Mowe 1 Hadley Mowe Senior English (PSU) First Semester: WR 121 December 11, 2008 Civil Disobedience: the

role of the rebel in a democratic society Without much preparation I became wildly curious about the rebel figure. The stereotypes have been prevalent over movies and TV shows throughout my seventeen years. When my interest in rebels began to gain speed, I tried to get a grasp on what being a rebel truly meant with the intentions of following a step by step protocol of rebellious life. In attempt to achieve this goal I would ask those around me what sort of qualities rebels represent. It was with this random surveying that I started to see the consensus of the definition of the rebel. The stereotypes stemming from popular magazines, actors, movie characters, or songs all leading to the same conclusions: young men were the physically rebellious without cause. A young woman might be rebellious in a more mild temper. And those of an older generation would be willing to conform. Although I understood where these stereotypes formed from I knew that the root of rebelliousness lies in the fact that rebels cannot be defined by the majoritys mold. With this notion that the rebel definition had been dramatically shifted, I sought a way to rectify the modern mistake. Popular culture glorifies the rebel. Rebellion is looked at as a silly form of essentially disagreeing with authority. What was once a person that expressed an unique point of view and stood against conformity has been turned into a figure without a cause. Consequently with this loss of meaning in the definition of a rebel comes a

Mowe 2 serious question of future societies. Rebels are responsible for many important political movements throughout American history and are necessary for the continuation of those movements. A democratic society could simply not exist without the rebel. Radicals introduce opposing ideas of the majority creating options for citizens of the society to think about. These options are necessary if there are to be choices that people will vote on. The ability to vote is the very essence of the democratic system so that people will be able to have their opinions heard. In the most basic of understanding it is clear that rebels create options that give the people the ability to see another point of view and to vote on those matters in a democratic society. It is because of the importance of rebels in the democratic society that the current common assumptions become troublesome. Rebellious figures have fought for womens rights, civil rights, and gay marriage. Rebellious figures continue to fight for social justice through student activism and through other controversial government ideas and laws. However, instead of using these examples of rebels in the media, popular culture shows rebels as people without causes. This impacts students heavily. In 1970 G. Louis Heath documented an experiment that is in essence measuring the level of rebelliousness in teens of that date. Using the three criteria of the student rebel as he did, one could potentially measure the rebelliousness of current students. The criteria being: (1) whether they had stayed away from school just because they wanted to, (2) whether they had been sent out of the classroom, and (3) whether they had been suspended from school. Distributing these questionnaires to juniors and seniors could potentially give some insight to the future of the rebels that others may doubt. Authors Joseph R. DeMartini and Chadwyck-Healey are two that believe rebellion is on the decline. This notion is not true. Although the real definition of

Mowe 3 the rebel has been distorted though popular culture, the future of rebellion is not questionable no matter the results of a mock Heath experiment. The reason is the fact that America still functions with the base of a democratic system. In this democratic system people have the freedom of speech and with this freedom there will always be people eager to disagree with the majority whether the issue is trivial or controversial. Contrary to the current popular cultural assumptions concerning rebels, these figure have had and will continue to have a very large influence in the democratic society through revolutionary political movements. No matter what the medias impact has on the reality of the rebel, their ability to have individual opinions heard in a democratic society will allow people to continue in rebellious ways. Rebels have a key characteristic are non-conformists. They disagree with the trends of popular belief. The fact that there are people out there that can go against what is considered to be normal is a relief when one considers the power of conformity and obedience. Rebels create this exception to normal social conduct based upon their principles. However, it is the misconception of the radical mentality that begins to twist the basic definition of what a rebel is. Most people mask violence as rebellion, or reject their morals simply because they are not of the majority, or even group rebels as those that are without principles and simply fighting authority. The real rebel meaning has been washed away in popular culture. What was once considered to be a person that was an individual, someone who would stand up for what they believe in has been twisted into something else entirely. Rebellions are no longer about the reason behind the fight, but an excuse to cause one. In popular culture, characters that are labeled as the rebel show viewers carelessness and

Mowe 4 indifference to the surrounding problems. Rebels in movies and TV shows create the image that teens and young adults are the people that would smoke cigarettes, skip class, or instigate unnecessary fights, earning them popularity. The rebel of modern culture is one that is without meaning and without cause. This rebel has replaced the fundamentals of historical rebels to an unrecognizable point. In reality a non-conformist was a person that did what it was that they believed to be right despite what the majority thought. A non-conformist is not someone who instinctively does the opposite of whatever is assumed just because it is typical behavior. This rebel is someone that is without pressure from any source. A person that is pressured to conform to the majoritys opinion on a matter is not a rebel. That much has remained the same throughout the shifting definitions. However a person that does the opposite of the expected just because it is against the grain is not a rebel either as current popular culture has youth believe. The honest rebel does not do something or not do something according to any other jurisdiction than their own. The shift in the core fundamentals of rebel life has considerably changed the components of what a rebel is. It is hard to define certain characteristics one must possess to be labeled a rebel, but there are some underlying qualities present in a non-conforming person. The experiment done by Heath, as earlier mentioned, is one that attempts to categorize rebellious characteristics. He begins his experiment by surveying high school juniors and seniors. On the survey Heath asks three questions: 1) whether they had stayed away from school just because they wanted too, 2) whether they had been sent out of the classroom, and 3) whether they had been suspended from school. This experiment was created and given as a form of assessment of the rebelliousness of teens in 1970. Despite

Mowe 5 the vast length of time from this experiment to the present, the questions themselves tell readers a few different things. From reading this experiment one would know ways people of the 70s categorized rebellious behavior. With this information someone could compare the ways that Heath defined rebels with how present rebels would be assessed. Could the same questions apply to current high school juniors and seniors? Yes and no. Although these questions could potentially define rebel qualities, without explanations of the cause the survey would remain useless. If a student chooses to skip a class simply because they wanted to, then yes they could be defined as a rebel. This is because this student is not conforming to the assumption that they are required to attend. If this student were rebelling for their own happiness rather then just because it is different then the majority this student could be considered a rebel. However if said student stays away from school to ignore authority rather than for some personal belief then no, they could not be defined as a rebel. Rebellion comes down to the causes behind the action not merely the action itself. It is because of this key principle that assessing the rebelliousness of others, as Heath did, is not plausible in categorizing rebels. The true art of the revolution comes from the basis of fighting for a particular point of view or disagreement with government policies. Because this is true there is no one specific type of person that is rebellious while another person is indefinitely not. Revolutions begin through the identification of something that is wrong within the society. A person may feel that such a problem is worth fighting against through a revolution, rebellion, protest, or political movement--however they see fit to handle the situation. When this person begins to find a group of people who agree with their point of view a rebellion can truly occur. However in this arrangement of forming a revolution

Mowe 6 there is no mention of a particular person that is born to do the job. In movies the hero is glorified as this born leader who is charismatic and single-handedly saves a population of people from a corrupt government. Yet in the reality of a revolution there is nothing that dictates a genetic code for revolutionary people. There is the passion and the cause; All else is unknown. Unlike Heaths theory a rebel cannot be identified through a standard set of characteristics. Through Heaths experiment two things can be definitively learned: 1) one cannot assess rebellious behavior by a persons actions without considering the cause behind it, and 2) by the 1970s the true meaning of a rebel was lost. Because Heath quantified rebellion as causeless in his experiment it is clear that the historical rebel figure was already being twisted. This shifting has continued into the present. Movies, songs, and novels titled Rebel Without a Cause strengthens the ideals of a careless leader without principles. This rebelling to rebel idea is creating unnecessary hostility toward authority figures and excuses to fight against the majority. By rebels being considered causeless, those of the majority opinion resent rebellion whether or not those fighting their argument is morally right or not. Suddenly the introduction of new opinions and ideas are washed away with indifference. For example, I will create a hypothetical situation: The majority of people in a given area believe that cheating on assignments and tests is good. However, one person from the group knows this opinion to be false. With current assumptions and conceptions concerning modern rebels, the impact of fighting for an honest student is not possible. The majority rejects the moral rebel and resent those that do the right thing. A neighboring community may be able from an outside perspective see that the one rebelling is fighting for a moral cause, but without the credibility to oppose

Mowe 7 the majority of their own area this noble notion is not considered. Currently the moral rebel is rejected on account of a carelessness pretense, however, this has not always been the case. Historically rebellions have had powerful political statements that allow those of differing opinions to express what they believe to be right. Although the shift from rebels with a cause to rebels without one is not necessarily something that one could record, major political movements have occurred in American history that identify rebellion as a fight with some supporting principle. Civil rights, womens rights, gay rights are just three major examples of uphill rebellious battles. All of these scenarios are ones that fought against deep set beliefs of the majority of the people in each time frame. Fighting for civil rights, or fighting for womens rights, or for those who continue to fight for gay marriage are not situations comparable to skipping class just because a student feels like it. Clearly the scale of the issues are not the same, but even in the very basic core of these issues are not the same. Creating movements and campaigning for support to gain the right to vote is not something that just happened because it needed to. Without the rebellious minded of those times black men and women, and every woman could potentially be still overtly oppressed. It was not something that someone did just because they felt like it. There was a clear and conscious choice to fight against the majority for a cause that they believed to be worth fighting for. Real rebels have real causes. This statement is not something that is entirely forgotten in modern life. Although the ideals and definition of a rebel is being shifted to mean something much different then what a rebel truly is, the world in not without rebels. In the case of gay rights there are still people fighting for that cause. There are people that stand up against the majoritys opinion for something that they believe to be true. Gay

Mowe 8 rights is not the only case scenario. There are millions of people today fighting for a real cause. However this is not the argument. Rebels have not been lost, merely the definition has been. People assign carelessness and indifference as characteristics of a rebel. Popular culture tells viewers that those people are rebelling against authority, without cause, when the real rebels are continuing to fight for something, for a principle of belief. What needs to be done is to simply reassign the ideals of real rebels to those of popular cultures rebels. Rebellion has not disappeared is has merely been lost in translation over the years. Democracy could not exist without rebellion. There are those who might believe that because of this shift in rebel definition that the future of rebellion has also changed. They may argue that with the current rebel being one that is without cause the essence of rebellion is likely to be forgotten. Stating that radicals will no longer fight to share their dissenting opinion because they feel that it is morally correct to do so but because they want to disagree with any majority vote. And because these future rebels will not be fighting for a cause the future of political movements and rebellions will not contain the same amount of passion and necessity as they once did. It is simply that the definition of the rebel has changed so significantly through popular culture that there is not a way that the futures rebels will be considered the same as the historical rebels that helped to shape American history. I could agree to some of these sentiments: yes, the definition of the rebel has significantly changed. However this does not mean that rebellions are facing their final downfall. As long as there is a democratic system in place, the radical cannot be forced into extinction by popular culture. The democratic system relies on its basis of equality.

Mowe 9 The right to vote on measures and political leaders and essentially have a voice in the decisions made by the government provides the means from which rebels can create political movements. Rebellions allow citizens to voice their principles and beliefs in a society that will hear them. Democracy could not exist without the alternative position. There would be no reason to vote if all people were to conform to what the majority feels is right. Without political movements made by those of differing opinions would women have the right to vote? Would there be any reason to vote at all? Democracy requires options so that the people can be heard and can vote according to what thy believe is right. Rebels provide those options. So what are the components of a healthy democracy? According to Daniel Tetteh Osabu-Kle in his essay titled Democracy and its Practice: A General Theory of Democratic Relativity, The essential or real meaning of democracy derives from two Greek words demos and kratos. Demos means the common people and kratos means rule. Thus, democracy essentially means the rule of the common people. As explained above, any attempt to define it otherwise is a matter of convenience and may have its roots in the difference between what democracy essentially is and how it is practiced. This explains the basics: a democratic government is one that is run by what the citizens want. Because this is the basis of democracy it would be safe to assume that one of the major components of a democratic society would be popular sovereignty, that the ultimate power rests with the people according to their votes. Civil disobedience is a form of rebellion. Civil disobedience is the active refusal to obey any laws that someone views as unjust. Also as a key of civil disobedience, the protests and movements are non-violent. Henry David Thoreau in a sense pioneered the

Mowe 10 act of civil disobedience that has been used as a non-violent tactic to fight unfair laws across the globe and time. Examples include movements in India to become independent of the British Empire, South Africas fight against apartheid, the American civil rights movement, and peace movements worldwide. Citizens practicing civil disobedience may choose to violate a certain law in order to create civil disorder in a non-violent way. In Indias struggle to break free from the British Empire Mahatma Gandhi created a list of techniques to ensure a successful protest: 1. A civil resister (or satyagrahi) will harbor no anger. 2. He will suffer the anger of the opponent. 3. In so doing he will put up with assaults from the opponent, never retaliate; but he will not submit, out of fear of punishment or the like, to any order given in anger. 4. When any person in authority seeks to arrest a civil resister, he will voluntarily submit to the arrest, and he will not resist the attachment or removal of his own property, if any, when it is sought to be confiscated by authorities. 5. If a civil resister has any property in his possession as a trustee, he will refuse to surrender it, even though in defending it he might lose his life. He will, however, never retaliate. 6. Retaliation includes swearing and cursing. 7. Therefore a civil resister will never insult his opponent, and therefore also not take part in many of the newly coined cries which are contrary to the spirit of ahimsa. 8. A civil resister will not salute the Union Flag, nor will he insult it or officials, English or Indian. 9. In the course of the struggle if anyone insults an official or commits an assault upon

Mowe 11 him, a civil resister will protect such official or officials from the insult or attack even at the risk of his life. These techniques became the essence of the non-violent philosophy that Gandhi preached. He drew his inspiration from Thoreaus civil disobedience essay. Civil disobedience is the act of rebellion for which people fight for causes that they believe in. In any form of government society the necessity of civil disobedience rebellion is crucial in the developing of an equality among the citizens. Philosopher Thoreau wrote an essay addressing civil disobedience as a form of moral obligation first published in 1849 titled On the Duty of Civil Disobedience. Thoreau drew most of his inspiration for these ideas from slavery and the MexicanAmerican war. He states, [i]t is not desirable to cultivate a respect for the law, so much as for the right. The only obligation which I have a right to assume is to do at any time what I think right. Law never made men a whit more just; and, by means of their respect for it, even the well-disposed are daily made the agents of injustice. He asserts that because governments of any kind, including a democracy, are more harmful than helpful and therefore cannot be justified. He states that just because the majority is found by the popular vote does not mean that the majority is wise or justified in their decision. Because of these essential claims he explains that with the injustice of the government it is not enough to simply vote in favor of justice, because that is as helpful as wishing for justice would be, but to actually be just through the act of civil disobedience. Political philosophers caution this approach of rebellion and revolution because of the immense amount of damage financially and the amount of suffering that would follow such an act. However Thoreau disputes this cost/benefit claim due to the fact that the government is

Mowe 12 facilitating an injustice like slavery. He argues that this cost/benefit approach would not apply because the injustice of slavery is morally wrong and should therefore be stopped no matter the financial casualties. Thoreau supports civil disobedience as a form of following ones conscience, to fight the injustices proposed by the government through political movements and activism. Just as Thoreau suggests the rebels of the democratic society fight the majority if they believe the popular opinion is corrupt. With these political movements, rebellions, and revolutions rebels, begin to sway the popular vote. Although I agree with Thoreau, that people ought to be just and not simply wait to vote for justice, I also see that both of these ideas can go hand in hand. As rebellious figures go out in civil disobedience to defend or fight for a just solution, the ideas that they are spreading allows others to see from a different perspective. This perspective change can be in a government official, or a citizen originally of the other opinion and when put to a vote, a policy change can be made. Yes, rebels are necessary to the democratic society. They, as Thoreau suggests, actively fight the injustices of the government system through revolutions and rebellions. It is with these rebellions that those people that are not originally persuaded can then recognize the morally correct choice according to their personal beliefs and vote. Democracy has many components, one of which being popular sovereignty. The power to vote on these issues that arise through civil disobedience allow the continuation of new perspectives and government equality. It is quite clear that the rebel is essential to the democratic process by providing the means of differing opinions and movements that can change corrupt policies.

Mowe 13 So what is the future of rebellion going to look like? Could one potentially revert the meaning of rebel to b the one of the figures of history from the common misconceptions of popular culture? Could one potentially create a survey as Heath did to assess the futures rebelliousness? Although it is not necessarily certain what rebel will mean in the future, what it certain is that through civil disobedience and political movements people will continue to be a major part in the democratic system, whether they are titled as rebels or not. Clearly as long as there is a democratic society where the freedom of speech is permitted the art of rebellion cannot be defeated simply because of popular cultures take on rebel life.

Popular culture depicts the rebel as a person that fights without cause. A careless being that is violent and aggressive with no purpose other then that. Yet looking at the many significant political movements throughout American history it is clear that rebellious thought is not causeless. These common misconceptions of rebels lead some to believe that rebellions are suffering a downfall. This cannot be true due to its important role in the democratic society. Rebels provide another perspective on an issue giving options from which the citizens can vote. Radicals have created protests and movements that have changed the opinion of the majority. As long as the democratic system is a part of American culture the freedom of speech will always allow the rebellious opinions to be heard. And so contrary to the current popular culture assumptions concerning rebels, these figure have had and will continue to have a very large influence in the democratic society through revolutionary political movements.

Mowe 14

WORKS CITED Blee, Kathleen M., ed. No middle ground: women and radical protest. New York, NY: New York University Press, 1998.

DeMartini, Joseph R. Where Have All the Radicals Gone?: Some Thoughts on the Consequences of Social Movement Participation. New York, NY: ERIC Clearinghouse, 1982.

Hamilton, Neil A. Rebels and renegades: a chronology of social and political dissent in the United States. New York, NY: Routledge, 2002.

Heath, Louis G. Portrait of the High School Rebel. ERIC Clearinghouse, 1970.

Janoski, Thomas, ed. The handbook of political sociology: states, civil societies, and globalization. New York, NY: Cambridge, 2005.

Jarstad, Anna K., and Timothy D. Sisk. From war to democracy: dilemmas pf peacebuilding. Cambridge, NY: Cambridge University Press, 2008.

Lipset, Seymour M., ed. Who's who in democracy. Washington D.C.: Congressional Quarterly, 1997.

Mowe 15 Matson, Kevin. Rebels all!: a short history of the conservative mind in postwar America. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press, 2008.

Mayers, David. Dissenting voices in America's rise to power. Cambridge, NY: Cambridge University Press, 2007.

McCarthy, Joseph M. When Students Rebel: The American Collegiate Experience. ERIC Clearinghouse, 1970.

Millen, Raymond. The political context behind successful revolutionary movements, three case studies. Carlisle Barracks, PA: Strategic Studies Institute, U.S. Army War College, 2008.

Miller, James. Democracy is in the street: from Port Huron to the siege of Chicago. New York, NY: Simon and Schuster, 1987.

Morgan, Irby. When How it was: four years among the Rebels. North Carolina: University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, 1998.