Frazier on Disobedience

Within nearly every country on the planet, there exists a struggle regarding a

citizens moral commitment to the government and his desire to stay true to his own ideals.

Disobedience will inevitably arise and a division will become apparent between loyal

subjects and revolutionaries. Yet there are many factors which shape the level of an

inhabitants allegiance. Clyde Frazier has shown that there is a much broader range of

disobedience than has been previously assumed. In his essay Between Obedience and

Revolution, Frazier looks at previous accounts of disobedience in order to formulate a

unique perspective on the issue.

Philosophers have generally agreed that civil disobedience as an act that is "open,

public, limited and respectful of the rights of other citizens". It is characterized through

speech and those who partake are expected to willingly accept the consequences of their

actions in order to prove their sincerity on the issue. Frazier goes on to say that if indeed

disobedience is only justified as an act of speech, then the unsuccessful disobedient has

only two choices, obedience and revolution. Hobbes believed that obedience was the

correct choice. He would say that we are obliged to obey even a bad law because we must

preserve a system of arbitration which can settle differences between citizens peacefully.

Without a sovereign authority citizens will become unsure of their decisions and

accordingly fall back into a state of nature, which is essentially anarchy. Locke, on the

other hand, adamantly protested that order alone is not a sufficient condition to validate

obedience towards the state. His liberal theory recognizes that the state is capable of

greater evils than the state of war. The Nazi's for example led a ruthless regime which

brutally suppressed much of its citizens and refused to acknowledge their needs.

According to Locke, living in a society like this would justify revolution. Frazier embraces

this liberal theory and shows how it opens the possibility of a much wider range of

disobedience than previously believed.

First