More Reflections on Gandhi Religiously

I was thinking about Gandhi and how Gandhi's religious life played into his ideas of nonviolence. It relates a lot back to what we were talking about in the civil rights movement with religion acting as an important motivator and inspiration for participants as well as what we were talking about at the beginning of the semester with nonviolence as a personal and principled choice. It seems that Gandhi has a lot to say about the philosophical and abstract idea of God. It all seems to relate and complement his idea of what is good and what is just in addition to not allowing the notion of God to be compatible with the world as it is as opposed to a naïve and idealized view of it.

What I think is even more interesting is Gandhi's idea of how belief was forever tied to actions. For Gandhi, any idea that you could not act out, was not an ideal worth having. I think this in an interesting take on it. It seems that it is less important what you believe, but more important what you do with those beliefs. This theory is what allowed Gandhi to be so productive in his work uniting Hindus and Muslims. He could find common ground among both groups by making the conversation less about what you believe but what you do with it. It is interesting that his mission towards religious tolerance would have been more successful if Gandhi did not already have strong affiliations with Hindus. If Gandhi was more religiously neutral, would that put him on the outside of the conflict, or give him more access to it. How did Gandhi's religious affiliations affect his role in the conflict?

The Personal Practices of Ghandi

From reading about Ghandi and discussing his life in class, I have found his internalization of nonviolence rather inspiring. The simplicity of how he dressed, how he chose to go about knowledge, everything seemed to reinforce his worldview. In my project of abstaining from complaining, I am finding Ghandi a wonderful inspiration. He is able to remain calm despite the most profound circumstances, and seemed to embody the idea of nonviolence. At the beginning of the semester, we talked briefly about those who choose not just to live nonviolence strategically, but to make nonviolence a part of their worldview and embody it. I found Ghandi has done that. What was most profound about the chapter on his life and work was that even after India had won its independence from Britain, Ghandi did not celebrate or attend any party. He was way too concerned with the ongoing violence between Hindus and Muslims. The fact that he stood up for peace even though many of his Hindu supporters criticized his celebration of Islam is very inspiring. Ghandi was very set by his convictions, despite what others were thinking.

When thinking about Ghandi's life, it is interesting comparing his take on nonviolence to pacifists such as Garrison, who recoiled from his pacifism with the belief that war may actually solve the slavery problem when it got too bad. Ghandi seemed to become even more committed to his concept of nonviolence despite how it seemed less promising. I wonder what difference there was between Ghandi and Garrison? From studying Ghandi it seems that Ghandi commitment to nonviolence was more spiritually driven than Garrison. To Ghandi, good will always naturally trump evil so even if his Satyagraha did not work out, there was some higher force working for good in the world that Ghandi was steadfast in his commitment to. This is what I find most inspiring about Ghandi, his commitment to nonviolence despite everything that may have told him otherwise.

One other aspect that I think is very interesting in Ghandi's life is his treatment of knowledge. The book talks about how Ghandi seldom read and when he did it was very deliberately and thought out. Reading one book at a time to fully absorb its wisdom. I really like that idea and I wish I could apply it to many different aspects of my life. Since being in college does not make reading one book at a time practical, I can see how I can do this with other things. I am a musician and I think that instead of playing through a songbook trying to learn all of the songs, I should follow Ghandi's example and play one at a time until I have fully absorbed it. I think I could possibly learn much more from life if I followed this example. I find the small personal things that Ghandi did in his life more indicative of his commitment to nonviolence than all of the satyagrahas and campaigns.

Sharp: Nonviolence as a political tool

Sharp gives a very interesting perspective on nonviolence. He talks about nonviolence existing on a continuum of communication starting at simple talking to the opponent and ending at violence and destruction. The dichotomy between violence and nonviolence is really destroyed by Sharp as nonviolence is presented in a way that makes it a more extreme move, closer on the spectrum to violence than simply being opposite to it. Nonviolence, Sharp argues, is very similar to war in that it takes strategy and demands participants to have courage, struggle, and make personal sacrifices for the larger cause. It is acknowledged that nonviolent action is certainly a form of coercion similar to war.

The other very interesting thing that is pointed out, is the fact that nonviolent action is really not as uncommon as we think. Throughout reading, I started thinking that maybe nonviolence is something that we see all the time. The Civil Rights Movement, the anti-Apartheid movement, and all of the other examples we are given of nonviolence is only the massive scale models to follow. Existing on this spectrum between simply asking authority for requests to staging a violent war against this authority, nonviolence is everywhere. Labor strikes, boycotts, anytime someone doesn't participate in something for political reasons, whether it be resisting a military draft or refusing to shop at Wal-Mart because of cooperate policies, is an example of nonviolent action. Sharp also points out that we do not have to break any laws to participate in nonviolence, in the example of a labor strike, a strike may be perfectly legal, or a boycott may be perfectly legal, but the very action of refusing to cooperate for political reasons makes the action nonviolent.

The other point that Sharp made was that nonviolence often has different messages of bringing about change. These were divided into three categories: conversion, accommodation, and nonviolent coercion. This is a very important thing to acknowledge because it shows how nonviolence can work in very different ways. In addition these three categories can show how the goals of nonviolence can change over time. With conversion, the goal is to "enlighten" the opponent and convince them to support your side. Accommodation is an intermediary where the opponent may not agree with the nonviolent protestors, but may choose to allow requested changes because it is in their best interest or because they acknowledge the power of the resistance. The most forceful is the coercion goal where the goal is literally to remove the person from power. I find that in many cases, the goals of a nonviolence resistance movement can change over time as the conflict escalates.

Jane Addams and cooperation vs. competition

From reading Jane Addams' "Personal Reactions During War" and discussing it in class, I found a lot of its insights somewhat enlightening. The one thing that I believe was most poignant and crucial to Addams' writing was the idea that war is not a natural state of humanity. In fact, the very nature of conscription implies that individuals, if given the choice would not fight in a war. Therefore, war by its very nature is contrary to democracy because it requires one party to force its will on another party. The very cornerstone of democracy is the freedom of the people to choose the direction of the state. If the state is imposing a war that the people do not wish to fight, the nation is not really a democracy. Therefore, there is a lot of coercion that goes into the very training of an army defying everything that the leaders may be standing for.

Addams makes a comment about the natural inclination for cooperation that exists within humans. While I personally believe that this is essentially true, I believe that it is our cooperative nature that can be manipulated to get us to join into a war. To aid or fellow citizens, to protect the innocent, to support the country. All of the propaganda that goes into war preparation seems to speak to our cooperative nature. I also believe that in a war situation, although there is competition going on between sides, there requires a lot of cooperation within each party to properly coordinate a war.

Addams is very right however. A cooperative nature does allow us to naturally not want to enter into a conflict. It would make us more inclined to work out our problems with an enemy diplomatically or through other nonviolent means. The cooperative nature of humanity is what motivates the conscientious objectors and the pacifists, not just the political leaders. In many ways, war mongers tend to appeal to our competitive sense much more often than our cooperative sense. If you look at army commercials today, it seems little more that promoting competition--"Be all you can be". Ultimately we are sucked into conflict using very individualistic motivation. We are given heroes to look up to, told that we can make a difference. Every bit of advertising that the military does not only includes an appeal to our cooperative sense "join a team" "serve the country", but also uses rhetoric of individualism by talking about "your country", "your career options after the military." Most of what the military uses to get recruits is actually appealing to our competitive, individualistic side.

Therefore, I agree with Addams in that by nurturing our compassionate and cooperative nature, it is easy to see how war sort of falls out of the picture. Unlike The Moral Equivalent to War, we do not need to continue to nurture out rugged, masculine side. It is much more important to realize that to be creatures of peace is not only impossible, but much easier than being warriors.

Can William James' "Moral Equivalent of War" Actually Create Change?

After I finished reading William James "The Moral Equivalent of War" I found the overall tone of the writing quite optimistic, and the writer's arguments well founded, but I found myself disagreeing with the notion that we need any sort of "Equivalent" for war. Before asserting my disapproval all over the place like I normally do with these sorts of things, I would really like to point out the parts of the James' analysis that I found quite profound. James mentions several times the "pleasure-economy" that we have in the United States. The idea that our cultural breeds us to be self-centered and to strive for what is good for us can be quite a destructive way to run a society. James' other point that the military provides us with the framework to break away from the trap that a "pleasure-economy" brings by teaching self discipline and other beneficial virtues.

What I disagree with however with the notion that the what needs to be preserved is this cultural notion of manliness, that James says is so essential to society. James' notion of manliness includes virtues of "toughness" and "authority." While I don't want to say that these things cannot contribute positive things to society, I think that James' "alternative" has the potential to breed the same kind of violence and oppression that war brings, just without the actual killing. While this is certainly better than our current state of affairs, it is not creating a positive peace. James' says: "we should all feel some degree of it imperative if we were conscious of our work as obligatory service to the state." I don't want to be too outlandish, but to me this seems like revamped fascism. Human action and work done not because of passion and love but rather an obligation? James' even goes on to say "we should be owned, as soldiers are by the army." This utopia the author is creating is starting to look quite oppressive.

I understand what William James is saying in that it is much more productive to take the cultural notion of war and the military and simply reposition its energy for good. I do however see that this looks like dangerous business to get ourselves into. James' says that if we simply get rid of both the military model and war, both will soon come back. But instead that it is more productive to keep the military and position it as an anti-war force. I disagree with the notion that this capability for oppression which James calls "manliness" is so essential to our nature that it needs to continually be nurtured. Like any aspect of human nature, whether it be love or hate, creation or destruction, toughness or gentleness. What is nurtured is what will be expressed. I agree with James that we shouldn't ignore the tough and rigid side of our humanity, but I do not think that continually building society around these notions will produce anything more just than it already has.