lesson Ahimsa Center K‐12 Teacher Institute Lesson Does the end justify the means? 1

Kim Vinh, Sequoia High School, Redwood City, Calif. 11th/12th grade English Two 100‐minute block periods

California ELA 11th/12th grade standards: • Reading 2.1: Analyze both the features and the rhetorical devices of different types of public documents (e.g., policy statements, speeches, debates, platforms) and the way in which authors use those features and devices. • Reading 2.6: Critique the power, validity, and truthfulness of arguments set forth in public documents; their appeal to both friendly and hostile audiences; and the extent to which the arguments anticipate and address reader concerns and counterclaims (e.g., appeal to reason, to authority, to pathos and emotion). • Reading 3.8: Analyze the clarity and consistency of political assumptions in a selection of literary works or essays on a topic (e.g., suffrage, women’s role in organized labor).

Lesson Abstract: Students will discuss and answer the question “does the end justify the means?” After defining “means” and “ends,” students will explore different situations to come to a personal understanding, then revisit an excerpt from The Autobiography of , in which he calls for freedom “by any means necessary,” as well as Chapter 16 of Hind Swaraj, Gandhi’s exploration of brute force. Students will apply their understanding of rhetorical modes to analyze how each leader made his argument.

Guiding Questions: ‐ How are rhetorical modes (ethos, pathos, logos) used to advance an author’s argument? ‐ How does tone, structure, and understanding of audience affect a speaker’s message? ‐ Does the end justify the means? Does your method of obtaining your goal matter?

Content Essay:

Classroom context: Eleventh graders study The Autobiography of Malcolm X in conjunction with a US History unit on the civil rights movement.

In The Autobiography of Malcolm X, students read about the transformation of one of the major civil rights leaders of the 1950s. Coming of age in the time of Jim Crow, Malcolm Little experiences extreme poverty, targeted hate, and institutional racism growing up. His only method of survival is to use his street smarts in hustling, becoming a teenage underground dealer nicknamed “Detroit Red” on the black market of drugs and weapons. After being jailed and undergoing a religious epiphany, Malcolm embraces the Nation of Islam and emerges as a leader in the movement for black nationalism and separation of black and white Americans. Seeing institutional violence committed against his community, Malcolm famously advocates for self‐defense against whites in power. In a 1964 speech, Malcolm recalls a telegram he sent to Rockwell, a leader of the Klan:

“This is to warn you that I am no longer held in check from fighting white supremacists by ’s separationist Black Muslim movement, and that if your present racist agitation against our people there in Alabama causes physical harm to Reverend King or any other black Americans who are only attempting to enjoy their rights as free human beings, that you and your Ku Klux Klan friends will be met with maximum physical retaliation from those of us who are not handcuffed by the disarming philosophy of nonviolence, and who believe in asserting our right of self‐defense by any means necessary” (Malcolm X).

In Malcolm’s opinion, achieving black independence from oppressive whites involved taking arms to fight back against the often violent ways by which blacks were held down; his view of an ideal civilization rejected the hierarchy that whites held over blacks. Despite eventually leaving the Nation of Islam in the last year of his life, his powerful and fiery speeches created a legacy. Malcolm is well known for calling for a violent take back of power and for being at odds with the Civil Rights leaders of the day such as Martin Luther King, Jr. Critics of his methods argued that his means for achieving his goal would leave civilization in disrepair, but many felt his anger and followed his lead.

Gandhi, Hind Swaraj

Mohandas K. Gandhi, 56 years before Malcolm X, also articulates his view of an ideal civilization. Written in transit from India to South Africa in less than 10 days, Hind Swaraj explains his vision for an independent Indian society, free from British rule and as well as from moral obstacles to a spiritually free society (Sethia 81). He explains in Hind Swaraj that brute force is not a viable option to gaining freedom; instead, love force, or soul force (satyagraha) is the only option that will lead to a society based in social justice. Gandhi names his goal not in terms of the current situation – freedom from Brisith rule – but in terms of the future: he dreams of an independent society that will survive and thrive. Thus, in thinking of a long‐term solution, Gandhi certainly places value on the methods employed. As the end goal – an independent society – is intended to progress and carry into the future, it must certainly be created upon a strong foundation. While brute force could quickly dismantle British rule, the result might be short‐lived, he says.

These two texts by Gandhi and Malcolm X provide different answers to the popular question, “Does the end justify the means?” So many different connotations arise from its mere six words: the idea of purpose, audience, morality, and intent; it further forces a value judgment on outcome versus methods. They also both employ a combination of the rhetorical modes of ethos, pathos, and logos to achieve their message. The identification of these various methods is a year‐long practice of my students; they also continually analyze how an author’s tone changes according to his audience and how that can affect reception of a message. These two texts serve as prime examples for this analysis. Rhetorical analysis

Hind Swaraj establishes ethos, or authority on a subject, by structuring each chapter as a dialogue between two people conversing to represent Gandhi’s thinking aloud. This “context of a debate between the ‘Editor’ (Gandhi) and the ‘Reader’ (Gandhi’s adversary)… [provides] both sides of the argument on major issues he encountered at the time” (Sethia 81). Gandhi establishes ethos first by giving himself the title of Editor, an authoritative position with connotations of being a shrewd thinker, writer, and public figure. However, he creates an editor that is compassionate and honors his reader’s concerns. This is notable to me for the editor’s thorough examination of viable counterarguments. Gandhi does not simply have his reader pose a question and then answer as the editor for the remainder of the chapter. Instead, he truly presents a dialogue, in which the editor, rather than espousing a firm, uncompromising position, actually admits his struggle in his changing beliefs. “Your reasoning is plausible,” the editor responds to the reader. “It has deluded many. I have used similar arguments before now” (Gandhi 78). Counterintuitively, Gandhi establishes ethos by letting the audience identify with a human thinker with flaws and doubts.

Logos forms the basis of the majority of the chapter. Gandhi’s editor gives not one or two, but several close examinations of examples to prove his point that “liberation gained through violence only replaces one form of tyrannical rule by another form” (Sethia 89). He patiently explores all aspects of one example of thinking, then moves on to another: “”This is one of the means. Now let us examine the other,” he writes (Gandhi 81).

Gandhi first uses the example of stealing to describe how “what is gained through fear is retained only while the fear lasts” (Gandhi 77). Stealing, for example, is deterred by a fear of punishment. Gandhi admits that he would steal if there were no threat of punishment. This helps him argue that if power were held by fear, it would disappear unless the group was kept under constant threat. He continues to answer his reader with several more simple examples of common goals a reader might make parallels to: driving a thief out of the house, preventing a child from harm, getting a rose, crossing the ocean, worshipping God, acquiring a watch (Gandhi 78‐80).

The watch example in particular breaks down three clear means, or pathways, to acquiring a watch, utilizing logical reasoning. The method of acquiring the watch, Gandhi argues, changes the end result. Specifically, the reader could • fight for the watch, depriving the owner of it, and ending up with stolen property • buy the watch, making a legal purchase, ending up with rightful property • ask for the watch, through pleading/convincing/requesting, ending up with a gift

This breakdown of how different means affects the ends provides concrete examples for a reader to come to the editor’s conclusion that the means does affect the ends.

Gandhi saves an emotional situation for his last example, utilizing pathos as his final rhetorical mode to make his case for soul force over brute force. He appeals directly to the reader’s feelings by providing heart‐wrenching options to a child thrusting his foot into fire: “helplessly allow it to go into the flames,” or “give your own life, because you do not wish to see it perish before your very eyes” (Gandhi 83). He powerfully concludes with an analogy of the English as the ignorant child, for which the reader will have to sacrifice his life – an argument few would argue against given its emotional weight.

In “Brute Force,” the sheer number of examples given illustrates Gandhi’s thoughtfulness and sincerity in exploring this topic fully. His many approaches are notable given the reminder that he is speaking ultimately to himself as he explores the many topics in Hind Swaraj. Gandhi’s diligence is admirable; students should use this dialectical writing as a model to truly know a topic before preparing to convince others of the same. Ultimately, he concludes, “Your belief that there is no connection between the means and the end is a great mistake. We reap exactly as we sow,” making the case against using brute force to attain independence thoroughly and convincingly (Gandhi 79).

Application of this thinking Gandhi’s close exploration of ends and means serves a larger purpose than just a logical exercise of the mind. After all, his three‐part analysis of the question is tied to the larger question of the chapter’s title, “Brute Force.” In considering how to best convince his opponents of the argument to not use brute force of the British as a means to achieve independence, Gandhi certainly wanted to be thorough in his explanation. His thoughtfulness is thus tied to the weight of the situation. As a leader thinking of building an independent community for the future, he wanted to ensure a strong foundation. Independence, he says, would not be lasting if based on questionable means. Further, “only fair means can produce fair results,” he says (Gandhi 82). He warns of even more potential consequences of using brute force: “Thus the result of wanting to take revenge upon the robber is that you have disturbed your own peace; you are in perpetual fear of being robbed and assaulted,” gently reminding the reader that the fair means is in the reader’s best interest (Gandhi 81). We see the opposite truth in Malcolm X’s story, as his call for violent means leads to his very violent end, and the society he created, based on anger and retaliation, came to a quick end.

Bibliography: Gandhi, M. K. . “Brute force.” Hind Swaraj and other writings. Ed. Anthony J. Parel. New York: Cambridge University Press, 2009.

Sethia, Tara. Gandhi: Pioneer of Nonviolent Social Change. New York: Pearson Education, 2012.

X, Malcolm. “Afro‐American History.” , New York, NY. 24/01/1964. Speech.

Lesson sequence:

Activity Teacher Students Estimated time, materials

1. Teacher led‐discussion: Use ‐ Narrate and ‐ Take notes as class ‐ 30 minutes for Prezi (digital video) to introduce provide background defines terms Prezi: question “Does the end justify information, ‐ Participate in http://prezi.com/uh the means?” and initiate stopping at points paraphrasing cb1bijvu68/does‐ discussion on examples to ask questions and verbally and by the‐end‐justify‐the‐ presented in “Brute Force.” invite discussion taking notes means/ ‐ binder paper for each student

2. Students generate ‐ Model group task ‐ Work in groups to ‐ 30 minutes for understanding: Student groups of coming up with brainstorm group task and explore different means to more situation situation, explore share out situation of their choosing examples to explore means, discuss ‐ poster paper and means to each end effect on ends markers for each ‐ Present model ‐ Create poster to group poster present 3. Formative assessment: ‐ Present question: ‐ Write individually ‐ 15 minutes Informal write on what the “What does the ‐ binder paper question means and initial question “Does the student answer end justify the means?” mean, in your own words? Summarize three examples you saw today. Finally, come to an initial conclusion. 4. Class activity: Read and ‐ Lead students in ‐ Read, take notes, ‐ 40 minutes annotate “Brute Force” reading “Brute participate in ‐ Photocopied Force,” asking discussion chapter clarification questions along the way

5. Group task: Annotate for ‐ Review modes (as ‐ Work in groups to ‐ 30 minutes rhetorical analysis of ethos, learned earlier in identify sections of ‐ Rhetorical analysis pathos, logos year, so no separate text that exemplify handout lesson needed) each mode 6. Group discussion: Whose ‐ Lead review of ‐ Argue for one ‐ 30 minutes speech was more effective to rhetorical modes speech or the other; you, and why? Which argument Malcolm/Gandhi possibly do debate was more powerful? used, then pose standing as students question of power “pick sides” for in argument whose argument was more powerful 6. Summative assessment: ‐ Hand out task ‐ Write individually ‐ 45 minutes (CSU Timed write (prompt based on ‐ Multiple drafts as Expository Analysis CSU Expository necessary time allotted) Analysis prompt): “Explain Gandhi’s or Malcolm X’s argument and the extent to which you agree or disagree with his analysis. Support your position, providing reasons and examples from your own experience, observations, or reading.”

Teacher notes: Situations to offer/suggest if students do not come up with their own/come up with a simplistic situation. Offer more complex situation for differentiation or extension.

End Means Effect? Getting a good Study Satisfaction grade on a test Cheat off a friend Lack of understanding Bribe the teacher? material, potential punishment Obtaining a new pair Buy them with savings of shoes/jeans/etc. Work to earn money, then buy Steal them from a friend Ask your parents Resolving a fight Beat him up with a friend Talk it out Not resolve it; drop friendship Work through it with an intermediary Witnessing a crime Get directly involved and protect victim/fight attacker Cause a distraction Call the police from afar Report crime afterwards Providing Get a job food/income for Beg/steal your family Escape safely from Give up wallet/etc. an attack Fight back Run away