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

Happiness is overrated

  A plea for lives built on ethics I don’t seek for happiness.  I don’t bother about whether I am happy or not.  I do what I feel as true and good and I don’t care about whether it brings happiness or unhappiness.  Only the mediocre mind seeks for happiness.  A truly cultured mind seeks for higher values like truth, beauty and goodness and it will seek it even if it leads to much pain and suffering.    Albert Einstein Personal happiness seems the ultimate goal for many in modern society. However, this is a very individualistic value. In a world filled with injustice, we too easily ignore our conscience, which may well be the reason so many of us are unhappy. Let's try to refocus our lives on living ethically and virtuously, and we may find this may end up giving us a much more profound kind of happiness. True happiness is not an individual, but a collective and a moral matter. The cult of the individual It seems like our Western society today is obsessed with being happy. Not only

Meditation: A Practice of Privilege?

  I have been meditating regularly for about ten years now. I have attended and facilitated meditation groups and retreats, in various places in Europe, North America, and Asia, in different (mostly Buddhist-inspired) traditions. I feel very fortunate to have had the opportunity to do so and have experienced great benefits from this practice. However, one thing has kept bothering me all those years. The Buddha claims – and I deeply believe – that his teaching can liberate all beings, yet when I join meditation groups, I often see myself surrounded by rather socially privileged people (just like myself 1 ). W hy does (Buddhist-inspired) meditation in the West seem to attract mainly an academically educated, 2 (upper) middle class audience? Is meditation not relevant for other social groups, or is there something else at play here? (I will focus on class privilege in this article. Gender and white privilege fall beyond its scope. I believe others  to be far better qualified than me to

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