*3.2. Building Sustainable Societies from Below*

These considerations remind the Christian social ethicist of another principle that stands alongside the common good in Catholic social teaching: subsidiarity. In Catholic Social Ethics, subsidiarity is one of the basic pillars of a society shaped according to human dignity. "Believing that most often best decisions are made at the local level, closest to the people who will be most affected by them, subsidiarity means handing decision making downward to smaller entities. It can also mean moving upward to larger entities, even to transnational bodies, if this better serves the common good and protects the rights of people. Subsidiarity, in this sense, becomes a corrective against the concentration of power and resources in the hands of a privileged elite" (Groody 2007, p. 115).

I think in Gandhi this principle is embodied in the idea of *swadeshi*. In 1946 he depicted in *Harijan* what is meant by that: "Ultimately, it is the individual who is the unit. This does not exclude dependence on and willing help from neighbours or from the world. ... In this structure composed of innumerable villages, there will be ever widening, never ascending circles. Life will not be a pyramid with the apex sustained by the bottom. But it will be an oceanic circle whose centre will be the individual always ready to perish for the village, the latter ready to perish for the circle of villages, till at last the whole becomes one life composed of individuals, never aggressive in their arrogance but ever humble, sharing the majesty of the oceanic circle of which they are integral units" (CWMG 1956–1994, pp. 32–33). As Gandhi states that the individual is ready to perish in favour of the comprehensive community and not that the community is ready to sacrifice the individual for its own sake—which is quite a crucial difference—the idea of common weal presented in this quote is shaped by the principle of subsidiarity, which supports the dignity of the person. "Therefore, the outermost circumference will not wield power to crush the inner circle but will give strength to all within and derive its own strength from it" (CWMG 1956–1994, p. 33).

Gandhi's attempt to realize *sarvodaya* as village-*swaraj* and an economy focussed on small self-sustaining and subsistent unities was disputed from the outset. By the way, he was himself aware that this was a directional, somewhat utopian idea and not a master plan.

The criticism of this is at least partly based on misunderstandings. Gandhi's concept of economic self-sufficiency should not be understood in the sense of group egoism, nationalism, or market protectionism. During India's struggle for independence, it was not a market that needed to be protected, but the mostly rural population that was kept in poverty and dependency on British goods (Kazuya 2001, pp. 303–4). Further, the proposed

approach was not a revolutionary one resembling communism and its juxtaposition of hostile classes. On the contrary, "if Gandhi's theory of trusteeship is understood in the linkage with his *swadeshi* movement, we can see that he was trying to transfer peacefully the financial resources from the rich to the poor for the purpose of relief of the latter" (Kazuya 2001, p. 306). This follows from the principle of non-violence but also expresses the conviction that enforced justice stands on feet of clay unless the attitude of those driving the economy changes. Therefore, the approach to economy of the rich as well as of the poor should have been transformed. Such transformation unavoidably must start at a very local level, ultimately within each member of the community.

Village-*swaraj* of course includes the vision of economy mainly based on regional agriculture and handicraft. By the way, a praise of hand tools and manual work as an expression of creativity rather than cultivating then subduing or exploiting nature can also be found in Ruskin as well as in Illich.

However, we must concede that Gandhi's rural village concept taken literally or as the sole economic program will probably not work in today's India with 1.4 billion inhabitants nor in a global society in which already more than 50% of all humans are living in cities. Nevertheless, especially in the face of a worsening climate crisis and ecological threats, there are currently approaches that are related to Gandhi's ideas. One may admit that these will not replace the modern world economy in the short run, but they can complement and correct it in a beneficial way. In this context, a kind of "creatively reformulated Gandhiinformed approach can serve as an invaluable catalyst" (Allen 2019, p. 16) to support an urgently needed shift of paradigm. These approaches are certainly not completely in line with Gandhi's ideas and ideals, but they also aim at a more non-violent way of dealing with the ecological environment and more self-determination, especially for the economically and socially disadvantaged.

One can think, for example, of the promotion of local economic cycles, which is pursued in some places through alternative currencies (Lietaer 2013). These LETSs—which means local exchange trading systems—ultimately are voucher systems intended to keep purchasing power in a particular region in favour of the reduction in transport distances and thus the ecological footprint. However, their aim is not only to protect nature but also to maintain small and preferably sustainably operating production companies, which in turn create jobs close to home. Particularly, the COVID pandemic has shown that a solid regional economy could be decisive to keep necessary production going on and maintain supply. Now some companies begin to manufacture components of products themselves again in order to become less dependent on overseas suppliers. Of course, this is not always easy to achieve in a short time. Structures that have been built up over many years are a hindrance, such as the practice of no longer planning storage areas in companies. The just-in-time logic shifts the storage of goods to the delivery route. This immediately may become a tricky concept in the case of the blockade of the Suez Canal or the closure of a major Chinese container port as we have experienced during the past months.

Another example is the at least partial self-supply of food by urban gardening or urban farming, which for many people represents much more than a romantic hobby. Famous is the case of the former Motor City Detroit, Michigan, which lost 30% of its inhabitants within one and a half decennium caused by the crisis of the automobile industry. What may be seen as progress from an ecological perspective deprived many people of work and income. High unemployment and manifest poverty prevail among the remaining population of the city. Especially in the poorer neighbourhoods, which are largely inhabited by African Americans, there is hardly any access to healthy food, and the consumption of fruits and vegetables declines with disposable income. Activities of urban agriculture practised in Detroit can meet the needs of the local community as well as environmental objectives.

The transformation of vacant land into community gardens can be observed " ... as a strategy to exercise political agency and bring about community transformation and, in the process, alleviate the food crisis and demonstrate social and political change" (White 2011, p. 15). This kind of initiative is often carried out by black women shaping

spaces which "operate as a safe space where they are able to define their behaviour as a form of resistance, one in which their resistance is against the social structures that have perpetuated inequality in terms of healthy food access, and one where they are able to create outdoor, living, learning, and healing spaces for themselves and for members of the community" (White 2011, p. 18).

As the third example, the activities of Vandana Shiva should be mentioned, who coined the term *Earth Democracy* (Shiva 2016). One of the many initiatives launched by the ecofeminist Shiva is *Navdanya*, which in English signifies nine seeds. The primary aim of *Navdanya* is the preservation of traditional crops. Seeds are collected, archived, and made available to smallholders together with the necessary knowledge for cultivation. By that biological and cultural diversity should be maintained. Such initiatives try to create spaces of freedom from factual constraint which is imposed on us by what we ourselves have produced, may it be technical tools or economic structures particularly enslaving the poor. Thus, Shiva says: "For us, not cooperating in the monopoly regimes of intellectual property rights and patents and biodiversity—saying "no" to patents on life, and developing intellectual ideas of resistance—is very much a continuation of Gandhian *satyagraha*. It is, for me, keeping life free in its diversity. That is the *satyagraha* for the next millennium" (Shiva 2021). Even if one will hardly find explicit references to Gandhi in her publications Shiva in an Interview with S. London stated that she had two big role models. The one was Albert Einstein the other one was Gandhi. She said: "I believe Gandhi is the only person who knew about real democracy—not democracy as the right to go and buy what you want, but democracy as the responsibility to be accountable to everyone around you" (Shiva 2021).

In all the examples mentioned, both aspects are always present: the awareness of nature that has become vulnerable and our responsibility for it on the one hand and the commitment to reshape social coexistence based on personal responsibility and constructive cooperation on the other. Thus, such grassroots activities show a high affinity to a huge variety of sustainable development goals as formulated in the *Agenda 2030*. However, at the same time, they can also be understood in the spirit of Gandhi as creative, nonviolent resistance by rediscovering self-rule to overcome prevalent structures violating the common good. Village-*swaraj* should therefore probably not be read as an economic instruction manual for the present, but as a critical inspiration, that subsidiary alternatives to an all too often destructive global economy are conceivable and realisable.

#### **4. Conclusions**

I would like to conclude my essay with this thought and thus also summarise that an in-depth look at Gandhi's ideas on the one hand and at the importance of sustainability on the other certainly justifies bringing the two realms together. In the end, it is not so much the details of organizing an economic system or deciding about the usefulness and appropriateness of specific technologies we may gain from Gandhi, rather it is the impulses and guidelines for a re-cultivation of our innermost convictions and habits. Since they are the very roots and sources of each engagement in favour of social transformation including a new appreciation of nature. The effort toward a universal uplift in solidarity and the attitude of nonviolence remains highly topical and presumably an unavoidable precondition to realize such transformation. Such transformation, in turn, is the central element of sustainable development, provided it does not want to exhaust itself in political lip service and the promotion of a few new technical instruments. Therefore, sustainable development and Gandhian thought are not only compatible with each other but different versions of the same agenda.

**Funding:** University of Innsbruck.

**Institutional Review Board Statement:** Not applicable.

**Informed Consent Statement:** Not applicable.

**Data Availability Statement:** Not applicable.

**Conflicts of Interest:** The authors declare no conflict of interest.

#### **References**

Allen, Douglas. 2019. *Gandhi after 9/11. Creative Nonviolence and Sustainability*. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Buber, Martin. 1937. *I and Thou*. Edinburgh: T.&T. Clark.

Caradonna, Jeremy L. 2014. *Sustainability. A History*. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

CWMG. 1956–1994. *The Collected Works of Mahatma Gandhi*; Ahmedabad: Government of India.

Galtung, Johan. 1969. Violence, Peace and Peace Research. *Journal of Peace Research* 6: 167–99. [CrossRef]

Galtung, Johan. 1990. Cultural Violence. *Journal of Peace Research* 27: 291–305. [CrossRef]

Gandhi, Rajmohan. 2015. Independence and Social Justice: The Ambedkar–Gandhi Debate. *Economic and Political Weekly* 50: 35–44. Available online: https://www.jstor.org/stable/24481885 (accessed on 28 August 2021).

Gandhi, Ela. 2020. Synergies between Gandhian Swadeshi and Pope Francis's Economy of Solidarity. In *Gandhi Now: Blessed Are the Peacemakers and Sustainers of Life*. Edited by Alain Tschudin and Susan Russell. Johannesburg: Good Governance Africa, pp. 74–80. Gopinathan Pillai, K. 1988. Gandhi and the Concept of Alternative Technology. *The Indian Journal of Political Science* 49: 370–85.

Grego, Daniel. 2013. Thirteen Ways of Looking at Ivan Illich. *The International Journal of Illich Studies* 3: 78–95.

Groody, Daniel G. 2007. *Globalization, Spirituality, and Justice*. New York: Orbis Books.

Hardiman, David. 2003. *Gandhi in His Time and Ours: The Global Legacy of His Ideas*. Pietermaritzburg: University of Natal Press.

Illich, Ivan. 1973. *Tools for Conviviality*. Glasgow: William Collins.

Jackson, Tim. 2017. *Prosperity without Growth. Foundations for the Economy of Tomorrow*. London: Routledge.

Jonas, Hans. 1984. The Imperative of Responsibility. In *Search of an Ethics for the Technological Age*. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press. Kazuya, Ishii. 2001. The Socioeconomic Thoughts of Mahatma Gandhi: As an Origin of Alternative Development. *Review of Social Economy* 59: 297–312.

Kumarappa, Joseph Cornelius. 1951. *Gandhian Economic Thought*. Varanasi: Sarva Seva Sangh Prakashan.

Lietaer, Bernard. 2013. *The Future of Money. Creating a New Wealth, Work and a Wiser World*. New York: Random House Business Books.

Pontifical Council for Justice and Peace. 2004. *Compendium of the Social Doctrine of the Church*. Vatican City: Libreria Editrice Vaticana, Available online: https://www.vatican.va/roman\_curia/pontifical\_councils/justpeace/documents/rc\_pc\_justpeace\_doc\_200605 26\_compendio-dott-soc\_en.html (accessed on 23 July 2021).


Rawls, John. 1971. *A Theory of Justice*, rev. ed. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.

Robinson, John. 2004. Squaring the Circle? Some Thoughts on the Idea of Sustainable Development. *Ecological Economics* 48: 369–84. [CrossRef]

Rodrigues, Valerian. 2011. Reading Texts and Traditions: The Ambedkar-Gandhi Debate. *Economic and Political Weekly* 46: 56–66. Available online: https://www.jstor.org/stable/27918014 (accessed on 28 August 2021).

Ruskin, John. 1907. *Unto This Last. And Other Essays on Art and Political Economy*. London: J.M. Dent & Sons.

Sambasiva, Prasad B. 2019. Resolution of Economic Conflicts: A Gandhian Perspective. *Gandhi Marg* 41: 33–46.

Shiva, Vandana. 2016. *Earth Democracy: Justice, Sustainability and Peace*, 2nd ed. London: Zed Books.

Shiva, Vandana. 2021. *In the Footsteps of Gandhi: Interview with Scot London*. Available online: https://www.scott.london/interviews/ shiva.html (accessed on 23 July 2021).

