Page 1
1 1
FAMILY AND GENDER ISSUES
Unit Structure
1.0 Objectives
1.1 Introduction
1.2 Perspectives on Family and Marriage
1.2.1 Plato’s perspective on marriage and family
1.2.2 Bertrand Russell’s perspective on marriage and family
1.3 Contemporary trends in family and marriage
1.3.1 Single parent families
1.3.2 Live – in relationships
1.3.3 Same-sex marriages
1.4 Gender as a construct
1.4.1 Feminism (Simon de Beauvoir)
1.5 Masculinity
1.6 Summery
1.7 Questions
1.8 Suggested reading
1.0 OBJECTIVES
To know Plato’s perspective on marriage and family
To aware Bertrand Russell’s perspective on marriage and family.
To study Contemporary trends in family and marriage
To study the thoughts of Simon de Beauvoir's on feminism
1.1 INTRODUCTION
The relationship between families and gender continues to be the subject
of dispute in the social sciences. The ‘linguistic turn’ in the study of
gender relations has directed attention to the most general cultural
determinants of the gender identity of fa mily members. In this chapter we
will study Plato and Bertrand Russell’s perspective on marriage and munotes.in
Page 2
Social Political Philosophy
2 family. Contemporary trends in family and marriage will also be studied.
Feminism by Simon de Beauvoir and Masculinity is also needed to study
in this conc ern.
1.2 PERSPECTIVESONFAMILY AND MARRIAGE
1.2.1 Plato’s perspective on marriage and family :
Plato in his writings focuses a lot on the structure of the public and the
political. Questions like how should the state function? How should
people politically participate in the state? Who is capable of participating
in the state? Are deliberated upon in great length. For topics that seem
quite far removed from the private contexts of relationship, family and
marriage, Plato had a lotto say about these.
For Plat o, the best way to organize the state is to make it as just as
possible. By that he essentially means the virtuous city. This city of virtue
shall then account for individuals with virtue that equally uphold justice.
To implement this, he suggests that peo ple should work to maintain the
state in certain ways: some must guard it, some must oversee its
functioning, some account for the production of goods the city needs.
According to Plato, “women and children ''both must be shared amongst
the Guardian class. This meant that marital partnerships and the progeny
born from it were entirely assigned to the realm of the political. While
marital relationships should not be personalized, they should be organized
on the basis of certain eugenics. The children born fr om the marriages are
to be raised by the state separately.
This blended the separation between private and the public, or the
political, Plato conceptualizes family and marriage in such a manner in
order to obliterate any vested private interests of people at large. This is so
that people don't become selfish and just serve their own private interests,
and work for the state instead.
Aristotle criticizes Plato on his account of marriage and family. According
to him, marriage cannot be thought of in this man ner. Moreover, he asserts
that within marriage there are certain roles assigned to man and woman,
both of which are equally important. The family is at the core of the state.
Gender as a construct
( Simon de Beauvoir)
Feminist philosopher Simon de Beauvoir (1908 -86) argued that the
institution of marriage along with social norms, forge choices that can be
disempowering for women relative to men. In Second Sex, Beauvoir
exposes specific ways in which expectations in a marriage, that reinforces
the id eal of an exclusive love relationship, are the primary means by
which women are socialized into a femininity that lead women to focus on
their attractiveness as spouses at the cost of their other aspirations. munotes.in
Page 3
Family and Gender Issues
3 Marriage is the "destiny traditionally offered to women by society” (de
Beauvoir 1949 [1989],425). She views marriage as an unequal sexual and
economic union that serves the interests of society and not their mutual
happiness. Young women are encouraged by society to view marriage as
the only means to integrate in a community.
While a married man finds self -fulfillment through the change and
progress in his occupation and political life and finds his anchorage in the
world at home. Marriage is trusted upon woman for two reasons: (i) she
must provide soc iety with children; (ii) she is needed 'to satisfy a male’s
sexual needs and to take care of his home'. Marriage is therefore a
transaction: in carrying out the above duties the married woman provides a
service to her spouse and in return he is supposed to provide her gifts, a
marriage settlement, and support her.
The concept of the Other is crucial to her analyses where Subject is the
absolute human type: a man; and the Other is inessential: a woman who,
when measured on the basis of criteria of this absol ute human type, is
considered inferior. The women's so -called inferiority is used to justify
their patriarchal domination.
Beauvoir analyzed the ways in which the cultural assumptions frame
women's experience of their bodies and alienate them from realizin g their
own bodies' possibilities. She presses up onus to interrogate the basis for
these cultural assumptions. For e.g., what is the basis for a cultural
assumption: 'women are the weaker sex'. Is the criterion the upper body
strength, or their body size? Why is women's longer lifespan than men not
considered criteria for defining strength? Such interrogation exposes the
biases of the criteria to support women's weakness as a culturally accepted
assumption. She attended to the ways in which the patriarchal structures in
a society use such assumptions to justify hierarchical relation between
men and women and deprive women of realizing their possibilities for
their bodies. This deprivation is oppression.
Beauvoir provided the language to analyze such social constructions of
femininity and a method to critique these constructions.
In Second Sex, Beauvoir writes, "One is not born but becomes a woman".
Through this idea, she rejects the notion that to be born with female
genital (biological sex) is to be born a woman, a gender that is a construct.
She asks us to identify and set aside all our assumptions about our gender
until and unless they have been validated by our experience.
Beauvoir argued for sexual equality in two ways: first, she exposed the
ways in wh ich masculine ideology exploits cultural assumptions to
socialize women into femininity and justify the systems of inequality.
Second, she identified the ways in which arguments for equality erased
women's unique experience of their bodies and reinforced t he idea that to
gain equality with men, women must train and live like men.
The first makes her averse to risking herself for her own ideas and the
second alienates her from her own sexuality. munotes.in
Page 4
Social Political Philosophy
4 Beauvoir insisted that women and men treat each other as equals and that
such treatment requires that their unique experience of their bodies
(different from men) be validated. Equality is not a synonym for
sameness. She argued for women’s equality, while insisting on the reality
of women's unique experiences of their bodies as different from men.
The idea of marriage as a procreative unit is at the centre of regulation of
intimacy by the State. There are sizable number of people who don't fit
this hetero normative (assumption of heterosexuality and gender
difference a s a norm and basis for institutions such as marriage)idea.
Reports indicate that single parent households make up 7.5% of all
households in India of which majority (4.5% or approximately 13 million
households) are headed by women (Pandit2019).
Legal altern atives for recognizing such non -normative families have
formed an important part of the discourse concerning unmarried, live -in
heteros exual partners as well as partnerships. In other countries, civil
unions and registered partnerships are seen as alternat ives to marriage.
Considering a large number of individuals opting for a live -in partnership
rather than marriage, certain countries have passed laws recognizing them.
Canada, Tasmania and Hawaii not only recognized conjugal, romantic
relationships but als o on -conjugal caring relationships involving an
economic or emotional interdependency.
In countries that don't recognize same sex marriage, certain benefits of
marriage such as legal recognition and social support, are denied to same -
sex partners on the di scriminatory basis of their sexual orientation. Several
arguments for same -sex marriages invoke liberal principles of justice such
as equality in treatment, opportunity and neutrality. If the function of
marriage is legal recognition of "voluntary intimate " relationships, then
exclusion of same -sex partners is unjustifiably discriminatory. Since
1990s, India saw same -sex couples document their intention to live
together in the form of a registered life partnership deed and in some
cases, in the form of frie ndship contracts such as Maitri Karar, which
declared their status and rights as a couple. This alternative to marriage,
some argue, doesn't fulfill the benefit of providing legal and an indirect
social recognition of a relationship as offered by a marriag e.
A strong argument for same sex marriage against the normative idea of
marriage as a procreative unit is that a liberal state should not choose
among the various ways (in lines with justice) in which individuals may
organize sex and intimacy. In India, t here is a demand for equal rights for
all existing partnerships with legal relevance for partners in each other's
lives and freedom to design their relationships without marriage. Such
queer people may find common ground with single parent families, live -in
partners etc.
Some queer theorists (philosophers of gay, lesbian, bisexual and
transgender oppression) argue that that extending a hetero normative
social institution of marriage to same -sex partnerships will undermine
various ways that queer partners de sign their relationships and further munotes.in
Page 5
Family and Gender Issues
5 marginalize a sexual , aromantics, polyamorists, and those who choose to
build their lives around friendships.
Some other arguments stemming from conservative State against same sex
marriages is that society is not ready for its acceptance. However, this is
absurd as this implies that marriages that are inter -caste or inter -religious,
both a subject of controversy in a Brahman cal patriarchal society, should
not be legalized.
On October 25th 2021, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, in a hearing on
legalizing same -sexmarriages said that only marriages between “a
biological man and a biological woman” are legal in India. This point of
view of seeing the world in binaries deprives of their equal rights as
cisheterosexual partners.
Independent researcher Vqueeram Aditya Sahai presses for the need to see
the problems that institution of cis heterosexual marriages has given ri se
to, as it seems to be intimately tied to property, caste and patriarchy. As
marriage has always been the domain of maintaining a caste based
hegemony, there is a need to rethink how existing non -normative
partnerships can obtain legal sanction without r eplicating the existing
Brahman cal patriarchal structures.
1.2.2 Bertrand Russell’s perspective on marriage and family
In his “Marriage and Morals” (1929), Russell proposes certain
revolutionary ideas regarding the institutions of marriage, family and the
like. Shortly after its publication the book received severe criticism for the
views Russell held as they were deemed e ntirely controversial for the
prevalent perspectives on marriage at the time. One of the major reasons
why this book received such backlash was that it entirely overturned the
ways in which the society held its beliefs regarding the ideas of marriage,
sex, family. For the majority of the 20th century western European
society, the institutions of marriage and family were entirely based on a
traditional morality of the Victorian era. While this morality was
influenced by cultural factors, it was largely based on the religious
morality of Catholic beliefs. For such an account of morality, marriage
was a matter of religious sanction, while the purpose of sex was purely for
procreation.
According to Russell, these views regarding these concepts no longer hold
the significance that they did, this is mainly because of the changes that
the society has undergone. Due to the shift in the dynamic of gender
relations because of the gradual progress of women’s emancipation
movements. Moreover Russell also holds that these institutions are also
subject to change through the advent of contraception, shift in perspectives
regarding abortion, divorce, in fidelity etc. He thereby takes a different
approach to the problems of the morality surrounding these issues. For all
the ch anges in these social factors, Russell proposes that the morality and
the structure of sexual ethics needs to revised in order to reflect these
changes within society. munotes.in
Page 6
Social Political Philosophy
6 Hence he argues that mutual divorce should be accessible for people, the
youth should ha ve the opportunity of trial marriage. Russell was also a
strong proponent of the emancipation of women in the spheres of
marriage, family and the like.
1.5 SUMMERY
Plato conceptualizes family and marriage in such a manner in order to
obliterate any vested private interests of people at large. This is so that
people don't become selfish and just serve their own private interests, and
work for the state instead. Aristotle criticizes Plato on his account of
marriage and family. According to him, marriage cann ot be thought of in
this manner. Moreover, he asserts that within marriage there are certain
roles assigned to man and woman, both of which are equally important.
The family is at the core of the state.
Simon de Beauvoir argued that the institution of mar riage along with
social norms, forge choices that can be disempowering for women relative
to men. Young women are encouraged by society to view marriage as the
only means to integrate in a community. While a married man finds self -
fulfilment through the ch ange and progress in his occupation and political
life and finds his anchorage in the world at home. Beauvoir writes, "One is
not born but becomes a woman".
1.6 QUESTIONS
1. Explain Plato’s thoughts on family
2. Explain Russell’s thoughts on family
3. Write down the reasons and consequences of single parent family
4. Discuss the pros and cons of live -in-relationship
5. Write down the different perspectives on homosexuals
6. Write a detailed account of feminist currents
7. Explain Simon de Beauvoir’s contribution to feminism
8. Write Short notes on:
Women’s Communism - Plato
Single Parent Family
Live-in-Relationship
Same Sex Marriage
Masculinity
Indian Feminism munotes.in
Page 7
Family and Gender Issues
7 1.7 SUGGESTED READING
Bertrand Russell Marriage and Morals Routledge
Publications,1985
Deborah Satz “Feminist Perspectives on Reproduction and the
Family” Stanford
Encyclopedia of Philosophy 2013 (on line
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/feminismfamily/)
Barrie Thorne “Feminist Rethinking of the Family: An Overview”
Rethinking the Family:
Some Feminist Questions ed. Barrie Thorne and Marilyn Yalom
Longman: New York and
London, 1982
Simone de Beauvoir “Introduction” The Second Sex (a new
translation by Constance
Borde and Sheila Malovany -Chevallier) Vintage: London, 2009
Jack Sawyer “On Male Liberation” in Feminism and Masculinities
ed. Peter Murphy OUP,
Oxford 2004
Todd Reeser, Masculinities in Theory: An Introduction chapter 1
John Beynon, Masculinities and Culture chapter 1
munotes.in
Page 8
8 2
SOCIAL AWARENESS
Unit Structure
2.0 Objectives
2.1 Introduction
2.2 Sarvodaya – Mahatma Gandhi.
2.3 Marx Concept of Alienation
2.4 Summery
2.5 Questions
2.6 Suggested reading
2.0 OBJECTIVES
To get understand the social issues of 20th century.
Understanding economical equality and Gandhian notion of socialism
via Gandhi’s concept of Sarvodaya.
Getting familiar with Marx’s concept of alienation and the way for de -
alienation.
To know Ambedkar’s notion of caste base exploitation through
Annihilation of Caste.
To know the racial discrimination through Fanon’s philosophy.
2.1 INTRODUCTION
The 20th century is known for various emancipatory projects, revolutions,
freedom struggles, human right movements and many other social and
political movements.
All these movements, revolutions etc. were based on political philosophies
of different philosophers. For instance, the communist revolutions of last
century were based on the philosophy of Karl Marx. In this unit one is
going to understand the different so cial – economical and political
problems of 20th century philosophy and society and.
First and foremost, this chapter deals with Mahatma Gandhi and his
concept of Sarvodaya which was an answer to Marx’s communism on
hand and other hand a philosophical tho ught which deal with the
economic inequality colonial India and how to get rid off this inequality. munotes.in
Page 9
Social Awareness
9 Followed by Mahatma Gandhi, this unit deals with Karl Marx and his
analysis of alienation of proletariat in capitalist society. Here first of all
one will understand how Marx differs from Hegel and other Young
Hegelians over the concept of alienation and then this unit explore the
concept of alienation from Marx’s early work.
Followed by Marx this unit engage with caste problem which is peculiar to
Indian s ituation and tries to understand Ambedkar’s account of caste base
subjugation and humiliation.
Towards the end this unit moves to other apart of global south and
explains the racial discrimination through philosophy of Fanon.
2.2 SARVODAYA – MAHATMA GAND HI.
If we believe Gandhi, we are all thieves. He suggested that “that we are
thieves in a way. If I take anything that I do not need for my own
immediate use, and keep it, I thieve it from somebody else”. Therefore,
ownership sans immediate usage is act of theft. If so, the things owned for
immediate use shall be considered stolen property. Though it reminds of
Pierre -Joseph Proudhon’s declaration that ‘property is robbery’ (often
translated as theft). The problem with Prudhon’s argument, as rightly
pointed out by none other than Marx, is that it does not consider the fact
that property has to preexist for it to be robbed. Gandhi, on the other hand,
puts the focus on the ones who own more than what they can use.
Elsewhere, he argued that use should be in accordance with need, not
greed as the world has sufficient resources to meet everyone’s needs but
not even one person’s greed. In other words, if your ownership is limited
to what you use to satisfy your needs, you are not a thief. Here the
problem is two fold: a) there are significant differences/possibilities in
what we use b) there is no universal standard to determine legitimate need.
One may even argue that usage and needs are socially constructed, not just
economically determined. For instance, one c an see considerable
differences in how workers commute to their workplace, by car, bicycle or
by walk despite their similar economic standard. The need and usage may
also be subjectively perceived. On might feel healthy enough to walk,
another might prefer car fearing diseases. Gandhian conception of
trusteeship requires that people should agree to limit their usage to a
minimal conception of need (not more than what is required for what
one’s objective condition require for). And whatever one commands
beyo nd this must be given away to people in need.
Gandhi recognized that trusteeship is not a tool for removing unequal
needs. Thus he argued that “everybody should have enough for his or her
needs. For instance. . .the elephant needs a thousand times more fo od than
the ant, but that is not an indication of inequality. So the real meaning of
economic equality was: “To each according to his need”. That was the
definition of Marx. If a single man demanded as much as a man with wife
and four children that would b e a violation of economic equality.”
(Harijan, 31 -3-1946, p. 63). Therefore, we can argue that large groups munotes.in
Page 10
Social Political Philosophy
10 need more than small groups. However, in India, the reality is that the
minority of Upper Castes hold much more than 85% of the Bahujan
population. In the Gandhian spirit of trusteeship, the Upper Castes should
renounce their excess wealth relative to their population share and hand
over it over to the majority.
It requires a change in the self -perception of those who own more than
what they can use to meet their needs (devoid of greed). That self -
perception should be a product of admission of guilt of theft’. “Therefore
whoever appropriates more than the minimum that is really necessary for
him is guilty of theft” asserted Gandhi (Ashram Observances in Action, p,
58, Edn. 1955). This self -perception cannot be individualist in the context
of India. Beyond individuals, members of Upper Castes who collectively
own much more than the rest of the population should recognize, if they
are true followers of G andhi, their guilt in theft and take remedial action.
One can in fact argue that trusteeship is the most power idea in Gandhi, in
fact most impactful too if implemented because it is doable only with the
conversion of minds, with no himsa at all. Therefor e, trusteeship is at the
heart of Gandhian vision of ahi sa and must be prioritized as such.
2.3 MARX CONCEPT OF ALIENATION
Even though Marx was concerned with emancipation as a political process
and not merely spiritual during the late 1830s, he develop ed this concept
further in his Economic and Philosophic Manuscripts in the year
1844. This particular text deals with the nature of capital, estranged labour,
communism and the critique of Hegel’s philosophy in general. The
conception of emancipation as des cribed in the 1844 Manuscripts is
related with estranged and private property, and this became the basis for
Marx’s later theories on capital and labour. Besides that, this concept deals
with the universal formation of worker as an emancipator of society f rom
private property. In this scheme of relationships between worker -
capitalist -property, Marx emphasizes the mediatory function of capitalist
production process, the abolition of which he considers necessary for the
emancipation of not only workers, but h umanity as such. However, he is
not critical towards all sorts of mediations; rather he is critical towards
only second order mediations i.e. private property, exchange and division
of labour (Meszaros 2006, 79). Such mediations exist for a specific
histor ic period and must necessarily fall off as their place in the relations
of production becomes a shackle to the overall development of the means
of production,
To understand the necessity of political emancipation of workers, one
needs to understand the ent ire process of estranged labour which takes
place in modern industrial production process. Before explaining the
concept of estranged labour, we must explain the notion of labour. Labour
is the active property of a human being. It is the human being’s acti vity
through which the environment and the human body becomes developed
and amenable to social use. Through the use of this active property over
the immediate nature, human beings create those things which are useful munotes.in
Page 11
Social Awareness
11 for their existence (Marx1975, 287). La bour is thus the driving force
behind life.
Human being, the ‘worker’ in particular, is dependent on the nature of the
act of production. Through this productive mediation with the external
material world, the worker realizes himself. The worker has to act upon
nature and only through this act can the workers produce those things
which are necessary for his/her physical existence. Therefore, the relation
between worker and nature is active in its essence because workers can
only perform the act of productio n in specific material conditions only,
and by doing so, the worker transforms those material conditions
(Marx1975, 325).
In the above process, nature provides two things to worker that is: a means
of life and means of subsistence (Marx1975, 325). Means of life refers to
the object on which labour can exercise itself, and this same object
provides the means for physical subsistence. In the same process, worker
becomes the slave of his/her object in two ways. Firstly he/she receives
the object on which he/sh e can perform his/her labour; that means, he/she
receives work. Secondly, through this work alone can he/she gain the
things through which he/she can sustain his/her own subsistence. The
worker sustains him/herself so that he/she may continue to produce.
Subsistence for the sake of work is the purpose of a worker’s life, and the
worker is unable to enjoy freely the fruits of his labour.
The above process is the explanation for the alienation of labour; or the
alienation of the worker from the product which he/she produces.
However, this is just one aspect of alienation. There remains the second
aspect of alienation and that is the act of production as alienated act, of
productive activity as alienated activity. Alienation of activity refers to the
condition where the product of the worker’s activity is alien from him/her,
then the act of production itself is active alienation (Marx1975, 326). That
means the worker performs the activity as a necessity for his/her existence,
and the activity stands against him /her as an independent entity which
does not belongs to him/her (Marx1975, 327).This alienated labour is
alienated activity, meant for the satisfaction of needs, not only of the
worker but for society as a whole. This activity is alienated because
worker p erforms this activity under the yoke of forced labour (Marx 1975,
326). Whereas the worker stays within the realm of necessity, only
consuming enough to sustain his working life, a consuming population
which has developed away from the worker freely enjoys the product
made on this forced labour.
The third aspect of alienation is alienation from species -being. Human
beings are ultimately commonly bound by their existence as a species
innature. The human workers’ practical creation and recreation of the
objec tive world, and the fashioning of inorganic nature lays the foundation
for their survival as a species (Marx 1975, 328). Human beings, being
conscious beings, perform their activity in a self -aware manner as life
activity itself is an object of consciousne ss (Marx 1975, 328). In other
words, humans are aware that they are alive, and that they must do certain munotes.in
Page 12
Social Political Philosophy
12 things to preserve their lives – but even further, they are aware that they
can commit acts which do not directly contribute to the fulfillment of the ir
immediate needs. The very self -awareness of human activity opens a new
dimension to human activity, through which humans are able to produce
freely. As Marx puts it, when ‘man’ (Marx 1975, 329) performs his/her
activity, this activity is a universal one ; it outgrows the particularity of
each individual’s survival and is driven by the human being’s recognition
of him/herself as part of a species, and a member of society. Thus, at this
point, the act of production takes place even when he/she is not under the
pressure of having to complete physical and natural needs and he/she truly
performs the act of production even when they are in total freedom or
when they are free from such natural needs. It is this mutual sharing of
labour that creates a material bas is for the continued existence of human
societies. Without a mechanism for the sharing of labour, a society cannot
survive.
Estranged labour turns this species life of human beings into means of
individualist life(Marx 1975, 328). Under the yoke of estrang ed labour,
the worker performs the life activity for the satisfaction of individual
needs, the needs which can satisfy his/her physical existence (Marx1975,
328). As Marx says,“…estranged labour therefore turns man’s species
being – both nature and his int ellectual species power – into being alien to
him and as means of his physical existence (Marx 1975,329).”
That is, estranged labour separates a human being from his/her body, from
nature, from the spiritual and human essence (Marx 1975, 329). The
alienati on of species -being leads human beings to the alienation of ‘man to
man’ (Marx 1975, 330). The relationship which one human being holds
towards his/her labour, the product of that labour and himself/herself, the
same relation he/she holds for another indiv idual, his/her labour and
product of labour (Marx 1975, 330).
When one says that the individual human being is estranged from species -
being, it means that each individual is alienated from the others. So, it is to
say that all humans are estranged from hum an essence (Marx 1975,330).
The individual self -estrangement can be understood or realized only in the
relation with another individual (Marx1975, 330).
With the explanation of this concept, Marx shows how and why the
estrangement, or alienation, takes pla ce. If the estranged labour and the
individual’s product are alien to him/her, which confronts in front of
him/her as alien power, then the question emerges that: whom does it
belongs to? The one who owns this product is the one who holds the
power of my l abour, labour activity and product. This “other” is none
other than ‘man’ himself/herself, whose sustenance is ensured by the
workers’ activity. Thus, “man” excludes the worker, and enjoys the
pleasures born from workers tormented activity (Marx1975, 330).
The worker is thus not the master of his own self (Marx1975, 331). Marx
compares this condition with religious self -estrangement. In religious self -
estrangement, god, which is the fantastic creation of human self -munotes.in
Page 13
Social Awareness
13 estrangement, is alien from human himself/ herself and appears as a
hostile, powerful entity which determines the life of human beings.
However, in the actual manifestation of this religious self -estrangement,
humans get alienated from themselves via a mediator, i.e. a priest
(Marx1975, 331). Simil arly, the self -estrangement of the worker manifests
itself through a mediator, the ‘capitalist’ (Marx 1975, 331).
This alienation is real not just because it takes place in the real world, but
because the mediator and medium through which it takes place is practical
in nature. So alienated labour not only produces the alienation from labour
and productive activity, but also alienated relationships with other
individuals. The capitalist is the individual to whom the worker confers
his/her labour and life act ivity which does not belong to the worker
anymore (Marx 1975, 331).
Therefore, private property – or the legal recognition of the capitalists’
right over resources – is a result of an external relationship of workers
with nature, the capitalist and alienat ed labour (Marx 1975,
331.32).Considering this situation, Marx opines that the emancipation of
society will be possible only through the emancipation of society from
private property; that is, through the political emancipation of workers
from private prop erty(Marx 1975, 332). This emancipation is not just
limited to the worker; it will be a universal human emancipation. This
emancipation is universal because “the entire human servitude is involved
in the relation of the worker to production, and all the re lations of
servitude are nothing but modifications and consequences of this relation”
(Marx 1975, 333).
However, as Marx had earlier stated, a political emancipation will remain
a partial emancipation. In its partial dimension, the workers political
revolu tion/emancipation will break down the pillars of capitalist society –
that is private property, division of labour, alienated labour. After this
political emancipation alone can the workers strive for total human
emancipation.
One would like to argue here that the homogeneity of proletariat is an
outcome of the necessity of its survival in the capitalist system. It is a by -
product of the tormenting and exploitative capitalist system whose
working conditions evens the whole class of proletariat into a homog enous
mass. It is an outcome of the overburden imposed by the production of
uniform commodities. The homogeneity’s an outcome of a shift in the
mode of production, which for the first time in history, centralized work,
the work process, the working conditi ons, the required tools, the
environment and the uniform skilled human labour which produces
uniform commodities.
In short, for Marx, it is capital and its mode, means, and relations of
production along with the commodity they produce and the process in
which it produces which together overthrow the plurality and differences
of the old mode of production and give birth to the new homogeneous
entity called proletariat. Therefore the universality of proletariat is munotes.in
Page 14
Social Political Philosophy
14 historical and structural outcome of capitali sm and not philosophical
universality like Hegel’s spirit. This homogeneity – of poverty and
alienation – however provides the tragic basis for a revolutionary
overcoming of the existing conditions as it contains within it the seed of
universal human subje ctivity.
Race and Caste
Fanon and Dr. Ambedkar
What does a man want?
What does a black man want?
At the risk of arousing the resentment of my coloured brothers, I will say
that the black is not a man.
- Frantz Fanon, Black Skin, White Masks
Introduction
Race and caste are two categories which are fundamental to understanding
the respective societies from which they originated – race in European
societies and caste in South Asian ones. Etymologically, these two
concepts and other similar concepts like nation a nd class all relate
somehow to the notion of “type” or “category”. In practice too, they work
as ways of categorizing people, often on arbitrary bases. These concepts in
turn generate further practices which at best serve to create communities
within a soc iety, and at worst manifest as discrimination, oppression, and
exploitation.
Race evolved initially from the grouping together of people who spoke the
same language, and later bled into the other nascent idea of nationalism.
Linguistic and national racial identities gave way to a notion of biological
race. The evolution of the concept of ‘Aryan’ provides a fine example for
this – it began as a term for the people who spoke a language connected to
the Indo -Aryan language family but by the 20th century, it ha d become a
national and more importantly a biological category. It was not just that
Jews were not equal to Aryans in Nazi Germany, they were believed to be
unfit to be a part of the German nation itself. The other typical example of
biological race can be seen in how the African people were separated from
the European people. The emphasis while identifying each race was on
their skin colour, and this would also become accepted nomenclature for
each race – white, black, brown.
Caste is a social institution in South Asian society which is widely
practiced, but yet escapes definition. On one hand, caste is synonymous
with the Varna system, the four -fold class division that is sanctified in
Hinduism. The four Varnas - the Brahmins, Kshatriyas, Vaishyas and
Shud ras – are a rigid hierarchy based on hereditary division of labour in
which the Brahmins are ritually granted the highest status, and the Shudras
the lowest. On the other hand, caste is used interchangeably with jaati,
which refers to smaller, usually endo gamous, communities which may or
may not identify with one of the Varnas. Nicholas Dirks argues that caste munotes.in
Page 15
Social Awareness
15 is neither a single category nor a single logic of categorization – it
extended to and encompassed many aspects such as region, kinship,
occupation, allegiance and so on (Dirks, 13). Yet, caste has been
exceedingly important in structuring social and political life of the country
for centuries. It has been especially cruel in the way it treats those it deems
to be outside the Varna system – the outcast e people who are treated as
untouchable by caste practicing communities. Caste practices have also
been adopted by religions other than Hinduism, and it has provided the
impetus to enforce strict rules of endogamy and inter -caste interaction.
The breaking of such rules often comes with terrible punishments meted
out by whole communities. Most importantly, caste has become the basis
for a uniquely graded hierarchy in South Asian society, wherein each caste
is oppressed by the caste immediately above, and opp resses the castes
immediately below.
Today, it is widely accepted that the manner in which the category of
‘race’ has been applied historically has been socially constructed, with
little basis in science. Yet, it cannot be denied that race operated in
society, and served to keep a section of the people under chains. It was
only when the hegemony of the idea of race was overcome that we could
understand it to be a social construct. In a similar manner, caste is also
“socially constructed”, but as long as it is operative in society, its ill
effects cannot be ignored.
Race and caste taken together provide many philosophical problems,
separately as well as in relation to each other. To begin with, the lived
experience of the victims of racial and caste discrimin ation and oppression
form narratives with many common points. Both systems are also
responsible for the continued exploitation of large communities’ labour.
At the same time, there are many divergences between race and caste as
well, especially in the part icularities of many of the acts of atrocities
carried out against victims of either system, as well as in the ways in
which these victims organize against the dominant racial or caste order.
In this chapter, we take up three texts which relate to the lived experience
and analysis of race and caste. They are Frantz Fanon’s ‘Black Skin,
White Masks’, and Dr. B R Ambedkar’s ‘Annihilation of Caste’ and ‘On
the Way to Goregaon’.
Black Skin, White Masks
Frantz Fanon’s seminal work ‘Black Skin, White Masks’ is a u nique
venture in that it tries to study racial relations through the lens of
psychoanalysis, a lens which was usually reserved for studying familial
and sexual relationships till then. Fanon’s experience as a colonial subject
enabled him to invert the know ledge he obtained through his European
education and apply it to an object which was hitherto outside the purview
of the subjects he dealt with – philosophy and psychoanalysis. Ontology
itself, for Fanon, was inadequate in expression the condition of the B lack
person, as it did not consider the lived experience of the Black man. It was
solely White men (and a few women) who wrote about Ontology, and munotes.in
Page 16
Social Political Philosophy
16 therefore the subject was stained with their bias. To counter this bias,
Fanon extensively discusses the pecu liarities of the ‘negro state of being ’.
For Fanon, “civilizing” itself has become a disciplining category. He says,
“The language spoken [in Antilles] officially is French; teachers keep a
close watch over the children to make sure they do not use Creole … It
would seem, then the problem is this: In the Antilles, as in Brittany, there
is a dialect and there is the French language. But this is false, for the
Bretons do consider themselves inferior to the French people. The Bretons
have never been civilized by the white man.” The difference between the
colony of Antilles and the French region of Brittany is a political one, and
it reflects deep down in the manner in which the respective dialects are
treated as well. Fanon further makes observations on how lan guage of the
Black man and addressing the Black man are warped by racist and
colonial preconceptions – how the White man infantilizes the Black man
and speaks to him as an adult would to a child; how the White man uses
language against the Black man in a “ manner of classifying him,
imprisoning him, primitivizing him, decivilizing him.”
An educated Black man is expected to behave as a good Black man – as
defined by the White man. So, the triadic relationship between language,
culture and race (language as t he road to culture, and culture as a marker
of race) combine to keep the Black man suppressed, unsure of himself and
servile. The response of the Black man to this consistent denigration and
judgment against the White man’s standards is to do what Fanon ca lls
‘passing’ – wherein a person of an oppressed race tries to behave as if he
is from a dominant race so that he is accorded more respect. The most
useful tool for this, according to Fanon, is to learn the dominant race’s
language (here, the White man’s). Passing is a central concept in
understanding how Fanon describes the relationships between the two
races; it is the form of imitation through Black people serve the cause of
preserving Whiteness. By affirming White ideals and conforming to them,
Whitenes s as such remains dominant and provides access to power for
Whites, whereas only a few Black people manage to acquire a share of it.
Fanon goes on to find that Black men and women attempt to overcome the
racial gap by taking White lovers. Drawing upon expe rience and theory,
he argues that interracial love is often reflective of the lower status of
Black people, who look up to their White partners as a gateway to a higher
culture. However, their constant attempts at passing cannot hide their fact
of blacknes s, and this fact returns to face the Black people now and again,
causing great distress and loss of selfhood among them. The Black Desire
for the White Other, as well as the White Desire for the Black Other
therefore cannot always be a remedy for racial ch asms. It is rather often a
theatre where racial domination plays out. Fanon’s pessimistic assessment
is that not even the most private interstices of racial lives are free from
race.
The Chapter titled ‘The so -called Dependency Complex of Colonized
People s’, written as a critique towards M. Mannoni’s Prospero and
Caliban: Psychology of Colonization , addresses arguments that blame the munotes.in
Page 17
Social Awareness
17 Black man for his ordeal – that he was colonized because he secretly
wanted to be dominated or because he was incapable. Fan on here makes
many parallels between the status of a Jew and that of a Negro, drawing
upon Sartre. Both the Jew and the Black man are defined according to how
the White man needs to see them; the denigration of the Jew and the Black
are necessary component s of the White man’s identity, fictional images
against which he defines himself. These fictional images emerging from
the White man’s self -deception is however sometimes accepted by Jews
and Blacks themselves. They internalize the White man’s notions abou t
them, and perform what they have internalized, leading to a vicious cycle
where the White man’s fictional image ends up being proved true.
The Black man is consistently reminded that he is first and foremost
Black, and not always human. He is alternativ ely portrayed as
undeveloped, as being inferior, as being animalistic, as needing to be
dominated and so on. From such conceptions flow stories about the Black
man’s virility, stupidity, bestiality and so on. White men “Otherize” Black
men and invent conve nient myths about them which allows them to
preserve their status as the “Other” of Black men, thus grounding their
identity.
By being depicted as inferior, says Fanon, Blacks themselves have
developed a sense of inferiority. Fanon ends the book by calling upon a
cross -race solidarity and an escape from the weight of the past of both
races, but such an escape is only possible through social transformation. It
is freedom and its practice which will emancipate the Blacks from the
Whites, and it is the emancip ation of Blacks which will allow the Whites
to separate their identity from the Black identity. It is only then that
Whites will cease to need the Black to define themselves against.
The abolition of existing racial relationships, which subjugate some race s
and dehumanize them, are the only way in which true freedom can be
exercised, according to Fanon. In fact, the existence of these systems itself
is a sign that freedom is being impinged on. Freedom of the individual is
intrinsically bound to the systems under which the individual lives, more
so in the case of oppressive systems such as race. We may as well
extrapolate his findings to caste society.
Annihilation of Caste
Any discourse on caste would be incomplete without mentioning the
contributions of Amb edkar. The life and work of Dr B R Ambedkar have
been summed up by his biographer Dhananjay Keer as: “What did
Ambedkar achieve for the untouchables? The story of the past life of the
scheduled caste Hindus was pitch dark …. It was for the first time in t he
history of the past 2500 years that the son of a better future arouse on their
horizon”. Ambedkar made the issue of untouchability a burning topic and
gave it the attention it deserved locally and globally. He instilled the ideas
of dignity and self -respect into the minds of ‘the Untouchables’ who were
socially oppressed and economically exploited for many centuries in the
country. Ambedkarism later became the liberation theology for not only munotes.in
Page 18
Social Political Philosophy
18 dalits, but all the subaltern communities around the world. I n the
brahmanical Hindu society, theory of social justice for Dalits was an alien
idea till Ambedkar propounded it. The basic ideas of Ambedkarism can be
traced from Annihilation of Caste (1936), which was the undelivered
speech he wrote to address a group of liberal Hindu caste -reformers of Jat
Pat Todak Mandal in Lahore. After reviewing the speech, conference
organizers revoked Ambedkar's invitation. He then self -published the
work, and it became one of his most significant, widely read and discussed
work.
Ambedkar starts his speech by pointing out the importance of social
reform and the limitations of the national conference as well as the social
conference to deal with the problem of caste . In order to eradicate the evils
in the Hindu society, social conf erence was formed alongside the National
Conference. While the National Congress was ‘concerned with defining
the weak points in the political organisation of the country’, the social
conference engaged ‘in removing the weak points in the Social
Organisati on of the Hindu society’. Both of them later split into two
hostile camps. The upper caste leadership in the National Conference
argued that the political reform should proceed social reform, which later
led to the dissolution of the social conference.
Ambedkar further gives instances to prove the plight of the Dalits. He says
that under the Peshwa rule in the Maratha country, they were not even
allowed to use the public streets as their shadows will pollute the upper
caste Hindu. Ambedkar points out an in stance at Kavitha in Gujarat,
where the upper caste Hindus insisted the untouchables not to send their
children to the common village school. By elaborating on the plight of the
untouchables in India, he asks how India is fit for political freedom is if it
does not allow the untouchables to use public wells, schools or streets.
Moreover, the social conference, which was set up by the caste Hindus,
was mostly concerned with the social issues related to the upper caste
households (widow marriage, empowerment of women etc.) and were
mostly uninterested in the problems of the lower caste. It neither stood up
for reforming the Hindu society as a whole nor incorporated the idea of
breaking the caste system as part of their social reform, which results in
the fall of social reform party.
Ambedkar also points out instances from history to prove that ‘political
revolutions have always been preceded by social and religious
revolutions’ (132). The political revolution led by Chandragupta was
preceded by the religious a nd social revolution of Buddha. The political
revolution led by Shivaji was preceded by the religious and social reform
brought about by the saints of Maharashtra. The political revolution of the
Sikhs was preceded by the religious and social revolution le d by Guru
Nanak. Ambedkar hence argues that social reform is necessary for gaining
political independence from the British.
Ambedkar then criticises the socialists for considering political and social
reforms as ‘gigantic illusions’. Socialists believed i n the economic
interpretation of history and tried to fight economic inequality. The munotes.in
Page 19
Social Awareness
19 political and social inequalities of the country were sidelined. They did
not recognise that social reformation was a fundamental step for the
country if it was to be a d emocracy. Ambedkar propounded that man is not
motivated by ‘economic motives’ alone. If we look in to the history of
India, religion can also be identified as a source of power. The socialist
tried to a place the European theory in India. In European soci ety,
property is the predominant source of power. They failed to identify
religion and social status as sources of power and authority. As an
individual is denounced in the Indian society based on his social status,
economic equality alone can't bring abou t a change. Equalization of
property will not bring in equality, due to the drastic differences in their
social status (Ambedkar 133 -34). Moreover the socialists were unable to
integrate the untouchables in a class struggle against bourgeoisie. The
untouch able consists of the major share of the proletariat, by Marxian
terms, in the country, yet the untouchables would not join the socialists in
the class struggle unless they know that after the revolution they would
also be considered as equals. Ambedkar hen ce suggests the socialists to
take up the issue of social reform by eliminating caste system.
Many upper caste Hindus including Gandhi defended caste system by
pointing out that division of labour is necessary for a civilized society and
considered the va rna ashrama as an essential element of Indian society
without which it would be unstable. Ambedkar counters the argument by
saying that caste system is not merely division of labour, but it is also a
division of labourers . Moreover, it is a hierarchy in wh ich the divisions of
labourers are graded one above the other. Ambedkar acknowledges that
the caste system is a ‘hierarchical division of the society’, which is
accompanied by the “unnatural division of labourers into watertight
compartments” (137). Indivi duals are selected not on the basis of their
natural aptitudes but on the basis of the social status of their parents. With
the coming of industrial development the traditional industries gets
dismantled. The orthodox Hindu society would not allow the indi viduals
to take up occupations which not assigned to them by heredity; caste
becomes a direct cause of much of the unemployment that we see in the
country. Ambedkar calls caste ‘a harmful institution’ as it subordinates
man’s natural capabilities.
The fun damental objective of practising caste is to ‘preserve purity of race
and purity of blood’. The study of D.R. Bhandarkar proved that there is no
race without a foreign element in it. Ambedkar extends this argument to
say that “as a matter of fact caste sys temcame into being long after the
different races of India had commingled in blood and culture. To hold that
distinctions of castes are really distinctions of race, and to treat different
castes as though they were so many different races, is a gross perve rsion
of facts.” There upper caste Hindus prohibits inter -caste marriage to
preserve the racial purity. Ambedkar argues that the practise of caste
system is unscientific and does not demarcate racial division.
Hindu society according to Ambedkar is merely a myth . Hindu society as
such does not exist, instead it is only a collection of castes . The term
Hindu itself is an alien name given by the Mohammedans to distinguish munotes.in
Page 20
Social Political Philosophy
20 themselves from the natives. Each caste not only dines among itself and
marries among it self, but each promotes its own distinctive dress. In
Hindu society, identity of the individual is defined by his caste alone.
Ambedkar also points out that the caste is anti -social as it is based on hate -
factor. Every caste gets integrated due to the hat red towards another caste.
Ambedkar points out that the caste system is the reason why tribals still
follow a savage state and leads the life of hereditary criminals. The upper
caste Hindus made no attempt to civilize the aboriginals. The upper caste
delib erately prevented the attempts of lower castes to rise to the cultural
level of the higher castes. He gives example of Sonars caste from
Maharashtra who tried to climb the ‘cultural ladder’. The Sonar started to
wear dhoti and use the word namaskar for sal utation. The Brahmins who
did not like this imitation, with the help of the authority of the Peshwas
suppressed the imitation of the Sonars.
Ambedkar also argues that the missionary works of Hinduism ceased with
the emergence of caste system. The converts do not have a place to fit in
the social system. As Hinduism is a collection of castes, the question
arises: to which caste does the convert go? Ambedkar calls caste a ‘closed
corporate’ - which does not have a place for the convert to fit in. As long as
the caste system exists, the Arya Samaj Shuddi movement will be futile
and impudent. Caste system also deprive s Hindus of trust, mutual help and
fellow feeling . The unity and trust among the Muslims and Sikhs are
because of the associated mode of living tha t they practise. There is a
social cement that make them brothers. While the ‘fellow feeling’ is
absent among the Hindus as individuals are divided into separate
compartments.
Ambedkar then argues that caste system prevents all reforms . A reformer
cannot w ork inside caste system. Anyone who broke the rules of caste
system is excommunicated (which includes a complete cessation of social
intercourse). Caste enjoys the autonomy to regulate its membership and
punish dissenters with excommunication. For instance , when a caste
Hindumarries a woman from a lower caste, he is excommunicated from
the community for breaking caste rules. Caste system, by itself, is a
homogenous body and will not accept heterogeneity.
Caste system also makes an individual narrow minded. The ideas of
virtues and morality become caste bound. Ambedkar says: “There is no
sympathy for the deserving. There is no appreciation of the meritorious.
There is no charity to the needy. There is charity, but it begins with caste
and ends with caste. Th ere is sympathy, but not for men of other
castes”(148).
The alternative that Ambedkar propounds for the caste based Hindu
society is a society based on the principles of Liberty, Equality and
Fraternity. He equates democracy with fraternity. Ambedkar says :
“Democracy is not merely a form of government. It is primarily a mode of
associated living, of conjoint experience. It is essentially an attitude of munotes.in
Page 21
Social Awareness
21 respect and reverence towards fellow men”(149). In Ambedkar’s ideal
society, everyone has the freedom to select their own occupation.
Equality has been the most contentious part of the slogan of the French
Revolution. Ambedkar admits that the idea of equality is an ideal concept
as all men are not equal. Even though the idea of equality is a fiction, he
accep ts it as the governing principle. A man’s power is dependent upon
(1) physical heredity; (2) social inheritance or endowment in the form of
parental care, education, accumulation of scientific knowledge, which
includes everything that enables him to be mor e efficient than the savage;
and finally, (3) on his own efforts. Men are undoubtedly unequal in all
these three respects. The state should treat men equal in the third aspect
but there are sections in the societies who are unequal in the first two
aspects while compared to the privileges. Hence it is important to give
incentive to people who are unequal based on physical heredity and social
inheritance.
Ambedkar the points out the limitations of the Arya Samaj. Arya Samaj
proponents support Chaturvarnya s ystem (the ideal organisation of Hindu
society into four varnas instead of thousands of sub -castes). The
proponents of Arya Samaj argues that the system is based not on birth but
on guna (worth). The flaw of Arya Samaj is that it labels men as Brahmin,
Kshatriya, Vaishya and Shudra. The names Brahmin, Kshatriya, Vaishya
and Shudra are names which are associated with a definite and fixed
notion of a hierarchy based on birth in the mind of every Hindu. People
continue to identify it on the basis of birth as l ong as these categories are
perpetuated. Ambedkar also points out that the system of Chaturvarnya
social order is impracticable . He argues that a person will not vacate his
status, which he got by birth, in caste hierarchy if he is proved unworthy.
For ins tance, a brahmin will not lose his status, if he is not a scholar.
Hence, in order to implement the Chaturvarya system, we have the break
the caste system and reframe the society.
Ambedkar compares the Chaturvarnya ideal to the Platonic ideal. In his
conc ept of ideal society, Plato distinguishes individuals into three:
labourers, guardians and scholars. Ambedkar argues that the criticism on
Plato’s Republic is also applicable to Chaturvarya. Plato had no perception
of the uniqueness of every individual. To him, there were types of
faculties or powers in the individual constitution and considered each
individual as forming a class of his own. Ambedkar also points out that it
is unscientific to mark people into four definite classes. Ambedkar also
point out t hat chaturvarnya system is not applicable to women. The
proponent of Arya Samaj is confused whether to define the position of
women on the basis of their own capability or are they allowed to take the
status of their husbands. If they are allowed to take t he status of their
husband after marriage it would refute the underlying principle of
chaturvarnya.
Chaturvarya system would be the most vicious system for the shudras .
Chaturvarya system is also a division of labour: Brahmins should cultivate
knowledge, Kshatriyas should bear arms, Vaishyas should trade, and the munotes.in
Page 22
Social Political Philosophy
22 Shudra should serve. Shudra does not have an independent role in a
Chaturvarnya society and if the three other classes refused to support him,
he is devoid of agency to act as well. This is actual ly the reason why there
have not been any social revolutions in India. The lower caste Hindus
where completely disabled for direct actions. The lower castes were
devoid of arms and education and contempt to be subdued by the other
three castes. Ambedkar pr ices the Maurya and where the greatest period in
Indian history because at that period caste system was completely
annihilated and shudra became the rulers of the country.
The caste system that is practised among the Hindus is different from that
practised among the non -Hindus. The Muslims and the Sikhs believes in
their religious identity over their caste identity. When a Hindu tries to
break away from caste, his religion always come in his way as he does not
have a religious identity outside his caste ide ntity. Among the non -Hindus,
caste is only a practice, not a sacred institution.
Ambedkar points out his ideas related to inter -dining and inter caste
marriage. There were many castes which allows inter -dining but it was
not effective in eliminating the caste system. The real remedy that
Ambedkar points out to break the caste system is inter -marriage.
Ambedkar suggest that caste is a notion and it is state of mind. For him
destruction of caste ‘means a notional change’.
Ambedkar further argues that Hindu s practice caste not because they are
inhuman but because they are deeply religious. He identifies the root of
caste exploitation in the religious textbooks which the Hindu is considered
a sacred. He goes beyond the temporary solution of inter -marriage to say
that the real remedy is to destroy the belief in the sanctity of the shastras .
Like Guru Nanak and Buddha, the Hindus should also deny their
authority.
Ambedkar denies the claim that caste can be reformed from within. The
Brahmin is the intellectual c lass in our country. In most societies, the
intellectual class are the pioneers of social reformation. As Brahmins are
the custodians of the caste system, they do not do away with the system as
they are born privileged. Shastras follows “a spirit of compro mise” by
enabling the upper caste to regain their caste status back if they are
polluted (Ambedkar 169). The ‘the theory of prayaschitta’ helps in
maintaining the caste system, otherwise it would have led to the
destruction of the caste notion itself.
Ambe dkar sought a radical solution by replacing the existing religion’s
system of practice. In fact, Ambedkar was not always opposed to religion,
rather he emphasised the importance of religion in society. He said that he
was just opposing religion as rules, b ut not religion as principles. To
replace the existing religious rule, a step toward the abolition of the caste
system, Ambedkar wanted to bring a change in the practice of Hindu
religion. He suggested the following in this regard:
1. There should be on ly one standard book of Hindu religion, acceptable
to all Hindus and recognized by all Hindus. munotes.in
Page 23
Social Awareness
23 2. Priesthood among Hindus should be abolished or at least cease to be
hereditary.
3. No person who does not hold a ‘sanad’ (certification by the state)
should be allowed to officiate as a priest.
4. A priest should be subject to the disciplinary action by the state
regarding his morals, beliefs and worship, and should be bound to the
ordinary law of the land as in the case of other ordinary citizens.
In Ambedkar’s view, by the legalisation of priesthood it will certainly help
to kill the Brahminism and will also help to kill caste. Ambedkar sought
the help of state in eradicating the malice of Hinduism. Ambedkar in the
end concludes by saying that Hindus cannot attain swaraj without being a
casteless society.
On the Way to Goregaon
This short autobiographical account by Dr. B R Ambedkar was written in
1935 -36 and was posthumously published as a collection of six accounts,
Waiting for a Visa in 1990. He recollects his journey with his siblings
from their residence in Satara to Goregaon, where his father worked as a
cashier, in 1901, when the young Ambedkar was nine years old. He
describes the difficulties they faced during their journey as they reached
Masur, the nearest station to Goregaon, when their caste identity as the
untouchable Mahars was revealed to the caste Hindu station master. In the
absence of his father’s peon to guide them to Goregaon, the children were
demanded twice the rate for hiring t he bullock carts that they had to ride
by themselves with the cartman walking by their side, lest he got
“polluted” by offering the Mahars his service. He initially tells them that
the journey will only be three hours long. When the cart -man goes to the
town in the middle of the journey to have his meal, the children wait for
him without food as they cannot use the pool of water nearby, thick with
mud, urine and excreta of the cows. The children get suspicious of the
cartman,who now takes the reins (breaks the low of pollution) from their
hands as they restart their journey, thinking that they might get looted or
killed by him. He also shows indifference to the children’s concerns
throughout the journey even when they start crying, anxious and uncertain
abou t what seems like a never -ending journey. As they reach the toll -
collection site where they are told to spend the night before resuming the
journey next day, they are exhausted with hunger and distress. As advised
by the cart man the children try to pass o ff as Muslims in front of the toll -
collector to find access to drinking water, but in vain. Although they were
relieved to have come to a place of safety, they could not sleep. “ There
was plenty of food with us. There was hunger burning within us; with all
this we were to sleep without food; that was because we could get no
water and we could get no water because we were untouchables.”
Although they reach their destination safely on the next day, this event
leaves an indelible impression on the nine -year o ld child. Ambedkar
further talks about how the incident broadened his perspective on the
experience of untouchability practices in public places, that was till then munotes.in
Page 24
Social Political Philosophy
24 limited to the set of restrictions and discrimination he had faced in his
school, such as t he use of a separate piece of gunny cloth to squat on in the
class room and the servant employed to clean the school would not touch
the gunny cloth used by him, and to have a touchable person (peon) open
the tap every time he had to drink water. In the ab sence of the peon, he
could not drink water. He also recalls how, in their house, his sisters had
to wash his clothes and give him a hair -cut because no washermen or
barbers would offer any services to the untouchables. He concludes the
account with a note on how the incident transformed him to critically look
at caste -inequality and discrimination embedded in the everyday lived
practices in the society. “The incident gave me a shock such as I never
received before, and it made me think about untouchability which, before
this incident happened, was with me a matter of course as it is with many
touchables as well as the untouchables.”
This autobiographical piece gives us an insight into how the experience of
caste segregation can turn into a traumatic event. It seems to have stuck
with Dr Ambedkar himself, and motivated him to set on a path of
changing the world. It explores the
Major philosophical concepts
Recognition is an act in which a subject becomes aware of a certain
object, another human or a certain dimension of another human.
Recognition may seem like a mundane process, but philosophy of the past
two centuries has been heavily reliant on the idea of recognition and its
consequences, beginning from GWF Hegel. It is one of the fundamental
aspects of hu man society, and its different enactments determine social
relationships and conflicts to a large extent. The problem of race and caste
is, at the final instance, a problem of recognition – it is the recognition of
one as superior and the other as inferior that marks the entry into the
oppressive systems of race and caste. Recognition permeates all social
process, not just such evident ones. It structures the manner in which we
relate to another – as a friend, a stranger, an acquaintance, a fellow
national, a citizen, a spouse and so on. Each of these categories refers to
specific recognition endowed by either a subject or an agency acting on
behalf of the subject. Fanon relies heavily on the concept of recognition in
his theorization of interracial relation ships.
The other is a phenomenological concept developed by Edmund Husserl,
Jean-Paul Sartre and Simone de Beauvoir among others. The concept of
the Other, alongside the concept of the Self, forms the basis for
interpersonal relationships. It is a general form of all the particular objects
we encounter beyond our own selves, and its most intriguing dimension is
that of the Other human. The Other is not just an opposite of the Self, it is
constitutive of the Self. It is in relation to the Other that we defin e our
Selves. Recognition of an Other is thus an act which begins the process of
Self-differentiation and self -definition.
Desire is a tendency of developed living beings, especially humans, to
pursue something they want , over and beyond their necessities. In munotes.in
Page 25
Social Awareness
25 quotidian usage, it is a well understood concept, but there is little
agreement among the theorists of desire of what it exactly is. We can
group many activities as being motivated by desire, right from attraction
towards other human beings to the desi re to establish a certain utopian
state of affairs. Especially since the birth of psychoanalysis, desire has
become a fundamental category in understanding the basic questions of
human existence.
Freedom/ Liberty are two concepts that are used interchange ably, and
represent one of the most important ideas of modern society – the
possibility of acting without constraint. Most modern societies take as
granted the right of an individual to many freedoms, such as the freedom
of mobility, expression and thought . Modern states are rigged to protect
these basic freedoms, and they form an important part of much of world
politics. Immanuel Kant, and later Isaiah Berlin, would differentiate two
kinds of freedom, positive and negative. For Berlin, negative freedom
denotes an absence of obstacle, whereas positive freedom refers to the
ability to take initiative and accomplish something. Fanon’s and
Ambedkar’s projects, with respect to race and caste, can be understood as
a quest for negative freedom from the respective systems in the first place,
eventually leading to the positive freedom for the subjects.
2.5 SUMMERY
Gandhi:
Gandhi attempted to explain the act of acquisition or ownership around
the concept of “need” and “greed”. If one hoards anything beyond
his/her im mediate use, it shall hence to be considered as an act of
‘theft’.
Gandhi hence largely shifts the public act of ownership to private
intentions and individual ethical consideration on what one decides to
be his/her ‘need’. One has freedom to determine one ’s ‘needs’ as there
isn’t any external agency or law that regulates the same.
Distribution of excessive wealth is left on individual’s will or
philanthropy.
The basic difficulty identified here is that there isn’t any generally
accepted norm on what shoul d be rightly considered as “need” and the
differences of lifestyle, preferences or habits of resource usage is also
not taken into account
Marx:
Marx envisaged emancipation as material and ‘political process’ rather
than spiritual or transcendental. The em ancipation of humanity lies in
abolition of mediatory function capitalist production process. These
mediations include division of labor and private property. munotes.in
Page 26
Social Political Philosophy
26 Labor is driving force behind life though in capitalist set up the
Worker is estranged from fruit of his/her own labor as the value
realised through labour is kept to the maximum by the capitalist and
worker is given only enough for physical sustenance.
Act of production hence is also alienated from the worker which
manages to provide worker only with 2 choices: to keep employing
labor to sustain his/her life or to not work and end his/her life. Such act
of production is hence cause of ‘forced labor’.
Worker is alienated from his own ‘species -being’ or human essence,
which is the self -aware person who can work not just to fulfil the vital
immediate needs or in other words, can work in total freedom, their
natural/physical needs being satisfied.
Worker is also alienated from other humans, as the other workers are
now posed to him/her as competitors.
Franz Fanon:
Fanon reflected deeply on the phenomenon of power relations through
colonisation by white men over coloured humans i.e. on the basis of
skin color or race.
There are many modes employed to establish and continue such power
relations. Inferiorizi ng local dialects and mother tongue of inhabitants
is certainly one of the way to achieve so. Rendering culture of
colonizer as superior causes internalisation and imitation from the
colonized which again in turn helps in preserving the racial
domination.
What a Black Man is hence ‘defined’ by the White Man. Black Man is
firstly Black and then not always Human as he is portrayed as
animalistic, inferior, requiring to be dominated by superior.
Fanon asserts cross -race solidarity via redefining identities or
separating White to identify his superiority with Black’s inferiority is
the way for social transformation.
B.R. Ambedkar:
Ambedkar strongly held that political freedom would have meaning
only when we have dealt effectively in removing our social
weaknesse s.
He also held that rectifying economic inequalities may not be enough
as a human being also exists socio -religiously and there exists drastic
differences in social status.
Caste -system is such evil which needed immediate action. The varna -
vyavastha, Amb edkar argued was not just division of labour, but of
labourers wherein individuals are forced under a specific occupation munotes.in
Page 27
Social Awareness
27 on the basis of birth. Hence it demoralises human’s natural capacities
and talents.
The caste system causes Hinduism as a religion whi ch cannot
accommodate a convert, cannot extend help to those belonging to
other castes within the religion and is a system of deliberate
oppression by higher castes over underprivileged castes.
Ambedkar radically asserts that caste -system can be annihilate d only
when authority to scriptures which endows such evils are discarded
and denied. Religion must admit rationality and should be based on
principles rather than orthodox rituals.
2.6 QUESTIONS
1. Critically explain Marx concept of alienation.
2. Elaborate Am bedkar’s account of caste discrimination.
3. Briefly discuss Fanon’s critique of racial discrimination.
4. Write a short on Gandhi’s concept of Sarvodaya.
2.7 SUGGESTED READING
Ambedkar, B. R. ‘Castes in India: Their Mechanism, Genesis and
Development’. Dr. Babasaheb Ambedkar: Writings and Speeches, Vol.
1. Bombay: Education Department, Government of Maharashtra,
1979, pp. 3 -22. Edited by Frances W. Pritchett.
Ambedkar, B. R. ‘Annihilation of Caste’. Dr. Babasaheb Ambedkar:
Writings and Speeches, Vol. 3. Bombay: Education Department,
Government of Maharashtra, 1979, pp. 3 -22. Edited by Frances W.
Pritchett
Dirks , Nicholas B. Castes of Mind : Colonialism and the Making of
Modern India. Princeton, N.J: Princeton University Press, 2001. Print.
Turabian (6th e d.)
Encyclopedia of Race , Ethnicity , and Society . Edited by: Richard
T. Schaefer . Publisher:SAGE Publications, Inc.
Gopal Guru & Sunder Sarukkai. Experience, Caste, and the Everyday
Social, Oxford University Press (2020), New Delhi .
Gilroy, Paul. The Black Atlantic : Modernity and Double
Consciousness . Harvard University Press, 1993.
https://www.mkgandhi.org/ebks/trusteeship.pdf
Marx Karl. Early Writing. Pelican, 1976, London
Fanon Frantz, Black Skin White Masks. Grove Press, 2008 New York
munotes.in
Page 28
28 3
JUST WAR AND PACIFISM
Unit Structure:
3.0 Objectives
3.1 Introduction
3.2 Michael Walzer: Just and Unjust Wars
3.3 Jus ad bellum - Right to War and Jus in bello - Justice during Wars
3.4 Wars and International Society
3.5 Jus post bellum - Justice, War and Peace
3.6 Conclusion and Summary
3.7 Types of Pacifism
3.8 Absolute Pacifism: Virtue Ethics Perspective
3.9 Contingent Pacifism and Rawls’ Just War Pacifism for International
Relations
3.10 Transformational Pacifism and Active Non Violence: Gandhian
Perspective
3.11 Pacifism and Cosmopolitanism : Kantian Deontological Ethics
3.12 War, Pacifism and Feminism: Care Ethics Perspectives
3.13 Broad Questions
3.14 Suggested Readings
3.0 OBJECTIVES
To be introduced to the philosophical position of just w ar debate
To understand Micheal Walzer’s theory of just and unjust war
To critically engage the relevance of just war theory to international
relations
To understand the concept of pacifism and its types
munotes.in
Page 29
Just War and Pacifism
29 3.1 INTRODUCTION
The just war doctrine is derivativ e from the work of Bishop Augustine of
Hippo after the collapse of the Roman Empire. The doctrine provides
criteria for the decision to go to war (jus ad bellum) and guidelines for
conduct during war (jus in bello). The study of just war has greatly
influe nced Western political thought and international law. The doctrine
generally includes the idea -
(1) That war must be a last resort
(2) That the decision to engage in war be must be made by a legitimate
authority
(3) The intention of going on war must be just cause, causes like
aggression or revenge are generally not be acceptable.
(4) The resulting peace must be a situation better that the situation before
the war was fought. Once a war is declared moral principles are
concerned with military means and t he cost of war that is believed
must be proportional to a moral goal and expected benefits.
3.2 MICHAEL WALZER: JUST AND UNJUST WARS
Michael Walzer believes that war is a moral enterprise. Contrary to the
belief that law and morality are silent in times o f war, the language used to
describe wars (aggression, self defence, betrayal, shame, devotion,
chastity, cruelty, ruthlessness, and massacre) is loaded with moral
judgments. Realists defend the lack of morality in war by stating that
cruelty results out of humanity in pressure. This description makes us
believe that war strips away all civilized adornments from people and thus
atrocities of war are beyond moral discourses. Walzer states that such a
theory fails to realize that fundamental social and polit ical transformation
within a particular culture is what we share with our ancestors; thus even
when world views and higher ideals have been abandoned in times of war,
the notion about right conduct remains persistent. This gives coherence to
political live s because the way one behaves with the contemporaries
depends on the beliefs of what one has studied and inherited from the past.
Thus morality cannot be separated in war.
Walzer divides moral reality of war into two parts. War is always judged
twice, f irst with reference to the reasons for starting a war and second, the
means with reference to the means they adopt. The first kind of judgment
according to Walzer is that which can be judged as just or unjust while the
second can be judged as being fought justly or unjustly; one is adjectival
and the other is adverbial. According to Walzer, these grammatical
distinctions are important because former makes judgments about
aggression, self defense and justice of war while the latter makes
judgments about the observance violation of the customary and positive
rules of engagement. According to Walzer, the two are independent
because it is possible that a just war has been fought unjustly and that an munotes.in
Page 30
Social Political Philosophy
30 unjust war is fought is accordance with just rules. For Walzer, this
problem is central to the moral reality of war. Just war theory can be
meaningfully divided into following parts:
Jus ad bellum , which concerns the justice of resorting to war in the first
place
Jus in bello , which concerns the justice of conduct wi thin war, after it has
begun and
Jus post bellum , which concerns the justice of peace.
3.3 JUS AD BELLUM - RIGHT TO WAR AND JUS IN
BELLO - JUSTICE DURING WARS
Walzer states that to begin a war is wrong because people are killed with
every conceivable brutal ity. The cruelty is generally justified, as war is
believed to be a condition that theoretically has no limits. It is believed
that it is not possible to refine the condition of war without committing an
absurdity. Walzer states that the adversaries resort to violence which in
turn results in a reciprocal action and the acts of aggression keeps
escalating to a point where every act can be called pre -emptive. Wars call
for exertion of forces and increasing ruthlessness, in response, the
opponent out of neces sity does the same to match the cruelty whenever it
can. Though there can be various degrees of war, all wars initiate criminal
acts. Factors like who fights the war, what tactics are acceptable and when
battles have to be broken off are decided by people and authorities; this
helps in defining a situation as a war. In contemporary times, wars are
generally fought between nation states where the government decides to
fight and the people’s choice to go on a war effectively disappears.
Fighting becomes a leg al obligation and a patriotic duty. This is because
when an army is raised by voluntary enlistment or conscription, they are
expected to adhere to the techniques of coercion and persuasion. The
soldiers go on war not out of choice or constraint, but becaus e they are
political instruments who are expected to obey orders while the practice of
war is shaped at a higher level. It is when citizen consent fails, acts of
force or wars loose appeal and become the object of moral condemnation.
Wars have human as age nts as well as victims. The agents are the ones
who subject the victims to pain and death by their decisions and
aggression. The soldiers of the war are made to believe that they are
fighting against aggression and they develop higher ambition to defeat an d
punish to reduce the probability of future aggression; thus it becomes
important to win. Thus the conviction that victory is morally important,
plays an important part in the logic of war. War is not terrible because it is
fought without restraint but be cause it drives the opposition to break all
remaining restraint as they are forced to imitate and exceed the brutality of
aggressor. Thus, according to Walzer, war is singularly the crime of those
who begin it, soldiers can never be blamed for anything as they only do
that which brings victory closer. munotes.in
Page 31
Just War and Pacifism
31 Thirdly, Walzer draws out the rules of war. War is a legal condition which
equally permits two or more groups to carry on a conflict by armed force.
It is also a moral condition involving permissiveness at t he level of armies
and individual soldiers; thus it involves right to kill. These rules of war
consist of two clusters of prohibitions. There are rules about when and
how they can kill and the second concerns who they can kill. He states
that when soldier s fight freely, choosing their enemies and designing their
battles; the war cannot be considered a crime because military conduct is
governed by rules of mutual consent. The soldiers are not responsible for
the illegal war as they are merely agents of the state but they can be
judged on their conduct in war. Since soldiers are not entirely without
volition their conduct can be judged as morally good or bad depending on
the performance of duties and obligations specified in the treaties and
agreements betwee n states.
War can only be distinguished from murder and massacre when
restrictions on who can be killed are established on the battlefield. “The
moral reality of war must specify the principle about the combat between
the combatants. The non -combatants ar e the people who are not trained
and prepared for war who cannot or donot fight women, children, old men,
members of neutral tribes, cities, states and wounded or captured soldiers.
They are not engaged in the business of war and so killing them is
conside red unchivalrous, dishonorable brutal and murderous.” These rules
are arbitrary and subject to revision as they are a product of cultural,
religious, social norms and reciprocal arrangements that share the
judgments of military conduct .According to Walzer , though the war
convention has been debated criticized and revised over a period of many
centuries, it remains an imperfect human artifact as it sets a programme
for toleration of war; not abolition of war. War makes one cynical of
restraint and also make s one indignant of the absence of restraint.
In war people are forced to either risk their lives or lose their rights. Given
the tough choice different people respond in different ways, some
surrender and some fight, depending on the moral and material co ndition
of their state and army. In most cases they prefer fighting. Not only is
fighting aggression, but also when aggression is unrestricted, it is morally
and physically coercive. It is singular and undifferentiated crime because
in all forms, it chall enges rights that are worth dying for. These rights are
territorial integrity and political sovereignty. Though they belong to the
states they ultimately come from individual and thus when political rights
are challenged the idea of human value and worth i s challenged. the rights
of the states rest on the consent of the members. Consent is not that which
is exchanged among individuals or rights transformed from state to
individual but it is like a contract. This contract is not a metaphor for a
process of a ssociation and military, but an ongoing but an ongoing process
where the state offers protection against encroachment. Thus wars fought
to defend these rights are considered just. Territorial integrity and political
sovereignty can be defended in the same way.
munotes.in
Page 32
Social Political Philosophy
32 3.4 WARS AND INTERNATIONAL SOCIETY
Walzer states that aggression among states is more serious as there is no
policing, which means that people of the international society must rely
only on themselves. Policing powers are distributed among all the
members and thus when they fail to stop aggression, those rights would be
violated. When they fail to protect the basis of the society the state
collapses into the state of war. Thus, it is important that the state fights to
maintain its rights.
The victi m of aggression fights in self defense and what she is protecting
is not merely herself but also crimes against society as a whole. Other
states can rightfully join the victim’s resistance. Eventually the character
of war on both sides resemble, except tha t the victim also aims punish the
aggressor. Thus, a war cannot be just on both sides and sometimes it is just
on neither sides. When states are fighting for territory or power and
imperialist aims (to establish domination over another a third party); it i s
never a just war. Walzer articulates a theory of aggression, law and order
in international society by means of what he calls the “legalist paradigm”.
1) There exists an international society of independent states and the
states are obliged to follow the po licy of non - intervention. Rights of
all people can be recognized by reconciling of dominant values of that
society on which the survival and independence of separate political
communities rest.
2) The international society has a law that establishes and sec ures the
rights of the members, most importantly rights of territorial integrity
and political sovereignty.
3) Any use of force or imminent threat of force by the state against
political sovereignty and territorial integrity constitutes aggression and
is a cr iminal activity.
4) Aggression justifies two kinds of violent response: a war of self -
defense by the victim and war of law enforcement by victim and any
member of the international society. Anyone can come to the aid of the
victim and use necessary force agai nst the aggressor.
5) Nothing but aggression inflicted and received can be a justification for
war. The central purpose of the theory is to limit the occasions of war.
6) Once the aggressor state has been militarily repulsed, it can also be
punished. This is us ually the maxim and justification for fighting a war
against a war, the maxim is to punish crime to prevent violence and
punish aggression to prevent further war. Thus if states are members of
the society, they must also be objects of punishments.
These pr opositions shape judgments when wars break out and thus wars
fought in anticipation are also just wars. Further, Walzer states that
individuals and states can rightfully defend themselves against violence
that is imminent. He lays down regulations for wars fought in anticipation. munotes.in
Page 33
Just War and Pacifism
33 Preventive wars are often justified as a means to maintain a balance of
power amongst states. Acts that donot involve material damage,, does not
include military preparation , small acts of violence may be subjected to
restrain but may not be counted as acts threatening peace. Military
alliances, mobilizations, troop movements, border incursions, naval
blockades may be considered as acts of aggression depending on the
extent of threat they pose. Sufficient threat includes a manifes t intent to
injure or active military preparation that intends to spread danger that can
magnify the risk of war. Depending on the threat they face to future
securities and intensification of the present dangers they can be judged as
legitimate or illegiti mate. Walzer prescribes that intervention of one state
in the domestic affairs of other states can sometimes be justified, as in the
following cases -
1) When a particular set of boundaries contain two or more political
communities one of which is clearly enga ged in a large scale military
struggle for independence. That is, when a state fights for the issue of
national liberation.
2) When the boundaries have already been crossed by armies of foreign
power, even if the crossing had been invited by one of the partie s of
the civil war. That is, when the conflicting state should be fighting for
counter intervention.
3) When the violation of human rights within a set of boundaries is so
terrible that it makes survival of the citizens seem cynical irrelevant
and there are c ases of enslavement and massacre.
Thus, according to Walzer, any intervention in a civil war is justified as
far as it acts as assistance to a legitimate government or it’s kind a of
counter intervention which is a response to covert military moves by the
dissenting party. Intervention by another state can only be legitimate if the
goal of the state is not to win war (but merely aid the legitimate
government to win the war). The outcome of civil wars, according to
Walzer should reflect not only the relative strength of the intervening
states but its alignment with local forces. Humanitarian interventions are
justified when they are a response to acts that shock the moral conscience
of citizen people who have acquired morality through day to day activity.
3.5 JUS POST BELLUM - JUSTICE, WAR AND PEACE
Another criteria for a just war is that it is morally urgent to win and it is
important that a soldier who dies in a just war does not die in vain. A war
that seeks to afford political independence, communal liberty and human
life is justified and if death occurs for these purposes it is morally
comprehensible as being just. This is the end or the goal of winning the
war. Thus, the limits set to just war are - that once the battle has been won,
the fighting should sto p, the soldiers need not be forced to kill or die
anymore. Wars can only be fought if a universal moral principle guides it
to preservation of peace and survival of democracy. To achieve this and
total victory is necessary. A total victory would involve un conditional munotes.in
Page 34
Social Political Philosophy
34 surrender of the hostile country. Aggression in war can also be justified as
soldiers fight and kills a member of the enemy army to defend his
homeland. It cannot be called a murder or a criminal activity as the soldier
acts in self defense. On ly when they attack innocent victims, wounded
disarmed people or non combatants can they be condemned for murder.
As far as they fight in accordance with rules of war they cannot be
condemned. A legitimate act of war is one that does not violate the rights
of people against whom it is directed and such acts such as murder and
rape are not justified as acts of aggression.
In the war, the soldiers who are also civilians who lose their rights on
property, life, private hopes and they gain war rights. All other s retain
their rights and the states remain committed to defend their rights and all
the states remain committed to defend their rights. They defend by
following the rules of conduct of war and threatening to punish military
leaders or individual soldiers who violate them. Thus even an aggressor
state can rightly punish war criminals, enemy soldiers for raping and
killing civilians. Thus the rules of war apply with equal force to aggressors
and their adversaries. Thus mutual submission was moral equality of
soldiers and rights of civilians. This forms the basis of restraint in
international law as they enforce the law that army of warring states can
only violate territorial integrity and political sovereignty of the aggressor
state, but it’s soldiers cannot violate the violate the life and liberty of
enemy civilians, though sometimes it is difficult to distinguish between
combatants and non -combatants.
Walzer comments on two war conventions and shows that they are unfair.
The first one states that once at wa r the soldier can become a subject of
attack at any time (unless he is wounded or captured). Walzer criticizes
this convention by stating that it is not the case that soldiers are committed
to the business of fighting all the time; very often they are forc ed to fight,
its not their chosen occupation, they neglect or resist war whenever they
can and thus regain their right to live. The second principle of war
convention is that non combatants cannot be attacked at anytime. This is
unfair because most of the times non combatants are endangered not
because they are attacked purposefully, but because of their proximities to
the battle. All that can be done is that every care must be taken to see that
the civilians are not harmed and how the destruction can be pr evented can
only be judged by the soldiers present at that time in the war. Walzer
believes that the killing of the non -combatants cannot be considered unjust
if any good was intended and the enforceable evil was reduced as far as
possible. Unintended deat hs under legitimate military operations are
justified if soldiers minimize the dangers they expose. They plan strategies
where the number of innocent people threatened is relatively small. In
cases where huge number of civilians have been put to danger one must
investigate how the civilians have reached the warring zone in the first
place and who put them in there. According to Walzer, more people have
died in sieges and blockades than in “…the modernist infernos of
Hamburg, Dresden, Tokyo, Hiroshima, Nagas aki taken together…” munotes.in
Page 35
Just War and Pacifism
35 Seiges, according to Walzer, is the oldest form of total war. When armies
seek civilian shelter and fight from behind the battlement or from within
the buildings of the city, the civilians get exposed to the same risk as the
soldiers. In fact the civilians are at a greater risk than the soldiers as the
soldiers fight from protected positions but the civilians don’t fight at all,
so they are either killed by the enemy or because of starvation (because
they are forced to share their resou rces with the soldiers. Walzer blames
political and military leaders of the city who refused to surrender or the
civilians who agreed to risk the dangers of the war for their deaths. The
issue becomes more difficult under conditions when the whole country is
subjected to conditions of an invading army decides to systematically
destroy food and crop supplies; the idea is to make the provisioning of the
enemy army impossible. The civilians are thus hurt by the army that
destroys food as well as seizes what r emains of itself. In the case of
blockades; the army that attacks intend military deactivation, the civilians
are pushed in the front line and thus they have to take responsibility for
their deaths. Since the struggles generally claim sovereignty over
popu lation and territory they claim responsibility for putting citizens at
risk.
Against guerilla warfare (that involves concealment and camouflage),
Walzer maintains that preparing in ambush behind moral and political
cover rather than natural cover is not j ustified in war. Example - an ambush
prepared under the protective coloration of national surrender is unlawful
because it erodes the moral and legal understanding upon which surrender
rests. A surrender is an explicit agreement and exchange where the
indiv idual soldier promises to stop fighting in exchange for benevolent
quarantine for the duration of the war; and in exchange, government
promises that its citizens will stop fighting in exchange of the ordinary
public life. Yet, if the citizens attack, out o f a moral commitment they feel
towards their homeland such an act defeats all purpose of national
surrender restoration of state machinery and peace and security of the
state. Thus, their ambush is considered a criminal activity, resistance to it
is legiti mate and punishment of that resistance is also legitimate.
Guerrilla warfare, thus, is subversive not merely with reference to the
occupation or to their government but with reference to the war
convention itself. Also in guerrilla warfare the warriors do n’t themselves
kill the citizens they invite the enemies to do it. Since, they donot adopt a
single identity they make it impossible for enemies to differentiate
between combatants and non -combatants. It is then characterized as
people’s war (as no armies are defending them) and the people involved
are peasants, workers, labourers in the city, intellectuals, students and
businessmen. Thus, when the enemy army attacks them, they cannot be
unjustly condemned as barbarians and murderers. According to Walzer,
guerrilla leaders and publicists are able to convince the moral quality of
their goals because they do not aim to mobilize all people, they operate in
small groups and wait for the enemy to attack to mobilize the rest. They
kill people who are high rank off icials and believed to be collaborators,
they do not take people as hostages and thus, they seem to be defending
people’s cause. They do not fight for people but among people and their munotes.in
Page 36
Social Political Philosophy
36 bases are villages they are connected to their everyday life in a direc t way.
They are protected by the civilians and with their support they do acquire
war rights and can be subjected to benevolent quarantine customarily
offered to prisoners of war (unless they are guilty of sabotage or
assassination). The civilians acquire war rights if they are willing to
separate themselves from the guerrilla fighters and deny them material
support. Since war against them systematically involves killing citizens
and destroying society and culture, the guerilla wars cannot and should not
be won. Guerilla warfare is to be distinguished from terrorism. The word
terrorism is used to describe revolutionary violence the purpose is to
destroy the morale of the nation, undercut the its solidarity and kill
randomly. They aim to spread fear and inten sify the feeling over a period
of time until citizens feel themselves fatally exposed and force their
government to negotiate for safety. It is a way of avoiding engagement
with the enemy army. It is an indirect approach to affirm a totalitarian
form of wa r and politics. It shatters the war conventions and political
codes. Terrorism cannot thus be justified under any circumstances. The
political defense of terrorism is that it is only way the oppressed can be
liberated. They fail to make the moral distinct ion between random killing
and revolution. He criticizes Sartre for justifying terrorism in Algeria.
According to Sartre, killing an oppressor liberates both oppressor and
oppressed as only when the slave confronts the master and kills him does
he also cre ate himself as a free being. Walzer considers this argument as
absurd as liberation cannot come by killing or by vicarious experience of
watching the oppressor die. Nor can acts of killing innocent children be
justified as an armed struggle to restore dign ity and self - respect.
Terrorism is an act of hatred, fear and lust for domination, a revolution is
characterized by restraint and self -control. The revolutionary soldiers
assert their freedom when they obey the moral law and their political code
is closel y linked to psychological liberation.
Reprisals is another doctrine of war convention that legitimates action and
are undertaken in response to crimes previously committed by the enemy.
They are believed to be necessary sometimes because they are a means of
preventing war from becoming entirely barbaric. Reprisals aim to satisfy
the war convention of deterrence. Since retribution (punishing) of guilty
individuals is not always possible the state in wartime will try to prevent
further criminal activities b y killing and punishing innocent people. It is
thus a one sided law enforcement of deterrence without retribution.
Through such acts the unjust have been defended on the grounds that no
other means was available to check criminal activities of opponents.
Further, the claim that all acts of reprisals are limited to countering
previous crimes and not with reference to crimes they wish to deter.
According to Walzer, any act of violence that merely aims at deterrence
without retribution and law enforcements ca nnot be justified.
3.6 CONCLUSION AND SUMMARY
The just war theory argues that a country can justifiably go on war for two
reasons. It can do so in self defence against aggression or in response to munotes.in
Page 37
Just War and Pacifism
37 serious unamendable human rights violation. Any war that d irectly targets
non -combatants or fails to adhere to internationally established
conventions cannot be called a just war. The problem with the theory is
that it fails to address and respond to the changing economic, political and
technological changes tha t influence peace initiatives: globalization being
the primary challenge. The theory is inadequate as it fails to recognize the
changing nature of nation states, organized crimes by states, non state
terrorism and lacks an inclusive approach to understand human rights.
3.7 TYPES OF PACIFISM
Pacifism is a commitment to peace and opposition to violence, death and
war. Intentional killing of innocent (sometimes not innocent too) people is
generally considered morally unacceptable. Responding to the just war
tradition accounts; a case is generally made that none of the wars can be
counted as “just” by the parameters laid down, thus all wars are morally
unacceptable. Thus, wars are considered morally wrong, moral purity
demands non killing as the highest virtue, debates around pacifism
surround the question of degree of violence to be resisted and what degree
of force is not permissible while resisting, punishing or preventing
violence.
3.8 ABSOLUTE PACIFISM: VIRTUE ETHICS
PERSPECTIVE
Seneca, the Roman Stoic thi nker in his work Anger, Mercy and Revenge
explains that war is mass scale slaughter of humans that deserves universal
rejection. While small crimes are condemned and subjected to severe
ethical and legal scrutiny; cruelties inflicted by nations during wars are
considered admirable. While acts of cruelty for individuals remain
forbidden, soldiers are trained to kill innocent people especially if they are
considered enemies. Such an act should ideally be despised. The
destructiveness of war is not limited to humans, it destroys nature too.
Emotions such as anger, revenge, hatred, greed that lead rulers to war are
harmful, instead virtue demands that rulers should display mercy even to
those who have done them wrong. Seneca thus offers moral arguments,
grounded in virtue, for thinking that rulers should restrain themselves from
going to war. In addition, Seneca offers practical reasons against going to
war as well. He points to the fact that war is often counterproductive to
securing a lasting peace. War is wron g because it is not only incompatible
with the virtuous life but it is also not productive of what people and their
leaders most seek, a just and lasting peace. Seneca traces the slaughter of
innocents in war to the drive for vengeance. Both anger and veng eance are
detrimental to the flourishing of a virtuous life of leaders as well as
people. Hence, Seneca here provides one of the most significant
groundings for pacifism, concerning respect for life and practice of virtue
as the highest goal of human fulfi llment.
munotes.in
Page 38
Social Political Philosophy
38 3.9 CONTINGENT PACIFISM AND RAWLS’ JUST
WAR PACIFISM FOR INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS
Contingent pacifism is generally understood as rejection of particular wars
(not all wars), particular military systems. It admits of need of war in
certain circums tances (while rejecting wars in certain other different
circumstances). Larry May in her book Contingent Pacifism outlines five
arguments (closely following the just wars argument) for contingent or
conditional pacifism. The first argument is an epistemic argument, since
there is always an uncertainty about the justice of war, contingent pacifist
depend on the present circumstances and judge wars only of their times
(not all wars). Secondly, conditional pacifism is also in support of
corrective measures nee ded to justify the loss of lives of those who fight
the war. This approach aims to correct that belief that that ethical concerns
are not applicable to soldiers who forfeit their right to life. The third
argument is derived from arguments advanced by inter national legal
theorists concerning international human rights not only of non -
combatants but also of combatants much neglected in international
humanitarian law. The fourth approach concerns the idea of a just war as a
means to end violence. The fifth ar gument, conscience -based argument
suggests that military services need not be mandatory and the state should
make allowances and exempt those who are conscientiously opposed to
wars. Alternative service arrangements can be devised for those who
oppose mili tary service.
A version of contingent pacifism, also called as just war pacifism can be
read in Rawls’ theory of international justice that regulate the relation
between societies and their governments. This is the law of nations later
called Law of the P eoples. According to Rawls, nations have duties of
justice, mutual respect and mutual aid towards each other and the law of
nations defines the nature and scope of these duties. It also addresses the
question of how liberal people are to relate to non -liberal people who may
not be based on standards of well - ordered constitutional democracy.
Values of freedom, independence, observing treaties, duty of non -
intervention, wars waged for self -defence or in defence of the people
unjustly attacked, honouring hu man rights, observing just restrictions in
waging war, such as not attacking non combatants and coming to
assistance of people living in unfavourable condictions form the core
principles of international war.
Apart from these principles certain other prin ciples such as forming and
regulating federation of peoples, standards of fairness of trade and other co
operative arrangements, mutual assistance for people in times of famines
and other natural calamities and duties of developed liberal societies to
assist other nations. According to Rawls, any decent and liberal society
would value these principles but there would have to be limits on the
extent of toleration and co -operation towards non liberal societies. Rawls
contends that the liberal societies should not tolerate dictatorial,
tyrannical, and other outlaw regimes that violate human rights and do not
act for the good of all their members. Rawls defines human rights as munotes.in
Page 39
Just War and Pacifism
39 expressing “…a minimum standard of well ordered political institutions
for all peoples who belong, as members in good standing, to a just
political society of peoples”. They set limit to a government internal
autonomy so that no government can claim sovereignty as a defence
against its violation of human rights. Secondly, it specifies reaso ns for war
and its misconduct towards enemies. War can only be waged against
another government in self - defence or to protect the human rights of other
people(s) when violated by their own or another government. Wars cannot
be justly waged for the sake of maintaining military superiority, balance of
power, access to economic resources or to gain additional territory. All
these involve unjust violations of a person’s political autonomy. Also
within war the human rights of enemy non -combatants is to be respe cted;
non-combatants are not be targeted for attack and measures must be taken
to protect them and their private property from injury. Thus, human rights
are regarded as the minimal freedom, power and protection that any
person/ nation needs for the most b asic development of self and state.
Thus, Rawls theory of justice and it’s significance in international
relations creates circumstances of permissible violence in the form of an
appeal concerning self -defence, redress of past injustice, need to defend
human rights and valorizing nationhood as conducive to important
political goods, such as equality. These conditions encourage the notion of
a justifiable war and a version of contingent pacifism.
3.10 TRANSFORMATIONAL PACIFISM AND ACTIVE
NON VIOLENCE: GANDH IAN PERSPECTIVE
Transformational pacifism aims at moral, psychological and social
transformation as an alternative to violence and war. Gandhi’s non -
violence and pursuit of truth as a struggle against oppressive British rule
as well as aspiration of self -rule is a version of the same.
Gandhi emphasized that true freedom cannot be attained by violence and
acquisition of authority of the few. Swaraj , self rule for Gandhi was to be
attained by educating the masses to a sense of their capacity to regulate
and control authority. Thus, in Gandhi’s view a truly democratic and non -
violent society would not need the armed forces. It would have no
aggressive war plans/preparations for its neighbours. If the country was
attacked, it should rely on non -violent resistan ce. And if that failed and
resulted in its conquest, one should rely on satyagraha (relentless pursuit
of truth), through non violent resistance and non -cooperation, to render the
new government ineffective. Gandhi explains satyagraha as holding on to
truth, truth force synonymous with spiritual soul force. A satyagrahi is a
person who is in relentless pursuit of truth and holds a determination to
reach it. The goal of satyagraha is to realize oneness with the universe,
inspired by the Advaitin metaphysical principle oneness described as
“…friendship with the world and combine greatest love with greatest
opposition to wrong…”. Thus, satyagraha does not permit the use of
violence, since absolute truth is not known to anyone, one is not
competent in punishing or inflicting violence on the other. Ahimsa , non
violence, understood as love for all, thus, forms the core value of the munotes.in
Page 40
Social Political Philosophy
40 pursuit of truth. Gandhi carried his search for non -violence into the realm
of the human mind itself, and asked how one should relate t o one’s
thoughts, beliefs, and feelings in a truly non - violent manner. It was
important to co -ordinate and harmonize one’s ideas, but to systematize
them into a neat and logically coherent theory was to do violence both to
the inherently fluid world of ex perience and to the inescapably tentative
process of thinking itself. It was necessary to hold firm beliefs and pass
judgments on individuals and situations, but one needed to ensure that
these did not do violence to the ambiguities of the subject matter o r to
other ways of looking at it. Distinguishing it from cowardice, Gandhi
explains that the latter is the spirit of fearlessness and immeasurable
strength. Fighting evil does not require physical strength, it requires
indomitable will and unflinching fai th in one own strengths and cause.
Non violence is also different from passive resistance, the latter does not
exclude use of physical violence and is a weapon of the weak. Non
violence on the other hand does not permit violence in any form and is the
weap on of strong willed.
3.11 PACIFISM AND COSMOPOLITANISM: KANTIAN
DEONTOLOGICAL ETHICS
Deontological ethics perspective to pacifism is closely related to absolute
pacifism. Deontological approaches to morality focus on duty, rights and
means (rather than en ds). Kant’s categorical imperative is formulated as
follows:
Act only according to that maxim whereby you can at the same time
will that it should become a universal law.
Act in such a way that you treat humanity, whether in your own person
or in the pers on of any other, never merely as a means to an end, but
always at the same time as an end.
Thus the third practical principle follows (from the first two) as the
ultimate condition of their harmony with practical reason: the idea of
the will of every ratio nal being as a universally legislating will .
The second formulation of the categorical imperative supports the
claims against wars, in wars people are treated as means and does not
respect them as ends in themselves. In Towards Perpetual Peace, Kant
outlines a plan to avoid wars and establish peace. In the preliminary
articles, he states six prohibitive measures to ensure peace.
1) No conclusion to peace shall be considered valid if it leaves scope for
future hostilities.
2) In the name of a peace treaty (and otherwise), no state shall be acquired
by another state by inheritance, exchange, purchase or gift. This is
because each state is an identity by its own that cannot be eliminated
by manipulation of another. munotes.in
Page 41
Just War and Pacifism
41 3) Standing armies have to abolished, for they constantly threaten other
states with war by the fact that they are always prepared for it.
4) Kant said that no national debt must be contracted in connection with
external affairs of the state. The credit system is used by the powerful
and could become an instrument of aggression as the increasing debt
can only be settled when industry and trade receive a stimulus
benefitin g the powerful, creating conditions conducive for war.
5) No state can forcibly interfere in the constitution and governing of
another state as it makes the autonomy of other states insecure.
6) No act of aggression or hostility can make future peace imp ossible,
such as employment of assassins, prisoners, breach of agreement and
instigation to treason. This is because such actions will make peace
impossible and hostilities in war may lead to extermination. These are
prohibitive laws.
He then draws out the positive role of the states through the three
definitive articles of peace. Kant states that since the state of nature is that
which constantly threatens with hostilities, a state of peace needs to be
formally instituted for suspension of hostilities Thi s is a civil state that is
republican in nature and founded upon three principles. “First the principle
of freedom to all members of the society (as men), second the principle of
dependence of everyone upon a single legislation (as subjects) and lastly
principle of legal equality for everyone (as citizens)”. This body alone can
establish what is peaceful and right because a war can be declared only on
the basis of the consent of the people. People will inevitably not be keen
to start wars, as they would wa nt to refrain from the evils of fighting,
incurring expenditure for war and bearing debts.
The second article states that the federation of free states is to be instituted
where “each nation, for the sake of its own security, can and ought to
demand of oth ers that they should enter… into a constitution, similar to
the civil one...”. This is a federation of peoples which is different from an
international state. The idea of an international state involves a relation
between superior and inferior, but the fe deration of states is one whole
single nation that involves no relation between the legislature and any
state obeying laws. It is also not like a peace treaty that eliminates one
war: it is an arrangement to end all wars. It does not aim to acquire power
like a state but it aims to preserve and secure the freedom of each state in
itself. It is thus impossible to conceive of peace without a union of civil
society, a free federation where nations place their confidence in rights
instituted to maintain peace. International right become meaningful if it is
instituted by a federation of this kind. It does not include the right to go to
war since the latter is not based on universally valid external laws, but on
one-sided maxims backed by physical force. It would only result in human
beings believing that it is perfectly just to go to war and to find peace only
in the grave. Kant believed that unless people give up their lawlessness
and submit themselves to coercive public laws of an international state
that embra ces all life, there cannot be peace. munotes.in
Page 42
Social Political Philosophy
42 The third definitive article of peace states that cosmopolitan right is
limited to conditions of universal hospitality: “… hospitality is the right of
the stranger not to be treated with hostility when he arrives on some one
else’s territory”. One need not be turned away with hostility or into
circumstances causing one’s death as long as one behaves peacefully.
They may only claim the right to stay as all human beings are entitled to
present themselves in a society of othe rs by virtue of their right to
communal possessions of the earth’s surface. This right to resort is
justified as no one has more rights than others for the earth’s surface.
3.12 WAR, PACIFISM AND FEMINISM:CARE ETHICS
PERSPECTIVES
Feminist perspectives hav e generally been neglected in discussions of war,
justice and pacifism, though there is a close connection as both are
committed to establishing peace and a non - violent society (though some
forms of pacifism is committed to minimal violence). Carol Gillig an in her
book In a Different Voice argued that justice ethics is abstract and
retributive in nature, it has generally dominated all political philosophical
theories (as seen in discussions above). Alternatively, she suggests care
ethics, it is a relationa l approach to morality and favours values of
particularity, interconnectedness, dynamic nature of relationships that are
not necessarily freely chosen. The care perspective argues that values like
“autonomy” (generally associated with men) and “vulnerabili ty”
(generally associated with women and children) are constructed through
the constitution of dominant, unequal and oppressive social relations,
norms and discourses. The ethic of care, exposes threats and exclusions
caused by structures of domination, op pression, paternalism and patriarchy
that open possibility of future violence. Fiona Robinson in her book The
Ethics of Care: Feminist Approach to Human Security, explains that The
feminist care lens, thus, becomes important for the following reasons -
Firstly, the care perspective lays a great deal of importance on the
recognition and acceptance of values such as dependence and vulnerability
(not justice) in determining specific social political contexts, moral and
political responsibilities. Thus, it sugg ests that dealing with violence
requires one to pay attention those people who are rendered vulnerable by
such acts and address the care needs that arise from them. This is in
contrast to peace initiatives that lay emphasis on punishments and
compensations after war that least acknowledge the experience of loss and
pain due to wars. Secondly, the focus of care ethics on relationality, allows
for the possibility of seeing relations as constantly shifting, thus
differences and disagreements are not necessaril y obstacles rather
productive of new identities and responsibility. Such an approach resists
violent tendencies of violence caused by assimilation, often resulting in
wars. Recognition of difference thus becomes a fundamental position for
creating a politi cs of peace and resolution. Thirdly, as stated by Iris
Murdroch states in her book, Existentialists and Mystics: Writings on
Philosophy, morality is not just about action; it can also be about learning
how to wait, be patient, trust, and listen. “The ethic s of care provides the munotes.in
Page 43
Just War and Pacifism
43 basis for this approach to international relations that rejects the idea of
peacebuilding as immediate progress towards peace; rather, care ethics
displays a commitment to a slow process of listening to needs, building
trust, and reb uilding relations and institutions for the long -term well -being
of societies”. Thus, it stresses on the need for long term moral frameworks
for building of non -violent society. Thus, care ethics does not build a
blueprint or a normative theory of global pe ace and justice in traditional
sense, it provides critical methods and tools for exploring moral relations
to construct inclusive global politics.
3.13 BROAD QUESTIONS
1) Explain the justifications of war provided by MichealWalzer in his
theory of just and u njust wars?
2) Discuss Walzer’s account of Jus ad bellum (Right to War) and Jus in
bello (Justice during Wars).
3) Explain the relevance of the just war theory for international societies.
4) Write an exposition on Walzer’s theory of Jus post bellum (Justice
after w ars) and its implications on prospects of peace.
5) What is pacifism? Explain in detail it’s different types.
6) Write a note on transformational pacifism and non violence from
Gandhian Perspective.
7) Elaborate pacifism and cosmopolitanism from the Kantian
deont ological ethical perspective.
8) Explain the feminist care ethics perspective as a critique of the
different notions of pacifism.
3.14 SUGGESTED READINGS
Aron, Raymond. Peace and War: A Theory of International Relations.
Trans. Richard Howard and Annette Bake r Fox. London: Weidenfeld
and Nicholson. 1962
Dunne, Tim. Issues in World Politics. Ed. Brian White, Richard Little
and Michael Smith. London: Palgrave Mcmillan, 2005.
Gandhi, Mohandas K.Non -Violence in Peace and War 1942 –1949,
New York: Garland Press. 19 72.
Lazar, Seth and Helen Frowe. The Oxford Handbook of Ethics in War ,
Oxford: Oxford University Press. 2018 munotes.in
Page 44
Social Political Philosophy
44 Pugh, Michael. “Peacekeeping and Humanitarian Intervention.” Issues
in World Politics. Ed. Brian White, Richard Little and Michael Smith.
London: P algrave Mcmillan 2005.
Tuck, Richard. The Rights of War and Peace: Political Thought and
the International Order from Grotius to Kant.New York: Oxford
University Press, 2002.
Walzer, Michael. Just and Unjust Wars. 4th Edition. New York: Basic
Books, 2006.
--Arguing About War. London: Yale University Press, 2004.
munotes.in
Page 45
45 4
ENGAGING DIVERSITY
Unit Structure
4.0 Objectives
4.1 Introduction
4.2 Philosophical perspective on multiculturalism
4.2.1 Bhikkhu Parekh's multiculturalism
4.2.2 Problems of immigrant culture
4.2.3 Critique of Multiculturalism - Brian Barry
4.3 Rights of Refugees and Rights of Immigrants – Michael Dummett
4.4 Orientalism -Postcolonial critique of the European representation of
the Orient - Edward Said
4.5 Summery
4.6 Questions
4.7 Suggested reading
4.0 OBJECTIVES
To respect and appreciate cultural diversity
To promote the understanding of unique cultural and ethnic heritage
To facilitate acquisition of the attitudes, skills, and knowledge to
function in various cultures
To understand Bhikkhu Parekh's viewson multiculturalism
To know Michael Dummett’s thoughts on Rights of Refugees and
Rights of Immigrants
To understand Edward Said's doctrine of Orientalism
4.1 INTRODUCTION
In a globally interconnected world, it is ethically and practically crucial to
develop an awareness and understanding of differences. By gaining
knowledge about diversity and public scholarship, your understanding of
the social contexts that frame our communication and collaboration with
one another will be extended, and your ability to respond to cultural
challenges enhanced. In this chapter we will study the concept of munotes.in
Page 46
Social Political Philosophy
46 multiculturalism particularly multiculturalism of Bhikkhu Parekh, it’s
critique by Brian Barry, Michael Dummett’s thoughts o n Rights of
Refugees and Rights of Immigrants and concept of orientalism with
special reference to Edward Said.
4.2 PHILOSOPHICAL PERSPECTIVE ON
MULTICULTURALISM
The doctrine of multiculturalism not only recognizes different cultural
groups as well as oth er types of people within a society, but states that
none of them should be considered superior or inferior.
Today, multicultural societies coexist in many countries of the world, with
people from many cultures, as well as groups that draw themselves apart
from others.
The doctrine of multiculturalism inspires multiculturalism in any
community and develops a sense of mutual respect.
There are two levels of implementation for multiculturalism.
1. Tolerance within different cultures of the country
2. Equal civil re cognition
For example, in India, people of all castes, religions and creeds are given
equal status in the province.
The term multicultural was first used in the United States in the late
nineteenth century to refer to the legitimate part of the Judeo -Ameri can
and Irish communities.
(After the Europeans came to America after the fifteenth century, a
multicultural community was formed there)
If a country has multicultural communities living together but the spirit
of multiculturalism is not developing, then t hat country will be shattered.
Yugoslavia is a case in point. Lacking a sense of multiculturalism,
Yugoslavia split into seven.
Bhikkhu Parekh
Bhikkhu Parekh was born in Gujarat in 1935. After graduating from the
University of Mumbai, he did research at the London School of
Economics. Bhikkhu Parekh held important positions. He was the
Chancellor of Vadodara University. Future of Multi Ethnic UK
4.2.1 Bhikkhu Parekh's multiculturalism
Bhikkhu Parekh presents three characteristics of culture.
1. Every human being is culturally bound to his culture. Man is identified
by his culture. munotes.in
Page 47
Engaging Diversity
47 2. No culture is completely good or completely bad. Each culture
shoul d have its own independent development opportunity. Because
culture is an integral part of one's life
3. Every culture must be inherently democratic. At the same time, every
culture should be ready for proper improvement and change.
For any culture to survive , it needs to be inclusive, democratic and
reformist.
According to Bhiku Parikh, multiculturalism is nothing more than the
harmony of these three traits.
4.2.2 . Problems of immigrant culture
Migration causes some problems when one culture merges with anoth er.
Parik says the state should take steps to address such issues.
1. Give equal importance to all cultural groups.
2. Immigrants should adapt to the culture of the country they are going to.
3. Therefore there should be separate culture for individual sector an d
private sector. So there should be a different culture for the public
sector. For example, everyone should follow the policy of the nation
regarding equal citizenship code.
Problems arising in a multicultural society
Dominance of the majority culture: Th e effect of the cultural domination
debate is seen at different levels. For example, when deciding what the
language of a nation should be, the language of the majority becomes the
national language, and the influence of cultural hegemony is evident when
making a law. It becomes easier to legislate according to the culture in
which there are more people in Parliament.
Conflicts arise in cultural groups over the superiority -inferiority of culture. To
solve this, Bhikkhu Parikh formulates a dialectical theory . According to this
theory, inter -cultural dialogue is brought about through culture. Only
communication can solve problems. Communication is the key to success.
Everyone should try to overcome the problems in their culture by recognizing
and acknowledging them. No problem in our culture, this language is a
hindrance to intercultural communication. So, by generously acknowledging
the problems in one's own culture, one should create harmony and
harmony among oneself. Controversy arises from a radical role. Therefore,
one should leave such attitude and be ready for change with an open mind.
Problems within the culture can also be solved in this way. For example,
in a culture where women are subjected to indiscriminate atrocities, s uch
culture should be changed by its members. Without it, cultural destruction
is inevitable. Every culture has to give up the problematic part of its
culture. This principle can be applied to all minorities. This is not limited to
immigrants. It is also u seful for minorities. munotes.in
Page 48
Social Political Philosophy
48 If a culture distinguishes itself from other cultures, then the communication
between it and other cultures ends. The reason why a culture thus neutralizes
itself is because of the skepticism in their minds. They think that if we mix
with others, our culture will be destroyed and it will not have an
independent identity or it will be polluted.
It must be acknowledged that no culture is perfect. We can learn something
from the culture of others. Culture is also a medium of learning. Bhi kkhu
Parekh has something to say here that you should have the generosity to
accept good thoughts coming from anyone.
According to Bhiku Parikh, multiculturalism cannot be created in a
country by simply granting equal citizenship to all minorities, immigra nts,
but it requires the acceptance of every culture by the society, respect and
esteem of every culture. If there is a feeling in a culture that we are
different from here, then it cannot be called multiculturalism. If the
majority is pursuing their own g oals, it is natural for such sentiments to
arise. It is said that the Negro community in the United States as well as
the Muslim community in India and the Asian and Caribbean communities
in England saw this trend. This sentiment is an obstacle to building a
multicultural nation.
Demands for unity and diversity of multicultural communities should be
combined in such a way that political unity can be established even in the
absence of cultural unity. From this, citizens should have loyalty towards
the societ y, but also respect for other cultures. Bhiku Parekh says that all
minorities should get their cultural rights.
4.2.3 Critique of Multiculturalism - Brian Barry :
The first point that Brian Berry makes, is that multiculturalism must
always be considered in terms of Community.
We live in a society and this society has its identity as one group which we
call as nation.
When we say one nation it means that everything has to be equal for all
members of that nation. This is called as egalitarian policy. This means that
if no discrimination will be made on the basis of caste, class, creed, colour
and gender, no special rights or privileges will be given for the same,
everyone belonging to the same nation will have equal opportunity in
every aspect of progress that the nation makes. on the flip side this also
means that dress, manners, customs, festivals, holidays and whatever that
is traditionally and culturally relevant to a particular group will not be a part
of national agenda. Tradition, culture and religio n are private matters and
are to be strictly kept within the boundaries of the family. Second is the
judicial system there will be a uniform Civil Code accepted all over the
nation uniformly law system would be based on social sciences and not on
religious customs. Immigrants can be a part of the nation if they are ready
to give up there cultural identity and accept the national identity. A
dialogue between cultures however constructive can never resolve
differences. There are going to be traditions which w ill be in absolute munotes.in
Page 49
Engaging Diversity
49 contrast to another. The best way to solve this is to have one uniform
judicial system and culture must be made insignificant. the best state
would be that in which all its citizens have one national identity and no
cultural diversity.
Criticism:
Brian Berry ignores that each individual is a product of a particular
culture. It is culture that gives identity to a person his perception develops
both personality and character. if cultural identity is destroyed an
individual will be without a face and a voice.
A person occupying the top political office would make laws for the
nation. Which would always be an unconscious pr oduct of his own culture,
Of his upbringing. As the top most people change so will the laws.
4.3. RIGHTS OF REFUGEES AND RIGHTS OF
IMMIGRANTS – MICHAEL DUMMETT :
Professor Dummet’s incisive reflection on the plight of refugees bring
forth the urgency of th e need to challenge the anti immigrants ethos past
developing across the world. Published as a part of aptly named series
'thinking in action', this book is a timely reminder of the resist
underpinnings of some of the policies of the state on immigration. in no
uncertain terms this little gem of a book show how the clarity of a
philosopher’s arguments can remove the cobwebs of muddled thinking that
often of skewer a proper understanding of political and social problems. it
informs us, stimulated us and insp ires us to act on behalf of some of the
most ill treated of all peoples: the much maligned asylum seekers.
The book takes some of the principles that ought to govern attitudes to
immigrants and refugees. These include the right to be a first class citizen
and its complement that no state or to take race, religion or language as
essential to its identity. The first principle enjoins upon the state the duty
of protection of all citizens and the responsibility of ensure that no citizen is
persecuted, oppressed or discriminated against. Everyone has a right, argues
Dummett, to live in a country in which he can fully identify himself with the
state under whose sovereignty that country falls. The question of whether he
lives under such a state “is ultimately decided by whether that individual
feels that he belongs .” this is a stringent criterion and it rests the burden of
proof of non persecution and non discrimination upon the state of which the
individual may flee to a safer country. The second pr inciple prohibits the
use by a state of race, religion or language as essential to the identity of its
citizens because otherwise it will risk reducing some of those living under
its jurisdiction to 2nd class citizens. This general principle is a useful to ol with
which to challenge the home Secretary, David blunkett’s present policy of
continuing to press for making proficiency in English a test of British
citizenship.
With due regard to the rights of those already living in the host country
Dummett grants that there ought to be 'a right not to be submerged.’ it is munotes.in
Page 50
Social Political Philosophy
50 important not to misread this important point. Several examples from
across the world where oppressive regimes attempted to submerge existing
populations with mass intake of people from other coun tries show how
colonial authorities made a bid to submerge local populations. In Malaya
and fizzy in East Timor and Tibet, the government systematically tried to
obliterate minorities. Given that such a danger of being submerged may
be true and present in some places, we need to make a considered
judgment about its existence in particular host country in the light of facts
about migration. Britain, however, does not face such a danger.
The general point that emerges and is worth reflection is that while any
country has the right to limit immigration, if it’s indigenous population has
the serious danger of being rapidly overwhelmed, gradual influx is not a
threat. Balancing a consideration for the legitimate fears of the citizens of
the host country with the needs of the refugees is the next step.
Underscoring the right of every human being to refugee from persecution,
which is an accepted ground for asylum according to the 1951 Geneva
Convention, Dummett provides a bold interpretation. he argues that all
conditions That deny someone the ability to live where is in minimal
conditions For a decent human life ought to be grounds For claiming
refuge elsewhere.
His powerful argument is based on the premise that to refuse help to others
suffering from or th reatened by injustice is to collaborate with that
Injustice, and so incorrect part of the responsibility for it. Thus, he supports
a presumption in favour of freedom of entry that is each state ought to
admit refugees unless it can give valid reasons for r efusal.
Very few reasons for refusal are valid. Contrary to popular perception,
shamelessly laced with racist propaganda, demographic profiles show that
the EU needs 53 Lac people of working age from outside to compensate for
the changing Ratio of working to elderly populations. The current ratio of
working to elderly population of 4:1 will fall to 2:1 by 2050 Jeopardizing
the welfare system based on calculations of the ratio 5:1. so there is
actually a need for an intake of working people.
Countering yet another common misperception that Britain take to many
refugees, Dummett reminds us that countries that have taken most refugees
are Pakistan, Ethiopia and Sudan. he also highlights the appalling rate of
acceptances says of asylum applications (%) by the U K in 1996:
From Sri Lanka Zaire Somalia
UK 0.2 1 0.4
Canada 82 76 81
If the same international criteria are used, clearly these variations
between the UK and there of a difference in the subjective judgment of
immigrations officials. munotes.in
Page 51
Engaging Diversity
51 As many readers will concur from personal experiences of friends and
family, even brief visits are often turned down. in 1997, 30% of would be
visitors from Ghana were refused entry in the UK compared to 0.18% from
Australia. However, a U turn is possible, just as it was for Canada. like
Australia, with its white Australia policy, Canada too had racist
immigration policies before 1970s.
Britain also att empts to use the device Dummet t aptly describes as 'the
most morally squalid’ of all devices of discouraging refugees by inciting
prejudice against them. this attitude is manifest in the constant labeling of
asylum seekers as ‘bogus’ or merely, 'economic migrants.' the books
traces how deeply rooted in the history of British racism are today’s
attitu des two asylum seekers.
Professor Dummet’s arguments pave the way for demanding radical
changes in the institutions that govern and control the movement of people
fleeing from persecution. this little book deserves wide reading by the
general public, as we ll as campaigners for human rights, specifically the
supporters of the rights of refugees and asylum seekers. academics, not
persuaded to pick it up on the merits of its impeccable logical reasoning
and laudable political motivations, might consider drawin g inspiration on
how to write on an urgent practical issue of public interest lucidly,
succinctly, persuasively and courageously.
4.4 ORIENTALISM -POSTCOLONIAL CRITIQUE OF
THE EUROPEAN REPRESENTATION OF THE
ORIENT -EDWARD SAID
Orientalism: Orientalism is the attitude of Western thinkers towards the
people of the East. Orientalists are Western thinkers who study the
language, history, literature, ideology and social life of the people of the
region, which includes Asia, North Africa and India. Thus it is impor tant
to know the concepts of Orient, Orientalist and Orientalism while
understanding Orientalism.
It is sometimes misunderstood that those who live in the Orient are
Orientalists, but that is not the case. Those who study the East, despite living
in the West, are called Orientalists. People living in the west are called
oxidants. Oxidant is the opposit e of Orient.
In the early days of colonialism, when the United States was nowhere in
the US world, and the British and French colonies were in Asia, they had
adopted an imperialist policy. The British had more colonies than France.
It is said that these pe ople came there without any knowledge of the
colony, but they thought that wherever we went, we would gain knowledge
by studying books in their native language, their literature, history,
philosophy, language etc. The colonists studied the literature of th e East
and after studying it they realized that we are superior in all respects, our
history is superior. These thinkers, the Orientalists, then described them in
their own way. In this, he mainly considered his own history as superior.
They described the people of the East as rude, savage, cobra -playing, munotes.in
Page 52
Social Political Philosophy
52 monkey -playing, undeveloped, and described the Westerners as superior
and developed.
After the end of World War I, however, the study of Orientalism spread
from Europe to the USA. He studied in many depart ments of social
sciences. The United States, however, tried to make Orient a reality. The
views of British and French thinkers began to be treated.
Edward W. Said:
Edward Said, an Arab Christian scholar, formulated the doctrine of
Orientalism. Born in 1935 , Said received his early education in Egypt. But
then he went to America. He later became a lecturer in the US. He later
became a professor at Columbia University. He studied the literature,
culture and social life of the East and the West. He was a very studious
person. In 1978 he authored a book, Orientalism. But their layout was
different. He says that Orientalism is the structure of Western thinkers.
That is, Western thinkers who are known as Orientalists have consciously
described the history, culture , literature, folklore, etc. of the East in their
own way. In it, he has mainly described them as uneducated, rude,
undeveloped and in comparison, he has considered himself as well -
educated, developed and civilized. It shows his attitude of proving his
superiority and despising others. According to Said, it is true that
Westerners studied the East, but their views on the East were not based on
any definite theoretical basis. These thoughts are unjust and arbitrary. It
is written with the prejudice that the people of the East are uneducated
and rude.
According to Said, Orientalists began to imitate Eastern art in the
eighteenth century. Through poems, pictures, music, stories, etc., he
created a picture of the East in the minds of the people. He created the
image as he read it. But according to Said, reading does not reveal the
whole truth. On partial knowledge, they created an image of the East, that
these people are like that. Like the books he read in the nineteenth century, he
translated these books into English for the world. Just as they had partial
knowledge, their motives were not pure. They wanted to prove their
superiority by underestimating the people of the East. They wanted to
cover up the atrocities and injustices being inflicted on them by showi ng
that we have come here to develop these uncivilized, uneducated,
undeveloped people as civilized, educated and developed. At the same
time, they wanted to dominate the East.
While these people from the East are making unrealistic depictions, the
people from the East live naked, play with snakes and monkeys, the women
here do belly dance. Describing Central Asia, the Muslims here trade in oil
and how they are extremists, oppressors of women, keep many women as
concubines.
Said, however, challenges this an d says that this policy is a conspiracy of
Orientalists. They want to prove their superiority and support their own
colonial policy. Once it is proven that these Westerners are superior, then
it is self -evident that they are worthy of domination. From the nineteenth munotes.in
Page 53
Engaging Diversity
53 century onwards, French and British colonialists dominated the East. After
World War II, however, the United States replaced them.
In 1978, Edward Said's book Orientalism was published. In this book,
Edward Said has given his above views on Orie ntalism. In it, he says,
colonialism was not just about ruling, it was about trying to show how
Western nations are superior to the East.
This book is divided into three parts: 1. Scope of Orientalism
2.Orientalistic structure and restructure 3. Orientalis m now
According to Said, the book is a realistic political approach. The first section
describes how the westerners ruled over the eastern nations and what the
eastern conditions were like at that time.
The second section deals with the manner in which Wes terners imposed
their views on the people of the East, how they colonized in the name of
reform under the guise of trade, Orientalist writings on the East.
The third section analyses modern Orientalism. Also discussed is British
and French Orientalism. In this book, Said discusses racism along with
Orientalism. Westerners used to discriminate (black -white) with Easterners.
Always pretending to be a liberal and supporting violence. Said says that
colonialism came to an end but colonial thinking remained the same. It did
not end when the United Nations came to power. The colonialists left but
left their thoughts in the minds of the people. Orientalist writers did not
make a real vision of the East. The good things of the nations that were
ruled by the West are not consciously shown. It just showed that we ruled
and tried to uplift these people. In this book, Said has exposed them. In the
end, Said says, we can better organize our history and culture. No one
knows you better than you do. So the people of the Eas t should write on their
own. According to Said, the East has its own beauty.
4.5 SUMMERY
The doctrine of multiculturalism inspires multiculturalism in any
community and develops a sense of mutual respect. Tolerance and equal
civil recognition is essential in multiculturalism. If a country has
multicultural communities living together but the spirit of
multiculturalism is not developing, then that country will be shattered.
According to Bhiku Parikh, for any culture to survive, it needs to be
inclusive, democratic and reformist. According to Bhiku Parikh,
multiculturalism requires the acceptance of every culture by the society,
respect and esteem of every culture. It must be acknowledged that no
culture is perfect. We can learn something from the culture of others.
Culture is also a medium of learning. While criticizing multiculturalism, Brian
Barry says, a dialogue between cultures however constructive can never
resolve differences. There are going to be traditions which will be in
absolute contrast to another. To have one uniform judicial system and munotes.in
Page 54
Social Political Philosophy
54 culture must be made insignificant, is the solution. All citizens of the state
have one national identity and no cultural diversity.
Prof. M. Dummett supports a presumption in favour of freedom of entry
that is each state ought to admit refugees unless it can give valid reasons
for refusal. Very few reasons for refusal are valid. Professor Dummet’s
arguments pave the way for demanding radical ch anges in the institutions
that govern and control the movement of people fleeing from persecution.
Orientalism is the attitude of Western thinkers towards the people of the
East. Those who study the East, despite living in the West, are called
Orientalists . The Orientalists, then described them in their own way. In
this, They mainly considered their own history as superior and the people
of the East inferior. According to Edward Said, it is true that Westerners
studied the East, but their views on the East were not based on any definite
theoretical basis. These thoughts are unjust and arbitrary. It is written
with the prejudice that the people of the East are uneducated and rude.
Once it is proven that these Westerners are superior, then it is self -evident
that they are worthy of domination. Orientalist writers did not make a real
vision of the East. The good things of the nations that were ruled by the
West are not consciously shown. It just showed that we ruled and tried to
uplift these people. So Said sugg ests, the people of the East should write on
their own.
4.6 QUESTIONS
1. Explain Bhikkhuparekh’s view on multiculturalism.
2. How Brian Barry criticize multiculturalism?
3. Explain the thoughts of Edward Said about Orientalist in brief.
4. Briefly elaborate Michael Dummett's thought about Rights of Refugees and
Rights of Immigrants.
5. Write short notes on:
Multiculturalism
Orientalism
Rights of Immigrants
4.7 SUGGESTED READING
Charles Taylor “The Politics of Recognition” in Colin Farrelly (ed)
Contemporary Po litical
Theory: A Reader (Sage Publishers, 2004)
Bhiku Parekh. “Equality of Difference” in Colin Farrelly (ed)
Contemporary Political Theory:
A Reader (Sage Publishers, 2004) munotes.in
Page 55
Engaging Diversity
55 Brian Barry, “Liberalism and Multiculturalism” in Ethics
George Crowder, Theori es of Multiculturalism: AnIntroduction,
chapter 3
Bill Ashcroft and Pal Ahluwalia, Edward said (Routledge Critical
Thinkers Series) chapter 3.
Moustafa Bayoumi and Andrew Rubin (ed.) The Edward Said
Reader chapter 4.
Michael Dummett Immigration and Refugee s Routledge London
and New York, 2001 (chapters 1 -5)
munotes.in