Individualism East versus West: Review article

Individualism East versus West: Review article

Erna M. Hoch, Hypocrite or Heretic: To pretend or to protest. Published for The Christian Institute for the Study of Religion and Society, Bangalore, by The Christian Literature Society, Madras, 1983

Born to Missionary parents who served in India, Dr. Hoch was not sure to remain a ‘Hypocrite’ by pretending that still she remains a Christian or to become a Heretic to protest.  This struggle began in her as she became over fed up by her Christian tradition in which she grew up. [p.vi] That is why when Richard W. Taylor suggested to her that she ‘should write a contribution for the series “Indian Christian Thought” published by the Christian Institute for the Study of Religion and Society,’ her first reaction was: ‘But I am neither an Indian, nor am I sure whether I really am a Christian!’—‘Never mind’, came his answer.  ‘I know your ideas. They are the sort of thing we want, to provoke people into thinking.’ [p. v] And the result is this remarkable book. 

So after her initial schools finished in India, where her parents served as Missionaries she moved back to Switzerland.  After completing her study of medicine and being trained as a psychiatrist well settled in a psychiatric hospital, still ‘the longing to go to India’, perhaps rather a firm knowledge that one day she would go there remained. [p.31]  And when the opportunity came to go to Lucknow to replace Dr. D. Norell, at Nur Manzil founded by Dr. E. Stanley Jones at Lucknow, she grabbed it.  But one confusion arouse as, the Methodist Board of Missions in New York assumed that she ‘was to be recruited and scrutinized and possibly even trained as a regular missionary” almost put her off.’ [37]. Anyhow the Bishop of the Methodist Church in Switzerland, Dr. F. Sigg, was entrusted with the job of interviewing her. [37]. As Dr. Sigg knew her father and his work; so her ‘Christian background’ could be taken for granted.  Finally as they agreed to meet at railway station and they settled to chat over dinner at a nearby hotel. [37]. It is worth reading about the interview in her own words:

He pulled out of his attaché case a few large sheets of paper, the questionnaire of the USA Methodist Board of Missions to be filled in by candidates for mission work!  I could realize that the Bishop himself was embarrassed about having to present to a person so highly educated and differentiated and so widely experienced, this product of American simplification, which hardly allowed any reply beyond a naked ‘yes’ or ‘no’ to its long string of blunt questions. Trying to encourage me, when he noted my obvious displeasure on seeing this instrument of inquisition, he casually suggested: ‘Well, don’t take it too seriously. If they ask: ‘Do you smoke?  Do you drink?  Do you read the Bible?’ you just write, ‘Sometimes’.  ‘No’, I quickly cut in.  ‘Never!’ Taken aback, in slightly reproachful, but still jocular tone, he remarked, ‘But that is rather little!’  ‘I mean smoking and drinking, not reading the Bible!’  I hastened to explain, and we both broke into relieved laughter.—p. 38

And she was selected and began her work at Lucknow. As I am reading this book I found so many interesting and important points to understand the difference between the Indian worldview and the Western, particularly on the topic on Individualism.  And I have few questions to ask to know where I failed to understand her.

From reading the early chapters, I understood that she was not sure whether she was a Christian and even hesitant to call herself as a Christian Missionary.  However, later in most of her papers which she presented to various forums she used the term ‘our Christian witness’ [p.50] ‘we Christians’ etc.  But no where I could found when and why and how she now became a Christian to insert that word in her papers.  Well that is a secondary issue for me. My understanding about the word ‘Christian’ in India which even Indian Christians are not taking seriously is more a social identity than any personal commitment to the Lord.

Having said this let me limit my questions regarding her view on Indian views on Individualism.  Before that I would like to share one more thought.  I have high respect for those early Western Missionaries who came¹ to India [or went anywhere in the world] and done their best as per their commitment to the Lord and understanding of Mission [and missiology].  However if not all, most of them came holding a BIBLE in their hand, committed to their task in their heart and with a WHITE MAN’S [WOMAN’S] BURDEN in their mind to civilize Indians by converting them to Christianity.   Though they were successful to some extent to convert many individuals and several social groups, I am not sure whether they were successful in their BURDEN of CIVILIING them?  Because most of the converts, though became a kind of hybrid Christians, still remained very much Indian keeping so many social and cultural values [which their missionaries heavily criticised and tried their best to remove among their churches] in their personal and church life about which I need not highlight here.

 But when someone have to write their autobiography or some others wrote any biography about the Missionaries, then in order to give a successful story about their lives  and missions, most of them ended in telling only the half truth.  And one can read such success stories in their reports particularly written for PROMOTION.  Of course, in their personal report to their Mission Head Quarters they shared all the problems and failures they faced.  But most of them remain buried in their Mission archives and only a minimum is unearthed when some others wrote about their Mission Work [Ines G. Zupanov, Disputed Mission: Jesuit Experiments and Brahminical Knowledge in Seventeenth-century India, Oxford University Press, New Delhi, 1999; David Mosse, The Saint in the Banyan Tree, Christianity and caste society in India, Berkeley, University of California Press, 2012; Gunnel Cederlof, Bonds Lost: Subordination, Conflict and Mobilisation in Rural South India c. 1900-1970, New Delhi, Manohar, 1997].  And their Indian followers, in order to maintain their success stories only highlighted all the reform they brought in the life of so many individuals and social groups.  No doubt in it that the work of those early missionaries really brought some social changes in several parts of our country like that in South Tamilnadu, Kerala and North Eastern states.  But what happened after one or two generations is an open secret about which I need to tell more.  Most of them remained as nominal Christians [their own term²], several backslide and return back to their old faith and life, few managed to improve their social and financial status.³ Though their Mission life gave birth to so many other indigenous Mission movements they repeated what their predecessors have done in the past.  Only skin colour changed, but not their ministry.  And they are repeating the same old things done by the [Western] Missions [try to fill the new wine in old skin bottles].

Well I have no right to criticise them as I am not part of them [viz., I do not belong to Organized religion but to the body of the Lord]. However, as their ghost still looms over on our life, I have to wrestle with few questions which my mind often raises. Though I try to ignore, it never allows me to take rest until at least I articulate those questions though Imay not find or give answers to most of them.

This book ‘Hypocrite or Heretic’ is one such book.  But I am quite enjoying reading and she is a well trained psychiatrist and good author also. I am learning a lot from reading her book. For example, though she never gave reason how she had become a Christian so that she could use the words like ‘our Christian witness’ etc. in the chapter ‘Trying to fit into a Missionary setting’ she says,

I soon learned that speaking the language of a religious belief onecannot fully share does not necessarily deserve to be called ‘ hypocrisy ‘.  It all depended on one’s motivation: whether onewas merely out to create ‘ a good impression ‘, to boost one’s prestige. perhaps one’s sense of security in belonging to somegroup orone’s pride in being regarded as ‘ spiritual ‘,—in which case of course it would be hypocrisy!—or whether, from a level at which prestige, security and other selfish considerations no longer counted,  one  allowed  oneself to  enter into a frame of reference,—one might perhaps even say ‘to incarnate oneself ‘ in a particular form—, for the sake of conveying meaning and bringing some truth closer to the understanding of those one wanted to serve.[42]

Regarding my question about ‘Individualism’ she clearly points out how the Western individualism which she herself later promotes won’t be much useful to the converts:

… For instance, it would be quite futile to expect new Christians in this country to function on the same level of individual responsibility and self-reliance which Christians in the West have acquired through almost 2000 years of Christian tradition.   We must realize that the people in this country have been used to living in much closer contact with the community, feeling the strong support of family and caste behind them.   It is quite natural that, when they become Christians, they should expect community life rather similar to that of the first Christians.   Though realizing this need, we must at the same time try to strengthen the spirit of independence and the will to self-support. [p.51]. What a contradiction? Contrary to her suggestion, Muktiveda and Sevanand [Paul] promoted only this kind of community life among the followers of the Lord and not the ‘spirit of independence and the will to self-support’.  About this N.T. Wright says:

            Politics is about the polis—the city, the community—and how it works, how it runs. Sophisticated theories had been advanced in Paul’s day, often by theoreticians (like Cicero and Seneca) who were also hands-on members of the ruling elite.  The main feature of Paul’s political landscape was of course Rome.  Rome had united the world—or so it claimed. But that unity, a top-down (p.421) uniformity in which diversity was welcome as long as it didn’t threaten the absolute sovereignty of Caesar, was always creaky, and often ugly. The “diversity” was, after all, still seen in strictly hierarchical terms: men over women, free over slaves, Romans over everybody else.  Rebels were ruthlessly suppressed.  “They make a wilderness,” sighed the Briton Calgacus, “and they call it ‘peace.’” [Tacitus, Agricola 30.6]

            In this imperial world there appeared, in groups of six here and a dozen or two there, through the energetic work of this strange man Paul, a vision of a different kind of community owing allegiance to a different Kyrios, offering a different vision of unity, hosting a different kind of diversity. Unity and diversity were the pressure points for Paul, both for the individual communities (such as the church in Corinth, challenged by Paul’s vision of the Messiah’s single but very diverse “body”) and for the worldwide “family” (such as the churches of Gentiles and Jews, both challenged by Paul’s collection project).  But what Paul had been doing was undoubtedly “political” in the sense that he was founding and maintaining an interrelated network of communities for which the only analogies, as we saw earlier, were the synagogue communities, on the one hand, and the Roman army and civil service, on the other.  But Paul’s communities were very different from either.— N. T. Wright, Paul A Biography, San Francisco: HarperOne, 2018, pp. 421-422

And her whole paper ‘Some Problems of Mental Health in India’ [originally written for a Christian Medical Conference in May, 1958 and later published in their Journal (March 1959) [pp. 52-55 in this book] is worth reading for us to understand her correct evaluation of Indian problem in mental health.  But I would like to quote one such important observation here:

This lack of preparation, and all too sudden transition to individual responsibility from the wholeness of a well ordered and structured group, seems to me to be one of the root problems of mental health in India today. The growth of a human being to individual responsibility and independence should be something organic, a harmonious, continuous process that takes account of all his gifts and abilities, but also of all his weaknesses and limits and, above all, of his own speed of development.  By suddenly declaring elementary education as compulsory, by opening the universities to everybody, by substituting the nobility of the academic title for the prestige of caste, by declaring the freedom of women, the problem of optimum growth of the individual into a whole person cannot be solved overnight.  On the contrary, such a precipitated procedure will only cause strain, stress and failure……..and failure…. [p.55].⁴

Now coming back to my question, when I read the following points I was bit confused what is this ‘Christian values’ which she insist that she should teach to ‘our Indian brothers not only in theory, but by our active, living example?’ [p.64].⁵  I am not sure whether I understood her writings properly. But she is not alone in promoting or talking about some kind of ‘Christian values, teachings etc.’  I often read and listened them.  For me, most of the ‘Christian values and teachings’ which they talk are not in Muktiveda but come from their White Man’s burden to civilizing others.  As I already asked the question: Does Muktiveda talk about this kind of Individualism which we found in the west even followed by most of the committed Christians in their life there? Fortunately Dr. Hoch says that it is ‘the Christian teachings’ but not definitely Muktivedic.  Does Muktiveda talks about democracy? As a supporter of western values, I welcome it and happy to live a democratic country. But following it in their church administration by electing its various committee members through voting by its members as the secular politicians are doing, manipulated by those standing in that election?  Well this is their ‘Christian’ problem and I need not highlight about it further.

I am not against to the worldview of any civilization. So I have no problem with the Individualism in the West. If it works for them well I have no issue with it.  Similarly, I have no issue if they think that it will also work for others and try to promote it. Best of luck for them. In the same way if people in other civilizations, particularly in India want to app it, still I have no problem with it.  Already it is slowly creeping in our societies.  However, unable to give up our traditional value of joint family system and try to assimilate this Western Individualism several Indians created some kind of hybrid individualism which will serve their purpose.  Both the old and young generations try to adjust their lives according to the need of the situation.  In which direction that will take our societies is anybody’s guess.  But when it is presented in the name of gospel and wrongly termed as ‘Christian value’, then I have some questions.  Leave Dr. Hoch who is a reputed psychiatrist not a biblical scholar, when even several committed Christians and Missionaries who know Muktiveda better than her failed to help the Indian Christians and new bhaktas to know the difference between the Western civilization and their host civilizations I am bit concerned about it.  The main reason for sharing this incomplete reflection of Dr. Hoch’s writing highlights the plight of my mind which refuses to ignore such issues and move forward in my bhakti in the Lord.

Her analysis of Indian problem immediately after Independence of India not understanding and under estimating the limitation set by its social structure which restricts the development of an individual is correct. Still the solution which she tries to prescribe within the frame work of Westernized view of individualism is questionable.  Similarly, her approach to the sudden rush and push of new converts to progress in social hierarchy not understanding and under estimating the lack of mental health crippled by the social structure of India is correct, still her solution is the same.  I am not sure whether I understood her properly.  Though her knowledge about human psychology as a trained psychiatrist is high standard I am not sure whether she understood Indian social structure with its complication particularly in her time where the interest of various social [or caste] group with various political ideology borrowed from the West was churning India was very complicated, any one-way solution either from the West or East won’t  solve the problem of either the individual or social group that much easily, as we still face the same crisis even after seventy five years of gaining independence. 

I am bit confused when she says that, ‘One is again and again astonished to see, how much the self-esteem of Indians is based on merely outward assets: caste, family, academic title, important social connections, have to serve as his support.’ [64]. But when she was recruited for Nur Manzil only such ‘outward assets of her academic title and important social connections as Dr. Sigg knew her father and his work’ as Missionary alone contributed for her selection to that job.  What worked for her why cannot work for Indians?  If caste identity and academic titles are only outward assets for Indians, the same is true for her as the Missionary identity of her parents and her academic title and experience. 

For example she says, ‘Broadly speaking, we can observe that a precipitated development of people who previously were sheltered in the collective order of the joint family, the caste, the village community, into individual consciousness of themselves is being promoted or even forcibly propagated.  The growing up of a human being to the status of one who is personally responsible for his life is, or at least ought to be, a natural process….One might therefore seek to reassure oneself with the argument that, in this case, what was happening amongst the Christians, was no worse than what one could observe in the population in general….. [p.68] 

If one sees history almost every individual who stood apart from rest of the people in her community, society or nation never followed the ‘natural process’ but broke the stereotype to overcome every hurdle to shine as the leader.  Gandhiji, Ambedkar, Dr. Abdul Kalam were the modern example in India. 

This I say after reading her interpretation of Gita (10) particularly on 3:35 which insists on following one’s own ‘occupation and way of life into which he has born, even if he cannot maintain it perfectly’ [p. 67] is doubtful for me.  The word dharma used in this verse in Gita though complicated one still limited to the Kshatriya dharma⁶ of Arjuna and not specifically talking about the ‘way of life into which one is born’.  But to share my reflections on her such thoughts I need to quote extensively from this book from various pages which might end up in writing another book. Similarly, considering her profession as a trained psychiatrist with Western worldview plus confusing Christian identity, unless someone who knows better English to understand her writing alone could asses her solution to Indian and Indian Christian problem particularly related to Individualism which I think she talks about in this book.

Notes

1  When I say who ‘came’ to India, the natural question that arises is what about those who continue to come?  I have mixed response to this question.  If they come with proper legal permit which is approved by Indian Government nobody can stop them coming with their burden to serve the Lord and commitment to their vision [or mission].  But if they come with pseudo identity through backdoor methods, then they will be answerable to so many people beginning from the government. This is a subject and this is not the place to discuss it.

2  In their narrow-mindedness, people often have made a prison out of Christian faith instead of letting it be the way to freedom and life more abundant.  Those who were won for the message in new countries too often thought being a Christian only meant adopting certain outward standards.  Thus they  at once missed the real truth of the new faith, while giving up certain old convictions and habits, about which Christ himself would probably never have bothered’ [p.49]

3‘What I saw, however, amongst the North Indian Christians all too often gave evidence of the contrary: a spirit of ambition and competition which at times was misusing the opportunity of ‘becoming a Christian’ merely for improving social status and prestige, and amongst church leaders, both indigenous and foreign, a strange lack of understanding for the emotional havoc that could be caused by a disproportionately rapid promotion onto higher social and educational levels! The rules for recruitment of staff and also students in Christian institutions,–even at Nur Manzil!—often gave preference to Christian candidates without sufficient regard for their suitability in other respects and thus seemed to me as much a violation of a truly Christian spirit as also of sound rules for mental health in general.—p.47

4  And in her another paper ‘Mental Heath’ given on request to the Lucknow Annual Conference (Methodist) in October 1959 and later published in The Indian Witness in December 1959 is also worth reading [pp. 55-58 in this book].

5 Quite generally, Western man, if compared with Indians, has a greater capacity for standing up as an individual and a responsible personality.  This development in the West certainly owed much to the Christian teachings, which stress the value of the individual human being and his personal responsibility to God and to his fellow human beings.

If a Christian spirit in this sense can be taught in India, not only theoretically, but by living example, one will certainly not only render a valuable service to the spreading of the Christian message, but also to India in its present phase of rapid social transformation.  One is again and again astonished to see, how much the self-esteem of Indians is based on merely outward assets: caste, family, academic title, important social connections, have to serve as his support.  If,–and this is hardly to be avoided, considering the present trend towards Westernization!—he gets involved in situations that require his acting as a responsible individual, he often collapses completely, as he cannot rely on any inner emotional stability …. Are not honesty, a sense of responsibility for one’s fellow human beings, respect for work perhaps Christian values which we should teach to our Indian brothers not only in theory, but by our active, living example?—p. 64

6 The word ‘dharma’ which she has translated as ‘occupation and way of life’ is always fluid, particularly in the time of Mahabharata in which Gita is a part.  The rigid rules of following one’s own caste occupation was codified much later by various dharmasastras.  Even there also they never remain rigid and always exceptions existed in the name of ‘apat dharma’ [dharma in emergency].  Dhronacharya who taught archery to Arjuna was a Brahmin but took arm to fight the side of Kauravas in Mahabharata war. Shivaji was a Shudra who became the king after performing certain rituals conducted by Brahmins to him kshatriyahood.  There were several kings who were Shudras and Brahmins.  Vishvamitra become a ‘Brahma Rishi’ though he was not a Brahmin but kshatriya.  According to dharmasastras, in Kaliyug as only one varna exists that of Shudra following one’s own dharma is never insisted or strictly implemented.