Civil Rights Leaders were Pessimists

Newswise — The leaders of the Civil Rights Movement exemplified some of society's most valued attributes, including faith, determination and a hunger for justice. But University of Arkansas historian David Chappell claims that, despite their personal virtues, these leaders held deeply ingrained doubts about the inherent goodness of human nature. His latest study suggests it was this pessimism that spurred the leaders to act.

"These men and women were moved not by an optimism for the future but by a conviction that society was corrupt, that it was sick with sin and that it wouldn't get better by sitting back and letting the natural processes of social development take their course," Chappell said. "They believed people had to behave in some extreme way against their natural inclinations in order to keep society from sinking further into the spiral of injustice."

In the context of the Civil Rights Movement, that meant demanding equality and justice in the face of overwhelming odds and at risk of personal harm. Regardless of social progress, expanded education or economic development, civil rights leaders did not trust society to grant equal rights of its own accord. And so they fought.

It's a darker motivation than is usually attributed to the Civil Rights Movement, but it's also a more realistic one, according to Chappell. He explains the research and rationale that led him to this perspective in the latest issue of The Journal of the Historical Society.

In "A Stone of Hope: Prophetic Faith, Liberalism, and the Death of Jim Crow," Chappell presents the philosophical beliefs of three prominent civil rights leaders: Martin Luther King Jr., Bayard Rustin and Modjeska Simkins. Within the writings of each leader, Chappell found evidence of their distrust of human nature and of social institutions " a conviction that these forces would never enact social change on their own.

King, Rustin and Simkins were not alone in that conviction. In fact, Chappell's article precedes a book on the same topic " to be published later in the fall " which examines the perspectives of an additional four civil rights activists: James Lawson, John Lewis, Bob Moses and Fanny Lou Hamer. Each expressed similar concerns about the corruption of society and the unlikely prospect of obtaining social justice without radical action.

Chappell selected these leaders because of their prominent roles in the movement and because each left writings and reflections about their philosophical views. Through the course of his research, there was no denying that these individuals were linked by a profound skepticism about human nature. Further, this skepticism distinguished the civil rights activists from mainstream liberals, who believed that progressive social developments would naturally bring about greater freedom and equality for all citizens.

"One has to be cautious about supposing this skepticism extended beyond these seven individuals, but they were influential leaders, planners and strategists in the fight for civil rights. They shaped the movement and its goals," Chappell said. "The fact that their ideas about human nature differed so radically from mainstream liberalism, from the very ideology that gave birth to the movement for freedom, has far-reaching significance."

In particular, it helps explain why a disfranchised minority population with few financial or political resources chose to take on a system as powerful and as fiercely protected as segregation. With no hope of social justice developing spontaneously, their only option was to fight for it. As Chappell wrote in the article, civil rights leaders believed that "the oppressed are the only ones who will bear the burden of the struggle against their oppression because they are the only ones with an interest in doing so, the only ones with nothing to lose."

Their skepticism not only served as motivation for the movement, but it also kept the leaders and activists on track, Chappell said. Believing that human nature was inherently corrupt, civil rights leaders exercised discipline in setting and pursuing their goals " careful to distinguish their movement as just without degenerating into moral arrogance, self-righteousness and vengefulness. This allowed for political action and radicalism but discouraged activists from seizing upon moral righteousness, a step that has led to violence in other freedom movements worldwide.

Such discipline may explain how the Civil Rights Movement achieved so many of its goals with such a low death toll. Only 40 people died over the course of a movement that brought radical change and secured a great increase of freedom for millions of people. It's a rare accomplishment in the annals of history, according to Chappell.

What's just as extraordinary is that the people who orchestrated the movement overcame their own profound pessimism about human nature to inspire thousands of activists to adopt a just and noble cause.

"It takes truly extraordinary and truly prophetic leaders to motivate people toward sacrifice and the abandonment of individual pursuits for the common good," Chappell said. "War is a great way to do that. It's difficult and far more rare to do it for some peaceful, constructive purpose."