Analysis of “Letter from Birmingham Jail” using “Apology” and “Crito”
The works of Martin Luther King and Socrates show the ideologies of both men in their defense against persecutions made by their governments. In a bid to defend their actions, both authors present their arguments with respect to their particular surroundings. Consequently, as each seeks a form of liberty, there are some likeness, and in some instances disparities, between records of their arguments. In fact, at one point, King likens his condition and arguments to those made by the Greek philosopher. According to King, Socrates urges the Greek society to rise from a “the bondage of myths and half-truths” (2). King called the use of “nonviolent gadflies” that will facilitate the rising of Americans from the “depths of prejudice and racism” (2). This analytical paper seeks to identify the principal reasons Martin Luther King, Jr. presents in his public letter, and in turn, relate them to two of Socrates’ five dialogues.
Martin Luther King’s “Letter from Birmingham Jail” finds its basis on the author’s need to respond to statements of leaders from southern states against riots carried out in Alabama. In the letter, King offers reasons behind his imprisonment while, at the same time, refutes allegations made by the whites. King’s participation in said riot was in retaliation to racial segregation that existed in the United States. His first argument is in response to the southerners referring to him as “outsiders coming in” (King 1). To the argument, King explains that his presidency of the Southern Christian Leadership Conference gives him rights to be where the organization has its offices. Aside from the “headquarters in Atlanta, Georgia” (1), the Southern Christian Leadership Conference had “some eighty-five affiliate organizations all across the South” (King 1). In addition, King provides a moral basis in his fight against injustices against the African American community terming it as “the gospel of freedom” (1). The clergy’s decision to imprison the protestors is a further form of injustice as the men failed to determine reasons behind said protests. A second reason for King’s imprisonment is the southern clergymen’s preference of negotiations as opposed to active demonstrations in the streets. By arguing that King resorted to protests instead of peaceful negotiations, the clergy found a concrete reason to jail the man. However, “the political leaders consistently refused to engage in good-faith negotiation” (King 1) forcing King’s decision to allows the protests.
Finally, yet importantly, the southerners’ claim that the protests were irrelevant and untimely. King answers the issue of the protest being untimely saying, “we have waited for more than three hundred and forty years for our God-given and constitutional rights” (King 2). In the view of the white man, African Americans were breaking multiple laws in their defiant ways. However, King disputes this by pointing out that there is a difference between just laws and unjust laws with unjust laws being “no law at all” (King 3). Segregation is King’s example to an unjust law as the act “distorts the soul and damages the personality” (King 3). Again, King’s focuses his arguments on the morality of his actions by comparing them to the Biblical story of Shadrach Meshach and Abednego (King 3). Thus, to the white man, King was after the destruction of the hierarchy created by the superior whites. However, dubbing it as civil disobedience, King supports his actions as the disobedience of an unjust law. In turn, the clergy’s dubbing of King as an extremist create the last cause of the man’s imprisonment. Rather than deny it, King embraces the concept of an extremist by placing himself between the Africans determined to gain equality and those that have given up on such hopes (King 4).
Martin Luther King’s primary argument is the aforementioned civil disobedience. To understand King’s analysis one has to be knowledgeable on the history of African Americans and in turn, their position within a society in which the white man was the ruler. Thus according to King, after the years of slavery in which black people were the white man’s mere property, the protest was long overdue. The concept of civil disobedience materializes in the white man’s efforts to keep a segregated America in which the rights of African Americans are still limited. Hence, whilst protests are indeed against the law, the use of said law to maintain segregation is unjust to the author. Socrates’ conceptions of the law are evident in “Crito” as he refuses to escape from prison despite his pending execution. Unlike King, Socrates chooses and accepts to remain in prison stating, “Crito, and if so it please the gods, so be it” (Plato, Grube, and Cooper 46). In “Apology” Socrates compares himself to a soldier. Just as a soldier’s commander instructs him to wait at the post “without a thought for death or anything else, rather than disgrace” (Plato, Grube, and Cooper 33). Thus, despite Crito’s efforts to convince Socrates to escape, the man opts to stay in prison and face the executioner believing God played a role in the same. In the process of refuting Crito’s encouragement to escape, Socrates’ views on the importance of avoiding the opinion of masses by asking, “should we care so much for the opinion of the many?” (Plato, Grube, and Cooper 50) Thus, even as King allows the determination of the masses to influence him, Socrates avoids making decisions based on what other people think. A good instance is in King’s decision to go on protests on the streets of Alabama. The decision later leads to the arrest of all participants and the brutality of the “publicly nonviolent” (King 6) police officers who would otherwise torment prisoners.
A similarity is apparent in the morality arising from both authors. The instances in which King likens his situation to that of some biblical figures provide evidence to a man’s belief of God’s hand in his actions. For instance, King believes that his actions are like the condemnation of Jesus due to his, “never-ceasing devotion to His will” (King 3). To King, a white man’s insistence of maintaining segregations against the black man is against Christianity teachings in which all men are equal before God. Therefore, his option to fight the rules of the whites will be a liberating factor for all African Americans. On the other hand, in “Apology”, the philosopher tells the prosecutors that his actions are what god orders him to do (Plato, Grube, and Cooper 34). Socrates faced charges on the grounds of corrupting the people of Athens and in turn, interfering with the Greek society and religion (Plato, Grube, and Cooper 32). However, to the Socrates, his actions were not to be condemned; rather, he believed that his words were a liberating factor for the youth and all Athenians. Socrates encouraged the people to care more about their character than the state of their bodies and riches. Such teachings went against all of the Greek cultural norms in which the people gave more worth to the social hierarchy determined by wealth and one’s level of education. The involvement of divine beings gives emphasis to the men’s beliefs on the moral standards of their actions.
In their defenses, both King and Socrates make arguments to refute the charges with which their respective governments charge. As aforementioned, King and the other protestors were under confinement on multiple charges as King records in “Letter from Birmingham Jail”. King presents his case in a systematic manner and gradually faces up to the charges against him and his followers. King’s methods of approaching the white man’s charges are evident above as an analysis of the white man’s reasons for imprisoning the Alabama protestors. On that note, King provides his readers with the reasons for his imprisonment, and for each one, he gives a well-placed counterargument to support his actions. Therefore, King’s methods are concise and straight to the point leaving little room for any form of disproval. A good instance is his attack on the morals of the Christian churches of the Southern States. King assumed that the Southern churches and synagogues will provide alliances to the fight for equality but instead, few of members of the same were in the opposition forces (King 5). Christianity dictates equality if not the fair treatment of all people, about the actions and teachings of Jesus Christ. Thus, the actions of the religious men of the south went against all these teachings and ideologies of the Christian faith.
In contrast, Socrates’ methods of arguments are marked with questions that force his listeners to derive answers and conclusions on their own. Rather than provide any forms of conclusions to said listeners, Socrates’ methods required the people to adopt a philosophical attitude and adopt his methods of thinking. For instance, in “Crito”, rather than giving an outright refusal to Crito’s plan, Socrates makes the man doubt the morals behind the deed via a series of questions. For instance, Socrates manages to convince Crito that an escape will be an unjust action. His argument finds basis in the fact that fleeing will entail the breaking of an agreement between the philosopher and the city (Plato, Grube, and Cooper 53). In addition, Socrates’ will be breaking the law and going against his ideologies altogether (Plato, Grube, and Cooper 53).
Conclusively, there are more contrasts than there are similarities between King’s arguments and those made by Socrates in the two dialogues. With this regard, it is important to note that the two existed in different times and fought for different causes. Whilst King fought for the African American race; Socrates had his life in his hands, therefore making his decisions accountable to himself rather than the rest of the society.
Works Cited
Martin Luther King, Jr. "Letter from Birmingham Jail." The Atlantic Monthly August 1963. Print.
Plato, G.M.A. Grube, John M. Cooper. Five Dialogues: Euthyphro, Apology, Crito, Meno, Phaedo. Indiana: Hackett Publishing, 2012. Print.
