A recent New Yorker has a thought-provoking piece on reading Gandhi in the context of the current political moment. For those who are grappling with the complexities of creating meaningful dialogue in the midst of divisions, it is startling to read how prescient Gandhi was about what we face today. Author Pankaj Mishra argues that although critics have reassessed and complicated how we remember Gandhi and situate his life and work within history, his political and philosophical thought provide valuable insight into the current state of Western democracies.
Far from being a paragon of virtue, the Mahatma remained until his death a restless work in progress. Prone to committing what he called “Himalayan blunders,” he did not lose his capacity to learn from them, and to enlist his opponents in his search for a mutually satisfactory truth.
Satyagraha, literally translated as “holding fast to truth,” obliged protesters to “always keep an open mind and be ever ready to find that what we believed to be truth was, after all, untruth.” Gandhi recognized early on that societies with diverse populations inhabit a post-truth age. “We will never all think alike and we shall always see truth in fragments and from different angles of vision,” he wrote. And even Gandhi’s harshest detractors do not deny that he steadfastly defended, and eventually sacrificed his life for, many values under assault today—fellow-feeling for the weak, and solidarity and sympathy between people of different nations, religions, and races.
I like how Mishra locates this recognition that political dialogue cannot be reconciled around singular truths within the larger context of interests and individualism. Those of us who teach negotiation are often teaching an “expand the pie” belief system and methodology. Is it possible to incorporate values like fellow-feeling for the weak, solidarity with those who are different, and the notion of self-sacrifice into what we teach about conflict resolution and interest-based dispute resolution? If we do incorporate such values somehow, would we be doing some version of expanding of the pie or something different?
The article also made me reflect on how an uncritical view of interest-based processes can be harmful, both personally and socially. As many in our field have argued, the apparent neutrality of ADR processes can make inequitable power dynamics invisible and thus perpetuate structural violence. Mishra writes:
Gandhi could see that public life organized around a morally neutral conception of private interests is always likely to degenerate into ferocious competition and violent coercion. “Unrestricted individualism is the law of the beast of the jungle,” he warned. It undermines social cohesion, and, finally, creates the conditions for what the social contract is meant to preclude: a war of all against all.
It is instructive to consider how what many of us teach (interest-based negotiation and mediation as facilitated interest-based negotiation) may operate in service to larger ideological constructs (capitalism, materialism) that if unchecked will ultimately undermine individual interests and well-being.