| dc.description.abstract | Although, throughout history, it has not been rare to fight against certain laws or
governmental acts, alleging violations of justice, the expression civil disobedience only
gained the world after the posthumous publication, in the 19th century, of a lecture by
Henry David Thoreau, who originally did not even carry that name, narrating his short
stay in prison for refusing to collect a certain tax from the State, as a result of two main
factors: the tolerance of the United States government to slavery practices and the
promotion, by the American government, of a war of conquest against Mexico. With the
dissemination of the work, contesting movements began to use the term to designate
struggles that, while making use of illegality, employed non-violent methods and used
moral reasons to oppose the order. In the 20th century, two prominent leaders, Gandhi
and King Jr, led extensive civil disobedience campaigns for Indian independence and for
African American civil rights, respectively. In addition to the political leadership of the
movements, Gandhi and King Jr. theorized about civil disobedience, outlining strict
criteria for disobedient action and demanding strong moral discipline from its adherents,
in asceticism very close to religious obligations. In the decades from the 60s to the 80s of
the last century, with the substantial growth of actions entitled civil disobedience, liberal
theorists studied the phenomena of contestation and established parameters for their
configuration, already stripped of the spiritual aspects brought by Gandhi and King Jr.,
enormously helping to consolidate, among public opinion, the idea that civil disobedience
is not to be confused with the disrespect for legislation selfishly carried out by ordinary
criminals, nor does it lend itself to violent revolutions, and that there must be a certain
tolerance for the practice that, even, could help the stability of institutions. The liberal
concept of civil disobedience did not suffer major challenges until the advent of new
movements to confront the order in these first two decades of the 21st century. However,
with the new movements, criticism of the liberal definition increased, to the point that
some theorists found it not very useful for the examination of contemporary contestation.
This work examines the liberal theses on civil disobedience, through two of its most
notorious formulators, Ronald Dworkin and John Rawls; analyzes recent phenomena of
confrontation with order and philosophers critical of the liberal theory of civil
disobedience, such as Robin Celikates and Candice Delmas and, finally, argues that,
although with some limitations, the liberal framework of civil disobedience is still useful
to illuminate the rich contesting scenario at the beginning of the century. | en |
