Mahatma Gandhi understood that grand schemes do not usually offer permanent solutions to
problems. He recognized that human or societal perfection, in the short term, is impossible to
attain. Some questions are always left unresolved and people soon discover that their "permanent
solutions" or "final solutions"are only temporary ones that sometimes create more problems than
they solve. All the little man who walked the dusty roads and paths of India really wanted from
people was that they continually struggle to be in greater harmony with God or their conception
of Divine Ultimacy and that they help others live meaningful lives as free from oppression as
possible. While Gandhi's philosophy is one of confrontation, it is a philosophy of confrontation
based on love. In this meaning, it is a morally pure philosophy, perhaps too pure for many people
to fully accept, although, if a person looks into his or her heart, it will probably be discovered that
Gandhi's philosophy holds true in most respects. However, people have to deal with a world
where circumstances, rivalries and violence often force them from a path of moral goodness, and
they have to react to these manifestations of their world, often in expedient ways that are not
consistent with their inner sense of goodness. Because of these realities, most people find
themselves continually struggling to return to the path of spiritual goodness that is apprehended
within their hearts. Gandhi sincerely believed that people attempt to follow their inner sense of
goodness, getting lost at times, committing evil at times, but usually struggling to return to the
way of goodness and Truth. In Gandhi's thinking, the struggle to do this, not the outcome, is
what is most significant.
The Gandhian Framework for Social Change
It appears that the conceptual framework of Gandhian philosophy and satyagraha is here to stay as a basic foundation of future revolutions. During the late twentieth-century, in the U.S., Europe, South Africa, and China, the Gandhian model has been used, sometimes successfully, sometimes without immediate success, but it remains the ideal for resisting oppression throughout much of the world. Saroj Malik remarks, "Gandhi was not a system builder, but he had a complete scheme of concepts on the basis of which a relevant model of social change could be built."(1) Once a person accepts the Gandhian framework for thought, it soon becomes clear that Gandhian philosophy promotes a dialectic of continual opposition between individuals who are, by their natures, seeking greater freedom, meaning, value and justice, and institutions, governments and large enterprises that are, by their natures, attempting to restrict or control most of the above to various degrees. Whether governments or institutions are actually accomplishing a greater good or not, working for the good of all is usually the moral claim for their existence, but it is ultimately up to ordinary people to decide whether the claim is valid. Gandhi recognized this.
The Gandhian model is not a narrow-based, restricted dialectic such as the one Karl Marx developed, but is broad-based and covers much of the spectrum of human affairs. The Gandhian dialectic "marks the struggle between individual and society, authority and freedom, elite and the masses, property and non-possession, labor and capital, and so on."(2) The Gandhian model is one of total revolution, covering most larger elements of the struggles associated with human affairs. Gandhi kept his analysis based on reality to a large degree, unlike Marx who concentrated on only a few issues and then built an unrealistic and artificial model from his employment of insufficient criteria.
Gandhi was not a utopian. The undercurrent of his philosophy reveals that he was just the opposite. Gandhi repeatedly asserts that the sincerity of the struggle is what is important and is what makes people better, not achieving the goal. In Gandhian thinking, the goal is distant and is always changing to some degree, and is almost certain to contain hidden pitfalls that keep a final solution to a problem just out of reach. This is about as realistic and non-utopian as anyone can become.
From the above, it can be seen that Gandhi might be labeled as a relativist, but he was a relativist with a powerful guiding foundation for his relativism. He recognized that nothing humanly created can be final or absolute, but that people can and should find reasonable and nearly satisfactory solutions to their problems if they trust in spiritually apprehended Divine Truth as they see it at the moment. This great foundation, which is the same one most conscionable humans throughout the world understand to some degree, in Gandhian ideology, is the foundation that people should continually use in decision-making and in finding solutions for the ongoing human existential struggle. This is a moral view, but it is also a reality-based view. Most Western people understand this foundation as doing what is apprehended as right and just in regard to man alone, but recent excessive and dangerous human destruction of other creatures and the earth's environment reasonably negates the Western view to a large extent in the contemporary world. There is reason for arguing that the Eastern or Gandhian view, where people should ideally struggle to do what is right for people, all lesser creatures and nature as much as is humanly possible, offers more hope for the future than the Western view where people elevate themselves to Godlike importance and attempt to manipulate and rule over the earth solely for their own benefit.
In the Gandhian view, people go astray when they lose sight of the spiritually-apprehended way of doing what is right and base their life-struggles on other negative foundations such as fear, materialistic greed, self-importance, lust and other elements of selfish human desire. Gandhi believed that it is everyone's responsibility to bring those who lose sight of the Truth to task with love and suffering until they regain a vision of Truth and base their decisions on doing what is morally right and just. So, in reality, the Gandhian dialectic is a struggle between the forces of doing good and the forces of oppression. Gandhi realized that the tension between both forces is necessary and meaningful in the struggle that is human life, that the struggle itself does give meaning, in a greater sense, to human existence, and that attempting to follow an apprehended Divine or Ultimate will is all-important in every aspect of human meaning. Considering all of the above, Gandhi's ideals give a realistic and reasonable framework for viewing the human existential struggle and for continually working to find solutions that might make life better for everyone.
The Gandhian view is one-sided to a degree because Gandhi was primarily concerned with greater human meaning, value and justice, not necessarily with supporting governments and other institutions that restrict and control these elements of human existence. Centralized institutions that oppress people unjustly, whether intentionally or unintentionally, are always seen as a target of Gandhian non-violent resistance. Gandhi certainly viewed the existence of those institutions as necessary to human affairs, but believed that they must continually be reformed and brought back into line by non-violent resistance imposed by individuals and by the masses and that this requires each person to continue an ongoing struggle to accomplish this reformation. Gandhi held no ill will for people who organized and ran such institutions. He felt that they should be loved and respected like everyone else, but that they had to be "kept honest" with continual pressure from the people.
Mahatma Gandhi had some ideas for making things better in society. In this final section of this
thesis, some troubling aspects of the contemporary world, from my understanding of the
Gandhian perspective, will be discussed. Some possible Gandhian-style solutions will be offered
and these should also be considered from a reasonable perspective. In the spirit of Gandhian
philosophy, these solutions should by no means be seen as the only alternatives, but only as
possible starting points from which new struggles toward even greater and more meaningful
solutions might begin.
A Gandhian Ideal of Non-violence
It can be argued that the West has traditionally been violence-oriented, although some wars, in my opinion, were unavoidable. That will have to somehow change because of the proliferation of high-tech weaponry and advanced terrorist strategies throughout the world. Future wars and even small violent rebellions will probably be very destructive for warring opponents and for the environment, and will probably be harmful to the stability and well-being of the nations involved. Gandhian philosophy, which includes ahimsa and satyagraha, might offer ordinary individuals and groups a means for seeking greater meaning, value and justice in their lives without initiating cycles of violence that lead to increased human suffering. Western peoples might find it beneficial to apply some of Gandhi's ideals in order to improve some carefully-selected aspects of Western society and culture.
Gandhian Satyagraha as a means for changing the nature of contemporary institutions and corporate enterprises has some limitations. The major limitation appears to be the size and power of contemporary governments, institutions and multinational corporations in relation to the importance of the individual. One obscure satyagrahi suffering for Truth and freedom would probably have little effect on a powerful organization unless large numbers of people are already dissatisfied with conditions attributed to that organization and find themselves willing to join the resistance. Large organizations often employ lawyers and public relations experts to deflect criticisms. Occasionally, we see television programs where moral individuals "blow the whistle" on wrongdoing in government and in other organizations. Too often, however, these people lose their jobs and fade into obscurity while the organizations go on doing business as usual. In the contemporary world of multinational corporations, even large labor movements are sharply limited, because jobs can be moved to other locations around the world if workers demand too much from employers. Nevertheless, if human suffering attributed to a large organization or government is so unjust that it offends the sensibilities of many people and people are suffering on a large scale, conditions are right for imposing satyagraha and protests against a large organization or institution. This was the case during the U.S.-Vietnam War where many people simply could not justify the unconscionable amount of violence and suffering being imposed on the small country of Vietnam. Mostly non-violent peace movements in the U.S., and around the world, focused their protests against the war and eventually brought an end to the war and drove a U.S. president from office in the process.
A purer form of satyagraha was implemented by Dr. Martin Luther King during the U.S. Civil Rights Movement. Marchers intentionally sought to non-violently provoke the violence of Birmingham, Alabama sheriff "Bull" Conner, and other violent Southern racists in order to show the world the oppressive, evil nature of U.S. racism. Dr. King's Gandhian satyagraha worked and most reasonable and conscionable people eventually concluded that racial oppression is morally wrong. Dr. King suffered his opponents' violence and gave his life in the satyagrahaprocess which contributed to the successful realization of many of his goals. In this case, freedom was advanced through non-violent sacrifice which is what true Gandhian satyagraha is all about.(3)
The key to the implementation of satyagraha against large institutionalized oppressors appears to be a high level of dissatisfaction among many oppressed people. In the case of the U.S. Civil Rights Movement, Black Americans were already in despair. They had little hope of improving their lives through legal means when they joined Dr. King's movement. Gandhi was correct when he viewed satyagraha as an implement of last resort.
Individuals resisting wrongdoing that has been initiated by other individuals with satyagraha is
possible, but also has some limitations. The nature of the situation and people involved is
important in assessing whether satyagraha is an effective tool to use. A wife might decide to
suffer the abuse of an alcoholic husband and to respond with love, but little good might come
from her love and suffering. Her husband might be genuinely remorseful for his abuse when
sober, but might continue the abuse when he again becomes intoxicated. The woman's suffering
does little to change things and might even encourage her abuser. In this case, implementing
satyagraha on a personal level would be unwise. On the other hand, an employee might decide
that doing what is morally right is more important than being dishonest at the instruction of a
supervisor. Prepared to suffer the consequences, including job loss, the employee might gently,
but firmly confront the supervisor and refuse to go along with the dishonesty. The employee
might or might not bring retribution from the supervisor, but if the supervisor is forced to
consider the effects and ethics of the dishonesty in relation to losing an employee over instructions
to do wrong, Gandhi would probably say that the employee's satyagraha was successful,
especially if it forced the supervisor to consider being more honest in the future. The
satyagrahain this example was also a tool of last resort, the resistance being implemented only
after persuasion failed. This discussion brings up a question of whether Gandhian satyagraha has
a place in the postmodern world. It seems to be as important now as in the past. If we are to
believe Jesus or other inspired prophets and individuals, including Gandhi, suffering to restrain
wrongdoing is always important and having the courage to suffer and non-violently resist
oppression might still work in many situations where persuasion does not bring desired results.
Gandhi would say that it is everyone's duty to non-violently resist unfairness, dishonesty and
oppression whether on a personal level or at an international level. Attempting to resolve conflict
through non-violent means and moral courage, including satyagraha, continues to be an
important and worthwhile ideal in the postmodern world.
A Need for a Holistic View of Elements of Meaning, Value and Justice
Gandhi believed that it is desirable for people to have a holistic view of the relationship of elements involved in the human quest for meaning, value and justice. This is necessary if people are to live meaningful lives and society is to prosper. It has been recognized by some that such a holistic view of human life is sometimes at odds with materialism and modernity-based object-oriented thinking which does not always take into account spiritually-apprehended moral motivations toward doing what is considered just and right. Performance demands are often placed upon individuals which do not take into account human aspects of life in relation to spiritual needs, family and community. In contemporary U.S. society, for example, both parents often feel compelled to be separated for long hours from their children while working to maintain a minimal standard of living. Many businesses demand that employees work on Sundays or on other days traditionally set aside for religious worship and for family gatherings. Some workplaces make no provisions for people taking time off to perform community service. Business-influenced government goes along by allowing profit-oriented workplaces to continue these practices. The point is that contemporary Western culture often does minimize holistic human meaning, value and justice in order to promote greater material success.
A postmodern need for spirituality and moral guidance appears to be greater now than in the past. This is evidenced by fragmented manifestations of contemporary culture. Some of these include separated families, nihilistic ideas, deviant new-age cults, violent youth gangs, pop culture worship, pornography, excessive pleasure-seeking, drug and alcohol abuse, excessive materialism, and so on. These symptoms of fragmented thinking give reason for believing that there is a critical need for higher levels of holistic spiritual meaning and value in people's lives. Such activities are not new, having been around throughout history, but it can be argued that they are indicators that participants have an unclear vision of the importance of their lives in relation to God, nature and love for others. This is significant and has consequences for the well-being of individuals, and for society as a whole.
Previous discussion about the dualistic and materialistic nature of Western civilization pointed out some negative affects of a separation of spiritual meaning from daily life. It can be asserted that this dualism, which allows the West to pragmatically promote material prosperity and continued economic growth, is also one of the main causes for fragmentation of people's thinking. There are several reasons for this that Gandhian philosophy might help resolve. Some of these problems will have to be resolved, as Gandhi indicated, at local "village" levels. However, further understanding of the causes of this fragmentation is necessary before proceeding. Jonvir Burgas, of the University of Helsinki, in excerpts from his doctoral thesis published on the Internet, states:
The existential and social crisis has to do with the removal of meaning from the "scientific
universe," and with the emphasis on instrumental efficiency in a meristic frame. There are three
main elements of this part of the crisis: fragmentation, alienation and the loss of values. The
tendency to maximize efficiency in separate areas leads ultimately to a world where both society
and the lives of each person are split into parts or spheres with no internal connections between
them... At the same time, the individual cannot find any meaning in society within [his or] her
horizon--all meanings, connections and power have disappeared beyond the horizon, to become
parts of anonymous institutions. [His or] her work duties and other connections to society
become something alien, or serve an alien purpose. There is the possibility that this purpose does
not even exist--classical science and economy, which have replaced religion, leave no place for
values, but are only occupied with "brute" facts and means to presupposed ends. Efficiency
becomes an end in itself, and the only God is money.(4)
Considering Burgas's rather harsh statement, it can be seen that much fragmentation in people's thinking might be attributed to a contemporary object-oriented world view where people see the world as consisting only of smallest elements that many believe can be described and manipulated in infinite detail. This in itself is sometimes overwhelming to object-oriented thinkers. Where life-meaning for the individual is concerned, this view is often inadequate. About the best an object-oriented thinker can do is become a specialist in a limited area of detailed thought while ignoring other equally-important areas of human concern and life-function. The object-oriented view is promoted by modernity-based capitalist systems because it gives rational justifications for decision-making and provides reasons for actions taken within such narrowly-defined, result-based systems. Object-oriented people want reasons for all that happens, even minute random events that are sometimes controlled by nature or chance, and they are often disappointed, disillusioned and frustrated when they can find no logical reasons for the occurrence of unexplainable events. Computer-age analysis of personal and group performance holds people to higher standards of accountability. Due to a societal imperative that seeks perfection, many people seek perfection in themselves and in others, an unrealistic ideal. Because of this false ideal, compliant people often feel compelled to objectively micromanage their lives and the lives of others without regard to higher spiritual and moral ideals that might otherwise influence their goals and decisions. Consequently, many people find that their life-roles do not include fulfillment of natural human spiritual or emotional needs. Humanness is sometimes minimized or disavowed because elements of humanness, including questions of meaning, value and justice, cannot easily be objectively measured and manipulated. As spiritual motivations and beliefs are increasingly excluded from the object-based view, humanness might be seen as an undesirable shortcoming. For example, a working mother, whose child is ill, might feel that she is required to show up at work on time and perform as usual without regard to her concerns about her child. If she were absent from work frequently, regardless of her reasons, she would probably be courting dismissal from her company, or worse, supervisors putting pressure on her to resign so that the company might save on unemployment insurance payments that it would have to pay if it fired her. A natural result of all of this is that individuals become too dedicated to improving performance and attaining measurable results at the expense of holistic unity, harmony and meaning in their world.
It can be argued that object-oriented systems, by their nature, promote excessive competitiveness between individuals and groups. It can also be argued that profit and efficiency-based object-oriented materialism promotes an amoral view of actions taken toward others and a lack of responsibility toward the environment. On the exploitation of people and the environment, Burgas critically remarks:
The ecological crisis may be described using the ancient notions of hubris and nemesis. The
Western man has upset the "natural order," thinking of himself as completely independent, and
using nature and other people solely as means to his own ends. This is hubris (pride and
arrogance), to which both nature and the people exploited...shall strike back--an uncontrollable
nemesis.(5)
Burgas' statement is consistent with Mahatma Gandhi's belief that human desire and pride are the cause of many human problems, and that pride and arrogance invite the return of a "nemesis." When he considered the cycles of violence, Leo Tolstoy would have been in agreement. Burgas sees this as a Western problem. Western materialism will probably have a lot to answer for in the future as some third world nations become more economically powerful and more materialistic as is presently occurring in Japan, Korea, Taiwan and China. The present U.S. economic competition with Japan can serve as one example. Notwithstanding all of this, a more immediate concern is preserving the stability of Western societies, especially our own. When Burgas's rather harsh judgments are combined with reasoned considerations, it can be seen that object-oriented and result-based systems sometimes actively remove holistic meanings from people's lives and allow an amoral oppression of others. Thus, it can be said that a lack of meaning due to the above causes has probably contributed heavily to a contemporary personal and social crisis in the postmodern West. The main defining meaning left in many people's lives is material success (money as God). This crisis manifests itself in ways mentioned earlier, causing the formation of alternative cultures such as criminal organizations, violent gangs, cults and militia groups, or as distrust and general malaise in other people. It can be said that the above-discussed scenario poses a danger for Western culture, and Westerners should work to resolve this crisis if possible.
The holistic and non-violent ideals of Gandhian philosophy do offer some limited solutions to
contemporary difficulties. While few Westerners would want to live the Spartan existence that
Gandhi advocated in his teachings of renunciation and simplification, some of his ideas do have
considerable merit and, as was seen in previous discussion, are derived from solid foundations.
Gandhian-style solutions might be somewhat difficult to implement in the contemporary
materialistic West, but some change will become necessary if Western society and culture are to
prosper in the future. The downfall of the former U.S.S.R. is an example of what happens when
society and culture become almost totally materialistic and amoral, with impersonal, centralized
systems micromanaging people's lives with force while removing a view of the relationships of
human meaning, value and justice from people's lives. People reach a stage of disillusionment that
causes them to see little benefit in working for the common good. Thankfully, Democracy, like
Gandhian philosophy, is open-ended and people have an option of attempting to change things
peacefully. The difficulty lies in knowing what should be changed and to what degree things
should be changed.
A Revision of The Western Work Ethic
If the West is to remain stable, government and institutions will eventually have to modify their views somewhat in relation to the traditional Protestant work ethic and promoting excessive materialism. People need more time to interact with their children, their neighbors and their community if they are to have greater holistic meaning in their lives. They need time to consider the beauty of the world and the people around them if they are to find greater happiness and meaning. Except for Japan, the U.S. is the only other country in the world which clings so fiercely to an extreme version of the work ethic, although Korea, Taiwan and China are rapidly developing an extreme materialistic work ethic that is very similar to the U.S. and Japanese models and is particularly suited for adaptation to Confucianism-based obligations. In the U.S., it appears that we believe that any problem can be solved by working a little harder and by spending a little more money. There are several reasons for asserting that this belief is wrong, because it was not always this way. Writing in Focus Magazine, Windsor Chorlton states:
The modern [materialistic] employment ethic is a straitjacket we have strapped on only in the last couple of hundred years... It was the 16th century Protestants who elevated the status of work from necessity to religious duty. Hard graft was regarded as redeeming and wealth as a sign of God's favor. Leisure became a dirty word to men like the pottery magnate Thomas Wedgwood: alarmed by the time people "wasted in unproductive occupations." He planned to advance human morality two centuries by educating a workforce so that it would be incapable of passing any time in "reverie or undirected thought."
William Wordsworth, whom Wedgwood proposed as superintendent of his educational concentration camp, responded by writing that such a regime "would confine us down like engines."(6)
While the Protestant work ethic has given the West unprecedented material success, it can be argued that it has also dehumanized people and has fragmented their lives to a large extent. The technological revolution, automation and the information age continues to reduce the need for assembly line workers, clerical workers and many other kinds of menial laborers. There is a growing awareness that the earth's resources are expendable, and that continued uncontrolled industrial growth and unlimited materialism will eventually lead to serious ecological problems for people and nature. Because of this, it can be argued that the West needs to reconsider the worth of its extreme form of the work ethic as possessed by people in the U.S.. Meaningful work is very necessary for human happiness, but a lack of contemporary human happiness brings into question whether people are working wisely, or whether they find a great deal of meaning in much of their work. Increasingly, in the contemporary corporate world, where technology is displacing many workers, it is found that the warnings of economic guru Charles Handy apply. In his recent book, The Empty Raincoat, Handy explains how contemporary corporate managers view employees. "Halve the workforce and work them twice as hard and output will treble"(7) appears to be the contemporary corporate management motto. Many people who are currently employed feel that they are walking a tightrope in order to keep their jobs. Even though current government employment statistics show almost full employment, some high-salary and high wage jobs are a thing of the past. Because of reduced pay and increased performance demands, some people could be considered as being marginally employed. Whether people like it or not, this contemporary view towards workers has merit for large enterprises that are attempting to compete in a global market. However, the human costs of this view will probably be increased dissatisfactions in society, especially among the underemployed (those who do not earn enough to make some economic progress), and this might lead to societal deterioration. If society is split into two major groups; the overemployed and the underemployed, this will lead to a wider division of wealth among the population which could lead to increased resentments, violence and resulting oppression if the division becomes too great. Recent inner-city riots and other people appropriating wealth through criminal activities such as drug-dealing, robbery and various forms of theft confirm this. With an increased division of society along these lines, it can be argued that little is gained from cutting the legitimate workforce in the name of greater profits for existing large businesses. In a divided society with a small middle class, wealthy interests, even though they will seek to avoid doing so, will very likely have to eventually pay higher taxes to maintain a peaceful environment for the nation; either to maintain social welfare programs or for the maintenance of larger police forces, court systems and prison systems that would be primarily aimed at oppressing violence initiated by the disenfranchised. If we consider previous discussion on Leo Tolstoy's cycles of violence and John Ruskin's economic theories, it can be seen that job-cutting and increased oppressive law and order schemes lead nowhere except to eventually perpetuate greater resentments and possible future rebellions against authority. In relation to the economics involved in job-cutting, one must consider that elites are engaging in self-defeating policies when they dismiss large numbers of workers. Windsor Chorlton explains:
The elite who do hang onto their jobs may find the new orthodoxy a double-edged weapon. For while the specter of frequent job and salary changes hangs over employees, they will be reluctant to take on long-term financial commitments, such as mortgages; this in turn means fewer customers for products made by the super-efficient slimline workforces.(8)
When people are underemployed or are unemployed, they buy less and demand for products drops. Eventually, production will have to be cut back and large enterprises will show less profit, because the conspicuously wealthy cannot consume enough to sustain production systems for very long. Thus, it can be reasonably concluded that contemporary job-cutting as a basis for immediate increased profits is probably, in the long run, a self-defeating proposition that harms employees in the immediate future and profit-oriented wealthy elites in the long run. More reasonable human-need-oriented solutions must be found if people and society are to have a sense of meaning and if society is to have a sense of prosperity and well-being. Part of the solution might be found in revising the Western work ethic.
Even in feudal England, peasants were obliged to labor for their masters usually for only two or three days a week, and then for only as long as the tasks required; planting, harvesting, etc. They also had holiday entitlements that would be the envy of modern workers; in addition to Sundays, they were entitled to about 50 holy days per year.(9)
In view of increased automation and reduced workforces, if the work ethic could be modified to allow a four-day work week, which might allow more people to be fully employed at "real" jobs, this might give people more time with their families and allow them to participate in activities that might give more meaning to their lives. They might have some time to form small entrepreneurial partnerships with neighbors or engage in recreational activities with family and friends. If ideals of volunteerism and neighbors helping neighbors were promoted along with a revision of the work ethic, people's lives might be improved. Young people might have more interaction with their families which could cause decreases in youth crime. Less time on the job for everyone might open up a whole range of possibilities: people participating in community beautification projects, organizing community festivals and other activities which might give people greater meaning in their lives. Even from a negative standpoint, if all of the people earn less due to shorter work weeks, the shortage of material wealth would be spread around more evenly and, arguably, there might be less divisiveness and resentments caused by material inequalities among people of common socioeconomic backgrounds.
Resistance to work ethic reforms would undoubtedly be considerable because it would be more
costly for profit-oriented business interests to pay for benefits, insurance, etc. Societal resistance
to work ethic reform would probably also be considerable because the rather extreme version of
the work ethic is so deeply ingrained in the psyche of the U.S. population that people would have
difficulty dealing with the idea of not working at a regular job on a daily basis. Nonetheless, if
one considers that the technological revolution will probably continue to cause many people to be
underemployed at regular jobs and that a contemporary environmental imperative demands the
preservation of the earth's material resources, work ethic reform will probably become more
desirable in the future.
Deconstruction of Large Institutions, Governments and Enterprises
Another underlying goal of Gandhian philosophy is the deconstruction of large, unresponsive and oppressive central governments, institutions and other enterprises in order to bring control down to community levels or, in Gandhian terminology, "village" levels where governing bodies can be made more responsive to the needs of ordinary people. The reasoning behind this concept, which is intended to empower ordinary people, is well-intended. However, radically decentralizing government and other institutions in an effort to "bring government back down to the people" poses considerable danger for contemporary societies. Centralization has brought the West unprecedented material prosperity and many social advances. Overall, it has probably done much more good than harm in relation to fulfilling both material and human needs. Reality in the contemporary world includes increased interdependencies between nations and groups of people, increased populations with pressing material needs and a need to maintain basic, large-scale infrastructures such as roads, ports, common water supplies, energy resources, communications networks, public education, health care, research facilities and national defense systems. However much we might wish things could be made simple again, the contemporary world is a crowded, competitive and violent place, and people need central governments, institutions and enterprises to help them fulfill their many pressing needs. Many of these tasks are too large to be accomplished at local levels by local governments. Many localities have a lack of material resources and little control of wealth, which is sometimes controlled by distant capitalist enterprises, necessitating central systems of taxation and redistribution of excess wealth in order to promote opportunities for all. Other difficulties associated with bringing government back to local levels are derived from human tendencies toward parochialism which sometimes causes an exclusionary, self-centered world view. However, these difficulties associated with bringing control back to "village" levels do not completely invalidate Gandhian philosophy or the idea of bringing some selected aspects of control back into the hands of ordinary people at local levels so that life might become more meaningful for them.
Gandhi believed that decentralization and bringing control to the "village" level is desirable in human affairs. In certain areas of government, this might be an acceptable concept, but, as noted, national infrastructures and common services require extensive centralization of resources in the contemporary world and it is foolhardy to think that central governments could be dismantled to even a moderate extent. In the contemporary world, fulfilling people's material needs is dependent upon central governments and large enterprises. Human services are another matter. Based on a lack of meaning and considerable fragmentation in contemporary people's lives, it can be asserted that most people do need a sense of community or a "home village" where they know each other and can interact with each other in meaningful ways. In the information age and computer revolution, cyberspace might offer some exciting new possibilities for many people to work at home in local communities rather than traveling to work at distant jobs. Information on almost any subject will soon be available to people in local communities through cyberspace. Even though it will take some time for the full potential of cyberspace to be realized, it has far-reaching implications for the future and for communities. In a negative context, increased fragmentation of society and people's lives might result from cyberspace if people are isolated in their homes at their computers, and have less face-to-face contact with others. Gandhi's ideal of empowering villages, at least to a limited extent, might help in regard to this.
Rebuilding local "villages," at smaller levels so they might provide an increased sense of order and community for residents might be seen as being desirable in the future. Some human service institutions might be decentralized and brought back to "village" levels. Rather than human services being provided at county levels, they might be extended into local townships and wards. One might envision community recreation centers, day care facilities, schools, nursing homes, medical clinics, home health care for the elderly, law enforcement and even jails being brought down to local levels. Small businesses such as coffee shops, restaurants and small shopping centers might also be brought to local levels. With the information age, computer revolution and cyberspace, this is entirely possible without excessive expenditures, because many services could be moved from county seats into communities. For example, county school systems might use visual computer technology and telecommunications to electronically teach students in small community schools from a centralized location with only a few local teachers and community volunteers on-hand in schools to discuss lessons, answer questions and motivate students to do assigned work. A few very highly-qualified, exceptional teachers might be employed to teach a wide range of in-depth courses since fewer teachers would be needed county-wide. Such a system would still allow flexibility in planning that would be consistent with needs. Lifelong learning programs might fulfill people's need to continually discover greater intellectual and spiritual meaning in their lives. Local recreational centers might provide a community atmosphere and gathering places for the young and old. Small health-care facilities, located in houses or in small clinics, might meet local medical needs with only one doctor and a couple of nurses on-staff who are in constant contact with experts at regional medical centers. Law enforcement might be provided by a few constables or block policemen who know everyone in the community and continually work with young people. Lawbreakers who are guilty of minor offenses might be even be tried in community courts and kept in local jails. This might cause a more tolerant and humane dispensation of justice and have some rehabilitative affect on offenders. If a young person is "going down the wrong path," the community, as a whole, might work to help that person overcome difficulties. Control of such "villages," should rest in the hands of locally-elected leaders who are empowered to govern in relation to providing services, business development, environmental issues and other things that directly affect the lives of people in the community. These leaders would have to interact on a personal basis with the citizens frequently. This might provide a training ground for county, state and national political leaders.
Granted, this "village" concept is an idealized scenario, but people having a sense of "home village" will become critically important in the immediate future. In developed nations, such as our own, most contemporary couples produce only one or two children. Contemporary families, of which only fifty percent remain together, are very small. After parents die, many postmodern people will find themselves alone, with no extended family and few people who are close to them. As was seen earlier, larger institutions do not easily accommodate themselves to human spiritual and emotional needs. Considering that many future people will need closer human contact and relationships with people who are unrelated to them by birth, a modified Gandhian "village" concept might be seen as a desirable alternative that might fulfill people's human and emotional needs in the future. To continue on the present course of allowing fragmented human relationships among people who increasingly have fewer people to support and care about them is to fill the nation with lonely individuals, and this might lead to an entirely new set of human emotional problems and increased societal deterioration if allowed to go unchecked.
Retired U.S. Army General Colin Powell convened a national conference of former presidents,
corporate, federal and state leaders to consider new ideas on promoting a renewed sense of
meaning and purpose in contemporary young people through volunteerism that is intended to
teach teamwork and goal-achievement to disenfranchised inner-city young people. Powell's
volunteerism concept was called "America's Providence: Alliance for Youth." In an April 11,
1997 television interview with Barbara Walters on ABC Television's news show 20/20, Powell's
discussion indicated that some of his goals are similar to the ones in this thesis. However, in my
opinion, unless a rebuilding of local "village" communities occurs, Powell's worthwhile goals
might not be taken seriously by many of the people he wants to help. Further promotion of a
materialistic, goal-oriented success and work ethic in young people does not fully-address the
critical basic issue of providing a holistic sense of meaning, value and justice in their lives.
Discussions with contemporary young people at a high school where I work as a teacher indicates
that young people want a sense of belonging and they want to be around people who are
interested in their human needs. They want meaningful interaction with parents, friends,
neighbors, teachers and others who genuinely care about them rather than with institutions or
groups that only want them to conform to an older generation's ideal of an American dream of
material success. Many young people see both parents working long hours, struggling to make
ends meet just to gain a little more material wealth, sometimes at the expense of a relationship
with them. In schools and on the streets, an increasing amount of gang graffiti and vandalism can
be seen, and it can be argued that this is an instinctive reaction against the depersonalizing affects
of institutions and excessive materialism.
Work In Home-based Industries
One ideal of Gandhian philosophy that appears to have considerable applicability in the postmodern world is working in home-based industries. This ideal might be applied to several areas of postmodern life. Gandhi believed that people should do some meaningful work with their hands every day in order to develop self-reliance. His small spinning wheel is a famous symbol, and he spent an hour or two each day spinning cotton into thread that was woven into the clothing he wore. He promoted this idea throughout India as a means of empowering people and resisting dependency on British textiles. Contemporary people might use some variations of this concept to enrich their lives. Creating handcrafts or artworks or other ordinary items for self-use or for sale might make people's lives more meaningful. Too often people who work in specialized occupations and do not expand their capabilities soon come to feel that they are "job slaves" and see few options for improving their lives. If a contemporary person takes college courses, grows vegetables, repairs his or her car, refinishes furniture, does home repairs, carpentry, woodworking, sewing, handwork or does or creates other useful things, he or she is, in a Gandhian sense, resisting dependency on large corporations and institutions that economically control and remove meaning from people's lives. In the thinking of John Ruskin, if people do this they are adding to the political economy of the nation. Contemporary people might be forced to specialize in certain salary or wage jobs, but they should continually empower themselves by learning to do a variety of other meaningful tasks that give them more control over their lives. In a time of changing economics and business conditions, it can be asserted that doing this is more important than ever. Sometimes, new, more meaningful careers begin this way.
Cyberspace has exciting possibilities for people working at home and for resisting personal dependency on impersonal institutions and large capitalist enterprises. If cyberspace develops properly and allows open communications between many people around the world, it will probably have some profound implications for the nature of life in the twenty-first century. Small, home-based companies might order supplies directly from producers around the world and small producers might be able to market their products worldwide. To some extent, this might revitalize the small business community and bring innovative ideas and products into a marketplace that has been long been dominated by large enterprises. Cyberspace might also enable groups of people worldwide to form temporary partnerships that would enable them to accomplish specific goals. For example, an entrepreneur might contact suppliers in distant locations and gather the elements needed to assemble a certain product. These elements might be sent to several home-based businesses where they are assembled and then shipped directly to consumers who have placed electronic orders.
With increased instant global communication, it can be readily seen that business and economics might become much more fluid than in the past and that small businesses and individuals might gain more control in the future marketplace. Increased competition might force existing large corporations to become more responsive to people's needs. The PC computer industry is an example of small entrepreneurial interests overcoming large corporations. IBM dominated the computer industry until small entrepreneurs discovered that they could assemble PC computers from inexpensive parts manufactured in third world countries. Now much of the PC computer market is dominated by small businesses producing high-quality PC computers that have gained wide acceptance. Microsoft Corporation began in a home-based business and other small software companies continue to compete with Microsoft.
At this point, a picture of some needs for the twenty-first century begins to emerge. These needs
are both human and economic. Increased worldwide partnerships formed by both large and small
business enterprises will probably require increased centralization, growth and coordination of
transportation and communications facilities, especially roads, ports and electronic
communications systems. New systems of government and intergovernment taxation will
probably become more complex so that excess wealth can be redistributed to populations and the
worldwide movement of information and goods can be better facilitated. Major food production
will probably have to remain in the hands of large growing enterprises and suppliers, and subject
to control by central governments so that large populations can be adequately fed. Increases in
the power of central governments in these areas might make them less responsive to individual
human needs since they would necessarily have to be more concerned with maintaining viable
national and international infrastructures than in the past. On the other hand, if individuals and
groups of people from around the world are more dependent on each other for their economic
livelihoods, governments might find themselves engaged in resolving disputes between business
interests and individuals from different locations around the world. If people from around the
world are going to work together to achieve common business or personal goals, higher levels of
trust between countries and individuals will have to be attained in the future. Worldwide, people
who interact frequently and do business together will have to put aside traditional differences and
tolerantly view themselves as important elements of common humanity, working together for a
common good.
Gandhian Philosophy and The Idea of a "Global Village"
From the above theorized scenario, the contemporary popular concept of a "global village" seems to make some sense at the human level, but considering discussion in this thesis, does not yet make much sense when one thinks of a single world government.
As far as a full-fledged central government for a "global village" is concerned, if one considers the monumental amount of centralization of resources that would be required to form and run a worldwide system of taxation and redistribution of excess wealth, and considering the current competitions and animosities between underdeveloped nations and developed nations, a powerful world government just does not yet make much sense. Even a single "global village" in this context does not yet make sense. Attempting to form a world government and institute the redistribution of world wealth, as some underdeveloped nations would probably demand of such a government, might create a lot of problems in international relations and among peoples. If one considers the Gandhian belief that central governments and large institutions minimize the human search for meaning, value and justice in the lives of individuals, it can be expected that the importance of a single individual would be very minimal in a world governmental order. If the present fragmentation in our own culture is considered, where some people are attempting to form alternative social orders and cultures at local levels, in a larger scenario, the dehumanizing effects of a larger, more distant government would probably increase proportionally, and so might disorder at local levels. If such a government ruled by force, the application of force on groups of people by a distant and impersonal oppressor would invite continual anarchy and many kinds of violent and non-violent resistances at local levels. The stage would be set for ongoing cycles of oppression and violence. One only has to remember cries of "Western imperialism" from third world nations during the Cold War to envision what local responses to such a government might be. At this time, a strong world government is inconsistent with Gandhian ideals of decentralization in relation to fulfilling the human search for increased meaning, value and justice. The continuation and reformation of the United Nations, along more democratic lines is about the best that can or should be done in relation to providing some general order in the world, at least for the near future. As people throughout the world become more homogeneous in their thinking and more interactive in their daily affairs (if this is possible), they might see a need for some kind of world government. Formation of a future world government will have to be an idea that is seen as a need by most ordinary people of the world before it could ever become a workable reality. Nations must first find better solutions to their own problems before world government becomes a viable option. The intent of democracy is to empower all of the people, and to give them some control over larger institutions. Democracy appears to work best at local levels and becomes increasingly less effective at larger levels. In a world government, the idea of democracy itself might become almost meaningless to individual citizens since a single vote would probably have little effect on decisions or outcomes in such a large and distant governmental order. The psychological effects on individuals might invite chaos at local levels and this chaos might even spread up to higher levels of national structures with graft, corruption, violence and deceit becoming a way of life for the majority of people as they attempt to empower themselves in negative ways. Although they are not quite the same things, one only has to consider historical examples of how the Roman Empire or the British Empire mistreated and violently oppressed distant peoples in order to see that there is considerable danger associated with the formation of a powerful world government.
On a human level the idea of "global village" makes much more sense and the solutions to some
international problems might naturally come from ordinary human interactions on a global scale.
If national economies eventually become more dependent on worldwide trade between both
individuals and large enterprises, national governments might see a need for greater cooperation
and might work harder to resolve conflicts. As underdeveloped nations become able to market
and export products around the globe, economic inequalities might be diminished and there might
be less cause for conflict. As people and groups become more dependent on each other for
common prosperity, they might see themselves as partners instead of opponents and they might
recognize that conflict and competitions can be resolved with less violence than in the past. It can
be argued that such a scenario will necessarily require that human ideals of competition become
less aggressive and less exploitative than in the past, and that forced solutions to distant problems
are not always the best ones.
Concluding Remarks
Until recently, Westerners have been slaves to an "either this or that" mentality that generates only one-sided solutions to problems. People are slowly coming to distrust this view as evidenced by increased non-aligned swing voting in political elections, but they are still having some difficulty formulating alternative ways of thinking. There has been some recent experimentation with reason-based relativist thinking, but, if one considers everything as being relative from a logical perspective, this view leads nowhere, because it is too easy to rationalize that one alternative is almost as valid as another and decisions become difficult to make. The Gandhian Truth-based view makes more sense. While the Gandhian view is also a relativist view, it has as its foundations the ideal that one must trust in God or an internally-apprehended conception of spiritual Ultimacy to show one which choices are the right ones. This implies that people do have a spiritually-apprehended sense of doing "right." Most people will reasonably agree that normal, honest people, when encouraged and allowed to follow their "better" natures, do have some sense of rightness, fairness and justice, and that this sense appears to naturally come from within them. It would seem that when decision-making is based on what reasonably and conscionably seems right, fair and just in relation to holistic, existential human need, including nourishing the spirits of people with love and caring, results might be more satisfactory than results based on decisions made from amoral, object-based perspectives. This idea also holds true when people consider that they have a Divine imperative to also preserve the existence and well-being of lesser creatures and nature so that all life on earth can continue to flourish in a holistic and meaningful way that adds value and beauty to human existence.
Mahatma Gandhi promoted his holistic ideals of Truth, ahimsa and satyagraha at grassroots levels, traveling from village to village, talking to people and building mass support before taking major actions. While convincing people that they need to recover a holistic view of meaning, value and justice is an ideal worthy of promotion through the avenues of contemporary communication, such a view should be promoted carefully and slowly at local levels. As history has repeatedly proven, powerful moral zealots, imposing their ideals of morality on the masses, can cause extremely violent reactions, a great deal of suffering and the manipulation of moral ideals for selfish purposes. It can be asserted that people learn moral ideals best by living and working together in a moral environment, where people are dependent on each other and are struggling together for common purposes. When people are united in struggle for a common good, such as in times of war or during times of economic difficulties, morality and spirituality usually become more important to them. Considering this, moral ideals should be gently and slowly introduced at grassroots levels, and should be carefully kept within the bounds of reason and tolerance. This is where helping people develop a common minimal idealized morality is important.
Gandhian philosophy asserts that tolerance and the law of love as it is taught by most mainstream world religions are necessary for people to live peaceful, meaningful lives. In the contemporary world, where people of different religious faiths and philosophies from East and West are coming together as never before, people having a minimal view of themselves as important members of a human spiritual community is increasingly important. Traditionally, in the West, many moral issues were defined by Western religions, and ideals of common morality were fairly consistent. This has changed somewhat in the contemporary world. Because of the communications revolution and increased worldwide immigration, there is greater mixing and some blending of Eastern and other cultures with those already existing in the West, including new views brought about by advances in science. In the future, all religions will probably have to become more inclusive and tolerant so that they can bring people together in faith, love and cooperation. The world religious community should make serious attempts to work together in formulating and promoting minimal ideals of common morality that are acceptable to the basic tenets of most faiths. This is consistent with Gandhian ideals of interfaith cooperation in order to promote common good.
In any case, teaching ideals of love, non-violence and service to others at grassroots levels will probably have to occur before great numbers of people cognitively realize that a holistic, spiritually-inspired view of meaning, value and justice is possible and that it offers people more desirable solutions to their existential problems. Comparative religion courses in schools might also help people learn that most people are searching for spiritual meaning in their lives whether they are Christian, Jewish, Moslem, Hindu, Buddhist or are members other faiths that teach the virtue of love for others. Such teachings would also help people recognize that there is a natural apprehended spiritual need in themselves that must be fulfilled before their lives can be complete, and that this need is based on the spiritually apprehended law of love. This is consistent with Gandhian ideals of promoting tolerance and non-violence toward others.
When feasible, changes in society and culture should be brought about carefully, and in stages, over an extended period of time. Forcing rapid changes in people's personal lives, from the top down, invites resentment and rejection, because people who are being coerced often see forced change as a burden rather than a benefit. Based on this reasoning, Gandhi was probably correct in believing that lasting, meaningful change must have its basic acceptance at the bottom of society and such change must then proceed to the top, and that government and other institutions should accommodate these changes. This ideal is revolutionary in nature, but is consistent with the real intent of democracy.
The dissemination of Gandhian-style ideals of non-violence and service to others, and satyagraha as a means whereby people might regain some control over their lives, will probably have to first occur in liberal educational institutions and through popular avenues of general communication such as cyberspace. Changing society peacefully and reasonably through education takes time because the older generation has to fade before students of new concepts can gain control and implement those concepts. This is consistent with a Gandhian recognition that meaningful, non-violent change takes time and is an open-ended process. In democracies, the general population must desire change before change will be readily accepted without resistance. Many contemporary people do desire change, but do not presently feel that adequate alternatives are being offered to them. This is where promoting reasonable, tolerant and workable solutions is necessary.
In relation to giving people a greater related sense of meaning, value and justice in their lives, three ideals that are consistent with Gandhian philosophy need to be championed in liberal educational institutions and through available communications mediums. The first is the desirability of people following a spiritually-apprehended sense of meaning, value and justice in relation to the existential needs of others based on the law of love that Jesus taught in The Sermon on The Mount and that is also extolled as a basic belief in most world religions. This implies that people should learn to be more tolerant of the human and spiritual natures of others and should attempt to motivate others with love rather than with coercion and violence. It can be argued that there has been a glaring absence of an ideal of motivating others with love in recent Western history. The second ideal is educating people to ethically consider the impact of their actions on other people in relation to business, government and society as a whole so that they might add meaning, value and justice to larger human enterprises and enable themselves to base decisions and actions on more meaningful criteria than just profit and efficiency alone. This would make human enterprises more meaningful in relation to people's own lives and the lives of others, and might also promote some continual generalized resistance to object-oriented amoral practices that often ignore human meaning, value and justice in relation to large groups of people. The third ideal is bringing some control of human aspects of life and interpersonal relationships back down to local "village" levels where people are directly responsible to each other for providing some human services, and for maintaining an orderly, prosperous and humane environment at the immediate community or "village" level. These are all moral views that might be allowed to come from within individuals. An expectation that people should do what is morally "right" in relation to caring about the emotional and spiritual needs of others should be urged throughout society, because to do otherwise promotes fragmentation and destroys human meaning and a mentally healthy human goodness that comes from caring about others more than one's self.
To understand what the morally "right" things are, people should first learn an inclusive and tolerant view of the diverse elements of humanity. This need supports offering cultural pluralism courses in schools and institutions of higher learning. People will have to see themselves as an integral part of greater humanity if they are to develop a tolerant attitude toward others.
Young people should be required to pass ethics courses in high schools and in institutions of higher learning before being allowed to graduate from those institutions. Courses of study relating to the arts, science, medicine, social sciences, business, government and law should all emphasize following an ethical course of service to others and "doing what is right or fair" in relation to actions toward others. People must again be given permission to make some value judgments themselves rather than trusting almost completely in institutions to do this for them. If many people eventually come to realize that they should work for a greater holistic meaning in their own lives and in the lives of others, society as a whole might become better, more tolerant and less exploitative.
Gandhi offered the world a means for finding some solutions to its problems. A moral view based on apprehended spiritual Truth is required to reasonably apply them. Such a moral view will have to develop naturally, over time, as people struggle with questions and problems as they arise. Attempting to force solutions on problems that have not yet occurred would be foolish. Arguing for a complete change in people's thinking and in society is also foolish, and is in conflict with Gandhian philosophy where the path to greater truth must be traveled one step at a time. At present, this is not consistent with Western ideals where reality is often seen as being static and it is still believed that problems can be permanently solved with grand schemes and by forcing solutions on people throughout the world. As was seen earlier, unless those solutions mesh with the real needs of ordinary people, imposers of such solutions are wasting much of their effort.
In Gandhian philosophy, what is important is the road that is being traveled. Gandhi felt that people should continually struggle to find inclusive solutions to the most pressing problems of their time. These solutions should, for the most part, be non-violent and acceptable to all. There is some indication that people are learning to "go slowly" in relation to imposing solutions throughout the world. With the exception of the extreme violence in the former nation of Yugoslavia and some lesser violence in other former Soviet block nations, the relatively peaceful, non-violent deconstruction of the former U.S.S.R. and violent, oppressive governments in Eastern Europe and Africa should give cause for hope that people are learning from past mistakes and are at least attempting to make changes without destroying each other in the process. The economic chaos in the former U.S.S.R. should also serve as a stern warning about moving too fast with radical deconstructions. On the subject of a more peaceful and tolerant world, Jonvir Burgas states:
I believe the consciousness about non-violence as a principle and as a way of life is breaking through... The ordinary life-practice as conceived in [Gandhian based] process thinking may have a great significance in the attempt to reconstruct a meaningful life-world from fragmented industrial life... Moreover, varieties of process thinking have been growing in the West in the last century, both as philosophical positions and in the ideology of popular movements--e.g., the peace movement, the feminist movement and the green movement. Certain scientific discoveries encourage it, and probably also plain self-insight, combined with a revival of a sense of humility.(10)
Burgas' statement gives renewed hope. Hope is the key to continuing the human existential
struggle, especially when the future is uncertain. From all I have learned while writing this thesis,
it is my belief that the law of love that Jesus, Mohammed, Gautama, the Baghavad-Gita,
Mahatma Gandhi, Leo Tolstoy and countless other less-recognized people throughout history
have taught and attempted to live by is still as valid as ever and should continue to be the main
guiding ideal for people's actions. Certainly, violence is necessary at times and will seemingly
prevail at times, but it seems that we humans continually struggle to return to and be renewed by
this divine law of love. The Gandhian idea that solutions to many contemporary and future
problems will be found in the hands of ordinary people, working and struggling at ordinary levels,
appears reasonable and applicable to the twenty-first century. Governments have risen and fallen
in the past and will come and go in the future if humanity survives on earth. Ordinary people, for
all of their miscalculations and foolish errors, have struggled and they have endured and
continually seem to find the renewed hope to pick themselves up and move forward. Gandhi was
correct when he believed that people cannot separate means and ends. Gandhi said, "The way is
the goal--the goal is a way."(11) The knowledge that suffering for Truth is possible gives people a
great deal of spiritual power over the immoral forces that often surround and oppress them.
Suffering to do what is truthful, meaningful and just is therefore an end in itself and this is what
makes the human existential struggle worthwhile for most people. This idea must be preserved
and continually promoted. People will have to struggle to find solutions to problems as they arise.
1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11.