I had been working on the section of Discussion Group that is about Civil Disobedience (it is still in the construction and editing phase), when Jenni gave me a communication from her school, a communication that I was to sign. My work on DiscussionGroup was dealing with the philosophical civil disobedience, with the reality of death of peaceful people, with oppressive governments that ended up murdering their own citizens, with governments willing to do whatever they wanted to do to maintain control and adherance to that government's interests. The communication had no such dire consequencies - or did it?
To set the stage: the communication said Jenni's class (with Jenni) was required to be at a musical contest and that those who did not attend would fail the class. The trip to the contest had been arranged by the school - a bus that had been paid for with school funds, and the trip was approved of by the school. However they did not have enough money to arrange the trip home and so we (parents and guardians) were required to pick up the children and see that they got back home. The note required the signature of a responsible person (parent or guardian), a signature which clearly stated that the child could go on the bus and that the parent/guardian would be responsible for anything that happened to the child on the bus!
My reaction: My first thought was - why do I have to sign it, and my second thought occuring at the almost the same time was how can I agree that someone else is not responsible for their actions? This seemingly innocent paper with this seemingly mundane requests is intimately connected to Spring Holidy, Occupy, Civil Rights protests of the 1960s and all the rest of what I am writing about. I had an almost biological inability to sign that paper. In fact, I did not sign the paper. It seemed so obvious to me that anyone would immediately see the danger of my signing such a paper. It came as a shock to me that it would need explaining, but I found that it did need such explaination - and that few could feel and intellectually grasp the close connection between my signing such a paper and two American war veterens being killed in Occupy movements in the USA.
My logic: First this definition from Infoplease
...civil disobedience, refusal to obey a law or follow a policy believed to be unjust. Practitioners of civil disobediance basing their actions on moral right and usually employ the nonviolent technique of passive resistance in order to bring wider attention to the injustice. Risking punishment, such as violent retaliatory acts or imprisonment, they attempt to bring about changes in the law. In the modern era, civil disobedience has been used in such events as street demonstrations, marches, the occupying of buildings, and strikes and other forms of economic resistance....
It appears to be that it deals with the relationship of the individual (or group of inviduals) and a governing group. The school is not truly a governing group, but the situation is the same. None the less, how much freedom do we have in dealing with any person or entity (governmental or not)? Where does that freedom stop? What responsibility do each of us have to maintain and retain our freedom?
First, the school says if I do not sign the document, Jenni will fail the class. So, of course, the question must come to mind - what is the point of my signing it at all. If I MUST sign why do I need to sign a paper saying I will do it? If I sign the paper I tacitly agree that I have no choice - that I have no freedom - that I am not acting with the school in a joint effort to educate Jenni - but instead am being forced to do so.
Secondly - the more important of the two to me - is that I am being told that if I agree that Jenni can go to the contest I agree that the school and all the persons given authority by the school will have no responsibility for what happens to her while she is in their care. Even the most elementary thought will reveal immediately that this is completely ludicrous. If I sign it, it has no legal meaning currently. BUT,
"In the end, more than they wanted freedom, they wanted security. They wanted a comfortable life, and they lost it all -- security, comfort, and freedom. When ... the freedom they wished for was freedom from responsibility, then Athens ceased to be free." -- Sir Edward Gibbon (1737-1794)
If I support - or agree with - or even sign because "why fight it? it is meaningless", I give support to those who want freedom from responsibility - and if they are supported by consensual inactivity it will be seen as a consensual validation of their position. So it is important to point out the obvious - it is important to refuse to sign that which is invalid - that which reduces responsibility and freedom.
Write a comment