Saying “No” to the State

Abstract

Saying No to State Civil Disobedience: An American Tradition. By Lewis Perry. (New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 2013. Pp. 407. Cloth, $35.00.)At first glance, front cover of this book seems to be an arbitrary patchwork of blacks and grays. When looks again, cover is seen to display shadow on a sidewalk of a group of persons standing hand in hand to form a human chain.Between its covers book explores substance of an American tradition of popular resistance to authority known as disobedience.Viewed in an academic manner, this loses some of its vitality. Professor Perry begins his discussion with a heroic effort to overcome that obstacle. He insists that words alone cannot explain all that is meant by disobedience. Is word intended to indicate that protagonist is civilized, that is, nonviolent, respectful of antagonists, and prepared to accept punishment by courts? Must be directed against a particular law or policy or may it challenge a more comprehensive orientation, such as expanding slavery or maintaining capitalist control of workplace? And are there not some activities in this tradition that seek to compel obedience, as Freedom Riders sought compliance with decisions of United States Supreme Court mandating racial integration in interstate bus travel?Accordingly, Perry sets aside semantics, and, after a few introductory paragraphs, plunges into a narrative of two episodes of civil at Gallaudet University in Washington, DC.Student protests in 1988 and 2006 resulted in dismissal of two Gallaudet presidents. In escorting reader through these events, Perry shows that words disobedience can be used to describe conduct with outwardly similar results but dramatically different overtones. If measured by criterion of whether or not protest furthered creation of a beloved community, 1988 protest activities unquestionably did so but later campus insurgency did not.The reader is asked to compare two sets of blogs assessing what happened in 2006. The author of series of comments was Jane Hurst, chair of Philosophy and Religion Department. Hurst characterized 2006 events as threatening, retaliatory, and vindictive. The other perspective was articulated by a blogger known as Ridor. Ridor rejected a civil that is required to be polite. As he saw it idea was to be effective, by any means necessary.Professor Perry asks whether or other of these contrasting views of civil can be considered the right one (10). He answers, persuasively in my opinion, No. As a matter of historical fact, each of these perspectives has frequently been projected, acted out, and justified to wider world. Perry states that the point-counterpoint implicit in dialogue at Gallaudet can be taken as identifying my core subject (10).Having imaginatively offered these general observations about civil disobedience, Professor Perry reverts to a more conventional chronological journey through his subject.Many Americans suppose that this country's tradition of civil began with Tea Party of December 1773. Perry is not so sure. Unlike nonviolent protestors who willingly identify themselves and expect to be punished, men who threw chests of tea into Boston harbor dressed as Indians, blackened their faces, and have remained substantially anonymous for more than 240 years. That they concealed who they were suggests that protagonists feared they might be criminally prosecuted, and sought to avoid it.1As an alternative starting point for tradition of civil disobedience, Professor Perry presents religious protest, first by dissenters (like Baptists and Quakers) to an established church (Puritan or Anglican), then against removal of Native Americans from their homeland in South. …