A world full of injustice and inequality, oppression and marginalization is divided between the rich and the poor, the powerful and the powerless, the dominant and the subaltern. There is an ongoing conflict between two groups of people. The more powerful are usually better organized. Strong, though oppressive, socio-economic and political structures are in place. Any one who wants to liberate the oppressed and promote justice and equality cannot stand neutral in such a conflictual situation. S/he has to take sides. This means, in practice, taking the side of the poor and the excluded and struggling with them against the rich and the powerful. We have to opt for the poor. The Marxists would see this as a class struggle between those who own the means of industrial or agricultural production and those who are working under them. The oppressive structures have to be overthrown. This is possible only through a revolution. Given the hidden violence of the oppressive structures a violent revolution against them is justified. The rich will have to be overthrown and the poor will have to win control over their own history and destiny. Such a point of view may be the current ideological orthodoxy of some groups striving for social transformation.
Option for the Poor
Others may interpret the ‘option for the poor’ as caring for the poor, meeting their needs, and comforting them. The work of Mother Teresa would be an example. Marxist orthodoxy would be opposed to such an approach. It would not only insist that we should conscientize, organize and animate the poor. It would even suggest that we should not help the poor too much as this would reduce their revolutionary ardour and blunt their aggressivity.
Christian pastors have always had problems with such an option for the poor. Though they usually help the poor in various ways as an expression of Christian charity, they are primarily concerned with spiritual matters. They have to be at the service of all, rich and the poor. They cannot exclude the rich from their concern. Of course they will exhort the rich to be kind and helpful to the poor. They may even mediate such help: collect money and goods from the rich and distribute them to the poor. At the same time they are sensitive to the structural dimensions of the ongoing struggle between the rich and the poor as classes. So they would like to opt for the poor. But such option cannot be exclusive. They will suggest then ‘a preferential option for the poor’. The option for the poor is real, but preferential, not exclusive. They cannot exclude the rich from their spiritual ministries.
In such a context, talk about an ‘option for the non-poor’ may sound strange and subversive. There is a danger of subverting the struggle of the poor against the rich and the powerful. This may be a reversion to a position that suggests charity rather than justice as a means of solving the problems of inequality. I would like to suggest that the ‘option for the poor’ and the ‘option for the non-poor’ may both be necessary to bring about equality and justice in society. Let me start this reflection with the evocation of two sorts of experiences.
The Experience of Pedro Arrupe
The first experience is that of Fr. Pedro Arrupe, a former superior general of the Jesuits. Incidentally, his birth centenary was on November 14, 2007. He was in a suburb of Hiroshima when the first atom bomb was dropped over the city on August 6, 1945. He was one of the first to bring help to the wounded and the suffering, turning his institution into a field hospital. His incomplete medical training was of great help during this time of emergency. Years later he is reflecting over this experience. I think that it is better to let him speak rather than summarize or paraphrase his reflections – at the risk of the quotation being a long one.
Atomic energy in destroying matter discloses its instability, while making the spirit stand out with its features more strongly pronounced. Now yet another explosion is breeding in the womb of time, as millions die from hunger and sub-human existence… Clearly, the present world order is based neither on justice nor love, but almost always on personal and national interest. The balance of power is a balance of terror… One hears the candid statement that only two possibilities exist: either a striking personal conversion of those who have most influence to bring about the needed changes, or the violent tearing down of unjust structures. My own conviction is that violence is not the right way to get positive results. If that is true, the only thinkable alternative is the other: namely, the personal conversion of those who have power and influence.
Even so we cannot overlook the explosive energy which has been building up in the hearts of the dispossessed… Once let loose it is practically uncontrollable… The ‘explosive’ attitude of young people is another element which cannot be overlooked or neglected… They feel that they themselves are victimized by structures which diminish their rights and freedom…
In the very core of his being, man feels an impulse towards good, towards progress. He anxiously seeks his own happiness… The human person who pursues evil for the sake of evil does not exist. If man turns to war and violence it is because they seem to be necessary means for arriving at a truly human, just and happy, society. But is war the remedy for man’s problems and tensions? Is violence?… History shows that neither war nor violent revolution have ever solved man’s problem; nor will they ever. They are born of hatred and though hatred harms, it does not heal… The antidote to hatred is what we call love, and the effect of love is the counter-sign of war: peace.
Pedro Arrupe was instrumental in the turn of the Society of Jesus to promoting faith through justice in the 1970s. He was accused by conservatives in the Church of being a crypto-Marxist, encouraging communism in Latin America. Therefore, he is not speaking here in a hidden defence of the rich and the powerful.
Revolutions, Violent and Non-violent
The second sort of experience that I would like to evoke is that of revolutions in the 20th century. Early in the century there was the communist revolution in Russia. The Czar was overthrown. But the poor were not exactly liberated. A new ruling class made up of party officials emerged and the poor continued to be poor, while the party leadership grew rich and powerful in their name and at their expense. Mahatma Gandhi led a non-violent revolution in India. He did free India from colonialism and give the Indians a sense of self dignity. But he did not succeed in establishing economic and social equality though his focus was an overall social revolution. Nelson Mandela led the South Africans to abolish racial discrimination. Martin Luther King transformed the way in which race was looked at in the USA. The Philippines has had two non-violent revolutions. They have overthrown dictators and attained political democracy, but the corrupt rich continue to dominate the country and the poor continue to be poor. Latin America has seen many unsuccessful armed struggles.
- Pedro Arrupe, A Planet to Heal. Rome, 1975, pp. 25-30, passim.
What do we learn from these revolutions? Violent revolutions have not had much success in transforming anything. The impact of non-violent revolutions too is limited, though positive. The socio-economic and political structures continue largely as before under a democratic façade. The contemporary phenomenon of globalization is strengthening them further through the creation of global networks. The rapid economic development of China and India has shown that, while it has some effect in improving overall economic standards and more people seem to emerge into the middle class, the poor remain poor and the gap between them and the rich continue to widen and deepen. It is in this context that we have to reflect on appropriate strategies for the promotion of economic and social equality.
Developing a Strategy
Our starting point is the situation of an unjust and unequal society, divided between the rich and poor. We have to understand the unjust socio-economic and political structures that underlie this situation. For this we will have to look at it from the point of view of the poor who are suffering. The poor and the oppressed in the world today, especially the young people are no longer resigned to suffer their lot patiently. They are rising up and demanding change. This strategic location on the side of the poor will give us a clarity and also an urgency that we will not have otherwise. We want to bring about a human community with social equality, justice and peace.
We should realize that given the kind of structures that we are facing we cannot look forward to some sort of smooth evolution or transition. What we need is a revolutionary change. This will involve a struggle. It may be a prolonged one. We must be ready for it and committed to it.
We have learnt from experience that hatred and violence only lead to a spiral of violence. They are divisive. The powerful, often backed up by military means will not hesitate to impose order in their favour. Recent events in Myanmar have shown that the powerful can do this even in the case of a non-violent protest by Buddhist monks. In such a situation the poor will resort to terrorist violence, as we are seeing in many parts of the world today. Terrorism provides an excuse for greater military oppression. In an era of globalization both military might and terrorist revolt tend to take international dimensions. A police state can take unobtrusive, modern forms as it is happening in richer countries today in the name of internal and external security. Cross border military interventions are justified. Hatred, especially when it feels impotent, can eat up the poor from within and can deprive them of a certain peace that they can have even in the midst of poverty. Hatred and violence also lead to a spirit of vengeance and retribution.
The only appropriate means for a social revolution in such a situation seems to be non-violent struggle. Non-violence does not mean passivity. Some speak of active non-violence. It points to the unjust situation. By protest and struggle it upsets the artificial peace that prevails and forces the people to take note of the situation: the poor are conscientized and the rich and the powerful are shaken out of their complacency and ignorance. The non-violent action empowers the poor and challenges the consciences of the rich and the powerful. Taking for granted that at least most of the rich and the powerful, individually and as a group, are not evil, it makes them reflect. It might force them to the negotiating table. Negotiations progress through a series of compromises. An all or nothing perspective, promoted by a revolutionary attitude, will not work. We respect the good faith of the other. We take one step at a time, but we keep moving. We see this in Gandhi’s struggle for India’s freedom. A non-violent struggle changes not only structures, but also slowly transforms people. This is how a new community is built up, slowly, but surely. The progress is seen as just and reasonable.
The Non-Poor
The non-poor are of many kinds. The rich and the powerful are not an indiscriminate block of bad people. Many of them may be good people. Having grown up in a particular situation they may have taken the situation for granted. Some of them may have been insulated from the sufferings of the surrounding poor. They may be guided by certain economic and social ideologies that see the situation as inevitable. Others may justify it in religious terms such as karma, fate or whatever. They are alienated in their own way. They need ideological liberation as much as the poor need economic and political liberation. But they may all be open to change, especially if it brings about an atmosphere of peace for every one.
Then there are the middle class intellectuals who are not economically rich and politically powerful. These are the scientists, the artists, the writers, the journalists and the media people. These are the people who bring about cultural transformation. They offer new world views, suggest new attitudes and challenge people by their images and writings. They can become the articulate voice of the poor and the oppressed people. The intellectuals also can come up with new economic and political theories that promote sustainable and inclusive development. The scientists can offer new ways improving the quality of life for all. Political leaders and economic entrepreneurs also emerge from this group.
Besides these we also have religious leaders. Some may be saintly and poor. But their poverty is not imposed on them, but chosen by them. So it has a transformative value. They propose new ways of personal and social integration in a religious context. Of course we have today a profusion of false gurus who cater to the rich, preaching to them an easy peace of mind in the midst of worries and tensions. But we also have good spiritual leaders who challenge people to personal growth.
It is to all these groups of people that I refer when I speak of the non-poor. The non-poor are not just the rich and the powerful. They are also the middle class intellectuals and the spiritual leaders who can actively contribute to the transformation of society. Magazines come up with a list of rich people in the world every now and then. They are normally a few when compared to the population of the world. Today the economic organization of companies is such that ownership and management are quite diffused. Except where there are military dictators, political power is also diffused in political parties that need to be sensitive to the desires of the people in a democracy. An unholy alliance between the economically rich and the politically powerful is not excluded. But they can operate only with the collaboration of others at the middle levels. Structures today are complex. So it is not easy to divide the world between the rich and the poor, except in a broad sense.
Building Community
Our goal is not a reversal of the present situation where those who are now poor will dominate and those who are rich today will become poor. This will be the victory of one group over another. What we are looking forward to is a new community of justice, equality and peace. Given a difference in talents and achievements and given also the initiative and enterprise of some when compared to the others, differences between people will continue. Our goal then is not absolute material equality, but formal equality: respect for humans rights and freedoms, meeting the basic needs of every human being so that no one is in want, equality of opportunity for all and equal dignity for every one without any discrimination.
Given the present unjust, unequal and even oppressive situation, a struggle may be inevitable. But it can only be a starting point. Strategically we have to think of what comes after the struggle and also aim at it. Through the struggle every one becomes aware of the problem and the structures underlying them. At the same time we also have to present to every one a vision of a more equitable and just society as an alternative. We have to show the rich and the powerful that such an ideal society is not only just, but also desirable for every one and is in their own interest. A peaceful situation is every one’s desire. In the past, the oppressors had it easy so to speak. The subordinate people somehow accepted their oppressed situation and adjusted to it. But the situation has changed today. The subalterns are no longer ready to accept their subjection and are, everywhere, rising up in revolt and demanding justice for themselves. If their just demands are not met, there will be continuing social unrest and violence. Therefore treating people justly is the best social policy for a life in peace. The rich and the powerful should be persuaded to realize this. Then they will be ready to change both themselves and the structures that underlie the present system.
The oppressed groups, even as they are struggling for their liberation, should realize that the rich and the powerful are controlling the present structures and these cannot be changed unless they (the non-poor) collaborate, even if it be in their own self-interest. Every one should find employment, workers should have a just wage, excess incomes should be taxed, profit margins should be limited, unbridled competition must be controlled, emergencies concerning health and accident must be provided for, the old must be looked after. These things cannot be done without legislation on the one hand and without the collaboration of the non-poor who are control.
It is not a question of appealing to the rich to be generous and charitable towards the poor. I am not advocating either a trickle down theory where economic adjustments will take place automatically as the rich grow richer. It is a demand for justice. It may have to start with confrontation, but will have to lead to a dialogue, negotiation, persuasion, compromise, execution and slow progress. In the meantime we will have to create a cultural vision of a new society of justice that can live in peace. It is here that the intellectuals and cultural leaders have an indispensable role to play. Some people in the media are already playing a critical and creative role in unearthing hidden injustices. They should be supported and encouraged.
We cannot build up a community without involving every one. We cannot struggle against the exclusion of some (the poor) by excluding others (the non-poor). We must include every one in the struggle and the constructive efforts that follow. There will be resistances. But I think that we should try to carry the majority along with a non-violent approach.
Ideologies and Realities
When the various communist regimes collapsed in Russia and Eastern Europe it was suggested that socialism had failed. It was hailed as the triumph of capitalism. We should perhaps specify that the failure was that of ‘state socialism’, not of socialism as such. There are different kinds of capitalism and liberal capitalism of the kind practised in the USA is not the best. There are other brands of capitalism like the socially responsible capitalism practised by some countries in Europe, like Germany, for example. On the other hand the Scandinavian countries in Northern Europe have been practicing a kind of successful socialism, providing protective nets for the unemployed, the sick and the old. After practicing a watered-down type of socialism as state control in a mixed economy India has turned towards a more liberalized economy. China has embraced capitalist economic policies while retaining an ideology of state socialism. Looking at all these models, not being an economist, my impression is that socialism is really a social ideology, not an economic one. Some form of capitalism may be inevitable for economic growth. As Fr. Kolvenbach, a former superior general of the Jesuits, used to say: wealth has to be produced before it can be distributed. In countries like India with a rapidly growing population socialism has not helped economic development. Even the Communists in India seem to be realizing it. So an ideology for countries like India would seem to be an economic capitalism that is socially sensitive and socially controlled. This should be possible in a democratic political order. What we have to oppose is liberal capitalism that brooks no control. As a matter of fact, the liberal capitalism in the USA lives and flourishes at the expense of other poorer countries in the world. Some of the European countries can offer us a model, though the socialist model of the North European countries seems to be undergoing a stress in the light of an aging population, with fewer young people working and earning. Poor immigrants in European countries also seem to be a problem, though it is difficult to see how, since they are all workers. The problems here again may be more social than economical. There may be a general prejudice against Muslims. Besides it may not be practical to expect Muslims from the Middle East or North Africa to become culturally European. Europe will have to become multi-cultural. The problem here will be assuring social and political equality.
An Analogous Issue: the Caste System
The point I am trying to make here about an inclusive perspective in social transformation may be better understood if we compare it with what is happening to the social hierarchy of the caste system in India. The caste system is a hierarchical order of social groups. The critical point is the division between the dominant castes and the Dalits or untouchables. The emancipation of the Dalits has taken various forms. Economically and politically there are reservations to protect their interests. They have a reserved quota in higher educational institutions, in government jobs and in the legislatures. These reservations have had some effect. A group of Dalits, perhaps small, is benefiting by these reservations to better their economic and political lot. As a matter of fact, though, they cannot play any real political role without the support of political parties, primarily made up of other dominant castes. Dalit parties have not so far succeeded politically, not to speak of the fragmentation that they seem to suffer from at their own level. At a religious level, Dr. Ambedkar lead a group from Hinduism to Buddhism, saying that they will never get equal social rights as Hindus. Some Dalits may also have become Christians, Muslims and Sikhs for the same reason.
But the ground reality today is that economic progress, a certain political influence and religious conversion have not brought them social equality. Social equality would mean, in practice, inter-dining and inter-marrying. This has not been happening among Christians, Muslims and Sikhs. The Dalits who became Buddhists, following Ambedkar, remain Dalits in their own communities and villages. All these Dalits may have a personal experience of freedom and dignity. They have escaped the stigma of ritual pollution in Hinduism. But they have not become socially equal with the non-Dalits in their living context. The problem is that that they should be accepted as equals by others in the community. At the moment, a poorer member of a dominant caste may look down on a richer Dalit as socially inferior, though this may not be shown in public.
This situation can change only if we can make every one in the community share the vision of social equality. The people who need to be convinced and converted to this new vision are precisely the members of the dominant castes. So we can say that without changing the views on the humans and social groups of the dominant castes we cannot really bring about social equality in the community. Such an attempt at the ‘conversion’ of the non-Dalit may involve a strong self-assertion by the Dalits and a non-violent struggle to change the mind-set of every one.
This will be true also of similar social discriminations in the areas of race and gender. It is not enough that an Afro-American is educated, has a good job and makes a lot of money. He may still not be accepted as a social equal by the Caucasian-Americans. The same is probably true of Indians and other Asians in America. Social equality will not come unless all share the vision of a community of equals. We need not be surprised either if the Asian-Americans have a superior attitude vis-à-vis the Afro-Americans. The Indians have never integrated with the local people in Africa. It will be interesting to explore the racial relationships in South Africa. Apartheid as a political policy has disappeared. In a democracy, the Africans have the political power. Does this mean social and economic equality? A similar observation can be made with regard to gender discrimination. It is very necessary that women have access to education and jobs like men. Today we see more and more women acceding to political and economic power. Does this mean that gender discrimination will disappear in wider society? For real social change, it is not enough that subaltern groups change. The dominant groups also must correspondingly change. It may be more difficult to change the dominant groups than the subaltern groups. And yet, one sees very little effort in social reform programmes devoted to this dimension.
A Difficult Option
Comparing options one can say that the ‘option for the poor’ is the easier one. We are easily moved by their suffering. We want to help them in their needs. We are moved to struggle with them and suffer with them if necessary. The ‘option for the non-poor’ is more difficult. This has not been tried very much. It is easier to move them to pity at the sight of the sufferings of the poor and encourage them to exercise their charity. Talking to them about justice, challenging them to conversion and motivating them to share are more difficult. To animate communities where there are the rich and the powerful side by side with the poor and the oppressed so that both the rich and the poor can be conscientized is not easy.
2. Cf. C. Joe Arun, Constructing Dalit Identity. New Delhi: Rawat, 2007
Besides personal approaches we have to develop new inclusive ideologies at the economic, political and social level. At the political level today there will be no problem about democracy. Actually our experience in India shows that the poor are quite aware of the power of their vote. It is of course a pity that popular politicians who get the vote of the poor seem more busy handing out free gifts and encouraging symbolic manifestations of their importance than bringing about real economic change. At the economic level manufacturing and commercial enterprises often seem to make profit their only goal. They can be controlled only through governments who have the power of regulating their operations in their territory and of imposing conditions. Beyond this we have to create an atmosphere where people think that the humans are more important than money. It was a big step for the humans when the United Nations adopted the Universal Declaration of Human Rights in 1948. There may still be places where these rights are not really respected. But there is a universal consensus about them. Similarly in 1976, the United Nations also passed International Covenants on Civil and Political Rights and Economic, Social and Cultural Rights. These covenants do not enjoy the same widespread acceptance and adherence as the Human Rights.
For example, if we look through the Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, Article 6 recognizes “the right to work, which includes the right of everyone to the opportunity to gain his living by work which he freely chooses or accepts.” Article 8 recognizes
the right of everyone to the enjoyment of just and favourable conditions of work which ensure, in particular:
(a) Remuneration which provides all workers, as a minimum, with:
(i) Fair wages and equal remuneration for work of equal value without
distinction of any kind, in particular women being guaranteed conditions of work not inferior to those enjoyed by men, with equal pay for equal work;
(ii) A decent living for themselves and their families in accordance with the provisions of the present Covenant;
(b) Safe and healthy working conditions;
(c) Equal opportunity for everyone to be promoted in his employment
to an appropriate higher level, subject to no considerations other than those of seniority and competence;
(d) Rest, leisure and reasonable limitation of working hours and periodic holidays with pay, as well as remuneration for public holidays.
Article 9 recognizes the right of everyone to social security, including social insurance. Article 11 recognizes
the right of everyone to an adequate standard of living for himself and his family, including adequate food, clothing and housing, and to the continuous improvement of
living conditions,… the fundamental right of everyone to be free from hunger,…
If governments nationally and internationally formulate their policies respecting these rights we can go a long way to achieve economic justice, if not equality. But the challenge is how to make every one, especially the non-poor, accept it, as every one today accepts, at least formally, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.
Conclusion
Even if we succeed in achieving a certain amount of economic justice, social discriminations would probably continue to remain. The challenge of building community is therefore the challenge of changing not only the structures but the hearts of people. The non-poor in general would find it much more difficult to change than the poor. That is the reason why we should concentrate our attention on the non-poor through our social and religious movements. It is not enough to appeal to their charity and generosity. They must be made to recognize and accept the demands of justice and equity. A strategy that starts with non-violent struggle, but moves on to negotiation and persuasion, appealing to the conscience and humanity of the non-poor will be necessary. Beyond establishing a social situation of formal equalities we must move towards building communities. A hierarchical mind-set is firmly rooted in the human psyche, though it may take various forms in various places. It is this that we have to change.
If I may strike a Christian note in conclusion, the life of Jesus shows that he did not merely sympathize with and help the poor. He also challenged and condemned the rich. He had a few rich friends like Joseph of Arimathea and Nicodemus and the women who helped him. (cf. Lk 8:3) But it is his confrontation with the rich that lead him to his death. The memorial he justify for his community is the symbolic action of eating together as a living expression of equality and community. Paul had to protest against the rich Corinthians for abusing this symbol. (cf. 1 Cor 11) The ‘option for the non-poor’ will not be an easy one. But that is not a reason to run away from it, if we believe in the basic goodness of human beings and our goal is universal human community and peace.
Michael Amaladoss, S.J.
Institute of Dialogue with Cultures and Religions,
Chennai, India.