Skip to main content

Escapism and the Duty of Civil Disobedience

In 1849 Henry David Thoreau wrote his famous essay On the Duty of Civil Disobedience. In it he states – at the time inspired by slavery and the Mexican-American war – that if one considers a system to be unjust or immoral, one has the duty to stop partaking in it, ‘the duty to wash his hands of it and […] not to give it practically his support.’ Thoreau’s writing inspired both Gandhi and Dr. Martin Luther King in their ideas of nonviolent resistance. Dr. King writes about him: ‘noncooperation with evil is as much a moral obligation as is cooperation with good. No other person has been more eloquent and passionate in getting this idea across than Henry David Thoreau.’[1]

Some people criticize me when I choose not to partake in everyday society but rather travel and go to live in ecological or spiritual communities abroad. They say it is a form of escapism, trying to get away from the duties and responsibilities of society, living in a dream and not willing to face everyday reality. And you know, I think they are absolutely right, apart from one aspect: that that be a bad thing.
Wikipedia defines ideology as a comprehensive set of normative beliefs, conscious and unconscious ideas, that an individual, group or society has. It is typical for any ideology in society, that it considers its way of living the best and only one and any deviation as a threat against it. This is a way for the system to protect itself. As Thoreau says: A very few […] resist [the state] for the most part and they are commonly treated as enemies by it.
However, any given society is not necessarily the best one. Thoreau writes: It is not armed with superior wit or honesty. There may be good forces active in it, but it is also a product of historical and cultural circumstance. It is made up of people, and therefore it is imperfect. It has evolved through the centuries, and though it will always clad itself in a myth of inevitability, it definitely is not. As mentioned, it claims to be the only way, and that is how it keeps the system going. People put their blinders on, everybody happy, or not?
Because society is not morally superior, Thoreau reasons, it is not a higher law, and one is not morally obliged to follow it. The only obligation which I have […] is to do at any time what I think right. In other words, you do not have to follow the threaded paths if you do not believe in them. If you do not believe it is the best way for people to live together, if it does not fulfill your deepest desires as a human being, by all means, do not do it. Your only duty towards your fellow man is to live a live that is true to you. So you can go out there and live your dreams, try to establish a different kind of society and be the change you want to see in the world. This is the duty of ‘civil disobedience’ as Thoreau calls it. He himself chose to live a simple and quiet life in the woods in Walden. For now, I choose to join a spiritual-ecological community in India.
And I do not believe this really is a form of escapism. Again, this thinking is part of the ideology. Ideology says there is a system and you can either be inside or outside of it. You are either part of the gang or you are not. Ideology splits up the world in two sides: the good ones and the bad ones. But the truth is, there is no such divide. There is only one mankind and we are all connected to it. No matter how hard we try, lest we kill ourselves and eradicate ourselves from everyone’s memory, we will always be connected to others. Any act you make will influence those around you and the society of man at large.
Of course, the system will always try to brand people who do something completely different as ‘hippies’, ‘weirdos’, ‘escapists’ or ‘radicals’, but this is just because it does not want to give any serious credit to any other ideals than its own. This is how the system prevents change. But the truth is, and the system know this –  that is why it reacts so heavily against it – that this is the only way to create real change. If no one would be trying to do something radically different, the system would never be really challenged, and nothing would ever really change. It is only through ‘escapist’ utopian ideals and action that people can be shown a different way of living. Thoreau says: Action from principle is essentially revolutionary. […] Let your life be a counter-friction to stop the machine.
Live the life you really want to live. Be true to your ideals. Be radical if need be. Be revolutionary. Be ‘civilly disobedient.’ Do not let yourself be turned down by talk about ‘fitting in to society’. Follow your heart and escape.




[1] The Autobiography of Martin Luther King, Jr

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Humanity 2.0 - 10 Principles for a Compassionate Society

Great news! I co-authored a book, and it finally got published! It is called Humanity 2.0 - 10 Principles for a Compassionate Society . I wrote it together with Aviram, the founder of Sadhana Forest , the community in India where i lived for 7 years. In a nutshell, it is a book about the vision and values behind Sadhana Forest. It offers an in-depth discussion of the ideals of Aviram and his family, on which he built Sadhana Forest and which he has been putting into practice for over 20 years. So it is not a book about Sadhana Forest as such, but about how to create an inclusive and compassionate life and community, in terms of parenting, education, health, economics, community etc. Quite broad and ambitious! The book is based on Aviram's experience, combined with a lot of research.  What was my role in the birthing of this book? When i came to Sadhana Forest, i always felt so inspired to hear Aviram talk, and i wanted everyone to be able to receive his wisdom. I approached Av...

What's the matter with foreign aid? (3) Towards collaborative aid

In the first part of the essay, we sketched the economical and political historic background of the current aid system. In the second part, we looked at things in the current NGO-based aid system that are not quite optimal. In the final part, I will start addressing solutions, based on my own experience. What does impactful, effective NGO work look like? We should focus on a paradigm of collaborative, community-based aid, rather than aid delivery. How to create good conditions for people? An impactful paradigm is grassroots and not top-down. Local people should be co-creators, who, with the support of aid agencies, move towards becoming more independent and self-sustaining. Aid oughtn't be ‘pushed’ on local people. The Listening Project talks about a ‘collaborative aid system’.(1) You could also call it a community-based approach, where you strengthen local communities by building strong ties with them and giving them the support that really need. You achieve this by taking your ...

What's the matter with foreign aid? (1) Development as colonialism

This is the first part of a three part critique of our aid and development model. This first part of this essay is a brief look into the historical context of our current development paradigm. (1) I grew up believing that something changed after WWII, there had been a global awakening, and the start of a period marked by international collaboration and respect for human rights, advanced by such historic achievements as the founding of the United Nations, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the independence of former colonies. Based on these new foundations, there would be a steady progress towards, peace, freedom and equality, thanks to a process called 'development'. I am a bit older now, and have worked for nearly 7 years in this field of development. My optimism has faded, and I am starting to fear it may have been a naive childhood illusion. Has anything really fundamentally changed? Development as we know it today started after the second World War. At the end of...