does tend to become more publicized and therefore more knowledge becomes more common. No change occurs without knowledge; positive changes occur with the understanding that comes from knowledge i.e. the discussions and debates that occur in every household and community and the experiences that are shared.

It seems that those who engage in civil disobedience may be able to take that knowledge of an issue or need however and then encourage the understanding that may then lead to positive change once the radicalism becomes less in the forefront of the movement. Their persistence in keeping the issue current and their ability to interact with their society without polarizing violence may eventually succeed, as occurred in South Africa with Dr. Mandella.
In summary, while there will always be those who favor a radical approach in support of an issue, real societal change does not occur until an understanding of an issue can occur and compromise can be reached. Short-term ocietal change can occur rapidly in response to violence. Long-term societal change takes much longer (witness Dr. Mandela's many years in prison) , but when it occurs the needs of both positions may be better reached with particular attention to beginning to address wrongs that may have occurred and achieving validation (witness Dr. Mandela's presidency).