Dr. Gautam
‘Formation is an earnest investment of an older generation of mentors in a younger generation of apprentices’ (Worner, Tod, Education is Good but Formation is Better, 2018). The apprentices trust their mentors for their experience and discernment. Formation should make an earnest attempt to make a person understand the essence of life — its meaningfulness and meaninglessness, its absurdity and its reasonableness, its limitation and limitlessness. All these reflections and discernments, one hopes, will make the person feel safe and secure to endorse and to non-violently dissent what goes on around him — in his group, culture, and society.
Many believe that we are either directly or indirectly responsible for all that happens in this world. If we are inclined to this view, then it is imperative that we realise this truth, take responsibility and be aware of the consequence of our thoughts and actions. By doing so we get to see and appreciate humans of different hues. Formation should help people achieve this state of realisation and these people, in turn, should endeavour to help others realise this level of understanding of the world, through them. In such an exercise of discernment we become a critique of ourselves and the interaction we have with the world around us.
This important quality of dissent, heresy and questioning one’s culturally conformable positions will enable the actor or the group to be open to other points of view. Right from Mahavira, Buddha, Socrates, Christ, Prophet Mohammed to Galileo, Spinoza, Marx, Mahakavi Bharati, Ambedkar, Periyar, all seem to have epitomised this virtue.
Let us assume a hypothetical situation where the Buddha, Christ and Prophet Mohammed meet. How would their interaction go? How would they express their differences, if at all they had even one, with each other? We can’t imagine them violently disagreeing with each other, because each of them had shown through their lives how they effortlessly pardoned people who had even wronged them. They would not have agreed to the idea of man exploiting another man, whatever the circumstance may be.
Let me labour this point by recalling a few instances of these noble souls. The Buddha broke his years penance and fast when he was offered milk rice by a milkmaid named Sujatha, much to the discomfort of his companions.
When there was a water dispute between the Sakyas and the Koliyas, the Buddha was against waging a war against the Koliyas. He reasoned that Dharma consist of recognising that enmity does not disappear with enmity. It can be conquered only by love (Ambedkar, The Buddha and His Dhamma 1957). How would we describe the actions of the Buddha — unpatriotic or apotheosis of accommodation? The essence of multiculturalism is the capacity to critique for the advancement of social justice, even if that means forgiving one’s ‘nemesis or the outsider.
This is what Christ exemplified when he asked for water from an outcaste Samaritan woman at the well. She retorted: ‘How is it that you, a Jew, ask a drink of me, a woman of Samaria?’ (John 4, 9). He forgave the ones who crucified him, stating that, ‘Father, forgive them; for they know not what they do’. This is in many ways is the epitome of forgiveness.
In more recent times, Ambedkar although he disagreed with Gandhi on many issues, he had the fortitude to compromise when he knew Gandhi’s life was in danger due to his obstinate fasting.
What we see here is the quintessence of maturity of thought and compassion. These great minds expose the epistemic arrogance of lesser mortals who are often swayed by ritualistic actions, ignorance and invariably fail to read and understand the essence of their present reality.
Sociologists and social scientists have for long explored and studied the possibilities of the management of cultural and ethnic integration and offered three primary models, which are Ideal Types viz. assimilation, melting pot, and cultural pluralism or multiculturalism.
When minorities/immigrants abandon their original practices and mould their behaviour to the values of the majority, we call it assimilation. However, even if minorities wish to assimilate, they may not be able to do so if they are racialized or if they are rebuffed.
The model of Melting pot, on the other hand, is when a heterogenous society become homogenous, by melting different cultures and forming a common acceptable culture. But critics have argued that the melting pot also invariably represents the dominant culture, especially in the United States, where immigrants were expected to imbibe the ‘American way’ and give up their language and culture.
The third model is cultural pluralism — where ethnic cultures are given full validity to exist separately yet participate in the economic and political life. Multiculturalism — an offshoot of cultural pluralism, encourages cultural and ethnic groups to live in harmony and with one another. This is demonstrated in Switzerland where the French, German, and Italian coexist in the same society.
The crucial task of multiculturalism, according to Bhikhu Parekh (Rethinking Multiculturalism, 2006) is ‘the need to find ways to reconciling the legitimate demands of unity and diversity, of achieving political unity without cultural uniformity, and cultivating among its citizens both a common sense of belonging and a willingness to respect and cherish deep cultural differences. This view goes against the ‘solidarist’ approach to identity, which perceives a person’s national, civilisational or religious adherence forming a person’s primary identity.
This assumption of one’s unique or primordial identity dominating all others creates distrust and often leads to violence. This is what the Buddha tried to avoid. The great Tamil poet Kaniyan Punkundranar, of the Sangam times, in his poem Purananuru in a way anticipates and extols the Buddha, by writing: tītum naṉṟum pirar tara vārā. i.e. Life’s good nor ill comes not from others gifts.
From a multiculturalist point of view, schools and formation centres should accommodate all ethnic groups: the diet, religious practices, clothing, beliefs and values of different ethnic groups should all be catered for in the educational system.
Therefore, the difference should no longer be an indicator for strangeness and separation, but an opportunity for informed choice among a myriad of possibilities (Castles and Miller, The Age of Migration, 1993). Monocultural and assimilationist models may appeal to our base instincts but a formation towards intercultural thinking critiquing this superficial anxiety should help us achieve social justice.
About the Author:
Dr. Gautam is currently heading the department of Sociology at Loyola College. He has been teaching Sociology for the last two decades now. His academic interest includes social stratification, sociology of health and illness, Sociological Theories and Indian Society. He has PhD in Sociology from the University of Madras.
