Neoliberal Capitalism in Crisis: Solutions from Confucius, , and Psychological Science

Ravi Bhoothalingam1

Executive Summary

The Brexit and Trump phenomena have revealed the hollowness of neoliberal capitalism in delivering material prosperity – let alone happiness – to large numbers of people in the developed world. The developing world, meanwhile, is still far behind, and many can see that following the same model would lead them into a similar crisis, along with almost certain catastrophic environmental devastation. What is to be done?

This paper starts with a scientific look at identity. Whilst many narrow expressions of identity can (and do) lead to undesirable consequences, the latest research in psycholinguistics shows that language differences can generate creative options to solve difficult problems. Starting with the neurochemical basis of happiness, the paper shows how the present paradigm of development results in a vicious circle, delivering dissatisfaction rather than happiness. The paper then examines in greater detail the contributions Confucius and Gandhi – from totally different intellectual and cultural traditions – could make to resolving our contemporary crisis and the ways in which their models could deliver both prosperity and human happiness. It examines the Confucian and the Gandhian approaches and their fundamental precepts in some detail, including their methodologies, focus, moral outlook, and effectiveness in delivering prosperity and individual self-realisation. How would their models impact governance and environmental consequences today? How could they create a total world community of dignity and fairness for all, where human beings could live together in peace and in harmony with nature? Is there a way in which teachings from both Confucius and Gandhi could be creatively combined to show humanity a new way forward in the twenty-first century? The paper’s special feature lies in integrating modern science into such an enquiry.

Practical Suggestions:

1 The views and opinions expressed in this publication are those of the original author(s) and do not necessarily represent or reflect the views and opinions of the Dialogue of Civilizations Research Institute, its co-founders, or its staff members. 2

 re-introduce activist government to provide universal education and universal healthcare for all citizens;  focus on care-giving, nutrition, and healthcare for the elderly and for pre- school children;  raise funds by abolishing corporate tax havens and levying heavy tax on armament production and export;  make green economic development the norm;  revitalise villages and the countryside using digitalisation and 3-D printing to create economic activity and livelihoods through innovation;  make science and ethics part of the core curriculum for all students.

Keywords: Confucius; Gandhi; psychological science; psycholinguistics; serotonin; oxytocin; neoliberal capitalism; happiness

3

The long, hot summer of 2016 has not yet ended, but it has been a tumultuous period nevertheless. At the very height of midsummer came the shock of ‘Brexit’— the decision of voters in the United Kingdom, in a special referendum, for that country to exit the European Union. The weeks that followed saw the Donald Trump

‘phenomenon’ reach its peak with his nomination as the candidate of the Republican

Party to contest the election for the Presidency of the United States of America. Both of these events have been worn threadbare in the media and in scholarly analysis, and there is an emerging consensus that they are the early but serious symptoms of neoliberal capitalism in deep crisis.

In both cases, these upheavals have been triggered by the inchoate but furious reaction of large masses of people who have not experienced any increase in prosperity—indeed, who have seen their incomes fall over the decades. As Martin

Jacques explains,

In the period 1948–1972, every section of the American population experienced very similar and sizable increases in their standard of living; between 1972–2013, the bottom 10% experienced falling real income while the top 10% did far better than everyone else. In the US, the median real income for full-time male workers is now lower than it was four decades ago: the income of the bottom 90% of the population has stagnated for over 30 years. A not so dissimilar picture is true of the UK. And the problem has grown more serious since the financial crisis. On average, between 65–70% of households in 25 high-income economies experienced stagnant or falling real incomes between 2005 and 2014. (Jacques, 2016).

It was not supposed to be like this. After the collapse of the Soviet Union, democracy and market capitalism reigned supreme, with no rival save that of an unlikely candidate—China—then enmeshed in the aftermath of the Tian An Men Square debacle. Democracy and market capitalism would deliver—it was said—freedom and prosperity to all inhabitants of the planet who embraced this system. True, some might do somewhat better than others, but that would be a relatively small price to 4 pay. It was not surprising that it was at this time that Francis Fukuyama wrote his celebrated book The End of History (1992), for it seemed that there was little need for any great new ideas. The natural momentum of democracy and capitalism would take care of it all.

Events since that time—and particularly following the global financial crisis of

2008—have been a harsh reminder that things have not worked out quite as neatly, especially for the developed world. As Jacques has pointed out, economic inequalities have continued to worsen. Healthcare access has become both difficult and expensive, the burden of college debt crippling, out-sourcing of jobs and automation has hollowed out manufacturing jobs, and for the first time in many generations, the future looks bleaker than the past. The developing world has continued to benefit in economic terms, but it is still far behind. Meanwhile, the cost in environmental terms has been horrific, adding to the legacy of stress already imposed on the planet through the exploitation of natural resources that commenced in the developed world and carried on throughout the Industrial Revolution. This stress manifests through more frequent and unusually destructive weather events, epidemics, acidification of the seas, the melting of polar ice, destruction of natural species, and more. Today, in their pursuit of growth, the developing countries confront the dilemma aptly described by Gandhi: ‘The world has enough for everyone’s need, but not for everyone’s greed’ (Bhalla, 1984).

Brexit and Trump also reflect social tensions. Job outsourcing, immigration, multi-culturalism, politically and economically-induced migration, and an almost constant state of warfare in foreign parts has induced a general sense of insecurity and trepidation. This is accentuated by the acts of terrorism occurring all over the world in a dizzyingly unpredictable manner. The combined effect has been to 5 encourage primitive feelings of tribalism, a fear of strangers, and a narrow interpretation of human identity. If we are to navigate our way out of this morass, we must rethink identity from the roots. We must also re-examine our approach to the

‘pursuit of happiness’. It is in these areas that we may find some guidance from the apparently unlikely combination of modern psychological science and the thoughts of

Confucius and Gandhi.

1. Science and Human Identity

The biological sciences have established by now that the human body (and mind) is in a state of constant change. Cells are dying and others are being created. Neurons die, never to be replaced. A vast network of micro-organisms of various types inhabits our gut, skin, and other organs. Collectively, they cover our body with a kind of envelope known as the ‘macro-biome’. Therefore, the identity that I consider as

‘me’ is essentially a constantly changing kaleidoscope of cells, organisms, and chemicals. These changes fundamentally affect the character of the ‘me’ and the manifestations of my social identity as father, brother, son, citizen, scholar, etc.

Further, genetic science has revealed insignificant differences between different races of humankind, thus disproving eugenic and racial supremacist theories floated in the 1920s and 1930s.

But equally, the science of psycholinguistics—pioneered by Whorf, Sapir,

Vygotsky, and others—has shown that the language one speaks affects the way one thinks to a significant extent (Lucy, 1992; Lucy and Wertsch, 1987: 67–86). And if the way that one thinks is a marker of identity, then it follows that language is an important—indeed primary—determinant of identity. It is primary in the sense that culture and all other socially determined elements of identity formation take place 6 through the medium of language—the ‘mother tongue’ through which every child receives his or her early socialisation. The following paragraph presents a summary of my own work on how Mandarin and Sanskrit have influenced Chinese and Indian ways of thinking (Bhoothalingam, 2010).

Let us consider the root languages2 of the Indian and Chinese civilisations—

Sanskrit and Mandarin, respectively. These languages could not be more different— in script, grammar, construction, and syntax. The highly visual and character-based

Chinese language stimulates different areas of the brain compared to the complex, grammatical, and alphabetic language that is Sanskrit. Modern neuro-linguistic theory has established that the structure of a language shapes the ways in which its speakers perceive and think about the world (Boroditsky, 2003). This should not be read as a deterministic rule, but as an influential tendency which, when aggregated over a large number of people, results in Indian and Chinese individuals displaying noticeably different responses and reactions to similar sets of stimuli. We may think of languages as analogous to different computer operating programmes—just like iOS or Android operating systems, they will perform all the normal operations of email, visual and voice functions, and more, but there are areas (which users swear by) where each system has its own special edge. Rather than consider this result of human psycho-linguistics a source of potential conflict in any way, I consider it a great benefit that nature has gifted humankind. Given the linguistic diversity on

Earth, this means that any problem—natural or man-made—can be approached creatively through multiple vectors, thus raising the probability of a viable solution.

2. Science and Happiness: A Matter of Neurochemistry

2 We take the liberty, in the interest of simplicity, of terming these ‘root languages’ on the basis that about 80 percent of the respective populations have a working familiarity with their root language as a lingua franca. 7

Since the neoliberal project promises the pursuit (and hence—at some point—the achievement) of happiness, it is useful to see what science makes of the concept of happiness. To reduce it to brutal simplicity, it is all about neurochemistry, summarised here in a few sentences. Dopamine—the ‘reward molecule’ that delivers the ‘pleasure high’—is the main player here: a chemical that is released on occasions of receiving a sensory or other reward, which can be triggered by food, drink, sex, and other sources of reward, such as money or its substitutes. Serotonin is the neurochemical corresponding to states of experience described as ‘feeling good’, ‘grace’, or ‘ecstasy’, also when undertaking an act of deeper meaning or purpose. An example would be the feelings experienced after yogic or other forms of meditation, concentrated listening to music, chanting, or a similar religious or spiritual experience. Oxytocin is the neurochemical that is created when there is bonding, trust, love, or the experience of a close relationship. It is also triggered by giving (to charity or otherwise), volunteering, and other altruistic actions (see, for example, the words of Jesus: ‘It is more blessed to give than to receive’, Acts 20:35). Endorphins are the complex molecules generated through exercise that give rise to a pain-killing effect, what is even referred to as an ‘exercise high’ at high levels of exertion or athletic activity.

When we look at the neoliberal capitalist model of producing and delivering goods and services through the neuroscientific lens, its model of operation becomes quite clear. This model operates on the implicit assumption that human needs and wants are infinite. Advertising and market promotion works on this principle. If you own a Volkswagen car, you will soon want to upgrade to a ‘higher’ level, and finally aim for a BMW or a Maserati. It is clear how this plays on the dopamine reward theme. Market mechanisms, however, have become very sophisticated and now co- 8 opt Maslovian ‘higher-level needs’ through ‘life-style products’, such as yoga and meditation, with clever packaging and presentation (Maslow, 1943). This process converts what were once voluntary personal or cooperative community activities that delivered a serotonin/oxytocin experience into an individual one for which (on payment) we get a concrete reward: dopamine. It does not help that brain mechanisms also do not operate on an exclusive basis; very often the same action

(say, giving to a good cause) can generate both oxytocin and dopamine. Since dopamine is addictive, it is usually the dominant factor guiding behaviour when such a chemical cocktail is present. The results in terms of the final outcomes of uncontrolled neoliberal capitalism have been described above.

3. Confucius and Gandhi

We may now look at Confucius and Gandhi (this choice is entirely my responsibility) as exponents, if not exemplars of Chinese and Indian cultures, respectively, and see how their teachings—combined creatively—could create an alternate paradigm to the neoliberal one. To be a true alternative, such a paradigm should not only avoid the pitfalls of the neoliberal model, but also deliver its ultimate goal—human happiness.

3.1 Confucius

Confucius always referred to himself as a ‘transmitter’ of ideas from the past rather than as an innovator. His ideal was the early Zhou period (circa 1100 BCE), where the rule of virtuous ‘sage-kings’ ushered in the world’s first known welfare state. He was a pragmatist, developing his ideas on the run, as his roles in life changed from administrator to royal advisor, educationist, preceptor, and guru. The true degree of 9 his innovation and impact was felt decades if not centuries later, and China through the ages has since reinvented and reinterpreted Confucius in different ways.

Confucius rejected the idea of the human being as a self-contained and isolated

‘individual’—an ‘island unto himself’ as it were—but rather thought of the human as defined by the multiplicity of his/her relationships, from the embryonic stage until the moment of death. It was the quality of these relationships that gave meaning and richness to life. They were governed by li—translated usually (and inadequately) as

‘rites’ but more accurately as ‘civility’ or ‘decorum’. Since relationships cannot all be

‘equal’, Confucius emphasised the importance of achieving ‘harmony’ amongst all human relationships—however diverse—including that with nature. ‘Maintain harmony, though difference exists’ meant aiming at a sustainable balance in an environment of diversity (Confucius, 2002).

Probably the most crucial concept in the Confucian lexicon is that of shu— translated (again mistakenly) as ‘reciprocity’ in English, but more accurately described by a phrase like ‘putting oneself in the place of the other’. This kind of empathetic understanding of the ‘other’ makes ‘unequal’ actions more truly reciprocal than ‘equal’ ones. For example, if I give you an apple and you give me an apple, then that is traditional reciprocity. But if you give me an apple, and I—knowing that you hate apples (unlike me) but love oranges—give you an orange, then that is an example of ‘shu’. This is most commonly exemplified by the Confucian version of the

Golden Rule: “Do not do unto others what you would not have them do unto you.”

The double negative makes all the difference.

From the perspective of psychological science, one can see that the

Confucian concepts of welfare, virtue, harmony, and reciprocity trigger oxytocin and serotonin with a minimal evocation of dopamine. Indeed, one of the recent and 10 dramatic confirmations of the Confucian theory of shu arose when the noted Indian neuroscientist Vilanyur S. Ramachandran opined that ‘mirror neurons’ in the human brain (discovered in 1992 by Rizzolatti) performed a very special function in terms of self-awareness and evolutionary progress (Ramachandran, 2009). The mirror neuron in our brain is an empathetic receptor able to sense the emotion or feeling of another human through outward visible signs—for example, when one sees a hard blow received by the hero in a movie, one says, “Ouch!”

One of the main keys as to how Confucius’ thought influences governance is to be found in the following passage from the “Book of Rites” (Li Ji), which is worth quoting in full:

The practice of the Great Way, the illustrious men of the Three Dynasties—these I shall never know in person. And yet they inspire my ambition! When the Great Way was practiced, the world was shared by all alike. The worthy and the able were promoted to office and men practiced good faith and lived in affection. Therefore they did not regard as parents only their own parents, or as sons only their own sons. The aged found a fitting close to their lives, the robust their proper employment; the young were provided with an upbringing and the widow and widower, the orphaned and the sick, with proper care. Men had their tasks and women their hearths. They hated to see goods lying about in waste, yet they did not hoard them for themselves; they disliked the thought that their energies were not fully used, yet they used them not for private ends. Therefore all evil plotting was prevented and thieves and rebels did not arise, so that people could leave their outer gates unbolted. This was the age of Grand Unity (Da Tong).

Now the Great Way has become hid and the world is the possession of private families. Each regards as parents only his own parents, as sons only his own sons; goods and labour are employed for selfish ends. Hereditary offices and titles are granted by ritual law while walls and moats must provide security. Ritual and righteousness are used to regulate the relationship between ruler and subject, to insure affection between father and son, peace between brothers, and harmony between husband and wife, to set up social institutions, organize the farms and villages, honour the brave and wise, and bring merit to the individual. Therefore intrigue and plotting come about and men take up arms. Emperor Yu, kings Tang, Wen, Wu and Cheng and the Duke of Chou achieved eminence for this reason: that all six rulers were constantly attentive to ritual, made manifest their righteousness and 11

acted in complete faith. They exposed error, made humanity their law and humility their practice, showing the people wherein they should constantly abide. If there were any who did not abide by these principles, they were dismissed from their positions and regarded by the multitude as dangerous. This is the period of Lesser Prosperity (xiaokang). (Chen, 2011)

Whilst Da Tong is the Chinese Utopia, a more achievable state—xiaokang—is sought here as a pragmatic, intermediate step towards Da Tong. It is indeed significant that xiaokang shehui—‘a moderately prosperous society’—is the official goal set by the Chinese Communist Party for China to achieve by 2021, the centenary of the party’s founding. The governance model here is not one where the market is supreme. It is the state that takes major ownership and responsibility for delivering the goods of public welfare, reduction of inequality, and the creation of a communitarian society. This is very much in keeping with Confucian ideas of governance. When asked by a local king how he should govern his people,

Confucius replied crisply: ‘Enrich them! Educate them!’ (2002). The true ‘Mandate of

Heaven’ lay in the ruler ensuring the welfare of the people through li and mutual communal cooperation rather than the diktat of law. These few lines are only illustrative of some of the basic foundations of the Confucian alternative to neoliberal capitalism.

3.2 Gandhi

At this stage, let us recollect what we had established earlier regarding the effects of the root language of a culture on its basic behaviour. In , the grammatical complexity of the Sanskrit language, coupled with the diversity encountered in daily life—whether of caste, creed, language, or custom—has generated a flair for flexibility and cultural adaptation that is widely recognised, not least in the 12 adaptability of Indians to new environments. The Indian mind also seems capable of operating at several levels, simultaneously holding views that may be directly in opposition. I am reminded of my experience as a child, going for an idli breakfast at the house of Dr. K.S. Krishnan F.R.S., the famous astronomer and physicist. After his puja, he meticulously rendered astrological advice to his family early every morning, but at 8 o’clock, he would be dressed in his suit and ready to leave for his office at the National Physical Laboratory, where he replied to letters from Einstein.

Indians take this kind of rare ‘two-brain’ ability for granted. The Chinese are constantly amazed at our fluency with languages, our ability to churn out results— say in software—amidst apparent chaos, and the flexibility of our mindsets in coping at the same time with issues both mundane and serious. Yet with all this, as V.S.

Naipaul says, Indians are subdivided in so many ways as to be ever at the point of fracturing into ‘a million mutinies’. Indian individuality, however, is to be sharply distinguished from the Western type—like China, it is still deeply enmeshed in family and community networks.

Gandhi personified this complex Indian mix of contradictions and uniquely brought out its genius. He was deeply spiritual, yet thoroughly open-minded, and certainly not narrowly religious. He was morally upright to a degree many thought quixotic, yet he had a wicked sense of humour and fun. When he met King George V of England, the king was dressed in all his uniformed glory, while Gandhi wore only his customary loincloth. When asked if he was not inappropriately clad, Gandhi replied: ‘But His Majesty is wearing enough for both of us’ (Bhalla, 1984). Gandhi was rooted in the traditions and soil of India and could thus innovate a novel form of protest, (‘truth struggle’), which immediately caught the imagination of 13 the poor and illiterate masses of India, just as it puzzled and confused the British rulers. An empire was defeated with very little blood being shed.

This novel form of mobilising a poor and disempowered population was developed by Gandhi in South Africa in the early years of the twentieth century, when he became the victim of racial discrimination. During this period, he mobilised the Indian community to protest against unjust racial laws by innovating ‘non-violent ’ as a form of opposing injustice whilst preserving one’s own humanity and love for one’s fellow human being—even an opponent. Readers of this volume will be interested to learn that, in this task, Gandhi was inspired by Tolstoy,3 with whom he carried on a lengthy and lively correspondence. Gandhi set up a

‘’ in South Africa where Indians of all creeds and castes lived together in a self-governing and self-sufficient community, where they put into practice their credo of the dignity of labour, castelessness, love and community, and self- sufficiency.

For Confucius, the individual was linked to the cosmos through a regulated system of escalating relationships of family, clan, village, province, state, and world community. For Gandhi, the individual and the divine were linked directly. In India’s fractured society under British colonial rule, Gandhi saw that the fundamental Indian religiosity could be harnessed in the cause of common dignity and humanity to oppose the oppressor in a unique manner. But Gandhi distrusted formal organisations, and his ideal was the self-governing Indian village, run by an elected panchayat or ‘council of five elders’ who would preserve the spirit of community and, under its democratic control, exercise the legal powers of resource mobilisation and

3 Here, it is relevant to point out one of Tolstoy’s powerful short stories, titled ‘How Much Land Does a Man Need?’ This allegorical tale is a strong indictment of the neoliberal, capitalist, acquisitive model of living.

14 spending. Gandhi was also a globalist in the broadest sense. His ideal world would have had a large number of local, self-governing communities linked to the entire world on a platform of equality and mutual respect. Today, we see a world where ever-smaller units are setting themselves up as self-governing entities. In an instantaneous, Internet-linked planet, once all barriers to the movement of all factors of production are removed, the achievement of this Gandhian vision no longer seems fanciful.

Yet Gandhi could not stop the cataclysm of the partition, and his ideas on village democracy are taking root in India only now, 60 years after his death, and that too rather fitfully. Rather than theorising about political ideology, Gandhi focused on serving those most oppressed by India’s caste system, concentrating on unglamorous but essential features such as abolishing untouchability and promoting sanitation and hygiene. He did this through his personal example of such acts as cleaning toilets himself, and he never asked anyone to perform an action that he could not do himself.4 The similarity here between Confucius and Gandhi is striking: both focus on strong moral foundations, on setting an example through specific individual actions, and on spreading these actions in ever-widening circles to embrace the entire universe. This universe included not only human beings and their creations, but also the natural world and all living beings. Confucius and Gandhi would both strongly reject the very axioms underpinning the neoliberal capitalist project, deeming these as negating the very fundamentals of humanity and community.

4 A woman once brought her diabetic son to Gandhi and asked him to counsel the boy not to eat sweets. Gandhi asked her to come back after a month. When she did, he so counselled the young lad. When the puzzled woman asked why this could not have been done a month earlier, Gandhi explained, ‘I myself needed to experience what it means to avoid sweets before I have the right to counsel others’ (Bhalla, 1984).

15

4. Conclusion

We started this chapter by outlining the developing crisis in modern neoliberal capitalism. We conclude by proposing a way out. Confucius and Gandhi each have their own visions of what that could be, and they overlap in significant ways.

Moreover, they are in accord with what the latest findings in modern science reveal about the human brain and its functioning, including the sources of meaning and fulfillment in human existence. If we listen to what they say, it is possible to be happy whilst fulfilling all of one’s needs (though not all of one’s greed), and at the same time to preserve a green and hospitable planet. This is a lesson that the entire world is waiting to learn.

Ravi Bhoothalingam Honorary Fellow and Treasurer, Institute of Chinese Studies, Delhi, India

16

References

Bhalla, Shalu. (1984). Quotes of Gandhi. Pondicherry: All India Press. Reproduced with the kind permission of the Navajivan Trust, .

Bhoothalingam, Ravi. (2010, April). Ways of Thinking: Psycholinguistic Reflections on Sino-Indian Relationships and Potentialities. ORF Discourse 5(2).

Boroditsky, Lera. (2003). Linguistic Relativity. In L.Nadel (Ed.), Encyclopaedia of Cognitive Science. London: MacMillan.

Chen, Albert H. Y. (2011, Nov 11). The Concept of 'Datong' in Chinese Philosophy as an Expression of the Idea of the Common Good. University of Hong Kong Faculty of Law Research Paper No. 2011/020.

Confucius. (2002). Quotations from Confucius. Chinese Sages series. Beijing: Sinolingua.

Fukuyama, Francis. (1992). The End of History and the Last Man. New York: The Free Press.

Jacques, Martin. (2016, Aug 21). The Death of Neoliberalism and the Crisis in Western Politics. The Observer.

Lucy, John A. (1992). Language Diversity and Thought: A Reformulation of the Linguistic Relativity Hypothesis. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Lucy, John A., and J. Wertsch. (1987). Vygotsky and Whorf: A Comparative Analysis. In M. Hickmann (Ed.), Social and Functional Approaches to Language and Thought. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Maslow, Abraham. (1943). A Theory of Human Motivation. Psychological Review 50(4): 370–96.

Ramachandran, V.S. (2009, Jan 1). Self Awareness: The Last Frontier. Edge Foundation. Available at: https://www.edge.org/3rd_culture/rama08/rama08_index.html.