Another little explanation of something that often confuses people: acts of civil disobedience vs. acts of direct action:

Civil disobedience is the public breaking of an unjust law to show how unjust it is. Keywords are ‘public’ and ‘show’. Civil disobedience is done to be seen. Like a demonstration or a public speech, it’s main purpose is to persuade, to contribute to the public debate. So the amount of media coverage and the shift in public opinion are part of how success is measured. 

Classic civil disobedience involves publicly announcing your action in advance, attaching your own name and face to it, carrying out the action and publicly going through the resulting legal procedures, stating openly what you have done and why. The court case is part of the action, and like the action it strives to persuade.

By participating in the court case the activist shows that they oppose this specific unjust law, but are still law-abiding citizens that are willing to let the law run its course. Civil disobedience opposes specific laws or parts of the system, not the system as a whole.

Direct action is the breaking of an unjust law to directly counter its effect. Keyword is ‘effect’. Direct action is about a practical result as a direct consequence of the action. It doesn’t need to be observed. It doesn’t need to be in the news. Public opinion is not the target.

Generally, direct action is done anonymously and activists try to avoid getting caught and going to court. For someone doing direct action, the public display of a court case is a distraction from getting the real work done. If you are not caught, you retain the freedom and energy to participate in a next action. If your goal is direct effect, this is obviously better. Participants in direct action often have no interest in being law-abiding citizens and often oppose the system as a whole.

Civil disobedience and direct action can and often do mix. Activists engaged in direct action often see the public spectacle as a nice bonus and activists engaged in civil disobedience often see the direct result as a nice bonus.A public occupation of a coal mine can serve both to damage the working of the mine (effect) and influence public opinion. A blockade is often a mix of civil disobedience and direct action.

But it is good to keep an eye on the difference and to know which aim, them it comes down to it, is more important to organizers and participants. Is the direct effect the most important or public opinion? There will be times when you have to choose, and often that choice comes during a crisis situation.

For example, if a blockade is met with unexpectedly brutal police violence, the response of a direct action activist might be to find new ways to fight back which require less cameras on site, while the response of a civil disobedience activist might be to increase live streaming with more cameras.

In the thick of the fight, key decisions often hinge on whether you value public opinion over the effect of the action. So it is vital to know where you, your affinity group and the larger organization stand before the action starts.