I wish I could be in Oxford soon, I hope.
I must apologise at the outset for the somewhat miscellaneous quality of the statement.
Because Gandhi was so proud to give his fundamental outlook very comprehensive, preach.
I'd like to convey a wide scope, thematic sense of the richness of his own imagination.
So I'll begin with some themes hitting historiography crude remarks.
Move on to Gandhi's critique of a certain conception of rationality that emerged in the modern period.
And reflect on the differences he registered between India and the modern political economies of European nations.
And then conclude, which with an extended discussion of what everyone finds the most implausible side of the mechanism,
his deep growing scepticism about modern medicine. It's a pity that I won't have the time.
Nobody without the luxury of appropriate treatment really has that time together.
This miscellany of themes into an integrated framework of design to modernism that Gandhi deserves.
There's nothing to do but to acknowledge that and proceed.
There's a great natural tendency to think that hints at each.
Represents the reactionary gunmen who oppose modernity.
Position from which you then slowly back-pedal over the next few decades,
is he allowed to experience the long anti-colonial struggle he led to educate him to its more progressive ideas and outreach?
That's fine, refinery treating, sympathetic reading of Gandhi.
As I said, this is a natural reading of a lot of reading that shows much comprehension of this deepest intellectual and political motives.
It's a reading which from the very outset rules out possibility that one might interpret as A. modernism as itself being progressed.
Now, it might seem that there's something startling,
something almost paradoxical about using the word progressive, as I just have in my last sentence.
After all, the whole point of the contrast between reactionary and progressive derives
from an ideal of progress in which the past is overcome in one's emergency,
and to hark back to it is reaction. Well, to embrace one's modernity is to be progressive.
How then, can a stance of anti modernity be said to be progressive without paradox?
But the seeming paradoxes amicably resolved if I replaced all occurrences of the word progressive in what I've said so far with the word rather.
I don't mean radical in the very general sense of a vehement upending of conventional thinking at its very roots.
Even fascism is radical in that very general sense.
I mean, rather radical in the quote, usual specific sense that left wing commentary intends to self describe its own conception of politics,
but which has often been muggings, but equating that politics with what it describes as progressive politics, thereby ruling out from the outset.
As I said, that one can be both anti modernist and radical in this more specific sense that the Left broadly aspires to be.
To put it in a word I'm asking, is there a very broadly left wing or radical Guandique in the Anti Gun?
And I'm casting doubt on the more natural reading, which asserts that there's a wing or radical Gandhi, despite being too modern, comes.
One dialectic by which one might pursue this question of just posed about the radical possibilities in
Gandhi's anti-Americanism is to find continuities between Gandhi's opposition to features of European or what
you sometimes called Western modernity and the opposition in the early modern period by radicals in Europe
as to what they presciently foresaw as the alarming direction in which the incipient modernity was heading.
Their alarms about that direction turned out to be entirely justified,
given the passage in Europe from its early to its late modernity that history has recorded.
The worst is the time that these alarms for the dissenting voices of the radical opposition in the 17th century, that out started history.
And if given the enhanced forum, which was in some sense, expressing a counterpart alarm almost three centuries later.
An alarm about an incipient modernity in India, heading in the direction that those early dissenters have foreseen.
A direction being imposed on it by its colonial masters,
then a plausible way to press on with this dialectic to read Faraj is being written under the shrewd perception, but it's also.
But in 1999, when he ruled India was at just the crossroads that Europe was in in early modernity.
What I'm proposing, therefore,
is a geological grounding of his radicalism in the radicalism of an earlier period in the land of his colonial masters so as to set up a very specific
historical dialectic within which to argue that what seems anti modern in the south would not seem so if he kept this dialectic firmly in our sights.
In general, that elements with affinities to the radical dissenting ideas burst in the early modern period should appear to answers and to market.
Is due to a confluence of two closely related factors.
First, our tendency to assume that the path from early to the late modernity around that time is a technological inevitability.
And consequently,
from the perspective of our leaders to stamp out the significance and the substantial presence of the dissenting voices in the earlier period,
which do not start in the arena of social and political conflicts, those challenge and intellectual competence of this church.
These two factors conspire to make it seem as if any assertion of some of the radical ideas
to be found in the early modern dissenting traditions in Europe at a date as late as,
for instance, 1989, when the Europeans for not necessarily occupiers, but stubbornly reactionary position.
Something they would not do seem to do if he viewed the trilogy as on compulsory has gone, they certainly did.
And if you get fully in our view of the past, the poor and pregnant possibilities that those dissenting ideas persist despite having been aborted.
If it were possible to use the expression of any modern as an entirely innocuous description of a period of time in Europe,
with no built-in implications of describing only those that antecedents that would unfold into the developments of late modernity.
The radicalism of that period might give us the possibilities that can these two hold out for in the India of the early 20th century?
Which, as I said, he took to be at the sort of cusp that Europe was at in the early modern period.
So to repeat the crucial dialect. Good point. Sorry, but the risk of causing tedium that we should see the stones as a. model.
Rather than the radical ideas, they were with a serious potential for pre-empting in India in the early part of the 20th century,
the Boston political economy and political governments that had developed over the modern period in Europe is
only because the direction uncertainties of an assumed to reality have the effect of writing out of history.
The great significance of dissenting voices had at that earlier turn,
leaving the impression only of those antecedents that make our own conditions seem inevitable for our own time.
How to correct this tendency in us by elaborating this dialectical reversal of which is the chief preoccupation of the first half of this lecture.
Infrastructure pursued this line of thought by working with a very specific
Christian with an intellectual history through the lens of Gandhi's democracy,
the question whether what political philosophers and political economists widely consider
a rational development in the history of politics and political economy is indeed rushed.
I will not repeat all the details of that for sure,
but I'll have to give just a very schematic summary of the document in order to turn to the points.
I do want to raise. In the broad contours of my argument,
I started with a larger sense striking response to the widespread protests against recent forms of what mark so-called primitive accumulation.
I.e., the disposition of peasantry from their land for corporate projects in India.
Singular and so on. You remember those events, and there was a lot of protests soon responded by saying, but India, in order to come into modernity,
would unfortunately simply have to go through the pain that England went through in order to create its London's image.
This is in stark contrast to a which precisely argued that it was a form of cognitive slavery to think that one must conceive
of India's modernity as built along the destructive path taken by the growth economies that created London and Manchester.
So I proved what underlies Sen's assumption that countries like India must go through what the erstwhile colonised state and assumption,
which is very widespread. He was only articulating the tested conventional assumption.
And I argued further that incentives. It was not based on some sort of commitment to iron laws of history that are sometimes attributed to Marx.
Since then is writing within the liberal tradition of thought he appeared not to notions of necessity as such and laws proposed,
but rather to a notion of rationality. In other words, it is not a historical inevitability that India must go through what England went through,
but rather because what England went through was rushed through its erstwhile colonies ought to do so.
That is a quite different position.
So I should point out that in a familiar tradition, owing primarily to figure necessity and rationality cannot be kept entirely separate either.
That's because for Hegel. History sort of shrunk Greece, Watson doesn't belong to that tradition.
The obvious and celebrated initial location of that liberal claim to rationality of what England
went through was the argument in John Locke's chapter on property in the second treatise and.
If you situate the chapter and Knox General Construction constructionism,
we can unearth a standard form of argument for the sort of rational development that centres assuming in the remark from him that I've just quoted.
It is essentially an argument from operator improvement over the state of nature,
whereby the privatisation of the Commons that came with the inclusion of this hitherto carried out by brute force was literally rationalised.
That is rendered rational by the thought experiment of a social contract in which
all commoners were set to be better off than they were in the state of nature.
If some of them privatised the land and the rest were hired by them as wage labour to a company that.
As is well known, some years before last treatments, there was widespread protest against the incursions by popular religious.
A range of Puritan Christian six, resisting the high Anglican orthodoxy,
which had aligned itself with domestic policies that were keen to transform agrarian living into what we now call activists,
these radical groups the diggers, the radical liberators, not all the liberals,
the radical elements and a variety of others memorably studied by Christopher Hill and other historians
of that period were appealing to ideas of communal and collective cultivation of the Commons.
So in my extended argument, I had anachronistic ventriloquist onto their lips.
In response to look, I see anachronistic play not only because, as I said,
they predicted not, but because I used a vocabulary that is always like this.
So we could. Attribute two to these dissenters, the following argument.
It's an argument from economy from what economists call opportunity cost.
The radical Goodison just could be attributed to Forge. Yes, lock would be right to say that the communists,
who were hired to work for wages in the social contract were indeed better off than they were in the state of nature.
But they're not better off than they would have been. And the company's not been privatised in the first place.
And if there'd been a collective contribution of the Sense instead. An opportunity cost is an avoided benefit when you make a certain decision.
So these dissenters could be viewed as saying that the decision to privatise the Commons in accordance with Locke's argument
avoided the possibility of even greater benefits that could be gained from a collective contribution of the Commons.
I then argue that the matter cannot rest because a great deal of the driving conceptual and ideological thrust of liberal political economy of
the Enlightenment over the next few centuries may be seen as a sustained replied to this counterargument that I attributed to the descendants.
The counterargument assumes the coaches of the idea of a collective cultivation of the Commons,
and it is precisely this urgency that became the target of attack by fundamental outlook of modern political economy,
which in the mid-20th century was summed up in a celebrated paper entitled The Tragedy of the Commons.
It is a not a primary expressing a certain view of the nature of human rationality.
It is this ideal of rationality and the mentality or outlook that it expressed that gun they was constantly opposing from different angles,
taking on all its effects on modernity.
The particular paper I mentioned, I got out of trouble elaborates the outlook in game theoretic terms in the form of a person prisoner's dilemma.
It's basically a formalisation of a widespread object, which instrument is basically taking for granted.
I want you to repeat the game theoretic argument, so-called dominance argument, which I want to foresee and one aspect to which.
It is its main direction, which ran counter deeply onto the ground, these stick.
And this wants to argue.
But no individual homeowner could rationally commit to the cooperation that is entailed by a collective cultivation with coach.
Rationality requires each commoner to think that, though it is certainly true that of all communist corporations, everybody would get.
There's the constant anxiety. Wonderfully cooperated and others did not.
If one is thinking rationally, this anxiety has no answer to soothe.
Such is the situation of a multi-person prison student there.
So each commoner, if he's rational, refuses cooperation, which in turn would, of course, entail the destruction of the Commons,
that is the tragedy of the Commons and therefore better bets than its collective contribution is the privatisation of the Commons.
That is an abbreviated version. Of the game theoretic updating.
Gandhi's entire construction of Ashram muds repeatedly expressed exactly the opposite view of rationality, Gandhi explicitly said.
Nobody in my ashram says, What if I did my bit of work every day and the others did?
This is nobody has that insight in my ashram. And in it, Gundy was providing a whole basis for saying.
The crimes about the requisite cooperation expressed in the anxiety,
what if I co-operated another student that is so central to the epistemological outlook of the political
economy is itself a deep going manifestation of the alienation that characterises modern society.
In an uneducated society, no commoner would be gripped by that anxiety.
And intonation of the sort, the claim does not exist where there's an unselfconscious and unspoilt sense of belonging,
which pre-modern societies have.
As he explicitly said, even slaves and serfs, however badly the oppressed and others did not suffer from a lack of sense of belonging.
The finishing of this alienation that Gandhi, along with Rousseau Hegel marks,
not to mention Heidegger Horkheimer and attribute it to modernity was absolutely central to these antique models.
In this, he was Marx's intellectual, though, unlike Marx,
who came to US ideas from a remarkable lifelong study of the sources of alienation in
modern industrial capitalist societies and sought to transcend into solidarity labour.
Gandhi, who lived in struggle in a quite different historical and social context,
sought the sources of an unchallenged life in the same social and cultural field as his early modern
precedents that I'd mentioned earlier the folk and spiritual traditions of popular religion.
It is simply not possible to come to grips with the remarkable effectiveness of Gandhi's methods of mobilisation,
deploying the idea is that you did without understanding how much he was stopping the social outlets of popular religion in India.
The idea that he could abandon this fundamental source of his effectiveness for a more modern ground for anti-imperialism,
such as the loyalists, to the constitutional demands for Indian self-governance.
As many of his other colleagues aspire to, or the terror based tactics of the insurgent,
anti-imperialist or for the more purely caste based formulations that sought to mobilise the
masses is to simply miss the point of what was unique about Gandhi's strength and conviction.
In fact, there's every reason to think that the mobilisation of the 1930s that often targeted not the British,
but were more purely class struggles by tenants and sharecroppers against the Overlords cluster Goosen,
which Gandhi in the Congress often didn't have control. This would not have emerged without the dynamism of the movement,
whose reach extends its arms and quite generally without the dynamic reach of Gandhian non-cooperation over an earlier period.
Movements which by contrast to the more purely class struggle,
mixed anti-imperialist and present consciousness and popular religion in a way that only Gandhi's globalisation or innovations could have devised.
Thus, neither the ideal of astronauts nor the unselfconsciously present ideas in centuries of religious pluralism.
Was there any case for the alienated anxiety that lay behind the argument of an entire economic outlook of modernity?
Now, so far, I've been summarising the line of sceptical criticism I presented in past book about the
philosophical assumptions regarding rationality that underlie a multisensory mark with which again.
But even from an empirical and historical angle, the remark seems unwarranted.
The historical analogy that Sen makes is historically quite inexact.
Since England in since in England, those desists dispossessed by primitive accumulation to create London and Manchester migrated
in very large numbers to other parts of the tamperproof good has given immigration laws.
There's no place for the dispossessed of rural Bengal or Chattisgarh or wherever to go,
except the slums of the already cluttered cities within their own national borders.
In other words, primitive accumulation. This is just the disposition of land from the peasantry.
Primitive accumulation in Europe led the dispossessed to join the migrations to other parts of the world,
feeding into the diffusion of capitalism via settler colonialism.
Whereas in India today, given the restrictions on the mobility of labour, all it has left to is the further pushing of people into destitution.
So I want to take this historical criticism as a location from which to explore something that has significance for why gone before.
But the developments of the modern period in Europe were besides the point for countries such as.
It marks a start, age of capital punishment and in the completely familiar and standard accounts that derive from which.
Primitive accumulation is seen as the cursor frequently brutal extermination of communities of a pre capitalist
form as a result of the resolution of put it produces primarily the peasantry from the sources for the means,
primarily land of the particular form of production, grazing or even mere foraging.
And in this community, the more we pick up this community due to primitive primitive accumulation morphs into a proletariat,
either in the form of metropolitan industrial labourers or Reserve Army of the unemployed in cities.
These accounts, do they observed the coercive and brutal nature of the destruction of pick up communities?
I nevertheless also presented. As the transformation into a neutral class formation in which the old hierarchical, oppressive features of social life,
caste religious traditions to undermine even if they are replaced by new,
new forms of oppressive features such as exploitation of industrial labour and in an issue of industrial.
In the extensive commentary and granted,
people tend to focus on as frequently articulated normative storms that the worst aspects of pre-calculus communities,
the socially conservative primordial ties with the oppressive hierarchies and divisions.
Because no one understands that these oppressive features ought to be addressed and corrected without
destroying these communities by transforming them into these new class formations down the often.
Wrote that we. This is one central aspect with what we regard as sentiment in this.
Now, however, we assess this normative stance that we ought to address this primordial divisions and cost challenges,
et cetera, without destroying these communities free capitalist communities.
However, we insist that normative stance.
What I want to focus on instead is not the stance, but something more purely descriptive rather than normative.
Which underlies and puts into doubt the universal applicability of Marx's account of primitive accumulation.
What motivated Gandhi's normative students?
Whatever we think of the stance itself is as brilliant and strange that the conditions of large agrarian societies of the colonised
regions of the songs are not exactly the ground on which or to which the standard accounts of primitive accumulation apply.
To excuse us in sorry. Let me ask a counterfactual question about European populations.
Imagine the following scenario that has come to a defence.
There is no massive migration of those dispossessed of their land by primitive accumulation and no settler
colonialism that moves vast numbers of the European peasant population to various parts of the world,
such as across the entire Atlantic, to the Americas or to the antipodes or to the southernmost corners of.
In this counterfactual scenario, millions of peasants who in fact migrated instead remain sedentary.
In your. What reason is there to say that they would be absorbed into a new community of industrially?
What reason is there to think that they would be accommodated inside the domain of capitalist production?
There is every reason to think that they would remain outside of capitalism as a vast residual pre capitalist community.
How then would contemporary capitalism have characterised the police?
What guns were there for thinking that the standard accounts of primitive
accumulation were too much as applied to whatever categorisation one would give?
And so the crucial question arises, would they have overcome the oppressive, hierarchical and divisive features into primordial times?
The tribal divisions, the deep blue ribbon religious chasms that were typical of European society of the time.
I mean, just consider the fact that whole wars fought for years on end over obscure religious issues such as transubstantiation.
So really, I'm arguing the Gandhi took his normative stance,
whether or not we agree with it because of a canny understanding that in colonial and first colonial to the
colonised lands with a factual version of something that was merely the counterfactual scenario in Europe,
as I just presented a little while ago. To put it differently, primitive accumulation,
as it is presented in the canonical Manchester council depends on trimming, not in the truth of an apron.
Nor really even a theoretical analysis, but on the observation of an entirely contingent empirical feature in European history,
the fact of massive departure prison populations to other parts of the world.
There could be no such thing as the primitive accumulation of the classical accounts offer,
at least not a plausible one if this wholly contingent empirical feature were not all suppressed as this.
As a result, there's no reason to think that Marx's accounting capital is a bit of theory at all.
The theory implies that the generalisability of its main claim or a claim to some tenants or some structural explanatory part of diverse phenomena.
But if I'm right. That account has no such properties.
It is a local observation about European history over a given span of time.
If you wanted a specific and substantive example of the rhetoric of provincial ization of Europe,
Marx's account of primitive accumulation, as I'm now presenting you seems to be doing just that.
So even if primitive accumulation that is taking over of land from mining factories for the
creation of townships and eventually cities for the building of highways and dams and bridges,
et cetera, as well as the creation of a new sort of consumer for the new sort of products that these changes furnish.
Is the ground on which the grave new growth economies, as they're called, emerge?
And what I'm suggesting is that Gandhi understood that in the colonised lands,
given quite different empirical features, none of this can absorb the displaced millions as India's true labour.
In fact, it's not even clear that they would be transformed into a reserve of.
In terms of the economic outlook and trajectory, there's no kidding.
But of the modern trajectory, there's no kidding what happens to these people whom we thought comprise the heart of.
From his point of view,
there's no reason to believe that colonialism had or would create any scope for the industrial transformation of societies like India.
Given the differential of the European chase and its colonies that are important to be on the understood that colonialism in
relation to its colonised nations were never motivated to know if it would have the effect of making such a transformation.
The extractive nature of colonialism that has various campaigns and is not appropriate cooperation
movement implicitly or person was precisely intended to be through such a transformation of these lands.
This is why he did not grant the primitive accumulation would lead to the emergence of a relatively liberated, even if different,
be subjugated industrial labour in India and instead even industrial labourers would
continue to be caught up in the hierarchical features of free capitalist community,
something we see everywhere in urban India today. And the politics of identity.
That surface is not just to Israel, but to metropolitan India has been.
Sociologists are constantly observed the communal riots occur predominantly in cities.
A symptom of the capitalist communities. Metropolitan survival.
As I said,
I'm taking no position on whether Gundy was right to take the normative stance he did on the matter of how we ought to overcome the oppressive,
hierarchical social features of pick up the stimulus without the destruction of those communities.
I'm only suggesting that this normative stance was expressive of an insight that
colonialism depended upon something that was actually factual in the colonies,
even though it may have been merely counterfactual in Europe, as I present that conjecture.
A few moments ago. From Gundy's and to modernism reflected in his resistance to the destruction
of precarious communities were not was not just a sentimental moral position,
though of course it was a normative stance.
It was a normal disturbance that was driven and contextualise perceptive empirical understanding that colonial capitalism
had not and would not create conditions for the industrial morphing of predominantly agrarian countries that India.
And thus an understanding that the effects of imperialism by their nature relied on the colonised were not
possessing transformative conditions that existed in European competition and its diffusion of crude.
OK, so now just to make things difficult for myself, I turn now to an aspect of his empty mindedness that is much less a similar bill into a
broadly left radicalism that in fact is widely dismissed by liberal and left modernistic.
His scepticism about modern myths. What makes his views about medicine controversy?
The most obvious, though somewhat superficial answer and a source of constant dismay amongst his critics is that he was
perversely ignoring the great alleviation of suffering and loss of life that modern medicine can bring.
Gandhi's response to such criticism was often conciliatory, saying that he was not denying the fact that such a deviation.
But only insisting on two related points. First, modern medicine often had effects that were harmful,
and this effect tends to get buried in the triumphalist stories and statistics that statistics.
And second, its successes were often founded and developed on the basis of practises like resection
and other such procedures that both took and caused suffering to animal life.
An early statement of what is pervasively now accepted by animal rights theorists in the midst.
But in other remarks, he took the discussion to a deeper and less obvious level probing the relations between
modern medicine and the traditional medicine methods of seeking and promoting true.
He began this discussion by first contextualising medicine,
saying some things were suited to certain kinds of societies, certain sorts of prevalent doctors.
And so even if we acknowledge the gains by modern medicine, it was not always appropriate in the Indian context.
To pursue this point, it would, in some writings, pose an initial challenge.
Why does one find the traditional medicine survives in places like India, despite the growing availability of modern techniques?
Why do people continue with healing practises that are traditional in the face of the impressive
advances and the practical success of so much rests amidst the Christian we might realise today,
many decades after he raised? And you rejected us glib and evasive and even somewhat cynical.
The following arts tradition medicine continues to flourish in Indian modernity because otherwise its practitioners,
divides and Hakim's and peers would have to join the vast army of the unemployed.
The answer is, in any case, no doubt some of them do carry on because they would be out of livelihood if they did not.
But to think that the practise does not come from and speak to a genuine belief and commitment on their
part and on the part of the vast constituencies would be to quite mis describe the facts on the ground.
Moreover, to the extent that a range of low-tech solutions do work for many tropical afflictions
and to the extent that they bring meaning and comfort to large numbers of people,
it would be dogmatic to think that this belief or commitment is wholly misplaced.
Gandhi insisted on this.
Now, it's not as if this last point has gone unacknowledged in recent years in the metropolitan churches where Christian medicine is practised.
The disdain many showed to its traditional medicine for so long that's recently been quantified substantially
with considerable acceptance of the efficacy of traditional medicine or the air raid or unani or Chinese.
In fact, major hospitals and universities in Western countries have increasingly devoted
time and research and funds to teams and departments that study these efficacy.
But this concession to his new. Does not quite come to grips with a deeper point of his differences with the outlook of modernity,
the Sudan medicine and not turn the chief different lies in the fact.
That it is essential to the soccer. But having made the concession, the risk to not that having made this concession.
About the relative success of tradition, which it insists on asking the following for the question.
And on giving the following answer to it an answer that Gandhi stubbornly refuses.
The Christians granted the traditional medicine is often efficacious, which accounts for its efficacy.
What are the principles that explain why traditional medicine works when it works?
And everywhere, even, I'm sure amongst most of us here today with our modern attitudes toward science,
there's a very strong tendency on our part to answer this question roughly as follows.
We need not to know deny much works in the traditions of your trade, your guide in Chinese medicine,
nor denied that not as much works as well as you assume a dozen estimates.
But still, when we ask why each of these work, when they work and explain how they work,
we must appeal to the same underlying scientific that is chemical and physical prints.
In other words, the principles that explain the efficacy of various forms of traditional medicine and the principles that
explain the efficacy of modern allopathic medicine are not and cannot be inconsistent with one another.
Gandhi would, as I said, refuse to such an interest as grounds for doing so.
That brings out how radical and deep going his critique of modernity is as it surfaces in its attitudes towards science.
And it brings out, therefore why this is not just a surface dispute about the relative merits of traditional versus modern medicine.
To repeat the intellectual demand of modernity that you are considering,
is this the theoretical explanation of the instrumental successes of traditional forms of medicine
must in the end be compatible with the theoretical explanations of the instrumental success of my in?
An implication of this demand is that if we take a certain widely held conception
of maturity as a conjunction of inferentially related theoretical symptoms,
then the theoretical sentences which account for one risk committee and the theoretical sentences which
account for about these other traditions of medicine work can be conjoined together in a single,
consistent theory. There's no tension.
The clues, the conjoined theory apart in different directions. But Gundy's whole understanding of the context in which traditional medicine
and India's practise suggests to him that no such conjoining was possible.
Indeed, he suggests that there was something incommensurate between the traditional and modern medicine that made such a conjunction impressed.
What did you think was the source of this income and strictness? The thought of the possibility of conjoining in a unified form?
The underlying next generation of these different efficacies? His answer was quite simple.
The very idea of efficacy was different, in fact radically incomparable or incommensurate in the two forms admits.
That is to say, there was a conceptual divergence between what counted as skill in other parts of medicine and what counted as short traditions.
How then could one expect the extradition of the successor to be a of the same if the extra number of data to be exchanged were radically different,
indeed incommensurate? To put it very facetiously,
it would be like saying that we're going to give the same underlying explanation for why mountains are big and why books are interested.
If there's an increment in the two things to be explained, it would be absurd to demand that it be a common underlying explanation for boots.
So now the question arises What did he mean when he said that the very idea of efficacy was different in the two forms of admits?
His answer was because they work with different conceptions of the body.
The relevance of this latter difference regarding the body to the differential in what counts as medical efficacy needs careful elaboration.
To do so, let me begin by citing a passage from Amartya Sen and Martha Nussbaum in an essay about health issues in countries like India,
which it is much more cautious than what Romney has to say is a good start towards getting the more radical position Romney takes.
Here's what's in and respond, right? They say we need an inside understanding of the people who are to be treated
in thinking about what is health and the procedures for bringing it to match.
Heavenly mathematics is one thing, but medicine seems paradigmatic of something that is immersed,
engaged, working in a pragmatic partnership with those whom it treats.
It must take very seriously their pains and pleasures,
their own mental sense of it over their health and flourishing that it involves the patient's own sense of better and worse to ignore.
This is not just to be careless. The important point is that it cannot be right.
That's a quote from Senator Spar. It was pushed further this interesting passage take it towards a more ambitious claim than anything
senator themselves say in it something much closer to Gandhi's understanding of the issues at stake.
Can large point was that in many indigenous traditions, especially Indians?
The notion of health and well-being turns into conception of the body, which is not purely and brutally material.
Bodies and more generally,
match are shot through with what be contemporary philosophers with our secular habits of thought and secular vocabulary called meaning and value.
During a more religious and pantheistic and animist traditions,
the terms employed would be somewhat different and the rhetoric would be different
since these traditions took the source of value and meaning to be sacred.
Gandhi, given his maverick religiosity, invoking strains of the Buddhism, of journalism, of his own background of we to mention tourism,
even a popular Christianity, Gandhi indulge in a wide range of the rhetoric of sexualization when describing the human body.
But Richard, your rhetoric we implore secular or religious. The upshot is that for Gounty, the target of terror is not something brutally couple.
It is not simply the destruction of bacteria or the restoration of physical function.
Rather, to put it in barbarian terms, if one sees the body itself as enchanted with meaning and emotion.
And then. Then if there is to be cured of the body, it will be a highly integrated restriction,
not just a physical function, but the restoration of an equilibrium of meanings and emotions and values.
It's better. Sue, when herbal medicines are used in the context of traditional medical practise in India,
they're not just targeting conditions, the body conceived in material terms.
They're targeting something much rich. The plant can be conveyed with an analogy.
One might think of the body that these herbal medicines are seeking to target, but analogy with how we think of a taboo on a stage during a.
To press the analogy, you might say that just as the physical table is a stage prop or a bit of stage design in the performance of a play,
the physical body is the state side in a performance ritual of.
To see the body is merely a computer and to see the efficacy of a cure as a mere restoration of corporeal functioning would be like seeing
the table on the stage in a plane as merely and brutally physical as a configuration of swarming molecules say rather than it's a sight of.
Family conviviality, as it might be or the site of tense international negotiations.
This is not, of course, how soon Nussbaum would teach some adding a certain Gandhian understanding of the metaphysics of the body to what they see.
This is a more grounded description. No, the modern philosophical institute, which I assume most of us here possess.
It's going to be quite predictable when confronted with this footage. It's going to respond by proposing a clean bifurcation.
It's going to say, even if the restoration of the equilibrium of emotions and meanings essential to our conception of Joe,
why can't we see things as follows? When herbal medicines are used, what is going on is that they cure all the body,
the body's seen as fruit and disenchanted, that's modern science, and we then expect that many bodily chew.
To intern do its subsequent closing pitch in restoring the patient's equilibrium with meanings and emotions.
And red does not entirely do so, we may turn to non-physical therapies as well, such as what happens in the West, say, in Sacramento.
But such a bifurcating response is tone deaf to the fundamental point that is being registered in the ground in which.
So, Gandhi, things are much more integrated, the body itself is suffused with meaning, value and emotion.
It's just not really closely connected with these larger states of mind and being.
The body and the states of mind are not idealistically and separately conceived, requiring to be connected because that.
As a result on his picture, we cannot bifurcates the process into two one part herbal medicine, see a neem plant.
Oh, some antibiotic pills targeting the beauty material body and restoring its bodily functions, which are ones that purely material cure is achieved,
then causes a subsequent and separate restoration of the wider equilibrium of states of emotion and peace of mind.
New can be in the cases when the causality does not work out.
Resort to saying that we can view the purely bodily cure.
Brought about by the name capital antibiotic as one part of the cure and then supplement it with a further second kind of cure.
The performative ritual, which in the West is a token performative ritual of psychoanalysis.
Which then? Restores the emotions and means it from the guardian metaphor to there's much greater
integration of the body and states of mind in the way that the body itself was conceived.
That cannot be to merely causally linked targets that you're seeking in these processes.
There's just one integrated target and one crucial. The medicine itself must be approached,
must be administered and taken with the right attitudes and understanding if the
medicine is to be efficacious in the integrated way they're just being sold.
Does to present the body analogy with the idea of stage design is to see it in terms that make it impossible to assert that,
but by focussing on the process, what sense would it make to see?
But the swimming molecules on the stage that configure the table that we see are closing.
The other thing we see the sight of family conviviality or tense negotiations.
What sense does it make to say that it is nonsense to say that?
The two sets of concepts are major molecular structure, tense negotiation are simply too disparate,
two mismatched incommensurate with each other for us to make any sense of the claim that one is causing the.
Once you grasp this, we can grasp why Gandhi cannot accept the modern history that even if traditional medicine is a trick to its effectiveness,
must be explained by the same principles of physical chemistry that explain the effectiveness of calligraphic which.
What this discussion makes clear, though, is that for new effectiveness efficacy.
And thus health itself a radically different and in commensurately conceived by the
true British two traditions because they work with different conceptions of the road,
how could they then be explained by these same underlying principles? And if they cannot get a common underlying explanation,
then the Western scientists concession to the success of traditional medicine is not properly conceived.
Traditional medicine is not just seeking the kind of thing with counts success in modern rich.
So when the conception is made, which is made to something other than what is intended and sort of traditional.
Back on these nights, it is only by failing to comprehend and by distorting is what is meant by success in traditional medicine,
that the madness can even formulate the demand,
that there be an underlying common explanation for the medical successes in the two traditions with a full and undistorted comprehension of it,
of the sort that I've tried to sketch, the demand for him is not so much as intelligent.
I'll leave it to the audience to ponder to what extent this few of the body and of medicine amounts to a conceptual religious.
Rhythms and modernism comes from an underlying outlook, competitiveness and remains a vexed interpretative question in the study of countries sort.
Thanks very much.