Discussing Obedience

[Beavah]

Dunno whether this is Program or Working with Kids, but I'll put it here in Issues since it might go astray, eh?

 

In the MPAA thread, Lisabob opines:

 

The part of the scout law that discusses obedience includes this line: 'If he thinks these rules and laws are unfair, he tries to have them changed in an orderly manner rather than disobey them.' And I think it applies in cases like this discussion.

 

Yah, I'm an old geezer, so I mostly remember history rather than study it, eh? But it sure seems to me in terms of legal history that most bad laws get changed not so much in an orderly manner as in a disorderly one. Usually, legal change comes from social pressure, and building social pressure requires a variety of tactics - disobedience, lobbying, coalition-building, economic pressure through boycotts, generation of outrage through marches, etc.

 

Da history of labor laws in the U.S., the repeal of Prohibition, women's suffrage, the civil rights laws, the emancipation of slaves, even the founding of the country all made change in part by being disorderly and disobedient. Fact is, unless you're wealthy enough to buy influence (in which case yeh were probably responsible for passin' the law, and don't want it changed), disobedience is goin' to be part of changin' a bad law. Leastways, any big change where people are makin' profit or privilege from the status quo, but even many smaller ones.

 

So I wonder if we're bein' honest with kids when we quote that Irving interpretation of "obedient" in the Scout Law. Seems to me we owe them a bigger picture.

 

In Scoutin' this comes up as youth try their hand at leadership, eh? How many of us have watched as a new SPL or PL tries on the "dictator hat" in his first attempts to lead? Sometimes a scout should go along in the interest of the group, and sometimes he should passively resist and pull the PL aside, and sometimes he should ignore the PL and quietly go about his business, and sometimes a lot more learning happens when he tells the PL to take a flyin' leap, eh?

 

Leastways, I expect that we all tell our kids that they don't have to listen to the SPL if he tells you to do somethin' wrong, eh? But how about if he tells 'em he gets twice as much cobbler as anyone else?

 

How do you handle the obedience discussion with your boys, especially your teenagers who are gettin' more sophisticated about citizenship (and more attracted to disobedience as a way of asserting their Freedom)?

 

 

 

 

[fgoodwin]

Comparing a principled approach of civil disobedience to downloading a song you don't want to pay for does a great disservice to the heroes of the civil rights era.

[Lisabob]

I'm in agreement with Fred on this in terms of the specific thread. Also while it is true that social change sometimes arises from more violent and/or illegal methods, I would argue that some of the most effective methods of bringing about change in our history (both recent and far past) have also been peaceful and even legal. They may have been a direct confrontation to corrupt power structures but in many cases they were not illegal. Also I think there's a duty to at least try to work within the system before discarding it entirely.

 

But I think the more general question of how you teach kids about obedience and civil disobedience is a good one. I teach American politics & gov't for a living to a lot of politically disaffected college freshmen. I've found that framing this discussion in terms of voice, exit, loyalty works well. If you don't like the way things are you have these three options at your disposal to manipulate. Each of these can take a wide variety of forms, some legal and others not. We explore those and talk about why some of these options are considered illegal or why gov't sometimes has the right to limit their use in terms of time/place (security vs. freedom debate here), and why sometimes people choose these options anyway. Once you get past the most obvious - vote or don't vote - I find the overwhelming majority of college freshmen are remarkably open to voicing disagreement in ways that stay within the boundaries. They just want to know that they have other (legal) options at their disposal that might actually make some difference. I think the same would be true with our older high school aged scouts; the difference between a first semester freshman and a high school student is rather small in most cases.

 

So the SPL or PL goes on a power trip. Well there are ways to respond to that within the confines of troop rules. Voice - Thorns & roses. A discussion at the PLC. A quiet conversation with an adult mentor/ASM/SM. Personal conversation among the boys, email exchange, phone call, etc.. Exit - deciding not to attend the next camp out/patrol meeting, or choosing not to stick around and have that extra helping of cobbler (at someone else's loss) the PL has invited you to take, etc.. Hopefully not to the point of leaving the troop but it is an option. Loyalty - stick with the leader you chose even though you don't always agree, and try to work around the margins to effect change. Question is, how much do you disagree? And will sticking with him make it better or worse?

 

 

[scoutingagain]

I don't think the Beav intended this thread to be linked to the previous discussion on downloading or copying copyrighted material. That's why he started a separate thread. But he can respond to that issue himself.

 

I don't think one can discuss the issue of obedience without include a discussion on how a scout is expected to obey his own moral compass. It's not just about the laws society and governments enact.

 

SA

[fgoodwin]

SA:

 

I understand that civil disobedience is sometimes necessary to bring an issue to the point that the authorities (or courts) agree its time for a change.

 

The reason this thread was spun-off at all is because the whole idea of civil disobedience came up in the MPAA "merit" badge discussion. So I have no qualms about registering my concern in this thread that somehow the application of civil disobedience to civil rights to effect a change in bad laws, means it should be used to justify illegal downloads because some simply don't like existing copyright law.

 

That equivalence is a farce, and does a grave disservice to those who struggled during the civil rights movement of the 60s.

 

Illegally downloading music or software simply because you don't want to pay for it (or saying it in a more principled way: because you "disagree with the law") doesn't rise to the same level. Its nothing more than rationalized law breaking.

[John-in-KC]

There is a life lesson to be taught in WHEN AND WHY one selects disobedience over obedience.

 

The historic events Beavah discussed, save repeal of Prohibition, are all significant in that they advanced who we are as a people. People were WILLING to pay the price of disobedience, that the goal would be achieved.

 

OTOH, many, indeed most, of the mundane activities of the world require a certain level of civil order and peace. We submit ourselves to leadership and regulation because it passes the "why shouldn't we" test.

 

I do like Lisa's Voice, Exit, Loyalty method.

 

As far as doing it in a Troop, one of the best leadership lessons I've used is the BOR and the "how are our meetings?" When the Scout says "we never get anything done..." well, we're off to the races about doing your part, being quiet when others are talking, preparation... Ditto when a campout is going into the tank...

[Lisabob]

"I do like Lisa's Voice, Exit, Loyalty method. "

 

Well I wish I could claim it was mine! Actually this comes from a book written by Aaron Wildavsky and the only claim I can reasonably make to it is that a) like Wildavsky I'm a political scientist by training and profession and b) I like the way he phrased it so use his idea as a basis for discussion in class.

 

 

Lisa

 

[Beavah]

Yah, Fred, this is a different discussion, eh? I'll put somethin' up on the MPAA thread to address those issues in a Scoutin' context for you.

 

While the civil rights movement is our most recent example of "loud" civil disobedience, I think it's an error to believe that ignoring or countermanding a silly rule or ordinance has to be a "big thing." Chinese students marched illegally and were suppressed, but many Chinese officials "accidentally lost" the arrest records and let students go, eh? Is that a less valid means of respondin'?

 

Sometimes rather than loudly disobeying or campaigning, it's enough just to quietly do the right thing, eh?

 

Da L-Bob's schema is interestin', eh, but as far as I can tell it doesn't map all that well into what really happens in legislation, at least on the state and national levels.

 

Resistance to poor law or a restriction on liberty that isn't justified almost always begins by passive disobedience. Only if the enforcement of the law then becomes onerous are other actions contemplated. Best not to make waves and disrupt lives unnecessarily, eh? Like low highway speed limits which were universally ignored and have been gradually repealed. Or like school officials who quietly ignore "zero tolerance" laws when they're stupid, eh? Or the social worker who fudges paperwork to help a family in need get past a bizarre technicality.

 

Only when enforcement gets annoying are other measures invoked. In the U.S., yeh join a lobbying group, give 'em money, and let them try to lobby for corrective legislation. If yeh feel more strongly, you help the lobbying group by writin' letters, vocally campaigning, or stagin' media events which up the profile.

 

But it all starts with passive resistance/insistance on rights.

 

So if the PL declares that he gets twice as much dessert as anyone else, do you argue with him? Start a fight? Go run to da SPL or SM (an option not available in "the real world")? Exit (stop cooking despite your duty roster assignment)? Shut the stove off and demand an immediate "Thorns and Roses" discussion?

 

Or perhaps just cut the pie fairly, and give the first and largest piece to the smallest boy? Disobey by doing the right thing, and confront the Authority with a choice.

 

Character is what you do when no one is watching. Strong character is what you do when people are watching, and pushing you to do the wrong thing.

 

 

[fgoodwin]

Beavah, if there are issues within a troop, there are ways to deal with those, and "civil disobedience", if that's what you want to call it, may be one of those ways.

 

My only point, and after repeating it one last time I'll shut up, is this: if anybody claims they are copying music and software as an act of "civil disobedience", they are full of it -- they are just using that as an excuse to get something for free that they simply don't want to pay for.

 

I'm out . . .

[Beavah]

they are just using that as an excuse to get something for free that they simply don't want to pay for.

 

Pretty negative view of your fellow citizens, eh?

 

If I buy a DVD with the season of "Friends" with Chandler's wedding, and I use DeCSS to decode the DVD so that I can clip a funny scene and use it as part of a short video at my best friend's wedding...then I have committed several infractions of current copyright law.

 

But have I done anything wrong?

 

And if I assert my right to use the DVD I bought any darn way I please, despite the law, am I really just making an excuse for not hiring a professional film studio to license the clip of Friends and create my video?

 

Maybe. Or maybe not. Perhaps I am simply asserting rights I have always had.

 

If a University decides it would best serve its mission by digitizing its entire library, so as to make it more accessible, is that wrong? Just an excuse for not buying a copy of every book for every student?

 

Yah, I think these things are far more complex than you make 'em out to be, kemo sabe. Da law serves the values and the betterment of society, not the other way around. Leastways, that's what I hope we're teachin' our kids.

(This message has been edited by Beavah)

[CalicoPenn]

I think that the variety of tactics Beavah mentions used to affect changes in law fits in well with the concepts in "A Scout is Obedient" (with the caveat that "disobedience" be read as "civil disobedience" as opposed to flat out defiance). All of these tactics are, IMHO, done in an orderly manner in order to affect change. The admonition is that a Scout attempts to have them changed in an "orderly manner" - it doesn't say in a "legal manner". Organized protests, boycotts, acts of civil disobedience, etc. are usually done in a orderly manner.

 

I interpret the "rather than disobey them" to mean that a Scout shouldn't just ignore or flat out defy a law (rule, etc.) they disagree with. In most cases of civil disobediance, a person may end up breaking the law, but if done in an orderly manner, with purpose (such as calling attention to the unfairness of a law), it isn't neccessarily a bad thing.

 

A comment on John-in-KC's response - specifically this part: "The historic events Beavah discussed, save repeal of Prohibition, are all significant in that they advanced who we are as a people." I would argue that the repeal of Prohibition also significantly advanced who we (US Citizens) are as a people. Prohibition was the only clause in the Constitution of the United States that prohibited a thing to the People (other clauses prohibits things to governments). Repealing Prohibition preserved a key concept of the Founding Fathers - that the Constitution is there to protect the individual liberties of the People, not to take them away. There have been many attempts to amend the Constitution to prohibit the People from being allowed to take some action (recent example - prohibition of flag burning). These have so far failed, partly because of our experience with attempting Prohibition. The repeal of prohibition advanced us as a People because it reminded us what individual liberty and freedom is all about.

 

CalicoPenn

[scoutingagain]

Beav also mentioned the founding of our Nation. CP indicated that disobedience be read as "civil disobedience". I throw this out just as point of interest as our country was founded not by simple disobedience, but by outright revolutionaries. They forced a change in the rule of the land by force. This passage excerpted from the Declaration of Independence(A Government Document in the public domain. ) describes the point at which our forefathers felt it necessary to go beyond simple civil disobedience.

 

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security. Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government. The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States."

 

SA

 

[Fuzzy Bear]

Dont cry for me Argentina while I wear the clothes of a princess, while I spend your money as if it were water. I thought of you often as I did so.

 

The bigger picture is that every step that we take is for or against something. We may think that our vote doesnt count or that we can get out of jury duty but we are only sidestepping the issue that we are the government. Downloading or not downloading is not the issue as much as that we are setting policy on how we want to be governed. We set laws by our actions or inactions. We cannot get away from being part of government. Being disobedient, sitting quietly in a corner watching TV or casting that one vote defines government.

 

The boy run Scout Troop is a good example of government in miniature. The Dictator can be thrown out, as in a superpower such as Russia. Liberation can be brought to the masses as in South Africa. Where people were silenced, they may now speak, even though limited as in China. Individuals are important even if the war has not been won or the vote miscounted or even if votes were thrown out. Government is a form of the beliefs of those governed and where it is contrary to those beliefs; it will manifest itself in one way or the other. fb

 

[Lisabob]

Agh! What WAS I thinking!??! It was A.O. Hirschman who wrote Exit, Voice, and Loyalty and not Wildavsky. (Wildavsky wrote one of my other favorites, Speaking Truth to Power) Enough to get me pilloried around the departmental water cooler at work, if we actually had one.

 

Lisa'bob

[Beavah]

Yah, you must be an academic there, Lisa'bob? No tempests in teapots quite like those in the teapots of da Ivory Tower.