According to Eric Fromm, a rebel is an individual who does not compromise with the prevailing circumstances for the obviously perceived desirable outcome during a contentious escalation; while a revolutionary is one who does not keep quiet in the face of corrupt leadership but chooses to raise a voice of concern (Fromm 1). The Civil Disobedience shares great insight about transcendentalism ideologies. The Civil Disobedience is one of the most controversial topics ever done and discussed in philosophy. Fromm primarily argues that it is essential for a person to engage reason and critical thinking to arrive at conscientious decisions rather than blindly conforming to irrational laws put in place by unjust governments (Lefkowitz 222). The failing American policies coupled with the war against demonstrations of the celebrities, civilians, and athletes are a show of positive disobedience.
Based on the civil disobedience analogy, the government systems never prove themselves of worth in a civilized society. Therefore, Fromm does not support the idea that honesty, integrity, transparency, and justice are necessarily mainstreamed by huge masses of people (Fromm 4). Though the majorities form the governments on the concept of Democracy, most individuals who champion civil disobedience assert that even the minority has a right to express what their conscience outlines as the right to be done (Thoreau 10). On the other hand, Fromm contends that people should boycott the law if they feel it is both misguiding and misadvising. The proper approach to this is by refusing to cooperate with the government, not even accepting to hold political offices. By so doing, one distances themselves from unjust institutions of leadership. Indeed, the deduction of recent movements, athletes/celebrities, and civilians expressly categorizes the then government as of unjust precepts, founded on malice and irrationality, owing to limited concern for the rights of the people in different spheres of social life (Scheuerman 609).
On the other hand, a revolutionist does not believe in civil institutions, for instance, the process of voting. Rather, civil disobedience maintains that voting does not meet the necessary reforms in government; rather the political systems are manipulated to favor the irrational majority (Lefkowitz 233). People who choose to do mass movements in solidarity against unjust treatment are justified in their acts to enhance their intellectual development. In fact, by so doing, those who appeal to civil disobedience become advocates who champion the fight against unjust governments from outside its corridors of power, for nobody employed by or working in government could properly mirror the reflection of its malpractices in the American society. Despite the justified constitutional rights of people to practice mass movements, in most cases, they are often met with extreme rebellion from those in government and those who emerged as clandestine espionage characters. The effort to counter the attack typically lacks the needed progress, but the situation could only get worse in a society whereby change is not embraced.
Indeed, civil disobedience is often characterized by campaigns for religious independence and social tolerance amidst prejudice against those who champion such freedoms (Fromm 3). There are clear-cut differences between the arguments of Fromm and the points of contention by other civil disobedience activists like Thoreau; Civil Disobedience. In America is embraced to counter the undermined basic human rights for those who feel oppressed hence the mass movements, a situation that greatly polarizes the security of the country, as sentimentalism, racism, and hates become common vices among the people. Naturally, revolutionists emerge, and factions of civil disobedience ensue to fight for freedom. Consequently, the recent movements in the US cannot be condemned in any way, because the people demonstrating were simply exercising their intellectual development.
Civil disobedience does not necessarily portray the difference between revolutionists and rebels. However, those who participate normally risk their lives, to fighting for the dispensation of the very rights of common citizens. Fromm makes it clear that all human beings can reason and make their rational decisions. In this manner, he contends that the conscience of people to embrace a given form of social life or cultural practices free from the direct influence of the state is vital (Fromm). Typically, civil disobedience as portrayed by rebels and revolutionists alike is that the government is unjust. It thus melts down into common virtues that both categories of people advocate and champion for the liberty of every single individual in socio-political and religious segments of human life.
The many confrontations disobedient civil advocates face to the most part is a reflection of the unjust government policies that compromise rights and freedoms of civilians, hence the recent mass demonstrations by celebrities, civilians, and athletes in the US (Scheuerman 611). The agitation for uprisings against the law is intentionally meant to sensitize the main stream society against unfair treatment on the part of powers that be. To the most part, therefore, it is apparent that both rebels and revolutionists under the umbrella of civil disobedience advocate for just governments which allow civilians to make conscious individual-based decisions, practice tolerance, and achieve the independence of the mind. All these aspects of controversy lead to better social lives, full of dignity and human rights for the present and future generations.
Works Cited
Fromm, Erich. “Erich Fromm On Disobedience.pdf.” 2016: 1–8. Web.
Lefkowitz, David. “On a Moral Right to Civil Disobedience.” Ethics 117.2 (2007): 202–233. Web.
Scheuerman, William E. “Whistleblowing as Civil Disobedience: The Case of Edward Snowden.” Philosophy and Social Criticism
40.7 (2014): 609–628. Web.
