confluence_2015_g 1..292

40 Pages·2015·0.36 MB·English

Democratic Limitations on
Diversity and Pluralism?
I TheChallengingQuestion
Ihavebeenaskedtoofferaresponsetoamostchallengingquestion:
›What(ifany)limitsoughtdemocraticpluralismimposeondiversity
withinacross-culturalcontext?‹
Inrespondingtothequestionbytakinguptheissuesitraises,I
willnotengageinphilosophicaltheorizinginsearchofanswersinthe
formofuniversallyandnecessarilytrueprinciplesbywhichtodeter-
minetheneedfor,andhowtoimpose,limitationsondemocraticplur-
alism.Rather,Iregardthequestionasanopportunitytojoinothersin
givingthoughttohowbesttoresolvevexingconditionsaffectingas-
sociated living – political life – within, between, and among persons
and groupings of persons comprising socio-political formations of
various forms and scales – including organizations, institutions, and
polities (the latter ranging in size from villages to nation-states) –
that are conditioned, internally and/or through external relations,
bysignificantdiversities(culturalandotherwise).
Considerationsofhowbesttorespondtothequestionshould,in
myjudgment,bedisciplinedbyanunderstandingthatwhether,how,
towhatextent,andbywhomlimitationsmightneedtobe,shouldbe,
imposed on diversity, and imposed democratically, must, as well, be
determinedandimposed,ifatall,democratically.Thatistosay,not
determinedsolelybyanappealto,andonthebasisof,theresultsof
engaginginphilosophicaltheorizinginaquestforguidingprinciples
thought (mistakenly) to be invariant, true, and appropriate univer-
sally, theorizing that purportedly also secures the authority of the
successfultheorizer(s)toimposetheprinciples.Endeavorsofphiloso-
phical theorizing on such an authoritative and authoritarian quest
and endeavors of democratic praxis in political life are two entirely
differententerprises,andaregovernedbyentirelydifferentcriteria,
modesofpraxis,andpossibilitiesofsuccesswithquitedifferentcon-
109
L.T.Outlaw(Jr.) DemocraticLimitationsonDiversityandPluralism?
sequences for affected polities and persons. Such theorizing is not a question.Asacontributiontothisfleshingout,Iofferthefollowing
democraticventure. initialconsiderations.
Therearemany,much-too-longandcontinuing,traditions(mis- First, regarding ›diversity.‹ This is a fundamental characteristic
guided in my judgment, though not in mine alone) of aspiring and of what we have come to ›know,‹ provisionally, about the wee bit of
endeavoring to havephilosophical theorizing about matters political thevastandatpresent,practicallyspeaking,mostlyunknowableuni-
determine and impose ›universal‹ and invariant ›right‹ principles on versewithinwhichourspeciesisbutoneamongmanythatcurrently
theorderingofpoliticallife.Andquiteoften,centraltothistheoriz- persistonplanetearth. (Achievingknowledgebyourownmeansof
ingquesthasbeenthedetermination,therequirement,thattheprin- the existence of other forms of ›life‹ elsewhere throughout the uni-
ciples of ordering displace factors of unessential or ›morally irrele- verse is presently beyond our capabilities.) Our species-existence is
vant‹ diversity in favor of some factor of ›essential‹ sameness in all radically contingent;our possible, probable,likely,and preferredfu-
relevant persons that is to serve as the foundational anchorage to turesaremoreorlessopenanduncertain.Wepersistonaconstantly
whichtheuniversalprinciplesaretobeconnected. changingplanetthatissituatedin,ispartof,adynamicuniversethe
In what follows, then, in the way of an initial response to the time-and-spacedimensionsofwhichfarexceedoureffortsof know-
challengingquestiondirectedtomyattention,Iwillofferconsidera- ing and our practical and other efforts to fully control our lives and
tions that are not at all intended to specify limitations, general or destinies(tosaynothingatallaboutourinabilitytocontrolanyas-
specific, but, rather, considerations of several of the issues most pectsoftheuniversebeyondplanetearth),andwithinwhichthereare
poignantinthequestionthat,Ipropose,mightbeamongthosetaken processesofcoming-to-beandpassing-away–wemightsayprocess
upbypersonsinterestedinthequestionandinvolvedinthinkingand of›emergence,‹›development,‹and›entropy,‹declineleadingtodeath
working through challenges to life in political formations in which –thatarebeyondourcompletecontrol.
the issues carried by the focal question command their attention. Further,ourprecarious,alwayscontingentspecies-persistenceis
What I offer, then, are considerations for democratic discussion and situatedinvariousearth-boundenvironmentallocalesthatcondition,
debate.First,though,moreaboutthechallengingquestion. inverysubstantialwaysandtovaryingextents,ourevolvingembo-
diment and how the necessities for continued living are satisfied
(temporarily), both in contending with the natural world to secure
II ParsingtheQuestion:›Diversity‹and›Pluralism‹ food,clothing,andshelter,andinforgingandsustainingsocialorder
inandthroughwhichtosustainlifeassharedventures.(Andpersis-
The question put to me is pregnant with several notions that have tenceisasharedventure,beyondthecapabilitiesofanylonehuman
referencetocomplicatedconditionsofparticularformsandinstances being.) Having dispersed throughout planet earth and, so far, conti-
ofpoliticallife: ›democraticpluralism,‹thus›democracy‹ andplural- nuing to persist (as a species, particular groupings having come and
ity; ›pluralism‹; ›diversity‹ (same as or different from ›plurality?‹); gone)inandthroughmultipleself-reproducingpopulations,bio-cul-
cross-›culturalcontexts‹;›imposedlimits‹ondiversityby›democratic turalgroup-distinguishingdifferenceshaveemergedandcontinueto
pluralism.‹Importantworkisrequiredtofleshouteachoftheseno- be perpetuated as changing related sets of distinguishing biological
tions,andtounderstandthemintheirrelatednesswithintheconfig- andcultural(bio-cultural)characteristics(evolution).
urationofasinglequestionemergentfromconcernswithparticular Within these diverse groupings, all involved in cross-genera-
historical conditions.And,to mymind, it isimportant, intaking up tionalreproductionandconservation,biologicallyandculturally,our
thequestion,totest,andverifytheadequacyofitsformulationasa species-persistence in different and changing environs is enabled,
means by which to refer to historical conditions of political life by more or less, by developed repertories of learning-enabled capabil-
specifying, as fully as possible, the relevant constitutive particulars ities, more or less refined through further learning, and propagated
of those conditions that give rise to the issues encompassed by the across generations. These repertories are conducive, more or less, to
the forging of forms of ordered living-together while satisfying the
110 111
L.T.Outlaw(Jr.) DemocraticLimitationsonDiversityandPluralism?
necessitiesoflivingandreproductionwithinavarietyofformsoflife (i.e., promoting the evolutionary successes of), the longevity and
in occupied socialized and politicized environs. In other words, by well-beingofthegroupand(atleastsomeof)itsmembers,ofthose
means of learned bio-culturally reproductive living-together, sub- assistedby(atleastsomeof)itsmembers.1Throughinstitutionalized
stantial numbers of our species survive to reproduce and to secure constructions of politicized identities and agendas for the making of
well-beinginvariousformsofassociatedliving,inpolities,onvarious socialized and politicized histories, agendas, and identities that are
terms of association, aided by the formulation, institutionalization, incorporatedintonarrationsof historiesmadeand/orfabricated,and
andpropagationofschemesofmeaning(ideologies;narrationsofori- incorporatedintoprojectionsofpossibleanddesiredfutures,allcon-
gins and missions; religions and theologies; philosophical systems) tingently secured by rationalizations and justifications of prevailing
thataredevisedtodefineandguidetheconstructionandmaintenance and/ordesiredformsofindividualandsharedlifealongwithspecifi-
of the forms of life-stabilizing orderliness, synchronically and dia- cationsofwhichpersonsandsub-groupingswillfulfillrolesofsuper-
chronically,sociallyandpolitically.Thus,thegroupcontinuescross- ordinationandsubordination,becomecharacteristicallydefinitiveof
generationallywhileindividualsconstitutingeachgenerationsubse- persistent,politicizedformsoflifeinequallypoliticizedlocales.Con-
quentlypassaway. sequently,theprocesses,naturalandhuman-made,thatconditionthe
Theagendasguidingsuchconstructedmeaning-schemesarede- forgingofthecontingentorderlinessofexistence–oftheattemptsto
veloped within the various forms of life and prove their veracity by impose order and regularity upon cross-generational coming-to-be
theextenttowhich,beyondsheerchance,individualandsharedlifeis and passing-away – thus give rise to the myriad forms of diversity
sustained. Accordingly, the meaning-ordering agendas structuring andsimilarityofformsofassociatedlifeinandthroughwhichevolu-
andorderinglivesandformsoflifeareconditionedandconditional, tionary bio-cultural processes provide the means by which always
areexperimental,though,asisoftenthecase,theagendastendtobe precarioussurvivalisachievedandsustainedinthecircumstances.
buttressed by ›canopies‹ of meta-meanings, sometimes made sacred, Hence,ourspecies’anthropologicaldiversity,microandmacro–
constructedandinvokedtoprovideprotectionfromcompetitivechal- that is, regarding each individual relative to other individuals (un-
lenges of other agendas and from various forms of entropy (Berger iquely different while sharing species-determining characteristics);
1990). These buttressing efforts become evenmore demanding (and regarding each bio-cultural self-reproducing group relative to other
aregenerallythoughttobenecessarybythosetakingresponsibility suchgroups.(Andofparticularimportance,thissamediversityisan
for protecting the form of life) when individuals, and groupings of importantfactorthatenhancesthespecies’prospectsforevolutionary
individuals,whoarepatriotictokeyaspectsofanorderedformoflife success and persistence.) Thus, the plurality of politicized forms of
enter into competitive relations with other patriots regarding the life,ofsharedagendasforlivingindiversepolities,thoughtheshar-
termsoforderortheguidingagendaofaculturalgrouporpatriotic ingtendsalwaystobeskewedbyunbalanceddistributionsofpower
guardians of a form of life, or when the commanding patriots (lea- amongsubgroupswithinthepoliticizedformsoflife,withinpolities.
ders) of polities enjoin competitive relations with patriots of other Sustainingpolitiesasongoingorderedandstableformsofassociated
polities. Competition developed into strife, warfare, genocide – such lifethusrequiresstrenuouscross-generationalefforts.Amongother
continuestoconstitutetoomuchofthehistoryofourspecies-being. important reasons, because individuals, too, differ. And these differ-
Institutions–institutionalizationsoforderingschemesofmean- encesaremarshaledintocompetingsubgroupsthatbecomesocio-po-
ingandlife-sustainingmodesofpraxis,fortifiedbyschemesofcon- liticallyorderedbyvariousformsofsuperordinationandsubordina-
ceptualizationsandjustifying,legitimating,rationalizationsthatspe- tion that facilitate oppression and exploitation. The hierarchical
cify the roles, the distribution and filling of roles, thus the orderings, and the oppression and exploitation, are always rationa-
distributionofpower,inandthroughwhichsocio-politicallifeisor- lizedbynaturalizingappealstodistinguishingcharacteristicsof both
dered – have emerged from human efforts across centuries as the
principal resource by which to stave off entropy that would lead to
1 For a generalized account of the formation of institutions, of the fortification of
the death of all while sustaining, and even, sometimes, advancing institutionsconceptuallyandsocially,seeBerger,andLuckmann(1967).
112 113
L.T.Outlaw(Jr.) DemocraticLimitationsonDiversityandPluralism?
oppressors and those oppressed, characteristics that are conscripted the ineradicable radical contingency and uncertainty that define our
into religious, theological, philosophical, socio-anthropological, and existence.
political justifications and legitimations of the politicized ordering. Moreover,wehavealsobeenleftwith,andcontinuetoperpetu-
Diversitybecomesaconscriptofinjustice. ate,learningsmal-distributed:thatis,favoringtheexistence-enhan-
Still,diversityisdefinitiveofourspecies-being,andoftheparti- cing learning of some at the expense of others thereby curtailing, if
cularportionoftheknownuniversethat ourspeciesinhabits.›Plur- not endangering, the prospects for success and well-being for vir-
alism,‹inonesense,isatermweuse,whenreferringtosalientdiffer- tually all in a polity, more broadly endangering the prospects for
ences of various kinds among human individuals and human well-beingforourspeciesasawhole.Themal-distributionsoflearn-
groupings, to acknowledge and affirm the anthropological facticity ings and the failures to uptake learnings; that neglect or reject the
ofourspecies-diversities.Amongthesignificantchallengestoforging cultivation of the fullest possible learning by each and all able and
andsustainingformsofassociatedlifeinclusiveofacknowledgeddi- willing to learn; that neglect or reject the cultivation of maximum
versities,socialandindividual,formsthathavebeenorderedonterms opennessofvirtuallyalltothepossibilityoflearningfromeachand
thatmaximizethepossibilitiesforjusticeinassociatedlivingforvir- all, individuals and polities, seriously devalue the potential for life-
tually all without invidious discrimination against particular differ- enhancingcontributionstoprevailingandfutureformsoflife,toour
ences,havebeenthepredominanceofpersistentfailurestolearn,or polities,eventotheevolutionarysuccessesofourspecies,thatcanbe
ourfailuretomaximizewhathasbeenlearnedabout,howtoresolve hadthrougheverwideningdistributionsandsharingsintherichesof
competitive conflicts that block intra-and inter-group learning that the bio-cultural evolutionary successes of our species-diversities al-
enhancesurvivalandwell-beingformorethanafewwhofavorthem- ready produced, that provide important lessons for how to work at
selvesandthosetheyregardas›theirown.‹Ofcourse,therearethe resolvingchallenges,howtocreateandenjoybeauty,howtolivewell
challengesimposedbythestudied,sometimesmurderousdetermina- soastoenhancetheprospectsforprolongingourspecies-being.
tions of the few within polities in which they exert dominance to
preserve their positions of superordination, in some cases through
socially organized (and in some instances violence-backed) propaga- III ›Diversity,‹›Democracy,‹›Limitations‹
tionofideologicalpredominance,inothersthroughbiologicalsucces-
sionweddedtopoliticalpredominance(hereditaryregimes).Inthese Cultivation of openness to andrespect for our species-diversities; of
instances, the persistence of injustice is not a consequence of ignor- opennesstoentertaining,possiblylearningfrom,ideasregarding,and
ance. accomplished living in, various forms of associated life and through
Whereignoranceisasignificantfactor,thechallengesaregener- diverse individual lives; of openness to the diverse forms of wonder
ated not only byour not knowing due to having failed to learn, but andbeautyconsequentofunpredictablehumancreativitygivingrise,
are compounded by the limits to our knowing, thus our limited whensocialized,todiversecultures–theseareamongthemanygreat
knowledges, structured by the limits to our natural and culturally- possibilities(andmanymoreactualitiesacrossthehistoryofourspe-
enhancedcapabilitiesandstrategiesforcomingtoknow:bythelimits cies)of benefitsof beingorientedbynotionsof,beingcommittedto
to the span of individual lives, and by the natural as well as socio- valorizations of, and being studiously engaged in practices to effect
cultural forms of entropy that have not been (perhaps cannot be) cooperativedemocraticlife,locally,between,andamongvariousper-
completelyeradicatedfromeffortstopreservethroughinstitutiona- sons, groups, and forms of encultured life, various polities. It is to-
lizationswhathasbeenlearned(bysome)andtomediatethelearn- wardthesebenefitsthatnotionsofdemocracycontinuetobeworked
ingsto(some)othersofsuccessivegenerations.Amongotherthings, at directing us: toward developing and putting into practical effect
theselimitationsleaveuswithout,leaveusunabletoproduce,endur- revised and refined conceptualizations, valorizations, and practices
ing certainties about our existence beyond the seeming certainty of tendingtowardequalizationofrespectandregardforpersons,group-
ingsofpersons,politiesofpersons,andgroupingsofpolitiesengaged
114 115
L.T.Outlaw(Jr.) DemocraticLimitationsonDiversityandPluralism?
invariousrelationshavingtodowithsharinglifewithinandacross practitionersforcultivatedopennesstothecreativeadaptationswon
politiesandlocalesonoursharedandincreasinglyprecariousplanet. intheexperimentsoflivingofvirtuallyallsurvivingpersons,groups,
Orsothisisnowwhatpursuitsofdemocracyhavecometoin- and polities and institutionalized in their cultures; opens adherents
volve. It was not always so. The range of the denotation of ›democ- and practitioners to enhanced prospects of making new, beneficial
racy‹frommanyofitsearliestconnotationsandimplementationswas creative contributions to storehouses of human civilizations while
farfromas extensiveasis thecase atpresent.Refining conceptions, theybenefitfromwithdrawalsfromthesame.
broadeningtherangesofconnotationanddenotation,havebeenhard If this be the case: if the core notions, core commitments, of
woneffortsacrosscenturiesandcouldonlyhavebeenconceivedand democratic associated life include continual refinement of our con-
putintoplay,inpoliticallifeandinotherdimensions,inkeepingwith ceptualizationsoftheconnotationsanddenotationsofthisfamilyof
successesinbattlestogainfreedomandjusticeforthosekeptbeyond conceptsasinvolvingequalityofregardandrespectforpersons,for
the valorized and valorizing range of inclusion in the concept’s pre- culture-makinggroups,forpolities,allofwhicharebothcarriersand
vailingmeaningsandpracticaleffects.Conceptions,valorizations,and contributors to the evolutionary successes of our species; if deter-
endeavors conditioned by notions of democracy have been forged, mined, persistent, and just practicing of this equality of regard and
continue to be refined and set to practice, in efforts to resolve some respectconditions,substantively,ourspecies-effortstosecure,asbest
ofthemostvexing challenges toassociated lifethat havetodowith we can, enhanced chances for our continued survival and enhanced
injustices. Pertinent in this regard is the difficult work of managing well-beingbygivingrisetomoreandmoresharedprogressivefree-
inter-grouprelationsdemocratically,amongpolitiesespecially,inor- dom and justice for more and more persons, groupings, and polities
der to reduce the prospects of competition and conflict devolving to fromwhombothhavelongbeendenied;if,in short,democratically
life-distorting, even life-destroying, conflict. In short, the range of structuredrelationsarethemeansbywhichtobesttakeadvantageof
those served well by democratizing conceptions and practices con- ourspecies-diversity,whichisthecaseIofferforconsideration,what
tinues to be expanded, with more success in some instances than in mightoccasiontheneedtoimposelimitsondiversityincross-cultur-
others.Diversitiesconditionourspeciesinvirtuallyallrespects,mi- alcontexts?Onlyinthoseinstances,Ioffer,inwhichsomeidea,crea-
cro (individuals) to macro (polities), neither singularity nor unani- tion, prospective intervention into human affairs would, if put into
mity. effect,threatensurvivalandcontinuingevolutioninviolationofthe
Notions of democracy, then, continue to be complicated by di- corevalueofequalityofregardandrespectforothers.
verse conceptualizations and reconceptualizations, evaluations and Who would determine the threat? How? How should such
revaluations, implementations and refinements of implementations. threatsbemanaged?Thesearecriticalquestionsthatrequireanswers
Consequently,theterm continues tobe conditionedbymanyof the bothappropriateforandadequatetomeetingsituationsthatappearto
evolutionarydevelopmentsaffectingourspecies,inpoliticallifeespe- be,arepotentiallyorinreality,threatening.Takingupthequestions
cially (though the consequences of associated life increasingly or- would propel the discussion into efforts to conceive, identify, study
dered democratically go far beyond the realm of politics narrowly organizedpracticesbywhichthreat-determinationsandmanagement
conceived). It could not be otherwise, for it is a notion – a diverse mightand/orhavebeen,arebeing,pursued.Suchworkisbeyondthe
family of notions, if you will – born of human fabrication and thus presentscopeofthisexercise.Still,inkeepingwiththeconsiderations
subject to continuing renovations as the notions are taken up in di- I’ve offered already, I insist on the consideration that in these in-
versehistoricallyconditionedcontexts,andaswelearnandevolve– stances, as well, the work of threat-determination and management
and fail to learn or to live the full benefits of learning. Still, demo- shouldbeconducteddemocratically,and,asfullyaspossible,inkeep-
craticorientationsandpractices,Ioffer,aremostfittingforanevol- ing with the core commitment of equalityof regard and respect for
vingspeciesconditionedbydiversities.Thepracticedcommitmentto others. Accordingly, if limits need to be imposed, the assessment of
equalityofregardandrespectatthecoreofconceptionsofdemocracy the need; the specification of the nature of the limitations; of the
confers the evolutionary advantage of positioning adherents and forms, modes, and terms of imposition – all of these determination
116 117
L.T.Outlaw(Jr.)
should be made democratically and, with the imposition of limits,
strenuouseffortsshould beundertaken toavoiddiminishingthedi-
versitiesthataresovitaltothecontinuedsurvivalofourspecies,thus
aresovitaltoourprospectsforwell-being.
–LuciusT.Outlaw(Jr.),VanderbiltUniversity,
Nashville,Tennessee,USA
Responses
118
Negotiating ›Difference‹ in Indic Thought:
Reflections on Lucius Outlaw’s Essay
I Introduction
LuciusOutlawseekstoavoid»universallyandnecessarytrueprinci-
ples«(Outlaw2015a:109)thatwoulddictatewhatlimitations,ifany,
shouldbeimposedondemocraticpluralism,proposingthatthevital
questionsareinsteadhow,towhatextent,andbywhomsuchlimita-
tionsmayhavetobeimposeddemocratically.Heemphasisestheneed
todevelopformsofassociatedlivingwithinandacrossvarioustypes
of political formations that would foster our species-diversity, more
specificallybyfosteringtherepertoiresthatcultureshavedeveloped
for social existence. As he notes, these repertoires, which provide
schemes of meaning to cultural formations, have often been ›sacra-
lised‹ (ibid.: 112), through canopies of meanings which seek to pro-
vide stability against the possibilities of cosmic and social chaos.
Thesecanopieshaveplayedanextremelycrucialrolethroughouthu-
manhistorybothininstitutionalizingthedistributionofpowerwith-
in social groups, and in buttressing the competitive relations across
thesegroups.Thus,theinstitutionalizationofpoliticisedidentitiesin
this manner both locates individuals in a historical narrative that is
projectedintothefutureinordertoimposeorderacrossgenerational
changes, and regiments power asymmetries by offering rationaliza-
tionsofrelationsofsuperordinationandsubordination.
Inthefollowing,wewillrespondtoOutlaw’sreflectionson›the
challenging question‹froma few specificallyIndic perspectiveswith
the following points in mind: (a) the interrogation of Eurocentric
norms,(b)thenecessity,possibility,orredundancyofdevelopingme-
taphysicalgroundingsforformsofsocialexistence,and(c)thevalue
ofdiversity.
121
A.Barua Negotiating›Difference‹inIndicThought
II DebatingEurocentricism appropriatedin thesecond,nowexistinanuneasy tensionwith va-
lues,institutions,andnormsmorereadilyidentifiableasbelongingto
ThedebateoverEurocentricismhasbynowtaken severaldialectical a European provenance. Thus we arrive at some of the perplexing
turns. Inthefirst stage,Eurocentricism was denounced as a form of dilemmasthatconfrontcontemporaryIndia:whatshouldbeafemin-
false ethnocentrism imported, often through colonial violence, by istresponseifapoliticalpartyontherightendofthespectrumintro-
Europeontoits›Others‹whowereconstructedas›depraved‹,›barba- duceslegislationensuringafixednumberofseatsforwomeninthe
ric‹,andinneedofimmediatesuccourbytheirimperialconquerors. houses of parliament, or a secular response if a political party com-
Outlawreferstothisdebatewhenhenotesthatabstractphilosophical mittedtoamulticulturalethosintroducesauniformcivilcodeacross
theorizinghasoftensoughttoimposeuniversalprinciplesinfavour religious boundaries, or a socialist response to the perpetuation of
ofanessentialsamenessthatwoulddisplace»morallyirrelevant«di- caste-based competitive acquisition of votes in national elections?
versity (ibid.: 110). Indian scholars from various disciplines have The distribution of power and management of social resources both
pointedoutthattheso-calledneutral,objective,anduniversalvalues, withinandacrossboundaries,whichOutlawnotesatseveralplacesin
beliefsandnormsparadedbyEuropeastheonly›civilized‹template hisessay(ibid.:112),arethereforecomplicatedbythefactthatindi-
forthepoliticalwasinfactadistinctivelyEuropeanversionoforder- viduals often dwell on several boundaries simultaneously: for in-
ingpoliticalspace.Further,oncloserinspection,thisversion,namely, stance,alowercasteIndianwomanemployedinanindustrialoutlet
earlytwentiethcenturyliberaldemocracy,turnedouttobebasedon suffers multiple violence from the axes of globalization, caste, and
massiveexclusions:women,peopleofcolour,thecolonialnatives,and gender.
others were systematically excluded from its vision. In the second Ifweviewthedebateover›democraticpluralism‹incontempor-
stage, however,somescholars pointedout that theviewthatBritish aryIndiathroughtheperspectiveofthisdiscussion,wecantherefore
administrators had imposed Eurocentric norms onto colonial India seethatthejuryisstilloutonthequestionofwhetherbeliefs,insti-
ironically perpetuates the Orientalist stereotype of the ›passive na- tutions,andvaluesofEuropeanoriginshouldbedismantledentirely
tive‹andinsteadarguedthatweshouldseeIndo-Britishcolonialcon- or whether their ambit needs to be progressively increased in the
tactsasaseriesofprotractedtransactionsinthecourseofwhichboth directionoffreedomandjustice.Thefirstresponseriskscommitting
IndiaandBritainunderwentsignificant political,social,andcultural thegeneticfallacyofbelievingthatanargumentisfallaciousentirely
shifts (Bayly 1996: 371–372). In particular, it has been pointed out becauseofitsdisreputableorigins,andproducingthenativistretreat
that several figures from the lower castes in colonial India appro- to a pre-colonial Arcadia supposedly untouched by power asymme-
priated certain key ›Eurocentric‹ elements and creatively adapted tries(Appiah1991:146).Thesecondresponsewouldseekanalterna-
themintheirstrugglesagainstupper-casteoppression(Sarkar2005: tive›Europeanization‹whichisbasednotonthelogicofassimilation,
292–293).Thatis,insteadofabi-polarcontestbetweenthemonoliths which undergirds technocratic modernization, but on the values of
of›India‹and›Britain‹overthedistributionofresourcesandtheman- freedom, justice, and well-being, which may resonate with indigen-
agementofsocialdiversity,weshouldspeakofmulti-layeredcontests ousdimensionsofnon-Europeancultures.Whilethesecondresponse
that were triggered both within India and Britain, and across their provides moreof promissorynotes thanrealized facts,it isarguable
boundaries of race, gender, and caste. Therefore, the current third thatthemoderninterventionistIndiannation-statehas,forcomplex
stage of the dialectic is characterized in academic discourse not by historicalreasons,adoptedthewiderEuropeanproject,butnowthor-
explicitrejectionsof›Eurocentric‹values,butbyfine-grainedmicro- oughly Indianized in some respects. That is, while caste and gender
studies of everyday postcolonial life that interweaves elements of continue to mark, and in some ways fundamentally structure, the
›tradition‹ and ›modernity‹ in a work-in-progress that almost defies basesofIndiansocialexistence,thesecategoriesnowco-inhabitpoli-
neat characterizations or polarizations. That is, ›caste‹, ›religion‹, tical spaces that employ the vocabulary of human rights, civil liber-
›community‹,andothersuchsocialcategorieswhichweredenounced ties,andsocialjustice.Therefore,Indianpoliticalstructuresarechar-
as signifiers of Oriental depravity in the first turn, and selectively acterised by the as yet unrealised promises of an ›alternative
122 123
A.Barua Negotiating›Difference‹inIndicThought
modernity‹directedattheprogressiveextensionoftheambitoffree- poses of this essay, we may characterise classical Indic thought as
dom and justice and the wider maximization of well-being through shapedbya fundamentaltension, polarityorevencontradictionbe-
theerosionofinstitutionsthatlegitimizediscrimination. tween two dimensions: one rigidly hierarchical and the other impli-
citly egalitarian. Both these dimensions are underpinned by specific
metaphysicalvisionsofthenatureoftheindividualandtheorganiza-
III ThePoliticsofDifference tionofthesocialwhole.Thefirstcanbefoundintheso-calledlegal
treatises (Dharma-sastras), the most well-known of which is the
Onthebasisofthehistoricaldiscussionintheprevioussectionwecan Manu–Smriti(c.200CE),whichlaydownthehierarchicalstructures
move to a relatively more abstract question that lies at the basis of ofclassicalHindusocialexistence.Thegroupsattheapexofthesocial
›democraticpluralism‹.AsOutlawnotes,thekeychallengefordemo- pyramid,theBrahmanas,aretobeservedbythoseatthebottom,the
craticpatternsofexistenceistoaffirmthe»anthropologicalfacticity« Shudras, and this is the social template, implemented across large
(ibid: 114) of our species-diversity by forging inclusive patterns of parts of the subcontinent and legitimized through both textual sup-
social living without invidious discrimination directed at particular portandnotionsofkingship,thatBhimRaoAmbedkar(1891–1956),
differences.Thefundamentalquestion,ofcourse,iswhetherdiversity the Chairman of the Indian Constitution Drafting Committee, de-
is intrinsically valuable, and if so,what kinds of diversity should be scribedasasystemofgradedinequality.Thedifferentially-structured
valued. In keeping with his intention to avoid invariant principles setsofdutiesandobligations,refractedthroughtheprismsofgender
withuniversalapplicability,Outlawdoesnotrecommendourcurrent andcaste,areclaimedtoleadtothefunctionalstabilityofthe›organ-
formsof›democracy‹asatimelesssolutiontothechallengeofmax- ic‹socialbody.Thesecondispresentintheever-recurringrefrainof
imizing well-being, noting that democratic forms of existence have theUpanishadsandAdvaitaVedantic thoughtthat allempiricaldis-
been shaped by numerous historical contexts. Nevertheless, he con- tinctionswhicharenotgroundedintheultimaterealityofBrahman
cludes that cooperative democratic life that is based on »equality of are ultimately illusory. Consequently, this metaphysics of identity
regardandrespectforpersons«isthemostfittingformofexistencein has the sociological implication that all hierarchical categories are
the current state of our evolutionary development (ibid.: 116). The merely conventional designations lacking any substantial reality.
crucial argument is that such openness confers an evolutionary ad- The intriguing question, of course, is why Vedantically inflected
vantage of enabling us to appropriating the various creative adapta- Hindu thought did not traditionally draw upon this implication to
tionsthathumanbeingshavegainedinnumerousculturalcontexts, develop›democratically‹organisedsocialworldsfreefromthediscri-
therebyenrichingourstockofresourcesthroughwhichwecancrea- minationsofcaste,ethnicity,andgenderwhichitdeclaresnottohave
tivelycontributetotheadvanceof humanevolutioninthedirection any deep ontological reality. That is, while mainstream Advaita in
ofgreaterfreedomandjustice.ThusOutlaw’sconclusion:onlysuch classical and medieval India viewed caste and gendered categories as
ideas or practices which threaten the survival and evolution of the merelyusefulfictionstobediscardedonthepathtowardsliberation,
core value of equality of regard and respect should be curbed in they did not develop programmatic structures of dismantling such
cross-culturalcontexts. categoriesin thehere andnow(Ram-Prasad2000). Touse Outlaw’s
The key question is whether the value of ›respect for persons‹, terminology, much of classical Vedantic thought provided a sacred
whichisarguablyofGraeco-Christianoriginswithsubsequentliberal canopyover thesesocialexclusionsbyconsigningthem tothe›con-
Kantian developments, can be translated into Indic vocabulary, and ventional‹levelwhichhadtobetranscendedthroughaliberativein-
whether such respect requires robustly metaphysical foundations. sightintothe›ultimate‹level,buthadtobemaintainedforthesakeof
Some of the most intensely debated topics in cross-cultural political socialcohesionuntilthatinsightwasattained.
theoryrevolvepreciselyaroundthequestionofwhetheritispossible Nevertheless, the presence of the second strain with the first
toidentifynon-westernprecursorsorintimationsofthevaluesasso- constituted an uneasy tension at the heart of Indic life-worlds: the
ciated with western liberal democracy. To oversimplify for the pur- secondwhichpointedtotheultimaterealityasbeyondempiricaldis-
124 125
A.Barua Negotiating›Difference‹inIndicThought
tinctions and social exclusivities lingered on as an irritant in a body humanbeings.Thatis,thereasonwhyIshoulddevelopother-regard-
politicstructuredbythefirst.Thetensionwasseizeduponinatleast ing behaviour is because the other is, in a deep metaphysical sense,
two ways in ancient and pre-colonial India. The first was the emer- akin to my-self (Beckerlegge 2006). In particular, Radhakrishnan
gence of movements such as Buddhism and Jainism (c. 500 BCE) sought to develop the nation-state’s foundational commitments to
which rejected the incipient caste structures of early Vedic India, liberaldemocracy,socialjustice,universaleducation,secularism,and
thoughtheextenttowhichtheysucceededineradicatingcaste-based scientificmodernizationthroughthelensofthisVedanticmetaphysic
distinctionsremainsamatterofscholarlydispute.InthecaseofBud- of the basic ontological affinity of all beings. Radhakrishnan’s neo-
dhismparticularly,thedoctrineofnot-self(anatman)wasemployed AdvaitaVedantawasahighlycreativeformulationinwhichheinter-
inthedevelopmentsofthetraditionsuchastheMahayanatoempha- wovetheclassicalUpanishadicmaterialwithcontemporaryEuropean
sisetheradicalinsubstantialityofallcasteandgenderedexclusivities, theoriesofcreativeevolution,axiology,andspiritualprogress.These
though again scholars disagree to what extent such categorisations metaphysicalfoundationsprovidedthebasisforRadhakrishnan’sun-
were systematically undermined in pre-modern Buddhist cultures. derstandingof›toleration‹:thereligioustraditionsoftheworldareto
Thesecondsetofmovementsthatsoughttodestabilise,ifnotactually be ›tolerated‹ because they are, according to Radhakrishnan, diverse
eliminate caste hierarchies, were the devotional bhakti movements, historically-shaped intimations of the truth of Advaita. In other
centredaroundthepersonalLord,whichspokeoftheequalityofall words, underlying the cultic-ritualdifferences that characterise reli-
individuals.However,theequalityinquestionwaspredicatedonthe gions such as Judaism,Hinduism, and Christianity lies an ›essential
transcendentalrelationsofthespiritualcommunityofdevotees;these unity‹,fortheyareall,Radhakrishnanclaimed,phenomenalexpres-
movements, withsome majorexceptions, usuallylackeda program- sionsofthetranscendental›experience‹ofAdvaiticrealization.While
matic framework for systematically eradicating worldly discrimina- Ambedkar rejected the foundational presuppositions of Vedantic
tion(Lorenzen2004).Thereforethequestionwhethercontemporary thought during his conversion to Buddhism, his own appropriation
liberaldemocraticnotionsofequalityandsocialjusticewerepresent ofclassicalBuddhismsoughttoprovidedistinctivelyBuddhistfoun-
in classical and medieval Indic thought can only receive a qualified dationsfortheIndiannation’scommitmenttosocialdemocracy(Fitz-
affirmative – the traditions contain themes which often were em- gerald 1999). The Buddhism that Ambedkar put forward to his fol-
ployedinthedirectionof›respectforpersons‹,thoughthesesocially lowers was not any of the familiar historical varieties such as
egalitarian strands were usually rewoven back into the tapestry of Theravada,MahayanaorVajrayana,butwasanewpath,aNavayana
castehierarchy. (›Neo-Buddhism‹) whose goals are more specifically material than
As this survey of some of the classical and medieval Indian at- ›spiritual‹andemphasisestheestablishmentofsocialequalityrather
temptstosubvertcaste-basedformsofoppressionindicates,thetra- thantheattainmentofindividualliberation.Ambedkarre-contextua-
ditional Indian responses to the question ›which kinds of diversity lized certain key Buddhist notions: ›wisdom‹ is the ability to think
should be accepted or valorized‹? have been articulated from within rationally without any demystification, ›compassion‹ becomes the
ametaphysicalframeworkthatisdistinctfromOutlaw’sbroadlyevo- love of fellow-beings expressed through activities directed towards
lutionarymetaphysic.Theseattemptstolocatesocialethicsonmeta- socialjustice,andthemonkissimultaneouslythesocialworkerand
physicalhorizonshavebeencarriedoutalsobykeyfiguresofmodern theseekerafterpersonalfreedom.
Hinduism such as Swami Vivekananda (the founder of the Ramak- Our discussion highlights a crucial distinction between, on the
rishnaMission;1863–1902),S.Radhakrishnan(thesecondPresident one hand, some strands of classical and contemporary Indic engage-
ofindependentIndia;1888–1975)andothershavesoughttodevelop mentwithsocialdifference,and,ontheother,westernacademicva-
an ethical core out of the metaphysics of the Upanishads in the fol- lorisationsofplurality.Theformerareunderpinnedbyspecificmeta-
lowing manner. Taking as their point of departure the Upanishadic physical bases, whether the atman-doctrine in Sanskrit-based
dictum ›thou art that‹, they have argued that the justification for Hinduism or the anatman-doctrine in Buddhist thought, whereas
ethical concern for the neighbour is the transcendental unity of all the latter either eschew any metaphysical claims or keep the meta-
126 127