In 2011, current President of the Federal Republic of Germany, Joachim Gauck, discredited civilly disobedient acts committed by supporters of the Occupy Wall Street movement as “ineffably foolish” and, on a different note, warned of a protest culture “that only flares if one’s own front yard is affected.” With the latter statement, Gauck undermined the protest of thousands of demonstrators in the city of Stuttgart who had been engaging in acts of civil disobedience out of frustration about a large-scale construction project on the city’s main train station—a project which they perceived to be neither economically nor ecologically reasonable, nor sufficiently legitimized democratically. These attention-grabbing movements receiving harsh judgements of high state representatives such as Gauck reignited the public debate about the justification of civil disobedience in Germany—a debate that is of everlasting importance among theoretical examinations.
Whereas within this debate it is largely beyond question that citizens of unjust and corrupt states with no legitimately established authority clearly have the right to (even more drastic forms of) resistance, the real challenge lies in answering the following question: How, that is to say, on which grounds and under which circumstances, can illegal means of protest be justified in a prima facie legitimate state?
Table of Contents
1. Introduction
2. Grounds of Justification: A Shared Sense of Justice?
3. Objects of Civil Disobedience: Why “Minor” Injustices Matter
4. Methods of Civil Disobedience: On Justification and Adequacy
5. Concluding Remarks
Research Objectives & Key Themes
The primary objective of this work is to challenge the restrictive Rawlsian notion that civil disobedience is only justified when targeting "substantial and clear" injustices. The author argues that civil disobedience is also justifiable in instances of so-called "minor" injustices, provided that the protest is based on objective moral or legitimacy-related grounds and utilizes adequate methods proportional to the specific injustice addressed.
- The theoretical justification of civil disobedience beyond blatant constitutional violations.
- The relationship between the "gravity" of injustice and the legitimacy of protest methods.
- Critique of Rawlsian and Habermasian frameworks regarding the scope of civil disobedience.
- The role of "minor" injustices (e.g., environmental issues, animal rights) in modern political discourse.
- Developing a differentiated framework that links injustice objects with proportionality of means.
Excerpt from the Book
Objects of Civil Disobedience: Why “Minor” Injustices Matter
Besides the underlying grounds on which civil disobedience is being justified, what is also crucial to assessing its justifiability are the issues it is ascribed to be justifiably targeted at: the objects of justified civil disobedience. Whereas concerning the theoretical grounds authors seem to agree—at least to a certain extent—that the main aspects concern morality and/or (democratic) legitimacy, there are great variations as to which objects justify civil disobedience.
As already indicated in the introduction, according to Rawls not all sorts of injustice suffice to justify civil disobedience. In his world-renowned book “A Theory of Justice” he probably gives one of the most detailed accounts of the sort of injustice he sees as an adequate object of civil disobedience: injustices of a fundamental nature that impede the elimination of other prevalent injustices. He further defines those as severe violations of two fundamental principles of justice that guarantee basic rights: the principle of equal liberty on the one hand, and the principle of fair equality of opportunity on the other. Although he admits that it is not always easy to tell if these principles are in fact being violated, he is convinced that as soon as the practice of denying a certain group of people basic rights becomes institutionalized, the injustice becomes “obvious to all”.
An interesting aspect that might be easily overlooked is that Rawls limits his considerations to injustices within a given society. In times of globalization where the interconnectedness of societies and nations is increasing by the minute, with that, he automatically excludes a variety of injustices of a trans- or international nature that concern more than one society at a time. Thus, his theory is unable to seize i. a. the example of environmental protesters’ acts of civil disobedience in two ways: because they do not primarily defend civil liberties and because problems such as climate change and pollution do not stay within one country.
Summary of Chapters
1. Introduction: The author introduces the debate on civil disobedience in Germany and questions the narrow Rawlsian focus on "substantial and clear" injustices as the sole basis for justifiable protest.
2. Grounds of Justification: A Shared Sense of Justice?: This chapter examines the theoretical foundations of civil disobedience, contrasting the Rawlsian/Habermasian focus on legitimacy with broader moral perspectives like those of Kimberley Brownlee.
3. Objects of Civil Disobedience: Why “Minor” Injustices Matter: The author analyzes what issues constitute legitimate objects of civil disobedience, arguing that "minor" injustices are relevant and that the restriction to fundamental rights violations is arbitrary.
4. Methods of Civil Disobedience: On Justification and Adequacy: This section links the justifiability of civil disobedience to the methods employed, proposing that the graver the injustice, the wider the scope of acceptable protest methods.
5. Concluding Remarks: The author synthesizes the arguments, reiterating that civil disobedience is an essential tool in a mature political culture, even when applied to issues outside the strict Rawlsian framework.
Keywords
Civil disobedience, Rawls, Habermas, minor injustices, democratic legitimacy, moral justification, proportionality, constitutional state, political protest, fundamental rights, Stuttgart 21, environmental activism, Brownlee, political culture, nonviolence.
Frequently Asked Questions
What is the core argument of this work?
The work argues that civil disobedience is not limited to fundamental rights violations but is also justifiable when tackling "minor" injustices, provided the protest is grounded in objective moral reasons and uses appropriate methods.
What are the primary thematic areas covered?
The book covers the theoretical grounds of civil disobedience, the definition of legitimate objects for protest, the role of methods and proportionality, and the invigorative function of civil disobedience in democracy.
What is the author's primary research question?
The author asks on which grounds and under which circumstances illegal means of protest can be justified, specifically challenging whether only "substantial" injustices warrant such actions.
Which scientific methods are employed?
The author utilizes a theoretical and normative analysis, drawing on the works of John Rawls, Jürgen Habermas, Kimberley Brownlee, Daniel Markovits, and Hannah Arendt to critique and expand existing concepts of civil disobedience.
What does the main body of the work focus on?
It focuses on the interplay between the gravity of perceived injustices (objects), the moral legitimacy of the protest (grounds), and the necessity of proportional protest methods (adequacy).
Which keywords best describe the study?
Key terms include civil disobedience, democratic legitimacy, "minor" injustices, Rawlsian theory, and protest proportionality.
How does the author define "minor" injustices?
The author defines "minor" injustices as those which do not primarily concern basic rights or civil liberties, as opposed to the "substantial and clear" injustices identified by John Rawls.
Why does the author critique the Rawlsian framework?
The author argues the Rawlsian framework is too narrow, as it excludes many contemporary protest movements—such as environmental or animal rights activism—that address legitimate issues without focusing on basic rights.
What role does the concept of "adequacy of means" play?
The author posits that there is a correlation between the gravity of the injustice and the methods used; the "thinner" the justification (i.e., less grave the injustice), the stricter the requirement for non-violent and restrained methods.
- Citation du texte
- Jannike Riesch (Auteur), 2016, "Minor" Injustices Matter. On the Justification of Civil Disobedience and the Importance of Adequacy, Munich, GRIN Verlag, https://www.grin.com/document/462231
