Saturday, July 25, 2009

What was Gandhi's intent?

It's not just the social justice crowd that adheres to or at least proclaims that one must "be the change they wish to see in the world". Lots of people advance this idea. But, I wonder, what exactly did Gandhi mean when he said this?

Most of the idea is simple enough "[blank] the change you wish to see in the world", that's pretty straight forward. But what exactly did he mean when he said "be"? I wonder, what was the nature of this imperative. Was it a suggestion, a compulsion to action or simply a state of mind or spirit to be in? Let me explain.

I think there's two ways to interpret the verb in the quotation. The more common understanding, I suspect, is a call to arms by Gandhi. He meant for us to go out and do things in the world. To live the change we wish to see by performing deeds and actions. He meant for us to focus on our actions, strongly. This is a command of the deepest sort--to be--make agitation and action your existence. He meant for us to transform the world through service.

Or did he?

Did Gandhi put character in front of action in his advice? Perhaps Gandhi, when using the verb "be", deliberately did NOT provide a call to arms and instead urged people at an individual level to live more virtuously. In other words, maybe "be" meant to have more character. His advice could have been to live better more noble lives and change the world by living an example that others could follow.

Surely, many will understandably complain about my analysis because Gandhi obviously meant to do both or his idea could reasonably be extended to include both interpretations. But, his primary motivation is what concerns me because it seems to underpin his philosophy on change...what's in the drivers seat, changing institutions or changing people? Again, a complicated question because the two are symbiotic actors.

Which interpretation would Gandhi advocate for?

I bring this up because of some reading I've been doing--The US Army Leadership Field Manual. The Army believes the following: Be, Know, Do. This roughly means, have character, have competence, combine the two through action. For the Army, the two interpretations outlined above are different ideas (Be and Do). I wonder if Gandhi felt the same way.

Nevertheless, this quote has lost so much value when people recite it. I really believe that motivational speakers and the like say it without thinking really critically about what it means. As I hope to have demonstrated above, it can mean radically different things.

2 comments:

Pick said...

An interesting thought I've never really considered, but as I get home at 5am from work and am cracked out on Red Bull, I thought I'd leave thoughts.

My question to you is this: Are one's actions not derived from one's character? People don't blindly join movements without at least thinking (a little bit) about how they fit into them, do they? (I certainly hope not... That would be terrifying.) That being said, it makes sense to me that Gandhi was intending for people to look at the world through their own eyes (for a change, rather than the eyes of another or a party, as was relevant during India's political unrest during Gandhi's lifetime) to see how they really wanted the world to be and subsequently (or consequently?), to start acting in such a manner.

Does that make sense? It's late...

~Pick

Jawojcik said...

Hey Neil,

I read the preview pages online, and I'm going to pick up a copy once I get back home from DC. Two thoughts/suggestions.

First, perhaps being is designed to be up for interpretation. "Be" could be passively setting the example by living a certain way...and being the change in that sense. Holding yourself to morals, standards and a personality, which you would like others to emulate or take parts of. OR, "Be" could mean he desired people to go do and engage and "force" people to appreciate a perspective or lifestyle or change. Maybe there is a melding of these two thoughts as well.

I would offer an organizational psychology concept when reflecting on this. In the Meyers-Briggs survey scale of extroverted vs. introverted, some people prefer passive means of involvement and some prefer active means...both are states of being, and both are tactics/strategies/personalties to accomplishing one task.

Consider how Hoover went with the passive hands off approach to solving economic problems aka "be" meaning passive. Obama seems to be taking the hands on approach to solving economic problems aka "be" meaning active. Either solution is justifiable and sensible to large groups of our population...


Maybe it is just important that we change the world in a way we see fit so that when we sum all our changes together...even when they work against each other...the synergy of that force saves the world.