On Civil Disobedience

by Hannah Arendt, Roger Berkowitz (editor), Henry David Thoreau

Tre motivi per leggerlo: Perché è un libro che non ti aspetti: una meditazione sul dissenso, che parla però molto di consenso e propone una collocazione costituzionale dei gruppi di protesta. Perché Hannah Arendt racconta di Socrate, Thoreau e della rivoluzione americana per tracciare la differenza che corre tra disobbedienza civile e obiezione di coscienza. Perché è un piccolo, prezioso manifesto sulla partecipazione attiva, contro la dittatura dei politici e le prepotenze dei governi.

Genres: Nonfiction, Philosophy, Politics, Essays, Classics, History, Social Justice

152 pages, Paperback

First published January 1, 1969

About the author

Hannah Arendt (1906 – 1975) was one of the most influential political philosophers of the twentieth century. Born into a German-Jewish family, she was forced to leave Germany in 1933 and lived in Paris for the next eight years, working for a number of Jewish refugee organisations. In 1941 she immigrated to the United States and soon became part of a lively intellectual circle in New York. She held a number of academic positions at various American universities until her death in 1975. She is best known for two works that had a major impact both within and outside the academic community. The first, The Origins of Totalitarianism, published in 1951, was a study of the Nazi and Stalinist regimes that generated a wide-ranging debate on the nature and historical antecedents of the totalitarian phenomenon. The second, The Human Condition, published in 1958, was an original philosophical study that investigated the fundamental categories of the vita activa (labor, work, action). In addition to these two important works, Arendt published a number of influential essays on topics such as the nature of revolution, freedom, authority, tradition and the modern age. At the time of her death in 1975, she had completed the first two volumes of her last major philosophical work, The Life of the Mind, which examined the three fundamental faculties of the vita contemplativa (thinking, willing, judging).

Reviews

[J TC]

Hannah Arendt – Desobediência Civil

Não é um livro de leitura fácil, mas dá-nos um bom “insight” sobre a liberdade, a responsabilidade democrática, e os limites da democracia representativa, polarizados entre a visão de Thomas Hobbes e John Locke. Mas ainda, e principalmente dá-nos uma visão sobre a objeção de consciência ou a desobediência civil enquanto formas legitimas que o cidadão tem ao seu dispor sempre e quando entender que os acontecimentos o justificam.
Um livro denso, um livro a reler

[beesp]

Discorso tenuto a un convegno della Bar Association, “Disobbedienza civile” riprende il tema di Thoreau e ne dà una trattazione breve, ma approfondita e specifica. Hannah Arendt procede innanzitutto a definire cosa si intenda per Disobbedienza civile, quali siano le caratteristiche di questa forma di protesta. L’aspetto più importante della sua riflessione è che ne chiede l’integrazione costituzionale. La legge può integrare soltanto ciò che è già pratica, e come praticare/protestare? Con una forma di Disobbedienza civile costituzionale che eviti la punizione.
Una lettura illuminante dal punto di vista del funzionamento del diritto (ma soprattutto di quello americano, per forza di cose).

[Cris]

Clear examination of civil disobedience. Interesting dismantling of the concept that if one disobeys one should be willing to accept the punishment deriving from such disobedience -obvious contradiction with principles of criminal law and akin to accepting martyrdom-.Good analysis of Socrates and Thoreau. The concept of acting within what one’s conscience would allow one to do (I use this “being able to sleep peacefully” principle a lot in my own life) as the guide for civil disobedience is apt. Too basic examination of disobedience radiating from religious vs ethical roots and disobedience vs criminality. The difference between disobedience and revolution is a lot more nuanced.
This paper was written during the times of massive demonstrations against the Vietnam War and the Civil Rights movement. The assessment that American law is based on a “Locke type” social contract, and the realization that African-Americans were not included in the “consensus universalis” that is the basis of the Constitution is pertinent and I agree with it.
The interest of the courts to consider those who disobey individually, (when the nature of disobedience is that is an ideology shared by a group) and to depict a group who disobey as conspirators (who “breath together” and with a connotation of secrecy) is based in an attempt to oppress and criminalize and it is illegitimate. This applies to the letter to the Catalan independence movement. In the American context Arendt advocates for assimilating civil disobedient groups to special interest groups with the right to lobby in congress. This group’s influence might be the only way to correct injustice.

[Darcy]

A very poignant expression of similar notions separated by over a hundred years. Two people sharing a country that is worlds apart yet so unchanging. While Thoreau remarks on the individual's responsibility to act as a 'counter friction' when facing detestable acts of one's own government (in his time, slavery and American campaigns into Mexico), Arendt comments on the necessity of governmental reform to protect the American tradition of voluntary association and its role in influencing governmental action (influenced by her perspectives on the Civil Rights movement, protests against the Vietnam War, and likely her personal experience as a German citizen during Hitler's rise to power.) These essays remain indelibly important to the American political consciousness, especially at a time when disillusionment with the government, bureaucracy, and the two party system is once more increasing in the minds and hearts of the American people.

[Giacomo O.]

"La disobbedienza civile insorge quando un numero significativo di cittadini si convince che i canali consueti del cambiamento non funzionano più, che non viene più dato ascolto né seguito alle loro rimostranze o che, al contrario, il governo sta cambiando ed è indirizzato o ormai avviato verso una condotta dubbia in termini di costituzionalità e legalità. "

Una riflessione sul significato di disobbedienza civile, sia in termini sostanziali che legali (seppure quest'ultimo aspetto sia indagato nel quadro giuridico degli Stati Uniti) e la differenza con l'obiezione di coscienza.
A più di cinquanta anni di distanza, la situazione odierna non è molto diversa dal contesto in cui scriveva Hanna Arendt.

[Alonzo Caudillo]

La recuperación de la “desobediencia civil” como concepto que articula toda una política social que desafía a la ley como proyecto común y no individual, del cual hace una puntual y sintética elaboración Arendt en este examen, lo vuelve un texto indispensable de consulta y para aplicarse en nuestras políticas públicas.

[Anthea]

Homegirl is obnoxiously fixated on the USA: most of the things she talks about are not limited to America.
Are there some truths? Yes. It could’ve been possible to write those down in 10 pages or less? Also yes.

[Joa]

Absolutamente essencial ao nosso século. Absolutamente necessário ao desenvolvimento de cada cidadão. Absolutamente um génio da filosofia e política moderna a quem devemos muito. Absolutamente tudo!

[Iván Santana]

“El hombre viene a este mundo, principalmente, no para convertirlo en un buen lugar para vivir, sino para vivir en él, sea bueno o malo”

[Andrew]

Let every man make known what kind of government would earn his respect.

Dissent implies consent, and it is the hallmark of free government. One who knows that he may dissent knows that he somehow consents when he does not dissent.

Thoreau walked so Arendt could run or something like that. Two fantastic essays that really challenged my perspective of my place in civil and social apparatuses. I've written down more than a dozen quotes just like the ones above that really made me think. I will be recommending this to everyone.

[Arturo Real]

Pese a que, como dice aquí la autora, el siglo XX es un siglo donde "la velocidad de cambio de las cosas ha superado al cambio de sus habitantes" (y el siglo XXI lo reafirma), las reflexiones de este libro son adecuadas y correctas. Entender movimientos como el Black Lives Matter o el Me Too puede ser más sencillo, en su alcance y evolución, leyendo a Hannah Arendt.

[Sam Jensen]

Given the state of things, it’s important to consider our relationship to the authority we give to our government (not the other way around), and how we will respond when laws force us to choose between injustice and law-breaking.

[Jordan Napier]

I’ve seen critiques of this work hone in on specific tenets of particular arguments, or even allude to perceived ulterior biases among the writers. While I will not denigrate those individual critiques, I will mention that this review won’t really factor in my own differences of opinion with particular points being argued. It will instead speak on the presentation, substance and methodology of the authors and what they seemingly sought to convey. With that pretense, I am of the opinion that this is an extraordinary read, especially given the exact point in American history of which we presently preside.

Even though presented as 2 parts, I’d argue this work can easily be sliced into 3 parts: Roger Berkowitz’s introduction, Thoreau’s essay, and Arendt’s essay. Berkowitz’s introduction serves multiple purposes well. Most chiefly among those is A) the expected proficiency in setting the table for what the reader is about to embark on from an ideological standpoint, with helpful context and information leading up to each of their works, B) highlighting key phrases and quotes that most significantly drive home the central theses being constructed and C) presenting and alluding to the relevance of the essays through the lens of a time much closer to present day than either of the authors. Berkowitz’s words provide a more than sufficient introduction, but would also serve well as even a conclusion, or post-body discussion.

Directly followed by the introduction is Thoreau’s essay, immediately followed by Arendt’s essay, both accompanied by proper citation. The decision to present these essays in the same work in chronological succession improves the impact of the essays overall. Thoreau’s thoughts and meditations were so striking and trail-blazing that his worked coined a term (civil disobedience) that is still referenced and revered to the present day nearly two whole centuries later. His portrayal of government as a colossal morally-ambiguous machine and his distinction of the “man” from the “citizen” masterfully sets up his demonstration of our propensity to blindly follow laws that run counter to our own conscious, our own sense of self. He stresses the placement of importance of morality over “legality” as he touted his one night stay in jail for refusing to pay taxes that support the slave-driving, war-mongering regime of the 1840s.

Arendt’s essay is then presented, and the juxtaposition of her viewpoint from over a full century later adds to the overall value of this combined work. Her argument is that civil disobedience isn’t actualized by the individual conscientious objector, but rather by the voluntary association of a minority of people that join together in unity of a goal of reform and grow the movement against the law-enforcing majority. Arendt actually argues (effectively in my opinion) that civil disobedience and acknowledgement of such minority movements is actually in the spirit of American law, traced back to Colonial America and the founding of the nation. Arendt posits (less effectively in my opinion) that such idealized civil disobedience is what most prominently can save America from a looming tyrannical movement and waning efficiency of established law, which seems as pertinent to present day as it was to her time of penning the essay in 1970.

Despite what critiques or disagreements I have with particular arguments being made, this is just an excellent, enriching, important read from front to back. The writing at times can be a bit scholarly and terse, which adds to the overall quality (but can lead to the needed re-reading of sentences and passages here and there.) However, from purely a methodological, presentation, and substantive standpoint, this is worth reading every letter. I would recommend this work to anyone.

[Anna Laura]

Nelle questioni morali di qualsiasi tipo non c'è mai spazio per l'oggettività; ogni determinazione morale si costruisce a partire dalla soggettività del singolo e si risolve in esso. Non c'è da stupirsi se Socrate sosteneva che era per lui preferibile "trovarsi in disaccordo e in opposizione con tutti piuttosto che essere solo con se stesso e contraddirsi". Secondo Socrate, bisogna opporsi all'ingiustizia per preservare la propria sanità individuale perché l'unico giudizio a cui non si può sfuggire e con il quale si deve convivere è il proprio. Neppure la legge è oggettivamente "giusta"; se il diritto fosse concepito per essere un'istituzione immutabile e universalmente valida, allora si opporrebbe al fluire degli eventi e al cambiamento intrinseco delle cose. Il diritto diverrebbe una istituzione “limitante” rispetto al progresso oltre che essenzialmente “limitata” nei confini geografici in cui si impone.
Queste premesse sembrano giustificare e approvare l'esistenza della disobbedienza civile come forma di lotta politica contro l'assurdità di alcune leggi e la rivendicazione dei propri diritti. Chi commette disobbedienza civile infrange una legge e contemporaneamente sollecita la propria punizione, a sottolineare che il dissenso non è contro il sistema giuridico in sé, ma contro un ordinamento considerato ormai obsoleto. Inoltre, la disobbedienza civile esiste solo quando si manifesta tra membri di un gruppo. Colui che opera la disobbedienza civile tuttavia non è in alcun modo un rivoluzionario; non rifiuta la legittimità dell'ordinamento giuridico in sé né crede nella sovversione del sistema, ma accetta il sistema giuridico seppur pensi che debba essere modificato. In questo senso mantiene intatto il "patto" hobbesiano che presuppone l'origine dello Stato perché rispetta l'accordo con le autorità accettando una punizione anche se considerata ingiusta.
Ben diverso è l'obiettore di coscienza che si sottrae individualmente ad un obbligo imposto dall'ordinamento giuridico perché collidente con la propria moralità. A differenza della disobbedienza civile, l'obiezione di coscienza è parzialmente "legalizzata", in particolare quando la sottrazione ad un obbligo è giustificata con precetti religiosi. L'obiettore di coscienza è "il solo trasgressore che il tribunale non consideri come un criminale".
La disobbedienza civile, secondo la Arendt, è solo "la forma più recente dell'associazione volontaria" che dovrebbe essere legalizzata e compresa dalle istituzioni correnti. Il dovere delle istituzioni è quello di dover "dar prova dell'elasticità se vorranno sopportare l'impatto dei cambiamenti senza aprire la strada alla guerra civile e alla rivoluzione". La repressione della disobbedienza civile è la repressione di una minoranza, seppur non organizzata partiticamente, che non è accettabile in un ambiente democratico.

[Aline Flor]

"A discordância implica consentimento e é a marca do governo livre; alguém que saiba que pode discordar sabe também que de certa forma consente quando não discorda."

[Sam]

Late to the Arendt party but goddamn she's got piping hot takes

[Molsa Roja(s)]

És un llibre molt interessant. Potser el que li ha faltat sempre a Arendt és l’ars poètica, la capacitat de generar frases, eslògans, pensament condensat, d’assestar cops letals. Perquè el seu discurs, la seva escriptura és fonamentalment monòtona, i això avorreix. Potser perquè sembla fugir de tot partidisme, si bé el seu compromís és clar, Arendt mai entusiasma. Però que no entusiasmi no vol dir que els seus anàlisis no siguin bons. Es pot sentir, en cadascuna de les obres d’Arendt, una terrible por a la revolució, i això fastigueja.

Per contra, aquí apareix un nou mecanisme de revolució pacífica, la desobediència civil, que sembla ser un fenòmen marcadament americà. En el primer capítol, Arendt opera una distinció entre l’objecció de consciència que propugna Thoreau com a exercici fonamentalment individual i, per tant, apolític que apel·la a una consciència com a font d’una Justícia trascendental i que s’oposa a la llei, com en el cas d’Antígona; per a Arendt, que no nega el fenòmen de la moral en la consciència, aquest no té massa interès perquè finalment, no implica un canvi social. El que s’oblida d’esmentar Arendt, potser interessadament, és que Thoreau no deixava d’intentar infectar la resta de la població amb el seu gest, intentant articular així un moviment polític de desobediència. Perquè la desobediència és la formacio d’una associació de caire actiu, de l’unió transitòria d’una sèrie de voluntats i pensaments a priori divergents però que conflueixen en un punt particular, el de la necessitat de transformació de la legislació. I així, la desobediència esdevé política, implica la formació d’un nou cos polític, per fugaç que pugui ser, la naturalesa del qual no és delictiva —oposa aquí Arendt la lluminositat de la desobediència a la nocturnitat del crim— ni rebel —precisament perquè és pacífica. I així, Arendt tot seguint el pensament de Tocqueville sobre la naturalesa associativa de la constitució americana i la seva explicita valoració de les minories, al·legarà que en tant que el canvi és inevitable, caldria canviar la Constitució per tal d’afegir als grups de pressió econòmics la possibilitat de grups de pressió morals, de minories que presentin els seus casos a la cambra de representants. És a dir, que Arendt cerca pragmàticament una manera d’introduir la possibilitat de canvi en el si d’una legislació amb l’objectiu d’evitar l’arribada a la violència en el que diu és una “situació revolucionària”.

[Marisa Meduri]

Aspetti politici del cambiamento grazie alla disobbedienza e al fare gruppo.
Molto interessante!._

[Melle]

On Civil Disobedience is a book containing 3 items, an introduction and two essays, the first by Thoreau and the second, divided into multiple parts, by Arendt.
Being completely honest, I'd only picked up this book to satisfy a want for non-fiction as I waited for another book to arrive, and I solely picked this because I saw Hannah Arendts name on the cover. With Arendt being the subject to study the next week for university, I figured it'd be worth to read something written by her, not paying attention to what it really was. I feel slightly bad for Thoreau as I didn't even notice his name on the cover at first, and I had no idea what civil disobedience was, nor was I really interested in it.
The lack of knowledge beforehand did make it all the more interesting however, and this small book contains some great information on the subject. It did make me feel slightly dumb at times, as I had to look up a word I didn't know every few pages, but other than that I had a great time making small notations and markings in the book where I found necessary.
It's not some philosophical work that makes you rethink your life when at the end a great veil has been lifted, but it does give some nice nuance and context to the concept of civil disobedience, tendencies of societies, politics and conscience, with a focus on America through time.
Thoreau and Arendt give two separate views on the concept, with Arendts reaction and analysis of Thoreaus ideas recontextualizing civil disobedience and giving it that much more depth, referencing a ton of other authors and thinkers as she does, showcasing the timelessness and intrigue of civil disobedience as we know it today.
While I can say that this is a book that not everyone may like, as it is both non-fiction and on quite a specific topic, I would still like to recommend this to anyone who wants some food for thought. The things that surround civil disobedience go a lot deeper than I'd initially suspected, and there are a lot of small points of interest that you will be able to see reflected in your day to day life that this book illuminates.
A short but very interesting book that has added its share to my worldview; a definitive recommendation.

[Brian Burnett]

Prescient, precise, and leaves no room for moral levity. Hannah Arendt vouches for the resuscitation of civil duty; Henry David Thoreau teaches us an important lesson on personal responsibility.

An apt response to the criminality of our government looks more daunting than ever, but this book offers a reprise on a course of action whose routes can be traced back all the way back to pre-colonial America. It's a path that settles upon the importance of individual values; one that gives prudence to the agent as part of a group and a story - a story emboldened by the Spirit of The Constitution. Hannah Arendt turns the Great American Mythos on its head. The truly Moral American, Arendt says, must return to Monke. We must turn communal deliberation, the sort which could only be found in The Town Squares of 18th Century America. In uncovering our shared goals, we - as We The People - can breath life into the political virtues birthed by Colonial Revolutionaries. Its pretty clear that those virtues are currently being taken out-back and shot in the kneecaps by the current administration.

Arendt co-ops the Revolutionary narrative, and it serves as a persuasive cure to the suffering under an increasingly totalitarian condition. Read this book me thinks.

[Xavi Herrador]

No suelo poner reseñas pero este libro lo merece. Es un libro increíble para entender parte del panorama político que hay en estados unidos ahora mismo, en parte te enseña que muchos de los problemas de hoy en día ya vienen de hace tiempo. También pienso que es muy bueno para simplemente adquirir teoría política, me gusta mucho como Arendt diferencia entre objetor de conciencia, rebeldía, revolución, criminal y el término más importante la desobediencia civil. No tenía una idea tan clara de que significa el término desobediencia civil hasta ahora. Así que si te gusta la política y el ensayo político este libro es perfecto.

[Hudson Lazzara]

I’ve heard a take that Thoreau is kind of naive and full of himself, this essay doesn’t dispel that notion. I mean he spent one night in jail and someone else paid the tax to get him out. Arendt’s essay was much more technical and I would say insightful. Funnily enough, I think the introduction was actually the most digestible part and included most of the major insights of both, like the fourteenth amendment point.

Another interesting observation was that they both used the male third person (and terms like “man”) generically. You could see it as just a convention for Arendt, but Thoreau deeefinitely meant it as guys.

[Toni Padilla]

Arendt nos habla de la desobediencia civil y la objeción de conciencia. De ser buen ciudadano o buena persona, pues no siempre encajan las dos cosas. Reflexiona sobre el derecho de disentir y los derechos civiles centrada en el cado de Estados Unidos, con su constitución basada más en pactos que en ideas.

[Clara]

Putting these two essays together in a collection was a genius move. Berkowitz's introduction is arguably the best part of it, but reading Arendt's essay and his analysis of it made me want to read more of her political philosophy.

[Krisss]

Buenísimo mi loko, buenísimo

[Abdallah Fayad]

Extremely relevant

[David Goldman]

Lately, I’ve been surprised by my own reluctance to join protests and rallies, even protests whose causes I support. The hesitation felt suspicious, perhaps a failure I couldn’t quite diagnose. Was I being too judgement or making up excuses for my own inaction. Hannah Arendt’s analysis of civil disobedience gave me, I think, a partial answer. It also helped me return to an argument I had with my friend Rabbi Rena Singer, and to see more clearly what I had been trying—and failing—to say.

The Arendt essay is contained in this handsome volume, which collects two contrasting views on civil disobedience that are core to the American tradition. I focus here on the Hannah Arendt essay. She makes a distinction between the conscientious objector and the civil disobedient. The conscientious objector is the Thoreau-like character who withdraws their consent for individual moral purposes. Civil disobedience, by contrast, is a form of association, where people come together for a specific cause despite their different beliefs. As Arendt states, it is part of “the "art of ... those voluntary associations whose role Tocqueville was the first to notice, with amazement, admiration, and some misgiving; he thought them the peculiar strength of the American political system."

Arendt argues that these voluntary associations are a fundamental and uniquely American way of preserving political freedom from “the failure of institutions, the unreliability of men, and the uncertain nature of the future.”

She critiques the late-1960s student protests as being “no longer capable or willing to unite "into one channel the efforts of divergent minds" (Tocqueville), [and] it has lost its gift for action.” These movements instead have suffered from “the growing infection of the movement with ideologies ... which in fact split and dissolve the association.”

I recently had a disagreement with a colleague who wanted to fly from San Francisco to Minneapolis for a protest during last year’s horrific ICE occupation of that great city. I did not approve the request. My argument was that flying one person halfway across the country to add one additional voice was simply performative. Her argument was that the good people of Minneapolis needed to know the world was watching and supporting them. We both made good points, but I think my argument missed what I was really feeling.

Attending recent rallies, such as No Kings, I don’t feel like part of an association united “into one channel ...diverent minds.” Instead, these events feel like mandatory pledges, where I’m expected to sign on to a variety of causes, losing my individuality, without focusing on a purpose. In hindsight, my critique of going to Minneapolis was wrong. What made those protests special was that folks from different paths and different political spectrums came together for a single purpose: get ICE out. I think this is the type of civil disobedience that Arendt would have categorized as a voluntary association that buttressed our democracy. Still, I’m not sure that flying a rabbi across the country would have been worth it. But I wish I had thought about it more clearly.

[John Ryan]

Reflective book reviewing two essays on civil disobedience, one by Henry David Thoreau centered on slavery and the war against Mexico and one by Hannah Arendt focused on the Vietnam war. As one who organized and participated in various civil disobedience events supporting workers, it was an interesting read, especially during these difficult times for our nation.

Much of the book spoke about civil disobedience not being an individual act and is a violation of law that is in plain view versus breaking the law in an attempt to get away with it to have individual gain. The purpose is to expose attacks on our rights or oppose unjust laws. The book highlights that the American law is consent.

Thoreau’s essay is highly charged with his attempt to hold his views strongly against slavery and the war against Mexico. He mentions that it was impossible to support the government during his times with any dignity, reminding many people of our government today. Yet, he also speaks about not paying much attention to government, probably where many people have always been in our – and other countries.

Arendt’s essay raises so many good points regarding those who fought for civil rights. In that case, much of the civil disobedience that was being exhibited was to force the government to enforce laws. Those fighting for civil rights were appealing to the federal system unjust laws under the authority of state laws – and forcing the government to uphold decisions of even the U.S. Supreme Court Arendt points out this might have made all the decision of the Supreme Court. She highlights how civil disobedience made the difference in the enforcement of the Fourteenth Amendment since racial equality was not enforced, as I was reminded of a recent book of Blacks being able to vote in Ohio.

Drawing on her experience with the injustice of Vietnam and building protests, Arendt states that “civil disobedience arises when a significant number of citizens have become convinced either that the normal channels of change no longer function, and grievances will not be heard or acted upon, or that, on the contrary, the government is about to change and has embarked upon the persists in modes of action whose legality and constitutionality are open to grave doubt.”

There are some special mentions in this book, such as Aristotle’s view that a good man could only be a good citizen in a good state. The Arendt essay properly states that a “conscientious objection can become politically significant when a number of consciences happen to coincide” because then one is not dealing with individuals but a “phenomenon.”

This book is small but one might want to read it slowly, thinking of what is being said. My only real disappointment is that the discussion was centered only around our country. The book even speaks about being an American experience when that is not the case – at all. This book is a good one to read during these troubling times.

[Gede Suprayoga]

It's a challenging read. The two thought moves in contradictory directions. Yet the core messages about injustice and the obligation to fight it are no different, whether as an individual or as a collective.

On Civil Disobedience brings together two of the most influential voices on political resistance: Henry David Thoreau and Hannah Arendt. Although separated by more than a century, both writers wrestle with the same question: what should citizens do when the state acts unjustly? The result is a remarkably relevant collection that speaks directly to contemporary debates about democracy, protest, and moral responsibility.

Thoreau's famous essay, written after his refusal to pay taxes in protest against slavery and the Mexican-American War, remains a powerful defence of individual conscience. His argument is uncompromising: when laws perpetuate injustice, obedience becomes a form of complicity. Thoreau's essay is sharp, provocative, and often idealistic, celebrating the moral courage of the individual who stands against the majority. One can immediately recognise his influence on figures such as Mahatma Gandhi and Martin Luther King Jr., both of whom transformed civil disobedience into a powerful instrument of political change.

Arendt offers a striking counterpoint. Her analysis is more firmly rooted in democratic politics and collective action. For Arendt, civil disobedience is not merely an act of personal conscience but a public and organised effort to challenge authority while remaining committed to the political community itself. Her essay provides a sophisticated framework for understanding social movements, highlighting the tension between legality, legitimacy, and democratic participation.

This book produces a dialogue that emerges between these two thinkers. Thoreau reminds us that moral principles sometimes require resistance. Arendt demonstrates that lasting political change depends on collective engagement. Together, they illuminate both the ethical and political dimensions of dissent. On Civil Disobedience is an invitation to reflect on the responsibilities we bear when confronted with injustice, a question that remains as urgent today as the moments they were written.

[Luca Palis]

Penso che questo libro colga un aspetto chiave della disobbedienza civile, assente nell'analisi dei grandi capostipiti di questa teoria: Socrate e Henry David Thoreau. La Arendt, con una scrittura estremamente personale, si sofferma nell'analizzare il bivio che separa obiezione di coscienza e disobbedienza civile (a tratti sfiorando il tema della cospirazione). Questa biforcazione è immersa nello scenario post Rivoluzione Americana, avvalorando così la trattazione con rimandi a quella prima esperienza di rottura col passato di colonia britannica, frutto dell'esito di un atto di disobbedienza civile. Con questa chiave di lettura, Arendt, descrive la disobbedienza civile come parte stessa dell'esperienza repubblicana americana, la quale è fondata sul concetto Toquevilliano di consesus universalis (che si sgretola davanti all'ammissione nella società di persone escluse da questo patto, i neri e gli indiani). Il gruppo crea minoranza, la quale a sua volta crea disobbedienza civile.
Da questo libro mi porto dei preziosi insegnamenti, a tratti premonitori, sullo stato di salute della democrazia (specie quella statunitense). Credo sia un libro breve ed interessante da inserire nella formazione di coloro che operano nelle istituzioni pubbliche, in modo che possano far vivere "l'Esprit des Lois" nella maniera più alta possibile. La disobbedienza civile è la risposta ad un mondo che cambia troppo velocemente, ingovernabile con le classiche istituzioni democratiche.