Let’s Try

October 6, 2025

Written and Edited By: Kaleah Baylee Taylor

Depending on who you ask, the Black Liberation Army (BLA) occupies different positions in American history. For some, they are revolutionaries that exercised their freedom in the pursuit of justice; for others, they are radical terrorists deserving of prosecution. This paper argues that although the BLA represents a compelling case of civil disobedience, the group’s activity remains consistent with both Jean-Jacques Rousseau’s and Ronald Dworkin’s ideas of freedom.

To begin, Rousseau’s Social Contract assumes that all members of the Republic share genuine and equal membership in the collective, yet the Black Liberation Army and Black communities more broadly were excluded from that membership and therefore from the contract itself. If they were never full participants, they cannot be bound by its obligations. Their resistance, then, should not be read as a rejection of collective interest and civil freedom, but as a demand for civil freedom in the face of a political order that excluded them. 

Rousseau opens the work by establishing what makes political authority legitimate, arguing that true legitimacy arises from a balance between individual freedom and collective interest, with the latter being most important. He defends the idea that individuals, by entering into a social contract, effectively subordinate their private interests to the common good or what he calls the general will. Rousseau maintains that this general will reflects the interest of the collective, and that rational individuals, upon internal reflection, will recognize it as the most beneficial path, securing not only the community’s well-being but also their own individual protection, progress, and advancement (11). This model, while consistent, is built on the premise that all individuals in a given assembly or community are equal participants and beneficiaries of the social contract (17). Rousseau condemns inequality and argues it’s the state’s responsibility to make each individual equal. While this is productive, in Book I circumstances in which individuals exist in a Republic, but aren't actualized within the political collective is not mentioned. This section doesn’t address individuals who are disenfranchised and denied participation in the formation of the general will. It is therefore irrational to impose a foreign general will upon a people who never entered the given social contract.

For instance, take the case of the previously mentioned Black Liberation Army. The BLA was a network of Black liberation militant organizations active across the U.S. from the 70’s-80’s. The group operated above ground through newspapers, community initiatives, and charity events, while simultaneously engaging underground in extralegal activities such as expropriations, prison breaks, and monitoring the police (“Freedom Archives”). These activities might appear selfish, private, even nationalistic, seemingly contradicting Rousseau’s principles. However, it is crucial to recall that Black communities across the U.S are systemically denied the security, equal protection, and opportunities for progress that the social contract ensures. In such a context, the general will of America cannot legitimately be imposed on the BLA. Nonetheless, I maintain that freedom exists in a space between strict obedience to the general will and active resistance to unjust laws. If the Black community were fully actualized socially and politically, then obedience to the general will would serve to secure collective well-being, enabling individuals to exercise civil liberties and advance collectively.

Building on this discussion, Ronald Dworkin’s Taking Rights Seriously shifts the focus to the rights of individuals within a collective particularly in relation to the state and its laws. He dually examines how different political ideologies respond to lawbreaking and civil disobedience in the American context. Ultimately, in Chapter 7, Dworkin highlights how the assembly, regardless of ideology, appreciates the repression of resistance, an insight particularly relevant to the case of the Black Liberation Army (187). He acknowledges that governments sometimes make serious, often fatal errors, but over time, mechanisms of retribution and correction help to restore justice. Dworkin argues that when moral disagreements arise and neither side can prove its position, a decision must still stand, which he acknowledges as imperfect but preferable to anarchy. In all, Dworkin asserts that the government’s ultimate responsibility is to try to make morally right decisions for its citizens.

Dworkin’s framework recognizes that the judiciary, government institutions, and even the Constitution are fallible and this aspect opens the door to legitimizing resistance. Dworkin’s framework however, still has its limitations. The Black Liberation Army demonstrates the revolutionary behaviors that will occur when some number of subjects fail to retain Dworkin’s faith in the judiciary’s corrective mechanisms. If the state continually fails to make morally right decisions for certain groups, Black Americans, then the assumption that justice will eventually be restored through institutional channels becomes difficult to sustain. The rise of the BLA and organizations like it in this era, can be seen as a result of this breakdown. These groups are examples that when institutions don’t yield justice, resistance becomes an unavoidable and legitimate, though widely condemned, response. In this sense Dworkin’s framework is limited in discussing the means of maintaining a free and accountable society. 

In conclusion, the Black Liberation Army is one example that embodies the tension between obedience and resistance that both Rousseau and Dworkin identify within the pursuit of freedom and justice. Their struggle exposes the limits of a social contract and legal order that exclude people from its protection, reminding us that civil disobedience can emerge not simply as defiance of law, but as a demand to try to be recognized by it.

Not included in original article:

In 1975, the Black Liberation Army stated:

“We, as blacks in North America must realize, that to seek inclusion into the prevailing socio-economic system is suicide in the long run, for the prevailing system cannot withstand the irresistible world trend of history which is opposed to continued U.S. exploitation, racist domination and subjugation. To fool ourselves into believing that "equal opportunity", "justice", and social equality is the same as the capitalist system is a grave mistake with genocidal implications for every person of color. Our first obligation is to ourselves, this means our first obligation is to secure our total liberation from those forces that maintain our oppressive condition. Related to this self-obligation (not distinct from it) is our obligation to all oppressed peoples throughout the world, for in striving to liberate ourselves we must abolish a system that enslaves others throughout the world…”