In the chapter “Civilisation” of Ghandi’s Hind Swaraj, the Editor claims that civilisation is irreligion, providing the evidence that people in Europe are so taken with it that “They can hardly be happy in solitude.”** In Walden, Thoreau has an entire chapter on solitude, and states “I find it wholesome to be alone the greater part of the time,” (p. 128) and even puts forth that perhaps society meets too frequently (p. 128-129). In Sustainable Development discussions, more engagement and interaction with others is often encouraged and even proposed as a solution to certain issues, and not a lot of consideration goes to time spent in solitude. What value do these two influential thinkers find in the ability to spend time alone? Could solitude be just as important to sustainability as human interaction, and does it help or hinder the building of connected and resilient communities?
**The online textbook won’t give me the page numbers so I guess we’ll never know
Both Gandhi and Thoreau discuss railroads in their work. Gandhi proposes the line of thinking that railways are one of the main reasons that England is able to have such a strong hold on India – “but for the railways, the English could not have such a hold on India as they have” (Hind Swaraj, pg. 47). He also calls railways out as perpetrators of famine, disease, and transporters of bad people:
EDITOR: They are the carriers of plague germs. Formerly we had natural segregation. Railways have also increased the frequency of famines, because, owing to facility of means of locomotion, people sell out their grain, and it is sent to the dearest markets. People become careless, and so the pressure of famine increases. They accentuate the evil nature of man. Bad men fulfill their evil designs with greater rapidity. The holy places of India have become unholy. Formerly, people went to these places with very great difficulty. Generally, therefore, only the real devotees visited such places. Nowadays, rogues visit them in order to practice their roguery (pg. 47)
How does this perspective from Gandhi relate to Thoreau’s perspective and thoughts on railroads in Walden? Do you think they would agree or disagree with each other’s thinking on this topic? Can we see any of Thoreau’s thoughts about how railroads influence society coming into fruition with the situation Gandhi discusses?
In the writing of Gandhi, Hind Swaraj, he states that civilisation is the root of trouble. He describes the goals of civilisation as aiming to create bodily comforts and increasing welfare, yet points out many examples of how it is doing the contrary. For example, he states “Formerly, men were made slaves under physical compulsion, now they are enslaved by temptation of money and of the luxuries that money can buy” (chapter 6). This idea that complex societies create “machines” of people who are never satisfied with what they currently have and continuously crave more, reminded me of Walden. Thoreau too eluded that the unhappiest of people are those who are wanting all of their life, and that simplicity is the answer to this problem. “Simplicity, simplicity, simplicity! I say, let your affairs be as two or three, and not a hundred or a thousand; instead of a million count half a dozen, and keep your accounts on your thumb nail” (Walden, 69).
Although they both have different opinions, the overall idea that greed is a problem in society is a large theme in both writings. Do you think Gandi and Theoeru would agree that our current routines are too complex and that simplicity is needed in our day-to-day lives? How could we as a society “slow down” while still making positive changes?
In both Thoreau’s “Slavery in Massachusetts” and Gandhi’s “Hind Swaraj” there is a discussion about the use of newspapers. In both of these readings, the authors are critiquing the English beliefs and the weight they hold in the newspaper. Thoreau writes, “I believe that, in this country, the press exerts a greater and more pernicious influence than the Church did in its worst period (p.7). Gandhi’s writings aid this thought process in Chapter 5 of “Hind Swaraj” saying, “One newspaper would consider a great Englishman to be a paragon of honesty, another would consider him dishonest. What must be the condition of the people whose newspapers are of this type”. Both Thoreau and Gandhi hold the viewpoint that we, as a society, put an unhealthy amount of weight on news organizations. If a negative article is released about a company or an individual, it can wreck their entire career, but we generally take what the news publishes as fact. What do you think led Americans and our society to rely on and place our opinions on news outlets? As well as Gandhi’s question, what does that mean about our society and the state of the country?
“What is the meaning of education? If it simply means a knowledge of letters, it is merely an instrument, and an instrument may be well used or abused. The same instrument that may be used to cure a patient may come under the bane of what is mainly false education.” (Page 101) From this quote it made me question how Gandhi’s perspective on education challenged traditional notions of learning and knowledge at that time and if there are any connections that you can or cannot find in our modern education?
“Like every other Indian, will know that to blame the English is useless, that they came because of us, and remain also for the same reason, and that they will either go or change their nature only when we reform ourselves” (page 118). How does Gandhi’s concept of self-rule and the need for Indians to take responsibility for their own governance challenge traditional notions of colonialism? Also how does this help India’s path to independence and self-governance?”
In the chapter titled Civilisation, the editor mentions that “civilisation seeks to increase bodily comforts, and it fails miserably even in doing so”. This quote grabs at their thoughts on how civilisation brings with it so much but also brings a blindsided hit to so much that we begin to overlook. The Civilisation chapter discusses how this movement is hurting individuals through them becoming part of a system that runs within the civilisation, and in turn breaking away from the things we should be absorbing in our lives. In the ‘What is True Civilisation?’ chapter it is said that “Civilisation is that mode of conduct which points out to man the path of duty.” which further goes the idea that an individual within a civilisation will become a part of it like its a system that needs them included. This comes from individuals who are in a civilisation that are following the money since that is what civilisation seems to revolve around. What would be Thoreau’s perspective on this idea of a civilisation? Since money is powerful enough, in the eyes of the people, to bring up a civilisation, would it be strong enough to motivate people but with good terms rather than being sucked into civilisation? And what would be some terms that could make money not be the thing that drives people into being stuck within civilisation?
One interesting theme I have noticed in both Walden by Henry David Thoreau and Hind Swaraj by Gandhi is health. In the chapter entitled The Condition of India (cont.): Doctors, Gandhi discusses his belief that the English have “used the medical profesion for holding us” (p. 61). He describes a scenario in which a doctor gives a patient medicine to make their body feel better but the patient’s mind becomes “weakened” and it results in “loss of control over the mind”. Gandhi goes on to say:
Had the doctor not intervened, nature would have done its work, and I would have acquired mastery over myself, would have been freed from vice, and would have become happy. Hospitals are institutions for propagating sin. Men take less care of their bodies, and immorality increases. (p. 61)
This notion of letting nature do the work in order to increase self-mastery in pursuit of happiness/morality seems to be Gandhi’s way of discussing one form of material and metaphysical self-making. As we discussed in previous weeks, self-making is a major theme for Thoreau as well, though nature seems to take a more obvious forefront for him. Thoreau is famous for the quote “nature is but another name for health”. Sure, he feels this in a spiritual sense, but do you think he feels it in a physical sense as well? Are the two inseparable? In the case of “modern” Western medicine, how do you think the conversation between Thoreau and Gandhi would go? Would Thoreau be happy with modern vaccines deriving their success from things like fungus growing on a cantalope (penicilin)? Or has it become too industrialized? Would Thoreau and Gandhi agree on the methods of approaching self-making and health?
In the section of the Hind Swaraj titled “Brute Force” Gandhi explicitly condemns the separation of the means from the ends, and by extension the use of violent force to expel the English from India for the purposes of Swaraj. He argues the following.
“The means may be likened to a seed, the end to a tree; and there is just the same inviolable connection between the means and the end as there is between the seed and the tree. I am not likely to obtain the result flowing from the worship of God by laying myself prostrate before Satan. If, therefore, anyone were to say: ‘I want to worship God, it does not matter that I do so by means of Satan’ it would be set down as ignorant folly. We reap exactly as we sow.”
“If I want to deprive you of your watch, I shall certainly have to fight for it; if I want to buy your watch, I shall have to pay you for it; and, if I want a gift, I shall have to plead for it; and, according to the means I employ, the watch is stolen property, my own property, or a donation.”
With this in mind, what are the undesirable consequences the English were faced with following their violent colonialist methods to expand their empire? He speaks of duties and rights, that the English achieved their rights through violence but were negligent of their duties, what does he mean by this? Finally, what harmful outcomes did Gandhi fear would befall India if it were to forcefully eject the English?
Both Gandhi and Thoreau both find value in solitude from what I found in the reading. Gandi sees it as a way to escape corruption influences of civilization and thoreau emphaizies its role in self-reflection and individual growth. While modern sustainability dicsussions prioritize interaction, solitude might also be crucial for personal well-being and critical thinking, leadingtot more conscious and sustainable choices
Discussion questions:
Can too much solitude hinder community building and sustainability?
Is it possible to incorporate values such as solitude and simplicity with modern day technology?
In Chapter 6 of Gandhi’s “Hind Swaraj,” a quote reads, “Civilisation seeks to increase bodily comforts, and it fails miserably even in doing so.” Both Gandhi and Thoreau viewed modern civilization as a corrupt influence on society and therefore sought to find meaning in solitude instead, but in a world where solitude is becoming harder and harder to come by, what other ways can we find solitude besides physically isolating ourselves from others? Is there a way to still achieve solitude while not physically be isolated from the world? Would such solitude have the same effect on a person as the solitude that Gandhi and Thoreau discuss in their works? What would they suggest to someone living the present day as a method of achieving a sense of solitude in a realistic manner?
Both Gandhi and Thoreau discuss themes of civilization and comfort. Gandhi writes “the people of Europe today live in better built houses than they did a hundred years ago. This is considered an emblem of civilization” (pg. 58) so by this logic Thoreau’s Walden experiment and “voluntary poverty” seem to be stepping away from civilization. They both look back towards nature for necessities and comforts instead of technology. Thoreau finds enjoyment in the sunrise and gives his garden back to nature; Gandhi says that “Civilization seeks to increase bodily comforts, and it fails miserably even in doing so” (pg. 66).
Do you think Thoreau would agree with what Gandhi is saying about the technological advances in the early 1900s? Would going back to nature like Thoreau “cure” the disease of civilization that Gandhi is discussing?
Thoreau has a deep love for trees and we can see a shift in his mood when he is discussing them. He describes thoughts as “wombed and rooted in darkness… like the tree of life.” He also explains trees as a religious experience for himself, often getting from trees what others got from church. Gandhi also discusses trees but in metaphors for India’s journey away from the western framework. Gandhi states “Remember the old proverb that the tree does not grow in one day” and “The seed is never seen. It works underneath the ground, is itself destroyed, and the tree which rises above the ground is alone seen.” The latter quote by Gandhi is used to describe congress. Thoreau also states nothing “stands up more free from blame than a pine tree.”
How do these Thoreau and Gandhi quotes about trees relate and differ?
Why are trees so often used as metaphors and discussed? Do we all feel connections to trees?
Do trees convey a theme of freedom that we all strive for?
Gandhi calls out the suffering and evils of civilization by explaining that, “formerly, men worked in the open air only so much as they liked. Now, thousands of workmen meet together and for the sake of maintenance work in factories or mines. Their condition is worse than that of beasts. They are obliged to work, at the risk of their lives, at most dangerous occupations, for the sake of millionaires. Formerly, men were made slaves under physical compulsion, now they are enslaved by temptation of money and of the luxuries that money can buy” (Chapter VI). Gandhi seems to base the lack of morality of civilization on the fact that “this civilization is irreligion” (Chapter VI). In “Chapter VIII The Condition of India”, Gandhi goes on to explain how important religion is to him, and the need he feels for religion to remain prominent in order to combat the emergence of ‘civilization’ in India. The dichotomy between scientific realism and spirituality that was created during the Enlightenment period has been claimed to have played a role in justifying to Europeans their superiority and right to control others and nature. Considering this, what roles do religion and spirituality play in undermining the exploitative and oppressive capitalist development paradigm?
Throughout his book, Ghandi makes his views and contempt for Western civilization and its systems of knowledge abundantly clear. He even goes as far as to say “In order to restore India to its pristine condition, we have to return to it. In our own civilization, there will naturally be progress, restrogression, reforms, and reactions; but one effort is required, and that is to drive our Western civilization” (104). Do you think Gandhi would critique the “experiment” Thoreau did at Walden Pond as a Western centralized way of understanding our environment or invite it as another way to try and relate to the world and issues around us. Do you think the lack of acknowledgment of Thoreau’s privilege lessens some of the meaning of his writings? In Gandhi’s case, do you think that his clear acknowledgment of where he came from and the privilege he has shows a greater sense of integrity and range of care for the issues he is fighting for? While I don’t think that Thoreau was pretending to care about the issues he discusses, it would have resonated more with me personally if he had better acknowledged his privilege and the impact that it had on his experiment (and his ability to do so in the first place).
A large chunk of the Hind Swaraj and Other Writings is M.K. Gandhi arguing that the enslavement of India stems as a result of the people’s submission to the enforced system. With aspects of civilization: technology, doctors, lawyers, and railroads are focal points of how civilization is a bastardized way of being. I want to put in question- what bounds illicit violent action? and how Gandhi believes those being actively colonized should act as forms of resistance. In the Limitations of the Doctrine, Gandhi says that he would “I would risk war to stop these horrors” (page 5) regarding the German and Italian Fascist governments. I am curious to what extent violence must be expelled before Gandhi admits he would take a stance that kills others since he admits that this limit exists. Believing that Swaraj is only achievable through nonviolent organization. As a result, Gandhi was accused of “playing a deep game, that I am using the present turmoil to foist my fads on India, and am making religious experiments at India’s expense” (page 11). Throughout the rest of the book Gandhi expresses that nonviolent action while it has ripples in regards to consumerism only leads to the suffrage of the one who consents. In contrast, violent action only breeds more violent action. So violent conquerors shouldn’t be met with violent action. Expecting widescale organizations to resist in a nonviolent fashion predicated on the premise that those who are being conquered have solidarity with others being conquered. It is not that this organization cannot exist but it must result from already being conquered and centralized to understand the gravity of the situation since Western conquerors display savagery that those who are not a part of it do not understand. Nonviolent organization requires a will displayed by none before which is the reason Gandhi became the father of resistance nationalism. The focal point of many around the world for those being actively colonized includes the people of Gaza. I am curious how he would perceive their plight. Nonviolent organization by residents of the region only would result in the genocide of all residing peoples. My assumption Gandhi, based on his nonviolent organization tendencies is that all other peoples of the world would need to organize to put pressure upon their governments to pull any assistance of the Israelis. This is already happening- so what would Gandhi advocate for? My assumption would be the boycotting participation in a key resource that the Israeli do to destroy the Gazans/Palestinians to serve as a focal point and growth of the message.
In Chapter 7 of Hind Swaraj titled “Why Was India Lost?” Gandhi explains to the reader that “The English have not taken India; we have given it to them.” Initially I did not understand this perspective, because India had indeed been colonized and exploited by the British. However, Gandhi is actually trying to convey that due to India’s desire for rapid national growth, India enabled trade and occupation by the English. While the nation of India obviously did not know the extent of colonialism that they would experience from the English, Gandhi argues that the urge for wealth drove India to accept British rule and occupation. Gandhi states “In order to become rich all at once, we welcomed the Company’s officers with open arms. We assisted them.”
I think these statements reflect the glorification of GDP wealth that is still extremely present in today’s society, and the issues associated with GDP and sustainability. Since the green revolution, the desire for wealth has driven both wealthy and developing countries to take part in unequitable trade agreements. This unfair trade often results in a vicious cycle of exploitation and impoverishment for developing nations, and extreme over consumption in wealthy nations like the U.S. That being said, what policy changes on a national or global scale need to be made in order to reform trade systems to prevent acts of neocolonialism between developed and developing nations? Additionally, how can we as consumers in a wealthy country alter our consumption habits to contribute to a more equitable system of trade?
When reading the chapter “The condition of India: The Hindus and the Mahomedans” the section about cow protectors really stood out to me. The reader asked the editor what their views about cow-protection was. The editor responded “But, just as I respect the cow, so do I respect my fellow-men. A man is just as useful as a cow no matter whether he be a Mahomedan or a Hindu. Am I, the, to fight with or kill a Mahomedan in order to save a cow? In doing so, I would become an enemy of the Mahomedan as well as of the cow. Therefore, the only method I know of protecting the cow is that I should approach my Mahomedan brother and urge him for the sake of the country to join me in protecting her…In my opinion, cow-protecting societies may be considered cow-killing societies. It is a disgrace to use that we should need such societies…What am I to do when a blood-brother is on the point of killing a cow? Am I to kill him, or to fall down at his feet and implore him?” (p. 46).
When thinking about this quote I related it to the environmental crisis. I associated the cow with the environment as a whole, and associated the religious aspect with the two most prominent political parties. The editor describes the differences between the Hindus and the Mahomedans, which might make it difficult for them to agree on certain values. For example, the Hindus do not eat meat, while Mahomedans do, which causes quarrels surrounding the life of the cow. In comparing this to the environmental crisis, I wonder what Gandhi would think about our two party system, where Republicans stereo typically disregard the environment in favor of business; and Democrats stereo typically favor the environment over business. I also wonder what Gandhi would recommend in regard to the both parties coming to some sort of agreement of protecting nature. Since he probably would not like how Democrats and Republicans fight. What do you think his advice would be? Would he see nature preservation societies as nature killing societies, like the way he sees cow-protecting societies as cow-killing societies?
“The chief thing, however, to be remembered is that without lawyers courts could not have been established or conducted and without the latter the English could not rule. Supposing that there were only English judges, English pleaders and English police, they could only rule over the English. The English could not do without Indian judges and Indian pleaders. How the pleaders were made in the first instance and how they were favoured you should understand well. Then you will have the same abhorrence for the profession that I have. If pleaders were to abandon their profession, and consider it just as degrading as prostitution, English rule would break up in a day. They have been instrumental in having the charge laid against us that we love quarrels and courts as fish love water. What I have said with reference to the pleaders necessarily applies to the judges; they are first cousins; and the one gives strength to the other.”
– Hind Swaraj, last paragraph of ‘Lawyers’ section
This excerpt from Ghandi’s book is one that stuck out to me the greatest and had me quite intrigued. In essence, he is elaborating on the validity, domain, and cultural influence of a country’s court and legal system. Indians, at the time, were subjected through colonialism to British law, which Ghandi states is a structure formed around the culture, customs, and opinions of British citizens. Therefore, it makes not only no sense, but is also extremely harmful to enact such systems onto other regions that differ greatly from England – and this was such the case for India and other British colonial territories. This all comes back to a foundational aura of superiority and domination emanated by England and other colonial powers combined with false narratives distributed by them on the regions in which they ‘needed to control’ and make ‘un-savage’.
How did renderings such as these have an affect on Indians whether physically or mentally/emotionally? Did this contribute to their revolution and, if so, in what ways?
My question centers around Gandhi’s discussion of civilization. Many of the things that Gandhi mentions about the future or even about the present have become closer to reality nowadays: “Men will not need the use of their hands and feet. They will press a button and they will have their clothing by their side. They will press another button and they will have their newspaper. A third, and a motorcar will be in waiting for them. They will have a variety of delicately dished up food.” Another quote that peaked my interest is that “…today, anyone can abuse his fellow by means of a letter for one penny.” It reminded me of social media and much of the hate that is spread.
My questions then revolve around what it means to be civilized. How does our country and society view being civilized? What examples do we see today of Gandhi’s description of the European view of civilization in our context? How could we redefine what it means to be civilized for the betterment of society? Do you think that spirituality has anything to do with being “civilized” in its truest sense?
Early on into the book Gandhi conveys his beliefs about colonialism and the English presence within the Indian state and advocates for the practice of self rule rather than home rule. Him and the reader are discussing the removal of the English forces in Chapter IV when the following statements are made. “We must own our own navy, our army, and we must have splendor, and then Indias voice will ring through the world. Editor: You have well drawn the picture. In effect it means this: that we want English rule without the Englishman. You want the tigers nature but not the tiger; that is to say you would make India English, and when it becomes English, it will be called not Hindustan, but Englistan. This is not the Swaraj I want.”
This is a concept that was common throughout the latter phases of colonialism in which a key feature was spreading modernization in the name of the enlightenment, religious fealties, and capitalist gain. Britain believed it was their duty to convert nations into replicas of their empire, but not to the full capacity. Britain birthed the U.S which went on to become a global super power, by following the practices and traditions of the their previous captor. History shows that the U.S also had thinkers such as Gandhi who advocated for self rule and internal observation, like Thoreau. Thoreau advocates for the individual to turn not to the state, or to society, but to nature and the self. Both thinkers had similar mindsets when it comes to internal exploration, as well as healing ones self. We know that Gandhi advocated against modern medicine and believed that nature should follows the natural path. Thoreau also had many critiques about the modern medicine system that is demonstrated in other writings and says nature is “another name for health.” I know that in todays world they would be even harsher critiques of the modern health care system, but this line of thought got me thinking about what kind of critiques they would make about the modern food system and how it has created a society that is not able to feed itself, and we know this is a result of colonialism and modernization. The Green Revolution is still a fairly young historical event in the grand scheme of history. What kind of critiques do you think Gandhi would make of our modern food system based off of examples or lines from his text? Same for Thoreau? What critiques would they make of our system and what advice may they give to amend these issues? Could turning back to nature and the self start to solve some of these issues?
Gandhi notes early on that he is a fan of Thoreau’s writings and demonstrates later that the two share many ideas and understandings of how the world works. In particular, Gandhi and Thoreau both believe that modern civilization “make[s] bodily welfare the object of life” and both disapprove of this mainstream focus on materiality and comfort (Gandhi 35-36; Thoreau 25). Additionally, both men couch their displeasure with modern civilization in an argument of religion. Thoreau laments that the focus on material objects in life distracts people from their proper reverence of God (38). He goes on to state, “The religion and civilization which are barbaric and heathenish build splendid temples; but what you might call Christianity does not” (Thoreau 58). Meanwhile, Gandhi asserts that “civilization is irreligion” and that it encourages people to turn away from God because of an inherent lack of morality (37, 42).
Based on these authors’ shared beliefs of the ills of civilization from a religious perspective, do you think that creating a civilization in line with religion is possible? Or would you agree that all expressions of modernism detract from the goals and values of religion? Further, is there a need for a religiously-minded civilization in the first place?
In Chapter 3 of Hind Swaraj, Discontent and Unrest, the editor claims that “We throw away things we have, only when we cease to like them.” Although he is talking about the societal systems within India, I believe this can connect to Walden’s themes, as well as No Impact Man’s story of choosing to throw away their things as an experiment.
What can be gained from voluntarily parting ways with things and systems?
What else do Gandhi, Henry David Thoreau, and Colin Beaven have in common?
In the same vein, Gandhi spends much of Chapter 4 debating What is Swaraj? The chapter ends with the editor telling the reader “I shall, therefore, for the time being, content myself with endeavoring to show that what you call Swaraj is not truly Swaraj.”
“A man who has realised his manhood, who fears only God, will fear no one else. Man-made laws are not necessarily binding on him. Even the government do not expect any such thing from us. They do not say: ‘You must do such and such a thing’ but they say: ‘If you do not do it, we will punish you.’ We are sunk so low, that we fancy that it is our duty and our religion to do what the law lays down. If man will only realise that it is unmanly to obey laws that are unjust, no man’s tyranny will enslave him. This is the key to self-rule or home-rule.
It is a superstition and an ungodly thing to believe that an act of a majority binds a minority. Many examples can be given in which acts of majorities will be found to have been wrong, and those of minorities to have been right. All reforms owe their origin to the initiation of minorities in opposition to majorities. If among a band of robbers, a knowledge of robbing is obligatory, is a pious man to accept the obligation? So long as the superstition that men should obey unjust laws exists, so long will their slavery exist” – Hind Swaraj Chapter 17
This quote ties into the quote from Tuesdays discussion on Thoreau’s essay “Civil Disobedience. Both Thoreau and Gandhi believed in the power of individual action against injustice. How do you think their ideas on civil disobedience and the rejection of unjust laws can aspire us to address contemporary issues of social justice and inequality?
In the chapter “The Condition of India: Railways”, Gandhi talks about the negative impact the railway system had on India including the spread of the bubonic plague and famines. To elaborate, Gandhi states, “Good travels at a snail’s pace—it can, therefore, have little to do with the railways. Those who want to do good are not selfish, they are not in a hurry, they know that impregnating people with good requires a long time. But evil has wings. To build a house takes time. Its destruction takes none. So the railways can become a distributing agency for the evil one only. It may be a debatable matter whether railways spread famines, but it is beyond dispute that they propagate evil.” In this quote, Gandhi suggests that the true essence of progress comes slowly and it takes patience to look to the future and the bigger picture of the consequences that come from innovations like railways. How does Gandhi’s assertion that “good travels at a snail’s pace” challenge the colonial notions of progress associated with infrastructure advancements like railways, and what implications does this hold for understanding the pace and nature of sustainable development?
“So long as a man is contented with his present lot, so long is it difficult to persuade him to come out of it” (Chapter 3). – Sorry cannot find page number with online book.
This quote by Gandhi reflects the idea that people often resist change when they are comfortable with their current situation. It suggests that contentment can lead to complacency and a reluctance to seek out new opportunities or experiences. The significance of this quote lies in its observation of human nature and the tendency to resist change. It highlights the challenge of motivating individuals to strive for improvement or pursue new goals when satisfied with their current circumstances.
Considering the film No Impact Man and Colin Beaven, he disconnected from the traditional, comfortable, unsustainable, and wasteful ways of living to create change. Do you think Colin Beaven would relate to this quote during and after this year-long experiment, as people thought he was “crazy” for stepping outside of the traditional ways of living? How can we learn from Gandhi and Colin Beaven about stepping outside of our comfort zones to disconnect from societal norms?
In the chapter “The condition of England” in Ghandi’s ‘Hind Swaraj’, I began to think a lot about how his critiques of the British Parliament at the time are reflected today as well, specifically within American politics. The systems definitely differ and there are struggles within both of the systems, but I think Ghandi raised some questions that apply to both the Parliament then, and the American political system today. A few of his points caught my eye,
“But, as a matter of fact, it is generally acknowledged that the members are hypocritical and selfish. Each thinks of his own little interest. It is fear that is the guiding motive. What is done today may be undone tomorrow. It is not possible to recall a single instance in which finality can be predicated for its work” (31).
“Carlyle has called it the ‘talking-shop of the world’. Members vote for their party without a thought. Their so-called discipline binds them to it. If any member, by way of exception, gives an independent vote, he is considered a renegade” (31).
This has me thinking about the state of our two party system in the U.S and how extreme and explicit commitment to party lines has created a divide/ lack of space for conversation/understanding between parties. Even so, Ghandi later talks about the English people’s utmost belief in the newspaper despite its dishonesty and inconsistency. If the Parliament and English people were facing these same issues back then, have we really grown past it and “developed” our societies since? Does Ghandi’s claim that this kind of system would ruin India continue to reflect in modern society after the “development” we’ve seen globally?
“Reader : Then you consider the Partition to be a cause of the awakening ? Do you welcome the unrest which has resulted from it? Editor : When a man rises from sleep, he twists his limbs and is restless. It takes some time before he is entirely awakened. Similarly, although the Partition has caused an awakening, the comatose condition has not yet disappeared. We are still twisting our limbs and are still restless, and just as the state between sleep and awakening must be considered to be necessary, so may the present unrest in India be considered a necessary and therefore, a proper state. The knowledge that there is unrest will, it is highly probable, enable us to outgrow it. Rising from sleep, we do not continue in a comatose state, but according to our ability, sooner or later, we are completely restored to our senses. So shall we be free from the present unrest which no one likes. Reader : What is the other form of unrest? Editor : Unrest is, in reality, discontent. The latter is only now described as unrest. During the Congress- period it was labeled discontent. Mr. Hume always said that the spread of discontent in India was necessary. This discontent is a very useful thing. As long as a man is contented with his present lot, so long is it difficult to persuade him to come out of it. Therefore, it is that every reform must be preceded by discontent. We throw away things we have, only when we cease to like them. Such discontent has been produced among us after reading the great works of Indians and Englishmen. Discontent has led to unrest, and the latter has brought about many deaths, many imprisonments, many banishments. Such a state of things will still continue. It must be so. All these may be considered good signs, but they may also lead to bad results.”
Is there a line between acknowledging discontent and unrest and justifying inaction?
Gandhi is a deeply religious man, understanding that different religions exist within his country and must therefore coexist. Much of the reason why he opposes British colonial rule in India is due to his assertion that India is losing its spiritual connection. Why do you think that spirituality was so important to Gandhi, not only in his personal life, but also for India as a whole? What has spirituality meant in your life and how do you think it could benefit or hurt our country?
In many of Gandhi’s writings about civilization he expressed many concerns about some of the ideology of the time, but he also had hope for some of the ideas like equality and liberty. My question is are we closer to the society that Gandhi wanted or are we farther away.
expert
Modern civilisation forms the broad historical context of Hind Swaraj. Its critique of that civilisation is one of its main contributions to modern political thought. In historical terms, it is Gandhi’s apprehensions about certain tendencies in modern civilisation that made him the thinker and the political innovator that he is. The tone of his criticism is sometimes harsh and intemperate and is likely to mislead the reader. It is all the more necessary therefore to say at once that his attitude towards modern civilisation, though critical, is not wholly negative. Being critical implies the desire to improve the object criticised. So it is with Gandhi and modern civilisation. Thus he welcomes a number of its contributions – civil liberty, equality, rights, prospects for improving the economic conditions of life, liberation of women from tradition and religious toleration. At the same time, the welcome is conditional in that liberty has to harmonise with swaraj, rights with duties, empirical knowledge with moral insight, economic development with spiritual progress, religious toleration with religious belief and women’s liberation with the demands of a broader conception of humanity.
This excerpt from Chapter 6 (Civilisation) stood out to me:
“This civilisation is such that one has only to be patient and it will be self-destroyed. According to the teaching of Mahomed this would be considered a Satanic civilisation. Hinduism calls it the Black Age. I cannot give you an adequate conception of it. It is eating into the vitals of the English nation. It must be shunned. Parliaments are really emblems of slavery. If you will sufficiently think over this, you will entertain the same opinion, and cease to blame the English. They rather deserve our sympathy. They are a shrewd nation and I, therefore, believe that they will cast off the evil. They are enterprising and industrious, and their mode of thought is not inherently immoral. Neither are they bad at heart. I, therefore, respect them. Civilisation is not an incurable disease, but it should never be forgotten that the English people are at present afflicted by it.”
Gandhi compares civilization under English rule to a disease. He harbors no animosity towards the English people themselves and instead sees them as indoctrinated, or in his words, “intoxicated,” by the civilization they live under. The real enemy is not the people, but civilization itself and the exploitative economic system and consumerist way of life that comprises it. He believes the English can “cast off the evil” of civilization. As residents of the United States, another imperialist and highly consumerist nation, do we have the ability to collectively cast off this evil and cure ourselves of civilization? What might that look like?
“Why do they want more fees than common labourers? Why are their requirements greater? In what way are they more profitable to the country than the labourers? Are those who do good entitled to greater payment? And, if they have done anything for the country for the sake of money, how shall it be counted as good?” Ch. 11 The condition of india continued (Lawyers)
This quote stood out to me because of how it highlights the issues of morality in a capitalist system. Mostly one made to elevate the British colonizers and exploit the colonized. This quote made me think about other arbitrary systems that have been used to exploit for the sake of gaining capital. In a moral sense wouldn’t it be better to help people just for the sake of helping people, the act of payment creates a transaction with a window for exploitation. At first I didn’t truly understand what Ghandi meant when he expressed that the Indian people let themselves be colonized but I think this quote helped me understand his frustration. Specifically with the exploitation in a capitalist system it seems like elitist structures were propagated and adopted by elite even Indians to predominantly exploit other less fortunate Indians. A great example of this to get context is how the caste system became much more rigid under the rule of the British Raj.
Can capitalism have any conception that isn’t exploitative in nature or would society need to restructure around a different goal that isn’t accumulating the most capital?
In chapter 13 of “Hind Swaraj” the editor describes what they think of true Indian civilization. It is a simpler way of life that echos Thoreau’s “Walden” and his understanding and critiques modern civilization. Gandhi’s writing shares disapproval for the materialism and consumption patterns of modern Western societies and instead advocates for a return to a way of life that looks more like ancient Indian civilization. Gandhi also touches on how there is more satisfaction in living traditionally, self-sufficiently, and more connected with the motherland. The convenience of modern technologies and luxuries does not aid in the betterment of societies.
Gandhi and Thoreau come from very different backgrounds and philosophical beliefs yet they both advocate for a similar alternative to modern civilization. How do their difference in perspectives come together to promote a more meaningful adaptation of their critique of modernity and “true” civilization?
In chapter 5 Gandhi discusses the current state of Parliament and I found it to have a lot of similarities with our own present day government. One thing that really stood out to me was when Gandhi said that “Members vote for their party without a thought… If any member, by way of exception, gives an independent vote, he is considered a renegade” (31). I think that voters today often do the same thing, either because they feel obligated to do so or because they so strongly despise the other party that they automatically write off all candidates from the other party. Gandhi also states that parliamentary candidates/politicians are hypocritical and selfish which is another similarity with today’s government. Many politicians are motivated by money and their own self interests rather than the peoples’. Though we are not currently colonized as India was, we seem to share a lot of governmental flaws. Considering this, do you think that Gandhi’s ideas for fixing the state the of the country could be successfully applied today to fix the problems in our country?
When looking at both Gandhi and Thoreau, there are many similaities between their writings. This can be seen in the ways that they both discuss both comforts and civilization. For Thoreau he choses to perform an experiment wher he uses voluntary poverty and stepping away (in certain ways) from society and that typical idea of civilization. For Gandhi, steps away form societys civilization to try and get away from the corruption that was taking of the society.
Would these ideas of getting away from society work in todays world? How would the effects of stepping away from society today, differ from some of the effect that were found by Thoreau and Gandhi?
“They, therefore, after due deliberation, decided that we should only do what we could with our hands and feet. They saw that our real happiness and health consisted in a proper use of our hands and feet” (69). The context that Ghandi states this is in his opposition to machinery. He believes indulgence in luxuries and pleasures leads to perpetual discontentment and the corrosion of morality. This aligns with some of Thorreu’s philosophies as well, in what ways does it relate to Thoreau’s ideas of how life should be experienced in a tangible matter? Though taken from a different context, Thoreau states “I mean that they should not play life, or study it merely, while the community supports them at this expensive game, but earnestly live it from beginning to end. How could youths better learn to live than by at once trying to experiment of living? (49)” These can be applied very differently but is there an overarching emphasis on engaging the senses in human experiences?
“This civilization is such that one has only to be patient and it will be self-destroyed” (Gandhi Civilization).
I think in order to really see the reality of our humanity, we need space from a fast changing world. This means using less technology to produce goods. An answer to how we can use less technology lies in transforming our thoughts and habits. Some activities of renunciation include mending clothes, cleaning the house, and meditating on the body. How can we cultivate a more compassionate voice to slow down the oppression of the human body and soul?
Gandhi, in “Hind Swaraj,” criticizes civilization for creating a cycle of greed and dissatisfaction, where people are enslaved by the temptation of money and luxuries. He advocates for simplicity as a solution, echoing Thoreau’s sentiments in “Walden” about the unhappiness of those constantly wanting more and the need to simplify one’s life. Both Gandhi and Thoreau suggest that modern routines are too complex and that returning to nature and simplicity could lead to a more fulfilling life. They challenge the notion that civilization’s technological advancements and comforts are true progress, suggesting that they may, in fact, lead to greater dissatisfaction and disconnect from nature.
Considering Gandhi and Thoreau’s critiques of civilization and their advocacy for simplicity, how can individuals and society as a whole incorporate these principles into modern life without completely rejecting technological advancements and comforts? Can a balance be struck between the benefits of modernity and the virtues of simplicity and closeness to nature that Gandhi and Thoreau promote?
Summary: “Civilization” by Mahatma Gandhi is an essay in which he reflects on the nature of civilization and its impact on humanity. Gandhi argues that true civilization should be judged by the moral progress it enables rather than material advancements. He criticizes modern civilization for its focus on technological development at the expense of spiritual and ethical growth, which he views as essential for human well-being. Gandhi advocates for a civilization that values simplicity, self-reliance, and harmony with nature. He emphasizes the importance of moral principles such as truth, nonviolence, and compassion in guiding human behavior and shaping the fabric of society. Gandhi believes that a civilization grounded in these values would promote justice, equality, and human dignity, fostering a more peaceful and sustainable world.
Discussion Question: How do you think Gandhi’s concept of civilization challenges the conventional notions of development, and what implications would it have for the fate of contemporary society?
Ghandi and Thoreau are both critical of the ways that ‘civilization’ are expressed. It is true that Ghandi is critical of technological advancement- “Men will not need the use of their hands and feet. They will press a button, and they will have their clothing by their side. They will press another button, and they will have their newspaper. A third, and a motor-car will be in waiting for them. They will have a variety of delicately dished up food. Everything will be done by machinery.”
However, I think the ultimate critique, and one that Ghandi and Thoreau share, is the ways in which civilization produces alienation. Ghandi describes an alienation from meaningful work, meaningful meals, and meaningful household dynamics. Thoreau expresses similar distates for social alienations. Both advocate for a return to simplicity in response to this. I think the most important takeaway from these arguments is not that we should outright reject progress- but that we should be mindful of the sacrifices we are expected to make in its name. I feel that modern society is incredibly alienating, and while I feel that the SD community and my own personal community of family and friends do a lot to reduce my own personal alienations, there are still limits imposed by civilization. Obligations towards work and a maintenance of ‘normality’ limit the time we can spend generating and maintaining bonds and community. The alienation from nature and from the products of labor described in Marx contribute heavily to these issues. My questions for the week are: What do you believe is the true issue with civilization as Ghandi describes it? What are ways we can combat alienation? What are our limits if we attempt to return to a simpler life?
SD 3800 Voices in Sustainable Development 
Opal Napier
In the chapter “Civilisation” of Ghandi’s Hind Swaraj, the Editor claims that civilisation is irreligion, providing the evidence that people in Europe are so taken with it that “They can hardly be happy in solitude.”** In Walden, Thoreau has an entire chapter on solitude, and states “I find it wholesome to be alone the greater part of the time,” (p. 128) and even puts forth that perhaps society meets too frequently (p. 128-129). In Sustainable Development discussions, more engagement and interaction with others is often encouraged and even proposed as a solution to certain issues, and not a lot of consideration goes to time spent in solitude. What value do these two influential thinkers find in the ability to spend time alone? Could solitude be just as important to sustainability as human interaction, and does it help or hinder the building of connected and resilient communities?
**The online textbook won’t give me the page numbers so I guess we’ll never know
Alena Dastur
Both Gandhi and Thoreau discuss railroads in their work. Gandhi proposes the line of thinking that railways are one of the main reasons that England is able to have such a strong hold on India – “but for the railways, the English could not have such a hold on India as they have” (Hind Swaraj, pg. 47). He also calls railways out as perpetrators of famine, disease, and transporters of bad people:
EDITOR: They are the carriers of plague germs. Formerly we had natural segregation. Railways have also increased the frequency of famines, because, owing to facility of means of locomotion, people sell out their grain, and it is sent to the dearest markets. People become careless, and so the pressure of famine increases. They accentuate the evil nature of man. Bad men fulfill their evil designs with greater rapidity. The holy places of India have become unholy. Formerly, people went to these places with very great difficulty. Generally, therefore, only the real devotees visited such places. Nowadays, rogues visit them in order to practice their roguery (pg. 47)
How does this perspective from Gandhi relate to Thoreau’s perspective and thoughts on railroads in Walden? Do you think they would agree or disagree with each other’s thinking on this topic? Can we see any of Thoreau’s thoughts about how railroads influence society coming into fruition with the situation Gandhi discusses?
Alissa Odom
In the writing of Gandhi, Hind Swaraj, he states that civilisation is the root of trouble. He describes the goals of civilisation as aiming to create bodily comforts and increasing welfare, yet points out many examples of how it is doing the contrary. For example, he states “Formerly, men were made slaves under physical compulsion, now they are enslaved by temptation of money and of the luxuries that money can buy” (chapter 6). This idea that complex societies create “machines” of people who are never satisfied with what they currently have and continuously crave more, reminded me of Walden. Thoreau too eluded that the unhappiest of people are those who are wanting all of their life, and that simplicity is the answer to this problem. “Simplicity, simplicity, simplicity! I say, let your affairs be as two or three, and not a hundred or a thousand; instead of a million count half a dozen, and keep your accounts on your thumb nail” (Walden, 69).
Although they both have different opinions, the overall idea that greed is a problem in society is a large theme in both writings. Do you think Gandi and Theoeru would agree that our current routines are too complex and that simplicity is needed in our day-to-day lives? How could we as a society “slow down” while still making positive changes?
Karissa Scott
In both Thoreau’s “Slavery in Massachusetts” and Gandhi’s “Hind Swaraj” there is a discussion about the use of newspapers. In both of these readings, the authors are critiquing the English beliefs and the weight they hold in the newspaper. Thoreau writes, “I believe that, in this country, the press exerts a greater and more pernicious influence than the Church did in its worst period (p.7). Gandhi’s writings aid this thought process in Chapter 5 of “Hind Swaraj” saying, “One newspaper would consider a great Englishman to be a paragon of honesty, another would consider him dishonest. What must be the condition of the people whose newspapers are of this type”. Both Thoreau and Gandhi hold the viewpoint that we, as a society, put an unhealthy amount of weight on news organizations. If a negative article is released about a company or an individual, it can wreck their entire career, but we generally take what the news publishes as fact. What do you think led Americans and our society to rely on and place our opinions on news outlets? As well as Gandhi’s question, what does that mean about our society and the state of the country?
Grady Vardeman
“What is the meaning of education? If it simply means a knowledge of letters, it is merely an instrument, and an instrument may be well used or abused. The same instrument that may be used to cure a patient may come under the bane of what is mainly false education.” (Page 101)
From this quote it made me question how Gandhi’s perspective on education challenged traditional notions of learning and knowledge at that time and if there are any connections that you can or cannot find in our modern education?
“Like every other Indian, will know that to blame the English is useless, that they came because of us, and remain also for the same reason, and that they will either go or change their nature only when we reform ourselves” (page 118). How does Gandhi’s concept of self-rule and the need for Indians to take responsibility for their own governance challenge traditional notions of colonialism? Also how does this help India’s path to independence and self-governance?”
Sam Platt
In the chapter titled Civilisation, the editor mentions that “civilisation seeks to increase bodily comforts, and it fails miserably even in doing so”. This quote grabs at their thoughts on how civilisation brings with it so much but also brings a blindsided hit to so much that we begin to overlook. The Civilisation chapter discusses how this movement is hurting individuals through them becoming part of a system that runs within the civilisation, and in turn breaking away from the things we should be absorbing in our lives. In the ‘What is True Civilisation?’ chapter it is said that “Civilisation is that mode of conduct which points out to man the path of duty.” which further goes the idea that an individual within a civilisation will become a part of it like its a system that needs them included. This comes from individuals who are in a civilisation that are following the money since that is what civilisation seems to revolve around. What would be Thoreau’s perspective on this idea of a civilisation? Since money is powerful enough, in the eyes of the people, to bring up a civilisation, would it be strong enough to motivate people but with good terms rather than being sucked into civilisation? And what would be some terms that could make money not be the thing that drives people into being stuck within civilisation?
Ellen Kraai
One interesting theme I have noticed in both Walden by Henry David Thoreau and Hind Swaraj by Gandhi is health. In the chapter entitled The Condition of India (cont.): Doctors, Gandhi discusses his belief that the English have “used the medical profesion for holding us” (p. 61). He describes a scenario in which a doctor gives a patient medicine to make their body feel better but the patient’s mind becomes “weakened” and it results in “loss of control over the mind”. Gandhi goes on to say:
Had the doctor not intervened, nature would have done its work, and I would have acquired mastery over myself, would have been freed from vice, and would have become happy. Hospitals are institutions for propagating sin. Men take less care of their bodies, and immorality increases. (p. 61)
This notion of letting nature do the work in order to increase self-mastery in pursuit of happiness/morality seems to be Gandhi’s way of discussing one form of material and metaphysical self-making. As we discussed in previous weeks, self-making is a major theme for Thoreau as well, though nature seems to take a more obvious forefront for him. Thoreau is famous for the quote “nature is but another name for health”. Sure, he feels this in a spiritual sense, but do you think he feels it in a physical sense as well? Are the two inseparable? In the case of “modern” Western medicine, how do you think the conversation between Thoreau and Gandhi would go? Would Thoreau be happy with modern vaccines deriving their success from things like fungus growing on a cantalope (penicilin)? Or has it become too industrialized? Would Thoreau and Gandhi agree on the methods of approaching self-making and health?
Jason Schlachtun
In the section of the Hind Swaraj titled “Brute Force” Gandhi explicitly condemns the separation of the means from the ends, and by extension the use of violent force to expel the English from India for the purposes of Swaraj. He argues the following.
“The means may be likened to a seed, the end to a tree; and there is just the same inviolable connection between the means and the end as there is between the seed and the tree. I am not likely to obtain the result flowing from the worship of God by laying myself prostrate before Satan. If, therefore, anyone were to say: ‘I want to worship God, it does not matter that I do so by means of Satan’ it would be set down as ignorant folly. We reap exactly as we sow.”
“If I want to deprive you of your watch, I shall certainly have to fight for it; if I want to buy your watch, I shall have to pay you for it; and, if I want a gift, I shall have to plead for it; and, according to the means I employ, the watch is stolen property, my own property, or a donation.”
With this in mind, what are the undesirable consequences the English were faced with following their violent colonialist methods to expand their empire? He speaks of duties and rights, that the English achieved their rights through violence but were negligent of their duties, what does he mean by this? Finally, what harmful outcomes did Gandhi fear would befall India if it were to forcefully eject the English?
Emily Duhon
Both Gandhi and Thoreau both find value in solitude from what I found in the reading. Gandi sees it as a way to escape corruption influences of civilization and thoreau emphaizies its role in self-reflection and individual growth. While modern sustainability dicsussions prioritize interaction, solitude might also be crucial for personal well-being and critical thinking, leadingtot more conscious and sustainable choices
Discussion questions:
Can too much solitude hinder community building and sustainability?
Is it possible to incorporate values such as solitude and simplicity with modern day technology?
In Chapter 6 of Gandhi’s “Hind Swaraj,” a quote reads, “Civilisation seeks to increase bodily comforts, and it fails miserably even in doing so.” Both Gandhi and Thoreau viewed modern civilization as a corrupt influence on society and therefore sought to find meaning in solitude instead, but in a world where solitude is becoming harder and harder to come by, what other ways can we find solitude besides physically isolating ourselves from others? Is there a way to still achieve solitude while not physically be isolated from the world? Would such solitude have the same effect on a person as the solitude that Gandhi and Thoreau discuss in their works? What would they suggest to someone living the present day as a method of achieving a sense of solitude in a realistic manner?
-Carter Sullivan
-McKinzie Sturgell
Both Gandhi and Thoreau discuss themes of civilization and comfort. Gandhi writes “the people of Europe today live in better built houses than they did a hundred years ago. This is considered an emblem of civilization” (pg. 58) so by this logic Thoreau’s Walden experiment and “voluntary poverty” seem to be stepping away from civilization. They both look back towards nature for necessities and comforts instead of technology. Thoreau finds enjoyment in the sunrise and gives his garden back to nature; Gandhi says that “Civilization seeks to increase bodily comforts, and it fails miserably even in doing so” (pg. 66).
Do you think Thoreau would agree with what Gandhi is saying about the technological advances in the early 1900s? Would going back to nature like Thoreau “cure” the disease of civilization that Gandhi is discussing?
Weekly Question: Ella Harris
Thoreau has a deep love for trees and we can see a shift in his mood when he is discussing them. He describes thoughts as “wombed and rooted in darkness… like the tree of life.” He also explains trees as a religious experience for himself, often getting from trees what others got from church. Gandhi also discusses trees but in metaphors for India’s journey away from the western framework. Gandhi states “Remember the old proverb that the tree does not grow in one day” and “The seed is never seen. It works underneath the ground, is itself destroyed, and the tree which rises above the ground is alone seen.” The latter quote by Gandhi is used to describe congress. Thoreau also states nothing “stands up more free from blame than a pine tree.”
How do these Thoreau and Gandhi quotes about trees relate and differ?
Why are trees so often used as metaphors and discussed? Do we all feel connections to trees?
Do trees convey a theme of freedom that we all strive for?
Do you relate to these quotes?
Week 3 Discussion Question
Shea Adair
Gandhi calls out the suffering and evils of civilization by explaining that, “formerly, men worked in the open air only so much as they liked. Now, thousands of workmen meet together and for the sake of maintenance work in factories or mines. Their condition is worse than that of beasts. They are obliged to work, at the risk of their lives, at most dangerous occupations, for the sake of millionaires. Formerly, men were made slaves under physical compulsion, now they are enslaved by temptation of money and of the luxuries that money can buy” (Chapter VI). Gandhi seems to base the lack of morality of civilization on the fact that “this civilization is irreligion” (Chapter VI). In “Chapter VIII The Condition of India”, Gandhi goes on to explain how important religion is to him, and the need he feels for religion to remain prominent in order to combat the emergence of ‘civilization’ in India. The dichotomy between scientific realism and spirituality that was created during the Enlightenment period has been claimed to have played a role in justifying to Europeans their superiority and right to control others and nature. Considering this, what roles do religion and spirituality play in undermining the exploitative and oppressive capitalist development paradigm?
Ginger Perro
Throughout his book, Ghandi makes his views and contempt for Western civilization and its systems of knowledge abundantly clear. He even goes as far as to say “In order to restore India to its pristine condition, we have to return to it. In our own civilization, there will naturally be progress, restrogression, reforms, and reactions; but one effort is required, and that is to drive our Western civilization” (104). Do you think Gandhi would critique the “experiment” Thoreau did at Walden Pond as a Western centralized way of understanding our environment or invite it as another way to try and relate to the world and issues around us. Do you think the lack of acknowledgment of Thoreau’s privilege lessens some of the meaning of his writings? In Gandhi’s case, do you think that his clear acknowledgment of where he came from and the privilege he has shows a greater sense of integrity and range of care for the issues he is fighting for? While I don’t think that Thoreau was pretending to care about the issues he discusses, it would have resonated more with me personally if he had better acknowledged his privilege and the impact that it had on his experiment (and his ability to do so in the first place).
drive out*** (sorry made a typo)
Kobe Early 2/8/24
A large chunk of the Hind Swaraj and Other Writings is M.K. Gandhi arguing that the enslavement of India stems as a result of the people’s submission to the enforced system. With aspects of civilization: technology, doctors, lawyers, and railroads are focal points of how civilization is a bastardized way of being. I want to put in question- what bounds illicit violent action? and how Gandhi believes those being actively colonized should act as forms of resistance. In the Limitations of the Doctrine, Gandhi says that he would “I would risk war to stop these horrors” (page 5) regarding the German and Italian Fascist governments. I am curious to what extent violence must be expelled before Gandhi admits he would take a stance that kills others since he admits that this limit exists. Believing that Swaraj is only achievable through nonviolent organization. As a result, Gandhi was accused of “playing a deep game, that I am using the present turmoil to foist my fads on India, and am making religious experiments at India’s expense” (page 11). Throughout the rest of the book Gandhi expresses that nonviolent action while it has ripples in regards to consumerism only leads to the suffrage of the one who consents. In contrast, violent action only breeds more violent action. So violent conquerors shouldn’t be met with violent action. Expecting widescale organizations to resist in a nonviolent fashion predicated on the premise that those who are being conquered have solidarity with others being conquered. It is not that this organization cannot exist but it must result from already being conquered and centralized to understand the gravity of the situation since Western conquerors display savagery that those who are not a part of it do not understand. Nonviolent organization requires a will displayed by none before which is the reason Gandhi became the father of resistance nationalism. The focal point of many around the world for those being actively colonized includes the people of Gaza. I am curious how he would perceive their plight. Nonviolent organization by residents of the region only would result in the genocide of all residing peoples. My assumption Gandhi, based on his nonviolent organization tendencies is that all other peoples of the world would need to organize to put pressure upon their governments to pull any assistance of the Israelis. This is already happening- so what would Gandhi advocate for? My assumption would be the boycotting participation in a key resource that the Israeli do to destroy the Gazans/Palestinians to serve as a focal point and growth of the message.
Weekly Question 3:
Carlye Durham
In Chapter 7 of Hind Swaraj titled “Why Was India Lost?” Gandhi explains to the reader that “The English have not taken India; we have given it to them.” Initially I did not understand this perspective, because India had indeed been colonized and exploited by the British. However, Gandhi is actually trying to convey that due to India’s desire for rapid national growth, India enabled trade and occupation by the English. While the nation of India obviously did not know the extent of colonialism that they would experience from the English, Gandhi argues that the urge for wealth drove India to accept British rule and occupation. Gandhi states “In order to become rich all at once, we welcomed the Company’s officers with open arms. We assisted them.”
I think these statements reflect the glorification of GDP wealth that is still extremely present in today’s society, and the issues associated with GDP and sustainability. Since the green revolution, the desire for wealth has driven both wealthy and developing countries to take part in unequitable trade agreements. This unfair trade often results in a vicious cycle of exploitation and impoverishment for developing nations, and extreme over consumption in wealthy nations like the U.S. That being said, what policy changes on a national or global scale need to be made in order to reform trade systems to prevent acts of neocolonialism between developed and developing nations? Additionally, how can we as consumers in a wealthy country alter our consumption habits to contribute to a more equitable system of trade?
Discussion Question: Winifred Rhea-Unruh
When reading the chapter “The condition of India: The Hindus and the Mahomedans” the section about cow protectors really stood out to me. The reader asked the editor what their views about cow-protection was. The editor responded “But, just as I respect the cow, so do I respect my fellow-men. A man is just as useful as a cow no matter whether he be a Mahomedan or a Hindu. Am I, the, to fight with or kill a Mahomedan in order to save a cow? In doing so, I would become an enemy of the Mahomedan as well as of the cow. Therefore, the only method I know of protecting the cow is that I should approach my Mahomedan brother and urge him for the sake of the country to join me in protecting her…In my opinion, cow-protecting societies may be considered cow-killing societies. It is a disgrace to use that we should need such societies…What am I to do when a blood-brother is on the point of killing a cow? Am I to kill him, or to fall down at his feet and implore him?” (p. 46).
When thinking about this quote I related it to the environmental crisis. I associated the cow with the environment as a whole, and associated the religious aspect with the two most prominent political parties. The editor describes the differences between the Hindus and the Mahomedans, which might make it difficult for them to agree on certain values. For example, the Hindus do not eat meat, while Mahomedans do, which causes quarrels surrounding the life of the cow. In comparing this to the environmental crisis, I wonder what Gandhi would think about our two party system, where Republicans stereo typically disregard the environment in favor of business; and Democrats stereo typically favor the environment over business. I also wonder what Gandhi would recommend in regard to the both parties coming to some sort of agreement of protecting nature. Since he probably would not like how Democrats and Republicans fight. What do you think his advice would be? Would he see nature preservation societies as nature killing societies, like the way he sees cow-protecting societies as cow-killing societies?
Kendall Williamson
“The chief thing, however, to be remembered is that without lawyers courts could
not have been established or conducted and without the latter the English could
not rule. Supposing that there were only English judges, English pleaders and
English police, they could only rule over the English. The English could not do
without Indian judges and Indian pleaders. How the pleaders were made in the
first instance and how they were favoured you should understand well. Then you
will have the same abhorrence for the profession that I have. If pleaders were to
abandon their profession, and consider it just as degrading as prostitution,
English rule would break up in a day. They have been instrumental in having the
charge laid against us that we love quarrels and courts as fish love water. What
I have said with reference to the pleaders necessarily applies to the judges; they
are first cousins; and the one gives strength to the other.”
– Hind Swaraj, last paragraph of ‘Lawyers’ section
This excerpt from Ghandi’s book is one that stuck out to me the greatest and had me quite intrigued. In essence, he is elaborating on the validity, domain, and cultural influence of a country’s court and legal system. Indians, at the time, were subjected through colonialism to British law, which Ghandi states is a structure formed around the culture, customs, and opinions of British citizens. Therefore, it makes not only no sense, but is also extremely harmful to enact such systems onto other regions that differ greatly from England – and this was such the case for India and other British colonial territories. This all comes back to a foundational aura of superiority and domination emanated by England and other colonial powers combined with false narratives distributed by them on the regions in which they ‘needed to control’ and make ‘un-savage’.
How did renderings such as these have an affect on Indians whether physically or mentally/emotionally? Did this contribute to their revolution and, if so, in what ways?
Weekly Question #3
Joe Davis
My question centers around Gandhi’s discussion of civilization. Many of the things that Gandhi mentions about the future or even about the present have become closer to reality nowadays: “Men will not need the use of their hands and feet. They will press a button and they will have their clothing by their side. They will press another button and they will have their newspaper. A third, and a motorcar will be in waiting for them. They will have a variety of delicately dished up food.” Another quote that peaked my interest is that “…today, anyone can abuse his fellow by means of a letter for one penny.” It reminded me of social media and much of the hate that is spread.
My questions then revolve around what it means to be civilized. How does our country and society view being civilized? What examples do we see today of Gandhi’s description of the European view of civilization in our context? How could we redefine what it means to be civilized for the betterment of society? Do you think that spirituality has anything to do with being “civilized” in its truest sense?
Ren Pommarane
Early on into the book Gandhi conveys his beliefs about colonialism and the English presence within the Indian state and advocates for the practice of self rule rather than home rule. Him and the reader are discussing the removal of the English forces in Chapter IV when the following statements are made. “We must own our own navy, our army, and we must have splendor, and then Indias voice will ring through the world. Editor: You have well drawn the picture. In effect it means this: that we want English rule without the Englishman. You want the tigers nature but not the tiger; that is to say you would make India English, and when it becomes English, it will be called not Hindustan, but Englistan. This is not the Swaraj I want.”
This is a concept that was common throughout the latter phases of colonialism in which a key feature was spreading modernization in the name of the enlightenment, religious fealties, and capitalist gain. Britain believed it was their duty to convert nations into replicas of their empire, but not to the full capacity. Britain birthed the U.S which went on to become a global super power, by following the practices and traditions of the their previous captor. History shows that the U.S also had thinkers such as Gandhi who advocated for self rule and internal observation, like Thoreau. Thoreau advocates for the individual to turn not to the state, or to society, but to nature and the self. Both thinkers had similar mindsets when it comes to internal exploration, as well as healing ones self. We know that Gandhi advocated against modern medicine and believed that nature should follows the natural path. Thoreau also had many critiques about the modern medicine system that is demonstrated in other writings and says nature is “another name for health.” I know that in todays world they would be even harsher critiques of the modern health care system, but this line of thought got me thinking about what kind of critiques they would make about the modern food system and how it has created a society that is not able to feed itself, and we know this is a result of colonialism and modernization. The Green Revolution is still a fairly young historical event in the grand scheme of history. What kind of critiques do you think Gandhi would make of our modern food system based off of examples or lines from his text? Same for Thoreau? What critiques would they make of our system and what advice may they give to amend these issues? Could turning back to nature and the self start to solve some of these issues?
Anne Elise Russell
Gandhi notes early on that he is a fan of Thoreau’s writings and demonstrates later that the two share many ideas and understandings of how the world works. In particular, Gandhi and Thoreau both believe that modern civilization “make[s] bodily welfare the object of life” and both disapprove of this mainstream focus on materiality and comfort (Gandhi 35-36; Thoreau 25). Additionally, both men couch their displeasure with modern civilization in an argument of religion. Thoreau laments that the focus on material objects in life distracts people from their proper reverence of God (38). He goes on to state, “The religion and civilization which are barbaric and heathenish build splendid temples; but what you might call Christianity does not” (Thoreau 58). Meanwhile, Gandhi asserts that “civilization is irreligion” and that it encourages people to turn away from God because of an inherent lack of morality (37, 42).
Based on these authors’ shared beliefs of the ills of civilization from a religious perspective, do you think that creating a civilization in line with religion is possible? Or would you agree that all expressions of modernism detract from the goals and values of religion? Further, is there a need for a religiously-minded civilization in the first place?
In Chapter 3 of Hind Swaraj, Discontent and Unrest, the editor claims that “We throw away things we have, only when we cease to like them.” Although he is talking about the societal systems within India, I believe this can connect to Walden’s themes, as well as No Impact Man’s story of choosing to throw away their things as an experiment.
What can be gained from voluntarily parting ways with things and systems?
What else do Gandhi, Henry David Thoreau, and Colin Beaven have in common?
In the same vein, Gandhi spends much of Chapter 4 debating What is Swaraj? The chapter ends with the editor telling the reader “I shall, therefore, for the time being, content myself with endeavoring to show that what you call Swaraj is not truly Swaraj.”
What would Henry David Thoreau believe Swaraj is?
“A man who has realised his manhood, who fears only God, will fear no one else. Man-made laws are not necessarily binding on him. Even the government do not expect any such thing from us. They do not say: ‘You must do such and such a thing’ but they say: ‘If you do not do it, we will punish you.’ We are sunk so low, that we fancy that it is our duty and our religion to do what the law lays down. If man will only realise that it is unmanly to obey laws that are unjust, no man’s tyranny will enslave him. This is the key to self-rule or home-rule.
It is a superstition and an ungodly thing to believe that an act of a majority binds a minority. Many examples can be given in which acts of majorities will be found to have been wrong, and those of minorities to have been right. All reforms owe their origin to the initiation of minorities in opposition to majorities. If among a band of robbers, a knowledge of robbing is obligatory, is a pious man to accept the obligation? So long as the superstition that men should obey unjust laws exists, so long will their slavery exist” – Hind Swaraj Chapter 17
This quote ties into the quote from Tuesdays discussion on Thoreau’s essay “Civil Disobedience. Both Thoreau and Gandhi believed in the power of individual action against injustice. How do you think their ideas on civil disobedience and the rejection of unjust laws can aspire us to address contemporary issues of social justice and inequality?
-Heather Fraser
In the chapter “The Condition of India: Railways”, Gandhi talks about the negative impact the railway system had on India including the spread of the bubonic plague and famines. To elaborate, Gandhi states, “Good travels at a snail’s pace—it can, therefore, have little to do with the railways. Those who want to do good are not selfish, they are not in a hurry, they know that impregnating people with good requires a long time. But evil has wings. To build a house takes time. Its destruction takes none. So the railways can become a distributing agency for the evil one only. It may be a debatable matter whether railways spread famines, but it is beyond dispute that they propagate evil.” In this quote, Gandhi suggests that the true essence of progress comes slowly and it takes patience to look to the future and the bigger picture of the consequences that come from innovations like railways. How does Gandhi’s assertion that “good travels at a snail’s pace” challenge the colonial notions of progress associated with infrastructure advancements like railways, and what implications does this hold for understanding the pace and nature of sustainable development?
-Margaux Lepine
“So long as a man is contented with his present lot, so long is it difficult to persuade him to come out of it” (Chapter 3). – Sorry cannot find page number with online book.
This quote by Gandhi reflects the idea that people often resist change when they are comfortable with their current situation. It suggests that contentment can lead to complacency and a reluctance to seek out new opportunities or experiences. The significance of this quote lies in its observation of human nature and the tendency to resist change. It highlights the challenge of motivating individuals to strive for improvement or pursue new goals when satisfied with their current circumstances.
Considering the film No Impact Man and Colin Beaven, he disconnected from the traditional, comfortable, unsustainable, and wasteful ways of living to create change. Do you think Colin Beaven would relate to this quote during and after this year-long experiment, as people thought he was “crazy” for stepping outside of the traditional ways of living? How can we learn from Gandhi and Colin Beaven about stepping outside of our comfort zones to disconnect from societal norms?
-Abby Henderson
Sophie Griengl-Schott
In the chapter “The condition of England” in Ghandi’s ‘Hind Swaraj’, I began to think a lot about how his critiques of the British Parliament at the time are reflected today as well, specifically within American politics. The systems definitely differ and there are struggles within both of the systems, but I think Ghandi raised some questions that apply to both the Parliament then, and the American political system today. A few of his points caught my eye,
“But, as a matter of fact, it is generally acknowledged that the members are hypocritical and selfish. Each thinks of his own little interest. It is fear that is the guiding motive. What is done today may be undone tomorrow. It is not possible to recall a single instance in which finality can be predicated for its work” (31).
“Carlyle has called it the ‘talking-shop of the world’. Members vote for their party without a thought. Their so-called discipline binds them to it. If any member, by way of exception, gives an independent vote, he is considered a renegade” (31).
This has me thinking about the state of our two party system in the U.S and how extreme and explicit commitment to party lines has created a divide/ lack of space for conversation/understanding between parties. Even so, Ghandi later talks about the English people’s utmost belief in the newspaper despite its dishonesty and inconsistency. If the Parliament and English people were facing these same issues back then, have we really grown past it and “developed” our societies since? Does Ghandi’s claim that this kind of system would ruin India continue to reflect in modern society after the “development” we’ve seen globally?
“Reader : Then you consider the Partition to be a cause of the awakening ? Do you welcome the unrest which has resulted from it?
Editor : When a man rises from sleep, he twists his limbs and is restless. It takes some time before he is entirely awakened. Similarly, although the Partition has caused an awakening, the comatose condition has not yet disappeared. We are still twisting our limbs and are still restless, and just as the state between sleep and awakening must be considered to be necessary, so may the present unrest in India be considered a necessary and therefore, a proper state. The knowledge that there is unrest will, it is highly probable, enable us to outgrow it. Rising from sleep, we do not continue in a comatose state, but according to our ability, sooner or later, we are completely restored to our senses. So shall we be free from the present unrest which no one likes.
Reader : What is the other form of unrest?
Editor : Unrest is, in reality, discontent. The latter is only now described as unrest. During the Congress- period it was labeled discontent. Mr. Hume always said that the spread of discontent in India was necessary. This discontent is a very useful thing. As long as a man is contented with his present lot, so long is it difficult to persuade him to come out of it. Therefore, it is that every reform must be preceded by discontent. We throw away things we have, only when we cease to like them. Such discontent has been produced among us after reading the great works of Indians and Englishmen. Discontent has led to unrest, and the latter has brought about many deaths, many imprisonments, many banishments. Such a state of things will still continue. It must be so. All these may be considered good signs, but they may also lead to bad results.”
Is there a line between acknowledging discontent and unrest and justifying inaction?
Gandhi is a deeply religious man, understanding that different religions exist within his country and must therefore coexist. Much of the reason why he opposes British colonial rule in India is due to his assertion that India is losing its spiritual connection. Why do you think that spirituality was so important to Gandhi, not only in his personal life, but also for India as a whole? What has spirituality meant in your life and how do you think it could benefit or hurt our country?
Malcolm Vaughn
Alex Smith
In many of Gandhi’s writings about civilization he expressed many concerns about some of the ideology of the time, but he also had hope for some of the ideas like equality and liberty. My question is are we closer to the society that Gandhi wanted or are we farther away.
expert
Modern civilisation forms the broad historical context of Hind Swaraj. Its critique of that civilisation is one of its main contributions to modern political thought. In historical terms, it is Gandhi’s apprehensions about certain tendencies in modern civilisation that made him the thinker and the political innovator that he is. The tone of his criticism is sometimes harsh and intemperate and is likely to mislead the reader. It is all the more necessary therefore to say at once that his attitude towards modern civilisation, though critical, is not wholly negative. Being critical implies the desire to improve the object criticised. So it is with Gandhi and modern civilisation. Thus he welcomes a number of its contributions – civil liberty, equality, rights, prospects for improving the economic conditions of life, liberation of women from tradition and religious toleration. At the same time, the welcome is conditional in that liberty has to harmonise with swaraj, rights with duties, empirical knowledge with moral insight, economic development with spiritual progress, religious toleration with religious belief and women’s liberation with the demands of a broader conception of humanity.
Faye Guarino
This excerpt from Chapter 6 (Civilisation) stood out to me:
“This civilisation is such that one has only to be patient and it will be self-destroyed. According to the teaching of Mahomed this would be considered a Satanic civilisation. Hinduism calls it the Black Age. I cannot give you an adequate conception of it. It is eating into the vitals of the English nation. It must be shunned. Parliaments are really emblems of slavery. If you will sufficiently think over this, you will entertain the same opinion, and cease to blame the English. They rather deserve our sympathy. They are a shrewd nation and I, therefore, believe that they will cast off the evil. They are enterprising and industrious, and their mode of thought is not inherently immoral. Neither are they bad at heart. I, therefore, respect them. Civilisation is not an incurable disease, but it should never be forgotten that the English people are at present afflicted by it.”
Gandhi compares civilization under English rule to a disease. He harbors no animosity towards the English people themselves and instead sees them as indoctrinated, or in his words, “intoxicated,” by the civilization they live under. The real enemy is not the people, but civilization itself and the exploitative economic system and consumerist way of life that comprises it. He believes the English can “cast off the evil” of civilization. As residents of the United States, another imperialist and highly consumerist nation, do we have the ability to collectively cast off this evil and cure ourselves of civilization? What might that look like?
“Why do they want more fees than common labourers? Why are their requirements greater? In what way are they more profitable to the country than the labourers? Are those who do good entitled to greater payment? And, if they have done anything for the country for the sake of money, how shall it be counted as good?” Ch. 11 The condition of india continued (Lawyers)
This quote stood out to me because of how it highlights the issues of morality in a capitalist system. Mostly one made to elevate the British colonizers and exploit the colonized. This quote made me think about other arbitrary systems that have been used to exploit for the sake of gaining capital. In a moral sense wouldn’t it be better to help people just for the sake of helping people, the act of payment creates a transaction with a window for exploitation. At first I didn’t truly understand what Ghandi meant when he expressed that the Indian people let themselves be colonized but I think this quote helped me understand his frustration. Specifically with the exploitation in a capitalist system it seems like elitist structures were propagated and adopted by elite even Indians to predominantly exploit other less fortunate Indians. A great example of this to get context is how the caste system became much more rigid under the rule of the British Raj.
Can capitalism have any conception that isn’t exploitative in nature or would society need to restructure around a different goal that isn’t accumulating the most capital?
Carlos Carmona
Samia Pegram
In chapter 13 of “Hind Swaraj” the editor describes what they think of true Indian civilization. It is a simpler way of life that echos Thoreau’s “Walden” and his understanding and critiques modern civilization. Gandhi’s writing shares disapproval for the materialism and consumption patterns of modern Western societies and instead advocates for a return to a way of life that looks more like ancient Indian civilization. Gandhi also touches on how there is more satisfaction in living traditionally, self-sufficiently, and more connected with the motherland. The convenience of modern technologies and luxuries does not aid in the betterment of societies.
Gandhi and Thoreau come from very different backgrounds and philosophical beliefs yet they both advocate for a similar alternative to modern civilization. How do their difference in perspectives come together to promote a more meaningful adaptation of their critique of modernity and “true” civilization?
Nicole Travers
In chapter 5 Gandhi discusses the current state of Parliament and I found it to have a lot of similarities with our own present day government. One thing that really stood out to me was when Gandhi said that “Members vote for their party without a thought… If any member, by way of exception, gives an independent vote, he is considered a renegade” (31). I think that voters today often do the same thing, either because they feel obligated to do so or because they so strongly despise the other party that they automatically write off all candidates from the other party. Gandhi also states that parliamentary candidates/politicians are hypocritical and selfish which is another similarity with today’s government. Many politicians are motivated by money and their own self interests rather than the peoples’. Though we are not currently colonized as India was, we seem to share a lot of governmental flaws. Considering this, do you think that Gandhi’s ideas for fixing the state the of the country could be successfully applied today to fix the problems in our country?
When looking at both Gandhi and Thoreau, there are many similaities between their writings. This can be seen in the ways that they both discuss both comforts and civilization. For Thoreau he choses to perform an experiment wher he uses voluntary poverty and stepping away (in certain ways) from society and that typical idea of civilization. For Gandhi, steps away form societys civilization to try and get away from the corruption that was taking of the society.
Would these ideas of getting away from society work in todays world? How would the effects of stepping away from society today, differ from some of the effect that were found by Thoreau and Gandhi?
Keagan Northcott
Sam Cullen
“They, therefore, after due deliberation, decided that we should only do what we could with our hands and feet. They saw that our real happiness and health consisted in a proper use of our hands and feet” (69). The context that Ghandi states this is in his opposition to machinery. He believes indulgence in luxuries and pleasures leads to perpetual discontentment and the corrosion of morality. This aligns with some of Thorreu’s philosophies as well, in what ways does it relate to Thoreau’s ideas of how life should be experienced in a tangible matter? Though taken from a different context, Thoreau states “I mean that they should not play life, or study it merely, while the community supports them at this expensive game, but earnestly live it from beginning to end. How could youths better learn to live than by at once trying to experiment of living? (49)” These can be applied very differently but is there an overarching emphasis on engaging the senses in human experiences?
“This civilization is such that one has only to be patient and it will be self-destroyed” (Gandhi Civilization).
I think in order to really see the reality of our humanity, we need space from a fast changing world. This means using less technology to produce goods. An answer to how we can use less technology lies in transforming our thoughts and habits. Some activities of renunciation include mending clothes, cleaning the house, and meditating on the body. How can we cultivate a more compassionate voice to slow down the oppression of the human body and soul?
Madeline
Elizabeth Cassam
Gandhi, in “Hind Swaraj,” criticizes civilization for creating a cycle of greed and dissatisfaction, where people are enslaved by the temptation of money and luxuries. He advocates for simplicity as a solution, echoing Thoreau’s sentiments in “Walden” about the unhappiness of those constantly wanting more and the need to simplify one’s life. Both Gandhi and Thoreau suggest that modern routines are too complex and that returning to nature and simplicity could lead to a more fulfilling life. They challenge the notion that civilization’s technological advancements and comforts are true progress, suggesting that they may, in fact, lead to greater dissatisfaction and disconnect from nature.
Considering Gandhi and Thoreau’s critiques of civilization and their advocacy for simplicity, how can individuals and society as a whole incorporate these principles into modern life without completely rejecting technological advancements and comforts? Can a balance be struck between the benefits of modernity and the virtues of simplicity and closeness to nature that Gandhi and Thoreau promote?
Weekly discussion 3
Colby Kitts
Summary: “Civilization” by Mahatma Gandhi is an essay in which he reflects on the nature of civilization and its impact on humanity. Gandhi argues that true civilization should be judged by the moral progress it enables rather than material advancements. He criticizes modern civilization for its focus on technological development at the expense of spiritual and ethical growth, which he views as essential for human well-being. Gandhi advocates for a civilization that values simplicity, self-reliance, and harmony with nature. He emphasizes the importance of moral principles such as truth, nonviolence, and compassion in guiding human behavior and shaping the fabric of society. Gandhi believes that a civilization grounded in these values would promote justice, equality, and human dignity, fostering a more peaceful and sustainable world.
Discussion Question: How do you think Gandhi’s concept of civilization challenges the conventional notions of development, and what implications would it have for the fate of contemporary society?
Audrey Mase
Ghandi and Thoreau are both critical of the ways that ‘civilization’ are expressed. It is true that Ghandi is critical of technological advancement- “Men will
not need the use of their hands and feet. They will press a button, and they will
have their clothing by their side. They will press another button, and they will
have their newspaper. A third, and a motor-car will be in waiting for them. They
will have a variety of delicately dished up food. Everything will be done by
machinery.”
However, I think the ultimate critique, and one that Ghandi and Thoreau share, is the ways in which civilization produces alienation. Ghandi describes an alienation from meaningful work, meaningful meals, and meaningful household dynamics. Thoreau expresses similar distates for social alienations. Both advocate for a return to simplicity in response to this. I think the most important takeaway from these arguments is not that we should outright reject progress- but that we should be mindful of the sacrifices we are expected to make in its name. I feel that modern society is incredibly alienating, and while I feel that the SD community and my own personal community of family and friends do a lot to reduce my own personal alienations, there are still limits imposed by civilization. Obligations towards work and a maintenance of ‘normality’ limit the time we can spend generating and maintaining bonds and community. The alienation from nature and from the products of labor described in Marx contribute heavily to these issues. My questions for the week are: What do you believe is the true issue with civilization as Ghandi describes it? What are ways we can combat alienation? What are our limits if we attempt to return to a simpler life?