On Dissent: Its Meaning in America - Hardcover

Q&A with authors Ronald Collins and David Skover

Why write a book about dissent?

“Dissent” is treated as a known fact. There have been countless books, articles, judicial opinions, and popular news pieces written about dissent. But for all that, it is remarkable that no one has devoted much ink to explaining what dissent is. Many have explained why we must value dissent, but few, if any, have described what this thing is that we value. The questions that are never asked include: What is “dissent”? What is its philosophical, legal, linguistic, and cultural meanings? There is a need to understand this phenomenon that we call dissent-- for not every difference of opinion, symbolic gesture, incitement to action, revolutionary effort or political assassination need be considered dissent. It is just this measure of meaning that On Dissent offers.

Whom did you interview? Was there anything surprising about how they defined dissent?

Interviews for this book were conducted with twenty-two distinguished persons-- judges, legal scholars, philosophers, sociologists, historians, religious studies professors, political theorists, communication theorists, social activists, and even one media personality-- all of whom generously gave of their time and effort to explore with us their understandings of dissent. Although we expected more consensus from them as to the meaning of dissent, we were quite surprised by how often they differed in their views of its essential features and workings. In the long run, this wide range of responses to our questions added to the richness of our own analysis and discussion in On Dissent.

Dissent is most often associated with political and religious movements, but how is dissent also significant in commercial and artistic arenas?

It is true that one typically thinks of dissent in religious realms, political circles, and other social contexts. But there is clearly something more to dissent when you think of the commercial and aesthetic spheres. Consider only a few of the many questions posed in On Dissent: Can a corporation be a dissenter? Even if it is possible for a non-profit corporation to dissent, can a for-profit corporation like Nike or Exxon be viewed meaningfully as a dissenter? Under what conditions may that be the case? Although the notion of artists acting as dissenters may be commonplace, is it as likely to be the case for commercial products-- Che Guevara shirts, Malcolm X baseball caps, black Goth clothing, or other fashion statements? Can dissent ever meaningfully be an aesthetic or stylistic choice of self-expression? These questions and many more are also explored in On Dissent.

What’s the relationship between violence and dissent?

This is a very complex and challenging question. On Dissent features a chapter called “The Vagaries of Violence” that explores the very thorny connection between various forms of violence and dissent, and it is impossible to summarize the analysis of that chapter in just a few words. Suffice it to say that, at its core, the concept of dissent (in America, at least) is most easily associated with non-violent types of protest, though it need not categorically end there. Even though civil disobedience is against the law, most-- but not all-- consider non-violent civil disobedience to be meaningful dissent. But what happens as dissent moves along the spectrum from minor injury to persons or property to acts of terrorism, rebellion, and revolution? At these points, all consensus breaks down as to whether such actions should be labeled as “dissent” at all, even if they would not be legally tolerated. Here, conceptual nuance is vital. The stimulating examination of the relationship between dissent and violence is a strong feature of On Dissent.