Henry David Thoreau and Hannah Arendt Civil Disobedince

Perspectives Comparisons

Today, we can examines and comparison civil dissobedince notions eyes of this philosophers. Firstly, what is civil dissobedience means in the politics. Civil disobedience is a public, non-violent and conscientious infringement of law carried out to express opposition to law and policy.(1)(Smith,2012). Firstly, Henry David Thoreau propunded this ideas in the American society. Because he need to this theory in this term. If we read Thoreau and Arendt books we should better understand in this terms political problems in the continent.

Thoreau and Arendt determined civil disobedince topics in the politics. According to me, this philosophers civil disobedience concepts influences today's government administaration structures.Secondly , we can examines the other questions. Why Hannah Arendt examined and emphasized civil disobedience concepts after the Henry David Thoreau?. This is much more important question for this studies. Because this question compose of basic structure of this studies.

In this study, we can comparison of twophilosophers civil disobedience perspectives.As you know that State concept and governments appeared of consent community results in the society and social contracts ideas

supported this event. This concepts make legitimate to government subservient position in the society.Sometimes, part of people in the soceity citicized that government rules and constitutions. In this regard, this peoples and person break the laws in the countries.

Hence, firstly Henty David Thoreau seems this situations and depens in thebooks if Hannah Arendt imporoved this concept in the world. Because of the fac that Thoreau can not clearly determined civil disobedience notions and Thoreu harmonizes the other concepts of civil disobedience conceptsin the politics. Hannah Arendt saw thisconditions and she needs divided this concepts and civil disobedince character in the politics formation.Younever misunderstanding mine ideas. I does not say that Thoreaus ideas is wrong or bad.

In Mortimer Adler's view, the distinctive feature of civil disobedience as conceived by Throeau and Gandi is its commitment to the practice of ''indirect'' disobeidence. (2)(Cohen,1972).It's deeply seems that Gnadi benefited by Thoreau ideas and concepts.

Thoreau shuns political parties and organized reform movements and instead embodies and individualized politics ofno-saying, civil disobedience, moral dissent, and worldly withdrawal. To

some extent this view echoes Hannah Arendt's characterization of Thoreau asa sponsor of a decidedly apolitical ethics- one whose aim is not the improvment of the world but rather purification of self. (3)(Tunner,2009).

Above mentioned this ideas Hannah Arendt similiar caharacterized of Thoreau. However, Hannah Arendt limity accepted thoreau ideas because, Arendt's civil disobedience ideas oppositte of Thoreau's civil disobedience ideas and Hannah Arendt motivated and accepted inidividual ethics in the civil disobedience.But Arendt and Arendt's civil disobedience structure does not accepted inidividualize . According to Hannah Arendt's divided ethic's and political notions in the the civil dissobedience.

In my opinion, Hannah Arendt more emphasize of political values importance in self civil disobedience structures than ethics.Arendt emphasizeto liberty, public collective and political structures and Arendt' detaily examined this issues.However, third concepts divided politics scientists and academicians in the world.Some academicians and scientists said that Hannah Arendt compose of politicalstructures of their self civil disobedience structures.

Some politic academcians and scientistsaid that Hannah Arendt compose of moral ethical strucutures of their civil disobedience.This is very difficult question. In my opinion

Hannah Arendt to adresses of political ideas in their books. Always Hannah Arendt emphasize that public debate is better and Hannah Arendt emphasize thatlocal autonomy and local institutions.In this complex, Hannah Arendt towards the poltical movemnts and may be Arendt can harmonized moral and political concepts under the publiccollective ideas that is my opininon.

As everyone knows, Henry David Thoreau towards the moral, ethical and conscience movements in their civil disobedience structures. Above mentioned this situations automaticallyv divided two philosopherscivil disobedience concepts in the political science.

Although Thoreau did not initially intend his act of civil disobedience in1846 to be a political performance, hisdecision to lecture and write about it converted this personal act of no-saying into a positively political act of self-exhibition; the self- exhibition became political as soon as Thoreau sought to use his experience toinfluence the ethical and political. (4)( Tunner,2009). It's understanding Henry David Thoreau civil disobedience source is fed. Thoreau perspectives so inidividualism concept much more affected Thoreau's civil disobedience.

It also, at least as defined here, an act of lawbreaking that is carried act

in public rather than covertly or secretively.(5)(Smith,2012). It's deeply seems that two philosophers differences. According to me, Hannah Arendt improved Thoreau's civil disobedience and she created the new area in the civil disobedience and in part democratic politics affected this situations. After Hannah Arendt's civildisobedience concept spreads in the publics, some part of societies use of this concepts. Associations appeared inthe in the society and this institutions call to governments to this perspectives and she offers to us.

The erosion of older social and legal barriers to power and the growing dependence of the individual have made the legal status of citizenship an essential ''right to have rights'' .To be excluded from citizenship is to be Cain win out the protection of the mark.(6)(Mcwilliams,1969). In this regard, Hannah Arendt gives importance for public opinions concept. Because ''right to have rights'' notions and legal status may not be correctly appeared in the society. According to me, only individualism perspectives cannot only break to this bad conditions.

Therefore, Hannah Arendt need to publicopinion. One person haven't power in the society. Always group of peoples have more advantage and more effective in the society than the other individual person. I can give some example: If only me broke the government law and I use of civil disobedience in the countries.

Anybody does not listen to me. But, If I had entered a group, this situations would be very different. Therefore, I totally agree with Hannah Arendt ideas.

Right so against the serious injusticesoccur in a democratic system dominated by fair relationship, referred to as a last resort of the point where the legal possibilities of the human edge, his constitution or based on the commonsense of justice expressed in the social contract which rejects violence,illegal political.(7)(Bilgin,2001). It 's deeply seems that Hannah Arendt is invited to the public here this differance notions. Firstly, Hannah Arendt invited to the public.

Such as social and political transformation and aims to be found those who reject an illegitimate law orpractice, on the other hand is completely in line with personal interests in violation of the law, recognize people can also be found on. At this point, to make a distinction between the various violations of the law and which are necessary to determine the nature of the violations that carry about political.(8)(Başkır,2009) .Hannah Arendt's compose of this structure in the self disobedience concepts.

A situation the two forms of oppositionto the application on the legal system of civil disobedience conscientious objection also stands on the verge of such a distinction needs.(9)(Başkır,2009). Hence, Hannah Arendt's creates the other differences of

Thoreau civil disobedience. Hannah Arendt's defenses on two concepts directly divided each other in the countries. However, Henry David Thoreaudoes not depend on differences in theirstructures.

Hannah Arendt's road is true. Because,always civil disobedience concept and conscientious objections concept entersdifferent categories in the political structure. Civil disobedience covers ofmasses perception in the society. But conscientious objections many times covers of personal perception in the societies. Therefore, Hannah Arendt divided two concept in their structures. Thoreau use of conscientious objection for against warsituation and bad military conditions. Consequently, This ideas different for the civil disobedience concepts.

Many people enters of civil disobedience and sometimes civil disobedience addresses arrived large masses in the society. However, conscientious objections addresses arrived limits masses in the society.The first case is a political objectionraised and are required to keep open the channels needed for such an appeal to be heard in the political arena. In the second case is completely moral andpersonal appeal and we can say it does not matter for the political sphere.(10)(Arendt,1972). According to me, Hannah Arendt divided Henry David Thoreau in here in the civil disobedience structure. According to me, conscientious objections shallow

visible to support political problem inthe countries and civil disobedience concepts. Hannah Arendt aims public in justice concept does not entry the conscientious objections. Public injustice should enter think in the civil disobedience concepts in the society.

Henry David Thoreau wrote to duty on the civil disobedience books Thoreau inthis work, which has an important placein the political history of organized (formal) to appeal to the community larger articles. (11)(Uçar,1999). Hannah Arendt emphasize that : Civil disobedience affected of societial conditions in the country. Hence, Hannah Arendt differentiation for HenryDavid Thoreau. Hannah Arendt does not appeal to the community and can not beangry to society.

Arendt emphasizes that ensure their well- being by creating civil disobedience contrary society and stressed that arise so that the political reform. Hannah Arendt's have different perspectives with Henry DavidThoreau. Subsequently, Hannah Arendt can cooperation with society system.

Thoreau in his work, anarchists lack ofmanagement supporter reveals their ideas. For example: according to him, ''at least manages a good management, managing configue the best government ever''. This does not include the use of violence ideas however, Thoreau, thestate will be set forth in the form of a disobedience to refuse to pay the tax and military, Thoreau defense that

suffices repudiate governments.(12)(Dereli,2006). In my opinion, above mentioned this concepts is the big differances between two philosophers inthe civil disobedience structure.

Hannah Arendt's civil disobedience rejecting anarchical values in the society. Hannah Arendt's does not try repudiate to the governments. In contrary, Hannah Arendt accepts legitimacy governments in the society. Hannah Arendt ciriticized governments authority, majoritarian rules and representative structure in the countries.Subsequently, this situations created un justice structure in the societies and countries . According to me, may beHenry David Thoreau ideas does not include the use of violence. However, this ideas association violence ideas in the peoples brain and mind. According to, Hannah Arendt's civil disobedience different for anarchism and revolution ideas. However, Henry David Thoreau can not divided their civil disobedience ideas of revolution and anarchical concepts.

Thoreau shows support the conscience ofthe individual in the inner meaning of this principle- anarchist action proposals. According to him, the government is abusing the rights of theperson and the individuals conscience can not accept that it may be considered against the material and moral sense.(13)(Uçar,1999).Thoreau hadto pay taxes and to reject military as the rest of exogenaous disobedience

revealed that the united states led themexician war and slavery in the south is still continue. (14)(Miller,1995).

Hannah Arendt's limits accepted of thissituations . According to Hannah Arendtcivil disobedience motivated of moral sense and conscience concepts. However,If this contrasts can not harmonized political stance, you will not gain anything in the society. Hannah Arendt emphasize that this situations. Therefore, Hannah Arendt's improved civil disobedience concepts in the societies.

To avoid the type of tax and to reject military action incompatible with today's understanding of democracy and personal life '' freedom of the individual , but it is a fundmental principle of demcoracy is based on thisprinciple (such as when you want to paytaxes) 'laisez- faire' approach and or reduced to generalized tolerance. (15)(Şanlı,2003). Avoid the type of tax created ciriminal events in the societyand countries .

Henry David Thoreau can not determine borders between civil disobedience and criminal notions in their civil disobedience structures. Societies misunderstanding and not divided two concepts. Therefore, Hannah Arendt's civil disobedience divided this concepts and Arendt removed criminal concepts in the self civil disobediencestructure. According to me, crime events can not give anything in the society crime event only create

violence in the society. Therefore, Hannah Arendt rejects those two events.

Hannah Arendt emphasize the general thinking in their structures. They are excluded linking individual or collective interests, places as an emphasis on common sense. The overall objective of civil disobedience ''Justice'' means this can be achieved only through common sense . This ideas compose of Hannah Arendt perspectives. Hannah Arendt and Thoreau civil disobedience structures are different in the political philosophy.

According to me, Hannah Arendt more diteally examines civil disobedience notions than Henry David Thoreau. Hence, I can give some example, Hannah Arendt depends on social contracts andwhy Hannah Arendt and Why Hannah Arendtcooperation civil disobedience and social contracts notions. In my opinionsocial contracts have the most important values for civil disobedience. Social contracts directlyaffected civil disobedience concepts. As you know, civil disobedience originsappeared in continent America.

First colonialist made contracts each other and this movements hold together whole colonies in the America. According to Hannah Arendt, three social contract appeared in the world .Firstly, theocracy contract, second hobbesian model, thirdly locks model. American model rejected first and second model. However, American founding fathers inspired Locke's model. Because, this model covered of

peoples administration power ( potestasin populo).

American declaration of independance isa more democratic an free environment takes up the lock model. This model created re conciliation in the society.Reconciliation created ''consensus universalis ''. According to Hannah Arendt civil disobedience appeared in the society for this situations. Some people or some groups does not recognized of consensus universalis concept. Therefore, constitutional crises emerged in the society.

Hannah Arendt quires that have been created by the constitution rules on the concept of the social contract and wants to participate in the constitutional process for the whole community. Hannah Arendt tells administrators should good review of civil disobedience case in the society.Arendt's civil disobedience structures provides accuracy of the laws in the countries. Therefore, Hannah Arendt andHenry David Thoreau not depends on social contract importance.

Consent , in the American understandingof the term relies on the horizontal version of the social contract and not on majority decisions on the contrary, much of the thinking of the frames of the constitution concerned safe guards for dissenting minorities. The moral content of this consent is like the moral content of all agreements and contracts, it consist obligation the

keep them. Thoreau's often quoted statement.

The only obligation which I have a right to assume is to do at any time What I think right might well be variedto the only obligation which I as a citizen have a right to assume is to make and to keep promises.(16)(Arendt,1972). It's understanding Hannah Arendt use of social contracts notions in their civil disobedience structure. On the social contracts concepts, Hannah Arendt finds incorrectof Henry David Thoreau citizens concept. Hannah Arendt finds incorrect of Henry David Thoreau citizens concept. Hannah Arendt aim was true transfer of the civil disobedience concept to the eyes of people.

Hannah Arendt's civil disobedience structures includes opposite notions. These are : laws system and speed change age. All humans fed of change ideas in the society. According to Hannah Arendt law system and constitutions slow down of the change situation in the countries. Always, Two concept conflict with each other and Hannah Arendt emphasize that this events. According to Hannah Arendt, this concepts conflict created of civildisobedience movements in the society.

All countries and societies have not equal values in the world. Therefore, countries and societies affected each other in the world. If law systems andconstitutions rules must provides stability in the countries. Because,

this situations nature and perception covers stability concept. Therefore, this concept struggles each other in the society.

Now, we can depend on association valueand civil disobedience concepts of Hannah Arendt's self structure. Hannah Arendt emphasize association benefits .According to Hannah Arendt, associations institutions produce and supports of the civil disobedience. Subsequently, associations is not partyHannah Arendt directly divided this concepts. Associations is a voluntary union in the society and this associations have targets in the society. Therefore, associations supported civil disobedience in the society.However, Hannah Arendt clearly determines of associations course of content. Associations arrived their targets dispersed in the societies. In my opinion, Hannah Arendt give importance of the civil disobedience concepts in here. It's understandings, civil disobedience concepts different of Revolution ideas. Revolution event that the continuity movements in the society. Hannah Arendt clearly opennessin their books. This ideas allocates the other philosophers in the civil disobedience structure.

It is my contention that civil disobedients are nothing but the least form of voluntary association, and thatthey are thus quite in tune with the oldest traditions of the country. What could better describe them than Tocqueville words ''The citizens who

form the minority associate in order, first, to show their numerical strengthand so to diminish the moral power of the majority''?.(17)(Arendt,1972). In here, Hannah Arendt clearly specifies civil disobedience aims in the society and Arendt bounded representative democracy problem and civil disobedience concepts in their political structures.

According to me, This ideas clearly basic differences between two philosophers. However, Hannah Arendt accepted civil disobedience risk in thesociety.'' John Stuart Mill, in his review of the first volume of Democracy in America, formulated the gist of Tocqueville apprehension: The capacity cooperation for a common purpose, heretofore a monopolized instrument of power in the hands of thehigher class, is now a most formidable one in those of the lowest''.(18)(Arendt,1972)

The other differences of Thoreau and Arendt civil disobedience self structures. Hannah Arendt has established its own system of very thin. Arendt seems whole perspectives. Hannah Arendt use moral, ethical and conscience concepts only in the civil disobedience case. After a While, Hannah Arendt system puts border of this concepts. Subsequently, this concepts contains emotions. In this complex, emotions notions protect the humans logics. Therefore, Hannah Arendtmuch more use of political ideas in their civil disobedience structure.

''Tocqueville and Hannah Arendt knew that ''the tyrannical control that these societies exercise is often far more insupportable than the authority possessed over society by the government which they attack''. But he knew also that '' the liberty of association has become a necessary guarantee against the tyranny of the majority,'' that ''a dangerous expedient is used to obviate a still more formidable danger''.(19)(Arendt,1972).It's deeply seems that Arendt does not want to destroyed administration in the society. Hannah Arendt want puts border and limit of the majoritarian representative power in the society. Therefore, Hannah Arendt makes dissent republicanism in the society, Arendt wants to whole class participations of management in the society.

According to me, above mentioned this situations shows that two philosophers differences. It's deeply seems that , Hannah Arendt use as a tool of civil disobedience notions to emphasize ''equality'' ideas the society. It's understanding to some words in the Hannah Arendt civil disobedience books.'' In any event, if men are to remain civilized or to become so, the art of associating together must grow and improve in the same ratio in which the equality of conditions is increased. (19)(Arendt, 1972).

Today, we can comparison of Henry DavidThoreau and Hannah Arendt's civil disobedience perceptions in the

political philosophy and political science. In my opinion, two perspectives appeared in the civil disobedience structures. Henry David Thoreau's civil disobedience structurescreates commencement of civil disobedience concepts. Hannah Arendt's civil disobedience structures improved civil disobedience notions in the political science. Do you think about magnificent mechanisms, two philosophers created and improved this mechanisms in the political science.

Bibliography

Marshall Cohen :Liberalism and Disobedience , (Spring, 1972), P:283 .

Jack TurneT: Performing Constience Thoreau, Political Action, and the Plea for John Brown , (Aug., 2005), P:449,466.

William Smith: Policing Civil Disobedience, 2012, P:829-831.

Kadir Candan , Murat Bilgin: Sivil İtaatsizlik,2011, P: 58,59,60.

Wilson Carey McWilliams: Civil Disobedience and Contemporary Constitutionalism: The American Case,1969, P:222).

Arendt, Hannah, 1972, ''Civil Disobedience'', Crisis of the Republic, New York, Harvest Books:49-102.

Ünsal Doğan Başkır, Erdinç Erdem: Sivil İtaatsizlik Eylemi olarak Türkiye’de Vicdani Ret: Bir Yurttaşlık Talebi,2012,P: 1-25.

Şahin Uçar: (1999), “H. D. Thoreau Ve Sivil İtaatsizlik”, İç. Sivil İtaatsizlik Ve Pasif Direniş, (Editör: Ercan Hamzaoğlu), Ankara: Vadi Yayınları, S.9–18.

Mustafa Çağlayandereli: Sivil İtaatsizliğin Katılımcı Demokrasi Bağlamında Farklı Görünümleri, 2006, P:1-30.

Leyla Şanlı : (2003), “Türkiye’de Toplumsal Hareketler”, İç. Toplumsal Hareketler Konuşuyor, (Yay. Haz. Leyla Sanlı), İstanbul: Alan Yayıncılık. P:11-12.

Mıller, Daisy. Vd. (1995), “Toplumsal Hareketler”, İç. Blackwell’in Siyasal Düşünceler Ansiklopedisi, Cilt 2, (Çeviren: B. Peker Ve N. Kıraç), Ankara: Ümit

İZMİR UNİVERSİTY OF ECONOMİCS

Henry David Thoreau and Hannah Arendt Civil Disobedince

Perspectives Comparisons

Contemporary Debates in GlobalPolitics

Devrim Sezer

13/04/2015