Assignment 2: Civil Disobedience vs. Radical Militancy

All social movements seek some end, the desired goal around which individuals coalesce into an organized movement. However, the means a movement employs to reach that end can vary widely, from politically sanctioned activism to militant extremism. While many factors influence the approach organizers choose to employ, the approach itself can greatly affect a movement’s success, leaving a question of which strategy is more valid: civil disobedience or more radical, militant protests?

In the history of modern social movements, such fundamentally different methods can be clearly identified in the influential yet diametrically opposed approaches to the African American civil rights movement championed by Martin Luther King, Jr. and Malcolm X. The two men both set out to empower African Americans suffering from the unequal, and often cruel, American legal system. Yet, they held radically different philosophical outlooks on protest and argued for very divergent solutions.

King sought racial integration and equality achieved through non-violent demonstrations and protests he thought would illustrate the moral imperative for integration. By calling public attention to the inequities African Americans faced socially and economically, he made the argument for racial equality — sure that society would change when forced to acknowledge the injustices it created. King drew heavily from Christianity to establish the movement’s moral basis, citing biblical teachings and stories to substantiate his claims for equality; however, he also used secular justifications such as the U.S. Constitution. At its core, King’s philosophy of civil disobedience hinged on effective alternatives to violence — means he believed would prove even more effective than radical alternatives.

Malcolm, on the other hand, did not share such an assumption. He advocated racial separatism and the establishment of autonomous African colonies in the United States, a “separate Black state” (Carson 14), and espoused a militant philosophy that would fight to protect its rights. Malcolm also blended religious and secular thought in his movement’s moral justification. As a member of the Elijah Muhammad’s Nation of Islam, Malcolm was exposed to religious teachings and strong Black role models. He too invoked the nation’s founding fathers; however, he and his peers tended toward more radical passages like the Declaration of Independence’s proclamation of a people’s right to throw off oppressive governments.

Despite these differences, some commentators have suggested the approaches of King and Malcolm X need not be mutually exclusive (see Clayborne Carson’s “The Unfinished Dialogue of Martin Luther King, Jr. and Malcolm X”). In fact, they might have complemented each other had the two men reconciled their views, helping to attain the movement’s broader goals: the establishment of strong, Black-controlled institutions in African American communities and a commitment to equal rights within the country’s political system. Evidence from their correspondences even suggests the men were working toward reconciliation. In a conversation with Coretta Scott King just before his assassination, Malcolm reportedly expressed his belief that the militant movement might serve as a means to strengthen support for King’s non-violent movement: “if the white people realize what the alternative is, perhaps they will be more willing to hear Dr. King.” His statement points the movement’s incorporation of non-violent and militant aspects.

The ultimate assassination of both men ensures we will never know whether true reconciliation would have emerged, but these observations provide a strong basis for evaluating the merit of radically different yet complementary approaches in other social movements.

For example, analysts of the gay liberation movement commonly cite the Stonewall Riots as an essential catalyst — effectively uniting individuals across the country in a single movement. People organized around the emotions Stonewall represented, catapulting the issue to prominence and providing organizers the necessary membership and recognition to enable civil disobedience. In this respect, violent protests seems to complement the movement’s current, non-violent demonstrations, earning it the social and political legitimacy necessary to progress in the public consciousness.

So, if we accept that it is sometimes required, what conditions legitimize the use of violence and contribute to its success? Undoubtedly, such questions cannot be answered by any hard-and-fast rule; however, it may help to point out several factors that may have led to its use or threatened use. In the case of Stonewall, violence resulted from an unanticipated crisis, the police raid of the Stonewall Inn. The stonewallers faced two choices: submit to the police peacefully in the vein of Dr. King’s arrest in Birmingham or actively resist arrest in the likeness of Malcolm X.

History shows that they chose Malcolm’s approach, and as a result, largely succeeded in promoting their cause. However, the success of the event ultimately resulted from the work of movement organizers who seized upon the emotions and momentum the event created. Accordingly, it is not violent protest alone, but its use as a source of constructive power for a movement’s benefit that may legitimize its use.

Arguments over the validity of civil disobedience versus radical protests tend to rely heavily on circumstances. However, analysis of successful social movements illustrates that both means can contribute to a movement’s goal. Thus, as Carson suggests, it seems the debate between the philosophies of Dr. King and Malcolm X can find ground for reconciliation as pragmatically applied to social movements.