“We’re going to march!
We’re going to walk together!
We’re going to stand together, we’re going
to sing together, we’re going to stay together,
we’re going to moan together, we’re going
to groan together and say, “Freedom!
Freedom!
Freedom now!””
[Applause]
In this Letter from a Birmingham Jail, this
is an open letter that Martin Luther King
has written in response to critics.
His critics are ranging from people who are
outright opposed to the Civil Rights Movement,
to people who are sympathetic to his cause
but opposed to his methods.
His cause is simple: he wants freedom, he
wants equality under the law.
Now there’s lots to say about this letter;
King covers quite a few things.
I’m not going to cover the letter in analytic
detail, but I do want to highlight and talk
about a few important topics.
The first topic I want to look at is King’s
distinction between just and unjust laws.
Now, the distinction is probably simply put:
A just law is a law that treats all people
as people and an unjust law is a law that
does not.
The primary example that King uses are the
Jim Crow laws.
Now, what’s distinct about these Jim Crow
laws is that they were made by one group of
people that affects the second.
And the second has no say in the laws; and
in addition to that, the second group of people
are treated differently than the first.
Now, the Jim Crow laws were supposed to separate
the Whites or Caucasians from non-Whites.
The idea, though, is kind of, I guess maybe
to make the idea tolerable, is that the races
were separated, even though they were separated,
they were supposed to be treated equally.
So, they were supposed to have equal facilities
or equal quality of facilities – equal worth,
we might say.
Now, while they were supposed to be separate
but equal – this is the phrase used for
the Jim Crow laws – while they’re supposed
to be separate but equal, in practice, they
were not.
Usually the facilities or accommodations for
non-Whites were of greatly inferior quality
than for the Whites, if they indeed existed
at all.
Sometimes, in some situations, there would
simply be White facilities and no facilities
at all for anybody else.
So, this was King’s prime example of an
unjust law.
The Jim Crow laws treated non-Whites differently
than Whites, and actually worse.
And non-Whites had no say in this.
Only Whites had legal authority at the time.
According to King, just laws maintain an “I-you”
relationship between people.
That is, that both people are treated as people
under the law.
An unjust law establish an “I-it” relationship.
“It” is a pronoun used to refer to things
other than people: Objects, property.
My car has no ability to determine its own
status or how we treat it under the law.
I can determine how to treat my car.
This camera that I’m using to record the
videos, it’s an “it”.
I get to determine how the camera exists under
this law but it does not.
Now, when a law is set in place that removes
a person’s ability to determine their status
under the law, they’re reduced to an object,
an “it”.
This is the main difference between just laws
and unjust laws – and that, there’s many
ways to do this.
The main way that King describes is that a
person is not able to determine their existence
under the law.
But this main distinction between a just and
an unjust law is whether a person is a person
under the law.
One question is whether a law is just and
unjust.
Another question is what to do about it.
Now, to maybe put King’s view in perspective,
let’s consider two other philosophers that
we’ve studied during the course of the semester:
Hobbes and Locke.
Now, for both of these people, for both of
these philosophers, you have the right to
react violently in cases of this kind of oppression.
For Hobbes, you are – you know, he’s basically
taking the Egoist’s position here, Hobbes
is.
When your interests are not protected, you
no longer have to obey the laws.
You may return to what’s given in the state
of nature.
You can kill for – to protect your own interests.
The law doesn’t say something too entirely
different.
Remember, for Locke, you know, you can kill
a thief for Locke.
And the reason is this other person, you know,
what’s happening for Locke, the reason why
you can kill a thief is that your sovereignty
is threatened, right.
Your life is threatened.
And when your life is threatened, you may
react violently to defend your rights and
kill, if you wish.
King is taking a very different approach.
For King, you know, reacting violently is
not the way to go.
Hobbes and Locke would say you can.
They would even say you know, you’re obligated
in some sense to react violently but King’s
approach is different.
Now, before really jumping into King’s approach
– it’s obvious that King’s approach
is not violence but it might help to explain
some of his motivations.
At one point, King kind of, sort of describes
his approach as a moderate approach between
two extremes.
One extreme is to do nothing!
The other extreme is violent action.
Now, these are extreme responses to injustice.
The “do nothing” approach is “Well,
let’s just wait it out, you know.
Things will get better.
Just give them time and things will improve.”
The violent approach is, “Let’s,” you
know, something like Locke and Hobbes’ approach
is you know, “Let’s fight back!
Let’s – you know, meet violence with violence!”
And in some ways, King’s approach is, is
a mid-way.
So what – we’re not doing nothing but
neither are we using violence.
Now, King can’t condone either extreme and
that, you know, you can’t condone doing
nothing.
They waited long enough.
The injustice continues.
Things are not getting better for, you know,
according to King.
They’ve tried other courses of action – negotiation,
but it didn’t work.
So he can’t sit back and do nothing.
On the other hand, violence – he can’t
condone violence either.
Violence just makes things worse.
Violence just creates more separation.
Violence breeds more “I-it” relationships.
Violence causes more injustice, not justice.
So, you can’t take either approach.
Now, initially, this could be considered a
midway point between these two extremes but
King says, “You know, there really isn’t.”
King has his own extreme here.
It’s not an extreme of doing nothing, it’s
not an extreme of violence.
It’s an extreme of love.
So King describes what he calls this Extremism
of Love.
And it is an extreme.
It’s not just simply a midway point between
doing nothing and violence.
It’s action but action that we can’t fathom,
frankly.
We don’t act the way that King acts.
You know, when somebody hurts us, we retaliate
with violence and anger.
King would say, “React with compassion”.
Instead of exacting punishment for all these
wrongs over the years, King wants unity and
reconciliation.
We think that’s crazy.
When somebody wrongs us, we fight back.
We don’t say, “Okay, let’s work this
out.”
It’s a little bit interesting, don’t you
think, that we praise King for the great work
that he’s done and yet we think his methods
are crazy?
Now, King prescribes four steps for direct,
non-violent direct action.
You have investigation, you have negotiation,
purification, and then finally action.
Of the four steps, investigation is probably
the simplest.
Investigation is just a collection of the
facts and what you’re supposed to determine
is whether the laws that are in place are
just or unjust.
Or even, you might say, suppose the laws are
just and unjust, you have to determine whether
the application of the law is just or unjust.
The law itself can be just but people can
abuse the law.
It’s happened before, it’ll happen again.
So, the first episode, investigation to determine
whether the laws are just or unjust.
The second, the second step is negotiation.
Now, you know, it’s one thing to determine
whether a law is just or unjust.
It’s another thing to, like simply just
into action.
King doesn’t say you should do that.
You, you should negotiate first.
You should, you know, approach the other party
and say, “Look, we have an unjust law here.
Let’s figure out what we should do about
it.”
Now, you know, you might be tempted to think
that negotiation, that negotiation happens
once or twice and if it doesn’t work, then
go into direct action.
No, not so much.
The way that King describes what happened
in Birmingham, they went to negotiation time
and time again.
I mean, they tried again, and again, and again
for negotiation and they were met with deaf
ears but they didn’t stop.
They still asked for negotiation.
And when they finally got negotiation, you
know, there were promises made.
And if they had kept their promises in Birmingham
that might have been the end of it but the
promises were broken.
The way that King describes it, this negotiation
is a long process and you try time and time
again.
In fact, you know, for King, it isn’t just
a matter of, “Okay, this negotiation didn’t
work.
Let’s jump into direct action.”
It’s a matter of, you know, what other course
do you have left?
If you’ve got nothing left, according to
King, then you go to the step, on the way
to direct action.
But negotiation should fail, I mean abysmally
fail, before you go into action.
And unless it does, you don’t engage in
direct action.
So at this point, negotiation has failed.
And still not yet time for direct action.
Next is self-purification.
Now, self-purification is not a process where
you make yourself better than anybody else,
where you become morally superior, where you
are, you take a position of authority over
somebody else.
It’s not that at all.
It’s actually really different.
King, right, by self-purification, King is
taking this Extremism of Love.
You ask yourself whether you can suffer at
the hands of others, where they can be insulted,
spit upon, jailed, hated, yelled at, slandered,
whether you can see your friends suffer at
the hands of other, to have fire hoses turned
on them, to be chewed on by dogs, whether
you can watch your brothers and sisters suffer
at the hands of others, to see your children
suffer at the hands of others, to be treated
in the most unjust of ways and not strike
back?
Can you suffer and not yell back?
Can you suffer and not hate back?
This is, this is his Extremism of Love.
King doesn’t want to force people to change.
He wants people to change on their own.
He wants injustice to be solved, not at the
end of a gun, but by the shaking of hands.
So, you need to ask yourself, are you willing
to be a victim in the hopes of igniting sympathy?
In the hopes of one day embracing your oppressor
as a brother?
If the answer is no, King would tell you to
step back.
You’re not ready.
So you take that difficult step of self-purification.
And suppose you’re ready.
Then it’s the time for direct action.
If you’re willing to suffer for the sake
of justice, you stand, you speak the truth,
you suffer.
You do not slander, you do not hate, you do
not try to send away your oppressive brother
and sister.
King still calls them “brothers” and “sisters”.
King still wants them to be family.
Now, King is clear, when you break this unjust
law, with this direct action is breaking this
unjust law, what you do so out in the open.
You don’t try to hide it.
You don’t try to escape the consequences.
You break the unjust law and you accept the
legal and unjust consequences.
And in this way, you work.
You work for justice and you work for unity.
