The hunger strike is an utterly ineffective method of civil disobedience in modern America. The reasons encompass nearly every aspect of what defines us as Americans.

On the simplest level, a hunger strike is ineffective because it is suicide. In the United States today, suicide is illegal. While such legality is immaterial for most suicides, in the case of a hunger strike it becomes extremely important.

As a method of suicide, starvation is one of the most effective, but only if it goes unobserved by authorities. In a situation where starvation is the result of a high profile hunger strike, authorities will take note, and the hunger striker will eventually be arrested and force-fed. Following a psychological evaluation, there is a strong possibility that the individual will be committed for his own protection.

On the basis of legality then, the hunger strike is completely ineffective for it relies on the assumption that death is one of the possible outcomes. Eliminate death as an outcome, and the power of the hunger strike is completely removed. Even without this simplest of arguments against the hunger strike, it remains ineffective on a number of other very important levels.

The natural assumption of people on a hunger strike is that their chosen method of protest will be effective because their blood will ultimately stain the hands of those capable of meeting their demands or “requests.” This depends heavily on the concept of bringing guilt to bear in order to change opinion. Guilt and coercion are very closely related in the human psyche.

The average American rebels against coercion. From the day we are born until the day we die, Americans are taught to value free will. We are taught that this nation was founded in a monumental struggle against oppression, against coercion by a foreign power.

The ideal of free will is so deeply embedded in our cultural psyche that any action which diminishes our free will is seen as subversive, perhaps even evil.

As a result, a hunger strike, which depends on a method of coercion, again loses its power. Instead of endearing the public and those in power to the cause, a hunger strike generates negativity toward the individual and diminishes the relevance of the issues for which the striker fights.

When viewed as a method of coercion, the hunger strike can easily be likened to terrorism. While terrorism attacks people physically, the hunger strike attacks people’s emotions and morality. As an act of moral terrorism, the hunger strike removes the legitimacy of the cause. Over and over again in this century, America has refused to be manipulated by terrorists of any kind. Americans simply will not be coerced.

Additionally, Americans do not value or honor self-inflicted martyrdom. This is not to say that martyrs do not grow in our estimation, nor that martyrdom cannot necessarily garner support for a cause. One only needs to look as far as Martin Luther King, Jr., to see how a martyr can galvanize public opinion. There is, however, an important distinction between Dr. King and a hunger striker:

Dr. King’s life was stolen from him, while the hunger strikers takes his own life.

Let there be no misunderstanding. There is certainly international precedent for hunger strikes. Gandhi comes quickly to mind as an example of the effective implementation of a hunger strike. Even so, the hunger strike was only a minor part of his vast effort for social change. Furthermore, it is important to remember that Gandhi’s cultural context was very different from that of America.

In some cultures the concept of “honorable suicide” is both cherished and deeply ingrained. For any act of civil disobedience to be successful, it must work within society’s cultural framework. To the American mind, suicide is an act of desperation, rather than an act of conviction, and is in no way honorable.

What did the protests of the 1960s teach us as Americans? They taught us the power and effectiveness of the active voice. From the 1960s we learn that one voice raised in rational and moral protest can soon become several voices. These voices continue to speak, and speak together, and soon several voices become many voices. Bring together enough voices and they will not be ignored.

This simple and proven method is utterly disregarded by the hunger strike, for in its very conception the hunger strike will silence the single voice long before it has time to become many.

A hunger strike also shows complete lack of faith in the American system. Democracy is founded on the principle that the people have a voice in how they are governed. Change, both social and political, is affected by active protest and active participation. As a result, Americans respect and value active positive protest, even if the issues at hand are not supported.

Regardless of the issues, Americans will almost invariably affirm the activist’s right to speak. Most Americans will not, however, support the act of suicide and its passive method of protest through self inflicted death. Suicide simply does not arouse the American psyche; quite the contrary, it tends to make one wonder about the validity of the activist’s voice.

How long is one expected to wait for protest to affect change? In present day America, this is a difficult question to answer. Protest and civil disobedience sometimes creates such tremendous and immediate fervor that change comes quickly.

Yet America is not only a democratic system, but also a bureaucratic system. By its very nature, a bureaucracy is hampered by inertia and change often takes years.

Dedication, patience and vision are absolutely necessary for an individual or group seeking to change things in America. An act of desperation, a hunger strike implies a lack of real dedication. Because starvation will rapidly cripple and destroy the body, a hunger strike also suggests terrible impatience. This impatience alone reflects lack of vision and further suggests a disconnection from the American reality.

It cannot be denied that a hunger strike generates a great deal of media attention, particularly if important members of the media are biased toward the issues, either through direct association or partisan sympathy.

Regardless of the reasons, this media coverage does not necessarily mean that the issues which drive the hunger strike will be embraced any more than they were previously.

Indeed, many people will read about the hunger strike and find themselves incapable of seeing past it to the real issues. Consequently, the hunger strike becomes the focus of attention rather than the cause it attempts to forward. As a result, the issues can be hindered rather than aided as people focus on the individual and his extreme actions.

Remember that first and foremost this is America. Remember that we cherish human life, respect dedication, honor the active voice and praise those willing to devote their lives to their cause, not those who purposefully extinguish their lives for their causes.

---

Michael T. Gardner is a senior in history from Annapolis, Maryland.