Philosophical Contributions of Gandhi’s Ideas
Philosophical Contributions of Gandhi’s Ideas
Introduction
A lack of an interdisciplinary approach to peace and non-violence that fails to include philosophy and education exists in part because the issue of non-violence considered as a philosophical and educational concept is under-explored. Ideas of non-violence often emerge from action, and therefore it is often thought that non-violence demands a need for action- a demand that many believe is not met by philosophy. These explanations are insufficient when applied to philosophy of education. They fail to acknowledge the educational and philosophical importance of the praxis of non-violence. Philosophers of education, like Suzanne Rice, have shown that a study of the praxis of non-violence can indeed be discussed in philosophical contexts. In her paper Rice problematizes philosophy’s lack of recognition of King’s work in character development and moral education programs. Rice argues that although King did not express character development and moral education in traditional philosophical forms, i.e. academic texts, he was indeed concerned “with questions about how one should act (conduct) and the kind of person one should strive to be (character)”. In much the same way King “never himself claimed to articulate an ethic”, M.K. Gandhi never wrote a succinct, complete work of his own ethics. He did not sit in private and create a philosophy that was later to be distributed to the world. Rather, Gandhi used mass media, such as newspaper and radio, to appeal to his audience. His philosophy was created out of his actions in South Africa and subsequent actions in India, drawing on existing philosophies and religions to shape his expression of non-violence. He did not separate ideas of theory from practice; for him, theory and practice emerged out of one another. Hence, viewing Gandhi as solely a philosopher or a political actor creates an unnecessary tension and dichotomy.
For example, when Gandhi is represented
Introduction
A lack of an interdisciplinary approach to peace and non-violence that fails to include philosophy and education exists in part because the issue of non-violence considered as a philosophical and educational concept is under-explored. Ideas of non-violence often emerge from action, and therefore it is often thought that non-violence demands a need for action- a demand that many believe is not met by philosophy. These explanations are insufficient when applied to philosophy of education. They fail to acknowledge the educational and philosophical importance of the praxis of non-violence. Philosophers of education, like Suzanne Rice, have shown that a study of the praxis of non-violence can indeed be discussed in philosophical contexts. In her paper Rice problematizes philosophy’s lack of recognition of King’s work in character development and moral education programs. Rice argues that although King did not express character development and moral education in traditional philosophical forms, i.e. academic texts, he was indeed concerned “with questions about how one should act (conduct) and the kind of person one should strive to be (character)”. In much the same way King “never himself claimed to articulate an ethic”, M.K. Gandhi never wrote a succinct, complete work of his own ethics. He did not sit in private and create a philosophy that was later to be distributed to the world. Rather, Gandhi used mass media, such as newspaper and radio, to appeal to his audience. His philosophy was created out of his actions in South Africa and subsequent actions in India, drawing on existing philosophies and religions to shape his expression of non-violence. He did not separate ideas of theory from practice; for him, theory and practice emerged out of one another. Hence, viewing Gandhi as solely a philosopher or a political actor creates an unnecessary tension and dichotomy.
For example, when Gandhi is represented
Bibliography: 1. Bhim Rao Ambedkar, “What Gandhi and Congress Have Done to the Untouchables,” quoted in Sources of Indian Tradition, vol. 2, Stephen Hay, ed. (New Delhi: Penguin Books India, 1992). 2. Judith M. Brown, Gandhi: Prisoner of Hope (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1989 3 4. Ravinder Kumar, “The Rowlatt satyagraha in Lahore,” in Essays on Gandhian Politics: The Rowlatt Satyagraha of 1919, R. Kumar, ed. (London: Oxford University Press, 1971) 5 6. Sumit Sarkar, Modern India (Madras: Macmillan India Limited, 1983) -------------------------------------------- [ 1 ]. “Martin Luther King Jr.’s ‘Ethic of Love’: Virtues Common and Rare” (2004), [ 2 ] [ 6 ]. Martin Luther King Jr., “The Current Crisis in Race Relations,” in A Testament of Hope: The Essential Writings and Speeches of Martin Luther King, Jr., James M. Washington, ed. (United Kingdom: HarperCollins Publishers Ltd., 1986), p. 86. [ 7 ]. Sumit Sarkar, Modern India (Madras: Macmillan India Limited, 1983), p. 172. [ 8 ]. Judith Brown, Gandhi: Prisoner of Hope (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1989), p. 28. [ 12 ]. Sarkar, p. 179. See also Gandhi’s oral testimony to the Hunter Committee investigating government massacres in 1919, reprinted in Young India 1919–22 (New York: B.W. Huebsch, 1924), pp. 16–45, esp. pp. 17–18 and 34–36. [ 15 ]. M.K. Gandhi, “The satyagraha movement,” written statement to the Hunter Committee, serialized in Young India beginning November 5, 1919, reprinted in Young India 1919–22, pp. 11–16. [ 30 ]. Ravinder Kumar, “The Rowlatt satyagraha in Lahore,” in Essays on Gandhian Politics: The Rowlatt Satyagraha of 1919, R. Kumar, ed. (London: Oxford University Press, 1971), p. 249. [ 34 ]. Judith M. Brown, Gandhi: Prisoner of Hope (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1989), p. 205. [ 38 ]. Bhim Rao Ambedkar, “What Gandhi and Congress Have Done to the Untouchables,” quoted in Sources of Indian Tradition, vol. 2, Stephen Hay, ed. (New Delhi: Penguin Books India, 1992), pp. 330–31.