I was really intrigued about our conversations in class on Thursday concerning the "civil society."
I would stipulate that civil society is a product of cultural laws of the people, and laws of the government. I would also stipulate that governmental law is all inclusive of pragmatic laws of the time period and area, as well as the fundamental laws that may exist in numerous, if not all just societies.
While I do not think we came to a definite conclusion, I personally think that civil disobedience cannot exist without a genuine civil society. For example, the civil societies of many fascist regimes during WWII I would argue are fabricated, and forced. They are not a melding of cultural and governmental law; they exist in a fake reality, where all laws are either enforced or not by an all powerful figurehead, or heads. One might argue that the complete revolution sparked by Gandhi, which forced the English to abdicate their hold over India, was done in an improper civil society; I would disagree. Just because the regime was overthrown, as opposed to reformed, does not mean that the past regime did not cultivate a genuine civil society within the country. I would argue that the division and extension of power that comes with a colonial system almost insures at least some influence from the cultural laws and customs of the local people.
In conclusion, I think that civil disobedience is not possible without a civil society. In the case of Jewish empathy during the holocaust, and others like it, I would say that this is simply, "disobedience."
A very thoughtful post. If I understand your point about governmental ("positive") law, I think I would demure. The laws of the state are initially outgrowths of the customs and social order of a community, and do indeed come to interact dynamically with it, but I don't think they ever do (or should) absorb completely the customs, mores, and relationships of civil relations.
ReplyDeleteI agree, there cannot be civil disobedience when the social norms you live by aren't concepts you agree with. I would disagree, however, in saying that the English hold over India wasn't an improper civil society. The English forced many things on the Indians (the salt and clothing regulations for instance) that weren't part of their culture, which in my eyes makes Gandhi's movement more simple disobedience than CD.
ReplyDelete