POLITICAL/SOCIAL PHILOSOPHY

Gustav Kpeyibor, SJ

What is the difference between anarchism and civil disobedience?

Anarchism is a political philosophy theory that advocates for a stateless society; a society with no
government, no authority or supreme power. Wolff asserts that anarchism arises from the conflict
between authority and autonomy. Therefore the link between anarchism and authority and
autonomy cannot be overlooked. According to his thesis, mans primary obligation is autonomy,
the refusal to be ruled. Hence, fulfilling this obligation as an autonomous law giver places the
rational being in a conflictive position to reject the legitimacy of state authority and deny the
binding moral obligation to obey its commands (Wolff, 18). Anarchism holds that a society
without the state or government is both possible and desirable. Anarchists oppose the state.
Civil disobedience occurs when a citizen or group of citizens deliberately disobey a law in order
to register their displeasure of that law as unjust or immoral. It is often a public and peaceful
demonstration. Rawls defines it as a public, non-violent, conscientious yet political act contrary
to law usually done with the aim of bringing about a change in the law or policies of the
government. By acting in this way one addresses the sense of justice of the majority of the
community, (Rawls, 320). South Africas fight against apartheid and the American Civil Rights
Movement are some instances where civil disobedience has been employed. But is it right to break
the law? Is obedience to the law justifiable? Can civil disobedience be justified?
In Crito, Socrates argues that even if the law treats one badly, it is never right to break the law. He
further argues that one has the obligation to obey the law in return for all the benefits of the state.
So long as one is born into a society and lives under the state, one is bound by the obligation to
obey the law. One of the primary duties of a legitimately constituted state is to protect the safety
of life and property. This is the basis of the social contract, according to Rousseau and Locke. The
blatant violation of this contract without moral justification is untenable. This renders anarchism
untenable, at least legally and morally; it would result in social and political disorder. Rawls and
Dworkin would agree that one has a right to civil disobedience if the law being opposed violates
1

ones right. Dworkin argues that this right is entailed by the other rights the law has violated,
(Nickel, Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy). For Rawls, civil disobedience should be the last
resort when all legal attempts to amend the law have failed. It must be non-violent. This is
consistent with Mahatma Ghandis principle of Ahimsa in his book, The Story of My Experiments
with Truth, and Martin Luther Kings Letter from Birmingham Jail. If the duty of the state is to
safeguard the safety of life and property, then any act that threatens this duty is unjustifiable.
Unlike anarchism, civil disobedience acknowledges the authority of the state and the obligation to
abide by its laws. Rawls identifies what civil disobedience entails: a public, non-violent,
conscientious yet political act aimed at soliciting a change in an unjust law or policy for the
common good. Anarchism, on the other hand, is indeterminate and lacks a clear definition of any
specific guiding principles. Anarchism could thus be violent, divisive and destructive not only for
the individual, but also for the society. It could result in a total revolution or civil conflict.
Individuals engaged in civil disobedience take responsibility for their actions and are willing to be
arrested for breaking an unjust law. An anarchist denies such responsibility.
Freedom and responsibility are necessary conditions for autonomy. Exercising the capacity of
freedom to choose and act implicitly demands the moral obligation to take responsibility for the
consequences of ones actions. Thus, a rational being acknowledges that s/he is bound by some
moral constraints. Being a social being by nature, man relinquishes absolute autonomy to enter
into the social contract in order to be governed and abide by the laws of the state. This however
does not deny the rational being the right to criticize and object to unjust laws that violate the rights
of the individual or citizens. I think that it is a moral obligation to reject unjust laws and amend
them for the common good without rejecting the authority of the state.
Civil disobedience and anarchism are both contrary to law. The former could degenerate into the
latter and threaten the safety of life and property, which goes against the primary function of the
state. By renouncing violence, civil disobedience is more appropriate than anarchism.
2

References
Wolff, Robert Paul. In Defence of Anarchism. Berkeley: University of California Press. 1998
Rawls, John. A Theory of Justice. Revised ed. Cambridge: The Belknap Press of Harvard
University Press. 1999.
Nickel, James, "Human Rights". The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. (Spring 2014 Edition).
Ed. Edward N. Zalta. http://plato.stanford.edu/archives/spr2014/entries/rights-human/. Accessed:
6 September 2014.