The psychology behind Gandhian concept of violence and nonviolence |
- Sonali Tandon*AbstractThis research paper tries to identify the relationship between Mahatma Gandhi’s principle of non-violence and the discipline of psychology. The researcher initiates by describing the concept of violence according to Gandhi and then moves on to its understanding through a psychological perspective. Further, the researcher discusses Gandhi’s idea of non-violence and its understanding through a psychological lens. This paper tries to compare Gandhian ideology and psychological concepts. Gandhi’s tactic of conflict resolution-satyagraha is also briefly discussed. Later, the researcher gives applications of Gandhian concepts in psychology. INTRODUCTION"Violence is the weapon of the weak, non-violence that of the strong". Violence has been with us from the beginnings of life on earth and is likely to continue in one form or another. Violence is found in and used against all forms of life. Animals and fish kill other animals and fish for food- sometimes even their own species. Of course, man has hunted animals both for both, fun and food. Man's cruelty and violence against fellow-man is well-known from time immemorial. In today’s time when we hear about some or the other form of violence happening around us, Gandhi’s principles of non-violence seem fading away. The researcher’s classroom learning’s of Gandhi and his ideology interested her in researching about this topic. Moreover, coming from the discipline of psychology she thought of giving it a psychological bent and looked for works done on Gandhi’s concept of violence, non-violence in relation to psychology. In this research paper we deal with the question of what is Gandhi’s concept of violence and non-violence and how it is related to psychological theories. This paper is divided into four parts. The first part deals with what is violence and the psychology of violence? The second part talks about non-violence and the psychology of non-violence? Then in the third part we discuss conflict resolution and in the fourth part we conclude by giving the application of Gandhian concept in psychology. On a whole, the researcher tries to find missing links and adds some new concepts. VIOLENCEGandhi did not present his views on violence in a systematic form. On the surface, Gandhi seems to take a contradictory position on violence. On the one hand, Gandhi claims that a world devoid of violence is not possible. Violence will always be an aspect of reality. Violence exists between individuals, within the social order and in external phenomena, such as floods and tornadoes. Gandhi holds: "There is violence at the root of every act of reality. He states "None, while in the flesh, can thus be entirely free from himsa … every seeker after the truth has to . . . make a ceaseless endeavour to reduce the circle of himsa. In setting out this position Gandhi appears to have a realist's view of violence. On the other hand Gandhi often makes statement like “I object to violence,” which appear to be at odds with his view that violence is inevitable. The apparent contradiction between the view that violence is a permanent fact of life and the idea that violence is an absolute moral blight disappears when one realizes that Gandhi uses the concept of violence in different ways. For example, when Gandhi states that he objects to violence, he is referring to certain categories of violence such as murder and war. He recognizes that other forms of violence, such as killing plants and animals for food, are, to some degree, inevitable. [2] Gandhi was disturbed by the fact that as we become civilized we casually rationalise violence. He accepted the use of violence under unbearable conditions but rejected its deliberate usage as a method of social change. According to Gandhi, Man is basically good and violence denied this idea. Also Gandhi believes that violence doesn’t give lasting results. The good it does is temporary whereas the bad it does is permanent. Gandhi nowhere gives a concise definition of violence, but in his writings about the sources of violence and war, an implicit theory of violence emerges. Gandhi's writings convey the notion of a moral continuum onto which he places four categories of violence. At one end is unavoidable violence, which receives no moral condemnation from Gandhi. At the other end is objectionable violence based purely on aggression and wrongdoing, violence which Gandhi consistently and unhesitatingly condemns. PSYCHOLOGY OF VIOLENCEGandhi states: "Violence and nonviolence are mental attitudes; they concern the feeling in our heart." In other words, for Gandhi, the psychology of violence is related to its morality. Thus, ideas such as attachment, appetite, desire and self-interest are key to analysing the level of violence in any act. Gandhi’s unavoidable category of violence has purely physiological sources. In Gandhi’s view the physical body itself represents violence. Here Gandhi is concerned about violence in its absolute form, which he would define as killing or injuring any living organism. Not only are these acts of violence unavoidable, they often occur without the perpetrator's knowledge. It is necessary for the existence of the human body, thus for human life itself. Gandhi claims that it is because of their bodily existence that human beings cannot practise perfect ahimsa. Gandhi argues that it is permissible to engage in a minimal level of violence to satisfy the appetites of necessity which prevent famine and death. This type of violence is not morally objectionable.[2] This view of Gandhi can be understood in terms of Abraham Maslow’s hierarchy of needs model. Maslow says that unless the lower physiological needs are fulfilled, one can’t achieve the higher needs of self-esteem, self-actualization etc. When these lower physiological needs are not fulfilled one becomes frustrated which leads to anger and anger may ultimately turn into violence. Another explanation comes from McClelland’s theory of motivation. According to this theory there are three motivators which all of us have: need for achievement, need for affiliation and need for power. The characteristics of a person with high need for power are that they want to control and influence others, win arguments and enjoy status and recognition. High need for power mostly have negative effects on human nature. They do not mind playing a zero-sum game, where, for one person to win, another must lose and collaboration is not an option. Because of this high need for power one can exploit others, which is considered a kind of violence by Gandhi. Gandhi's psychology of violence is influenced by Indian thought- of central importance are the ideas of attachment and desire. According to the Gita, the roots of violence are psychological: When a man dwells in his mind on objects of sense, attachment to them is produced. From attachment springs desire, and from desire comes anger. From anger arises bewilderment, from bewilderment loss of memory, from loss of memory the destruction of intelligence; and from the destruction of intelligence he perishes. But a man of discipline of mind, who moves among the objects of sense, with the senses under control and free from attachment and aversion — he attains purity of spirit. In accordance with the Gita s emphasis on psychology, Gandhi determines the wrongfulness of a violent act by the extent to which it is motivated by attachment and desire. Gandhi states: There is violence always in the attachment to one's ego. When doing anything, one must ask oneself this question: "Is my action inspired by egoistic attachment?" If there is no such attachment, then there is no violence.[2] Similar to this, the attachment theory, originated with the seminal work of John Bowlby, states that a strong emotional and physical attachment is necessary for the personal development of human beings. If this attachment is not given the person becomes anxious, insecure and exhibits attention seeking behaviour like anger. NON-VIOLENCEAhimsa (non-violence) for Gandhi is the basic law of our being. That is why it can be used as the most effective principle for social action, since it is in deep accord with the truth of man’s nature and corresponds to his innate desire for peace, justice, order, freedom and personal dignity. Since himsa (violence) degrades and corrupts man, to meet force with force and hatred with hatred only increases man’s progressive degeneration. Non-violence on the contrary heals and restores man’s nature, while giving him a means to restore social order and justice. Ahimsa is not a policy for the seizure of power. It is a way of transforming relationships so as to bring about peaceful transfer of power, affected freely and without compulsion by all concerned, because all have come to recognize it as right. Non-violence implies as complete self-purification as in humanly possible.[1] Gandhi says that he knows that the progress of non-violence is terribly slow process but experience has taught him that it is the surest way to the common goal. He states that democracy can only be saved through non-violence, because democracy so long it is sustained by violence, cannot provide for or protect the weak. In Gandhi’s mind, non-violence was not simply a political tactic which was supremely useful in liberating his people for the foreign rule, in order that India might then concentrate on realizing its own national identity. On the contrary, the spirit of non-violence sprang from an inner realization of spiritual unity in him. The whole Gandhian concept of non-violent action and satyagraha is incomprehensible if it is thought to be a means of achieving unity rather than as the fruit of inner unity already achieved. For Gandhi, the first of all and the most of all was the inner unity, the overcoming and healing of inner divisions, the consequent spiritual and personal freedom, of which national autonomy and liberty would only be consequences. PSYCHOLOGY OF NON-VIOLENCEThis view of Gandhi about non-violence reminds me of the humanistic school of thought in psychology. As Gandhi believes that non-violence is more natural to man than violence and is based on man’s natural disposition to love, humanistic approach also believes that people are basically good and have innate need to make themselves and the world better. Like Gandhi gives importance to personal freedom, humanism begins with the existential assumption that people have free will. Just as Gandhi, humanism also gives importance to subjective, conscious experience of the individual. Another theory which helps me in explaining these ideas of Gandhi is social learning theory by Albert Bandura. This theory states that behaviour is learnt from the environment through observations. Therefore, when a man is placed in a violent, unhealthy environment, it learns to be aggressive and violent. Gandhi also says, “ In a man’s disordered condition, violence seems to be the very foundation of social order and is enthroned as if it were an eternal law” so that man is called upon by society to reject love and enter into a mysterious “ higher duty” of presented as sacrificial and inscrutable, and demanded by the law of force. CONFLICT RESOLUTIONA conflict may be said to be a serious disagreement between the opinions or interests of two persons or two groups of persons involved in an issue. Gandhi wanted to evolve a revolutionary approach to political action and social change. His originality lay in the formulation of a new technique of non-violent non-cooperation or Satyagraha for social action. He believed that Satyagraha is an infallible means for resolving all social, political, and economic evils. Satyagraha is Gandhi's technique of non-violent activism. The term has variously been translated as 'passive resistance', 'nonviolent resistance', 'nonviolent direct action', and even 'militant nonviolence'. For Gandhi it was not only a method of con- ducting conflict, it was also a way of life, of living in Truth.[3] Conflict resolution through nonviolent means involves accommodation and conversion of the opponent. Even an element of nonviolent 'coercion' may be present but this too may lead to changes in attitudes in the long run. Through 'conversion', the opponent changes inwardly through the conscience and thus tends to conciliate with the nonviolent activist, leaving no aftermath of resentment or revenge. Gandhi evolved SATYAGRAHA as the most pragmatic and potent technique of conflict resolution and as the morally correct way of life, based on the dialectics of 'conversion' through which alone can Truth, human life's ultimate mission, be approached. In a conflict situation, for Gandhi, there is no other plan than the adherence to nonviolence in thought, word and deed, and no other goal than to reach the truth. Because good ends can never grow out of bad means, the opponent is not forced to expose him or herself to loss.[4] Just as a satyagrahi encourages dialogue with the opponent and allows intermediaries, the social psychology strategy of bargaining or negotiation also allows opposing sides to exchange offers, counteroffers, and concessions, either directly or through representatives. APPLICATIONS OF GANDHIAN CONCEPTS IN PSYCHOLOGY
CONCLUSIONThe purpose of this research paper was to explain Gandhi’s concept of violence and non-violence and to find its relationship with psychology. The research explains violence and relates it with the psychological theory of Abraham Maslow, theory of motivation and theory of attachment. It relates the non-violence concept with humanistic school of thought and the social learning theory of Albert Bandura. The conflict resolution tactic of satyagraha is found to be similar with social psychology concept of negotiation or bargaining. References
* Sonali Tondon, a graduate in psychology honours from Lady Shri Ram College for Women, University of Delhi and currently working with Samsung Research and Development Institute, Bangalore. | Email: sonalitandon98@gmail.com |