Defiance

What is defiance? What then justifies protest against prevailing power structures?

Defiance can be considered of two sorts 1) of willfulness 2) of against injustice. Willfulness exist insofar that it does not consider future implications of which means that a lack of thought for the collateral damage- whether indirect or direct- by one's actions or defiance. It's defiance is therefore random and should not be taken seriously.

Defiance against injustice carries an ethical weight. It's defiance is therefore not the result of unconsidered thought but rather one of deliberation and not the result of any random emotional outbursts. It's defiance is therefore grounded in the pattern of consistent injustice or behaviour of which the legitimacy is derived from a plundering of social equity or justice.

Willfulness is frequently linked with the young as it is associated with frequent emotional outburst defined by an inadequate understanding of cultural norms and frustration- an angst so to speak.

Defiance- those legitimate ones that is- is normally carried out by the weak whom are often disadvantaged and therefore incapable of deciding and administering. It's only recourse to justice often lies in the route of disruption as opposed to exploitation.

A defiance- however ethically right or morally fertile- often wraps itself in the idea of the end outcome. What this means ultimately is that of what use is defiance when it amounts to nothing other than disrupting normality. And therefore very often, defiance is often ultimately seen as just unruli-ness. And therefore loses even the moral capital that it so preciously procure as a result of their exploited position.

But what many conservatives and other status quo factions fail to recognize is that if there are no disruptions- the only recourse is a revolution. And that would be way more painful- for everyone- if one is to take this course of action.

Assuming that the moral capital is intact, the only way to utilize and to wager future outcomes on one's interest without fully using it is to disrupt. Therefore, defiance as a form of protest is therefore a negotiation tool and not full on wager on war. It is I believe in most people's minds not to ask you to quit- but rather to tell you that, look there is some unhappiness there.

A person or a faction who attempts therefore to crush a defiance therefore bankrupts his own moral capital and giving the so-called "rebels" an even stronger moral voice of which to strike against his own exploiters.

The exploiters therefore whom have raided their moral treasury in exchange for hard power would have to employ greater hard power in order to quell even further moral unrest. Handing even further power to the weak because it's only moral defence- that of an uncertain future- is put to rest with even greater violence.

And therefore causing a defiance into a full-on revolution exacerbated only by his own actions of escalating violence- a negotiation has therefore turn into an adversarial relationship.

Therefore defiance of the second kind is not a morally bankrupt move but rather a strategic one. It's fruition is calculated one of which the ultimate outcome is not to disrupt the normal workings of group but rather a negotiated one. One who wilfully or unwittingly crushed a defiance with a full force risk only bankrupting his moral authority- escalating violence and bringing about unnecessary unrest.

The result even though unknown but the resolve and moral authority is almost always lost.