Uncivil Obedience
It seems inevitable that America is headed into an era of unprecedented social unrest. If the new authoritarian regime lives up to its promises, the moral imperative of our citizenry demands us to stand up for those most-vulnerable, for each other, for the planet and for a shared idea of a better humanity. The American experiment requires we protest an unjust government. The unjust government promises to jail those who do as it dismantles our society. As I write this, the Clash’s Guns of Brixton resonates in my head, “When they kick at your front door, how you gonna come?”
In 2014 I attended a social exercise centered on community education in the principles of non-violent direct action. The organizer of the exercise asked attendees to self-identify according to their comfort level with those acts of civil disobedience they’d be wiling to commit in solidarity with an issue important to them. The attendees were fairly representative of the liberal/arts community in which this exercise was taking place, spanning ages, identities and backgrounds - BIPOC, white, queer, straight, old, young. In the wake of the killings of Eric Garner, Michael Brown and Tamir Rice, most in attendance had acknowledged participating, in some form or another, to protest against the killing by police of unarmed Black people.
The group of about 40 participants was told to stand at one end of the room. The organizer said, “Anyone who would participate in a protest march, take a step forward,” and all of the participants stepped forward.
“Anyone who would participate in a work strike, take a step forward,” and most of the group stepped forward.
“Anyone who would participate in a direct action that might result in your arrest, take a step forward,” and most of the group stepped forward.
“Anyone prepared to be tear gassed in a protest, take a step forward.” This invoked the largest break in the group stepping forward, but still more than half of the original group was willing to risk being tear-gassed for something they believe in.
The organizer reached the last prompt, “Anyone who would participate in the destruction of property, such as breaking the window of an international bank, step forward.”
Out of the 40, a single person moved forward to cross that last line, but the other 39 were triggered into unanimous revolt against the destruction of property and spent the next 20 minutes vehemently defending the rights of the property owners. They said any type of property damage was “unfair” and “too violent.”
The dissenter paraphrased Martin Luther King, Jr., that a broken window is the voice of the unheard, a last resort for those who are threatened with real violence. MLK, Jr. didn’t advocate for it, but he understood it.
The majority was unmoved.
As Inauguration Day looms to usher in an administration openly committed to the systematic cause of harm to people and the planet, the destruction of democracy, oppression of civil, human and constitutional rights, the dismantling of institutions of thought and humanity, and violent retribution to the opposition, I’m wondering if the calls for property to be unharmed will still be more vociferous than the calls for humanity to be unharmed, if property over people is still the break in the solidarity of fighting the real violences. When they kick at our front door, how are the American people gonna come?
Poverty is violence. Racism is violence. Misogyny is violence. Human trafficking and exploitation is violence. Homelessness is violence. Starvation is violence. Destruction of the environment is violence. Billionaire wealth-hoarding is violence. Loss of agency over our own bodies is violence. Genocide is violence.
If your voice is loudest to protect a window, you’re doing it wrong.
I think of 'Silent Running" by Mike and the Mechanics.