Publication Type: Conference Paper/Unpublished Manuscript
Abstract: There is a long tradition in political theory that recognizes the right of a citizen, in limited circumstances, to disobey unjust laws. But standing athwart this tradition, or so it is widely believed, is the giant figure of Socrates, who, by means of his death and dialectic, supposedly argues in the Crito that justice requires absolute obedience to the laws of the state. However, complicating this picture of Socrates as the enemy of civil disobedience is his apparent insistence in the Apology that he would refuse to abandon the practice of philosophy even if the law should forbid it. _x000d_I defend two related conclusions. First, there is no inconsistency between the positions Socrates puts forth in the Apology and the Crito; and second, the reason there is no contradiction is that, contrary to the received view of Socrates, he does not in fact regard all instances of civil disobedience as unjust. Even if Socrates believes that justice forbids him to escape from prison, it is plausible to interpret his arguments as permitting some instances of civil disobedience, including peaceful violations of the law that occurred during the American civil rights movement.

Publication Type: Paper (prepared oral presentation)
Review Method: Peer Reviewed
Abstract: Recent episodes of public dissent have staked their claim to a profound focus on the meaning of disobedience within democratic systems, raising relevant questions concerning the psychological processes set off in obeying and disobeying the authority, and on the role that disobedience has in the relationship between individuals and society. Are acts of disobedience a form of non-institutionalized political action or some form of social deviance? What is the difference between pro-democratic disobedience and the disobedience that does not lead to democracy? Dahl’s political theory suggests that democratic ideals and values are fundamental for procedural and institutional democracy. The aim of this research was to consider the relationship between the ideological dimension of democracy and the meanings attributed to obedience and disobedience. We stress the differences between the dimensions of obedience and disobedience, distinguishing at least between responsible obedience and blind obedience and between pro-social disobedience and anti-social disobedience. Three studies were conducted on the World Values Survey data: Study 1 verifies the hypothesis of complementarity according to which obedience and disobedience represent complementary aspects of the support for democratic values; Study 2 verifies the hypothesis of prosociality of disobedience underlining under which psychological condition disobedience can be considered as prosocial and prodemocratic; Study 3 investigates the hypothesis of causality, according to which individual attitudes towards disobedience are predictive of the level of democracy at institutional level.

Publication Type: Conference Paper/Unpublished Manuscript
Abstract: ABSTRACT: Jonathan Mayhew, pastor of Boston’s West Church from 1747 to 1766, introduced many New Englanders to radical Whig resistance theory in his 1750 sermon, A Discourse Concerning Unlimited Submission and Non-Resistance to the Higher Powers. Mayhew’s adoption of “rational dissent”—the confluence of British Enlightenment rationalism and English Protestant dissent—provided the motive and method of his argument. Criticism of English Protestant dissenters by high-church Episcopal Tories spurred Mayhew to justify Parliamentarian resistance to King Charles I in the 1640s. By applying rationalist hermeneutics to his interpretation of Romans 13: 1-8, Mayhew developed a civil theology that reconciled the Christian duty of obedience with the natural right of resistance. The Discourse evoked passionately positive and negative responses along sectarian lines. By persuading them that popular resistance was compatible with Christian conscience, this sermon helped prepare the New England public and their lay and secular leaders for opposition to British Crown rule in the 1760s and 1770s.

Publication Type: Paper (prepared oral presentation)
Abstract: This paper attempts to demonstrate why labor unions are generally more effective at representing laborers than student unions are at representing students. A case study was undertaken in which the policy of the University of Prince Edward Island Faculty Association was compared with the policy of the Student Union of the University of Prince Edward. Next, these policies were compared with John Rawls conception of an effective procedure for civil disobedience, in his classic work, A Theory of Justice. The paper explores the ways in which each uses Rawls’ procedure which consists of three stages: 1) Negotiation, 2) Legal Action and 3) Civil Disobedience. It was found that the labor unions, while representing their members, tended to follow Rawls’ Civil Disobedience procedure much more closely than the Student Union. Therefore, it was concluded that modern student movements could be much more effective at representing their students if they were to follow the model described in, A Theory of Justice.

Publication Type: Conference Paper/Unpublished Manuscript
Abstract: Civil disobedience is the deliberate violation of law committed in public as a form of protest. Since the civil rights and anti-war movements of the 1960s, its practice has become a regular feature of the struggle for peace and social justice. Yet little is known about the characteristics of those engaging in civil disobedience or about the personal and political consequences resulting from their actions. What demographics characterize the seasoned protestor? How are protestors handled by the police and treated while in state custody? What are the consequences of their public dissent both personally and professionally? Have their actions resulted in meaningful policy change, and how do protestors define "meaningful?" The present study utilizes a snowball sample of activists arrested for past involvement in civil disobedience to gather information about the precursors to and consequences of civil disobedience in the post-civil rights era.