“Civil Disobedience” by Henry David Thoreau

Our discussion of justice continues with one of America’s more revered essays for individual rights and radical resistance, a work which inspired Ghandi and Martin Luther King Jr. decades later. Thoreau certainly doesn’t waste any time, either. He spells out his opinions passionately and boldly, and he advocates an essentially radical course of action: be willing to break the law if your government is doing something immoral.

Having said that, I must disagree with Thoreau; I think that what he advocates undermines the overriding purpose of government in the first place. In other words, if you follow Thoreau’s suggestions you’re hurting your situation more overall than you’re helping, and for however unsuccessful a government may be, you’re only making it worse this way. That’s because we exist in system not unlike Rousseau’s social contract; we willingly sacrifice certain individual liberties for the good of a larger community and thus larger liberties, like security and pooled efforts. This system hinges on individuals working in concert with each other with laws mutually agreed upon, not people walking off or breaking laws just because they, as minority individuals, disagree. For example, if a community votes on a particular moral issue, the majority vote ought to rule. If the failing minority just walks away or disobeys these communal decisions, the whole point of shared trust and social compromise is defeated, and as Rousseau might say, once one person breaks the contract, the whole pact is off.

Furthermore, governments, because they must account for as many individual citizens as possible, need to create lengthier processes for evaluating, voting upon, and acting upon political decisions. Though Thoreau is right to claim that individuals enjoy an “alacrity” governments do not, governments could not properly address so many citizens’ needs and desires without taking more time and care in the process. For example, it may only take me ten seconds to decide what I want to happen to guns in this country. But a government, in answering to and answering for thousands and often millions, rightfully slows down, surveys public opinion, and proceeds along patient procedures to make sure a communal answer is the right one. If they moved too fast, you risk grossly offending, if not hurting a large portion of your citizens.

My larger point is that Thoreau’s fundamental position only makes sense in general terms when you’re thinking only of yourself. That, to me, is his central mistake. I feel he fails to acknowledge the required individual compromise and collective decision-making a government must account for in order to work. Were we to act so individually, I wonder if we would return to a more medieval--even primal--anarchy which was the original incentive for moving to a social form of government in the first place. (This is the guy who lived in a homemade shack for a few months in the swamp, by the way. Am I the only one get Una-Bomber flashbacks?)

Besides making this point, I have an ulterior motive for writing this: I’m trying to show my development scheme in action. If you look at the last three paragraphs, you’ll see I followed a formula for paragraph development. I decided to split the ideas up into separate paragraphs only because I chose to spend extra time to explain and develop my points; if I didn’t do this, the paragraph would be too weighty, too long.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

1.) Main claim: I clearly state my opinion and claim about why I disagree with Thoreau. My claim isn’t radical, but it is bold only because I’m taking the famous Henry David Thoreau on directly. Notice it only took me one compound sentence to state a topic sentence, and the paragraph is already off and running.

2.) Restatement for Clarity: I can’t run off too fast, though. I write in the topic sentence that Thoreau “undermines the overriding purpose of government,” but that isn’t completely clear if you think about it. I use the next sentence, then, to restate my same idea--and notice I use the phrase “in other words,” a phrase which clearly marks restatement is happening--but my restatement is much clearer and more direct. I want my main point to be relatively clear before I go off defending it. Defending an unclear point is useless, after all.

3.) Reason #1: My first reason is clearly marked as a reason when I start the sentence with the phrase “That’s because . . . .” This signals to the reader that I’m presenting a reason. Stating one reason in one sentence takes either a longer, more sophisticated sentence and two smaller sentences, typically. I take the first route.

4.) Connection #1: But just stating a reason isn’t enough; how does that reason connect with my paragraph’s main point exactly? I attempt to bridge this gap with the next sentence, and again, the purpose of this connection sentence is to clarify my reasoning to my audience. I want them to see why this reason supports this point so the connection between the two is clear.

4b.) Example #1: An example helps right about now because it’s always easier to be shown something than to be told something. (For example, don’t tell me UFO’s exist--show me the evidence.) Examples make a reason even stronger and they make a reason even clearer. That’s because examples are so concrete, they’re easier to grasp and easier to believe. They pull double duty, then, and that’s why examples are so crucial to good writing.

5.) Reason #2: One reason which supports a claim is sometimes enough, let’s be honest. But two reasons are always better than one, so I went ahead and offered a second premise. Because my paragraph was getting long enough already, I started a new paragraph here because it’s a clean place to break. Notice I use a simple transition to signal this new idea ("Furthermore"--don’t forget transitions!). My second reason takes one meaty sentence, but I get it out.

6.) Connection #2: But again, a reason in isolation does not clearly support my main point. I spend this extra sentence to connect this reason to my point just so, again, everything makes sense.

6b.) Example #2: But for all this, nothing replaces an example. Because I’m only tackling one reason, connection, and example in one paragraph, I decide to slow down and develop this example in a few sentences rather than one. I want to simultaneously fill the paragraph, you see, and explain clearly what my example is trying to prove. Remember that spending more than one sentence on any one of these parts is perfectly natural and usually works out better anyway because it shows you’re developing your point.

7.) So what? I could stop and just move on to another point. I’ve offered two reasons and two examples for my claim, after all. But it’s important to spend a moment to really push your claim and make it do some work. “So what?” is an important question to answer because it’s honest and it stresses that your claim needs some sort of significance or deeper point than merely just itself. (And if you can’t answer “So what?” you probably don’t see the significance in your own claim--so how on earth how will your reader?)

Again, the paragraph felt full enough and I decided to start yet another new paragraph since this is a good space to break at. I overtly announce “My larger point is . . .” to stress that answering “So what?” is providing a larger, deeper, more meaningful point. This is the pay-off your point, the potentially interesting part where good essays start to build force. Because I’ve mentally resolved to spend this whole paragraph to answering “So what?” I develop my point more patiently, fleshing out my ideas in greater detail. (That wise-crack at the end in parantheses was just meant to lighten the mood and create a kind of “sealing off” which a last sentence ought to do.)

If I had another main paragraph or main point to get to, I would try to set up the next point at the very end of this paragraph. Since I don’t have another point, I don’t bother with the set-up. But at least you see my formula in action; you can play with the details of it many, many ways but it fundamentally makes sure you cover the fundamentals of paragraph development: clarity, defense, explanation, example, detail, and larger significance If you cover all six of those per main paragraph claim, you’re virtually guaranteed to write quality essay bodies.

http://vclass.mtsac.edu:940/pobrien/thoreau.htm