In modern political discourse, liberation and reconciliation are often seen as competing goals. Liberation (and with it, freedom and liberty) is seen in terms of autonomy, escaping from the influence of dominant groups, and emancipation from societal structures that bind a person or group to others’ expectations. Reconciliation (and with it, unity and harmony) is seen in terms of the prioritizing of relationships over political agendas, an unwillingness to unsettle others, and the celebration of common ground in the face of divisive conflict. While liberation and reconciliation are not opposites, they pull in different directions. To borrow language from Mikhail Bakhtin, liberation is centrifugal (outward-moving, separating apart) while reconciliation is centripetal (inward-moving, bringing together).
Despite these customary associations, Black liberation theologian J. Deotis Roberts insists, “There can be no liberation without reconciliation and no reconciliation without liberation.” Roberts’s Christian theology offers an alternative, dialogical picture of the interplay between freedom and interdependence, one that challenges some of the assumptions prevalent in political and ethical discourse. In this paper, I explore Roberts’s argument, focusing on what human beings are being freed from and freed for. I then turn to the work of Hindu political leader Mohandas Gandhi. In his 1909 work Hind Swaraj, Gandhi argues for a similar ethical vision, in which true independence is not possible without a commitment to care for one another. The sort of freedom Gandhi sought was not simply a release from British colonial rule, but a thoroughgoing liberation from the forces that prevent people from addressing the needs that emerge within their communities. Liberation for Gandhi is a constructive movement from relationships of domination and alienation to relationships structured by responsibility and responsivity. From there, I turn to Buddhist ethics, centrally the writings of the eighth-century monk Śāntideva, to identify a similar gestalt of liberation and reconciliation. In the Mahāyāna tradition that Śāntideva exemplifies, a Bodhisattva pursues freedom, but freedom with and for the sake of the other.
For Roberts, true liberation happens not only when people are freed from social oppression, but when they are freed from the myths that rationalize the superiority of some over others based on their race, ethnicity, religion, morality, nationality, class, or achievements. In Roberts’s theology, the same revolutionary gospel that confronts injustice simultaneously unmasks the hollowness of the distinctives by which we divide “us” from “them.” The most authentic existence (authenticity is a key term in Roberts’s existential theology) is one in which we do not rely on misleading hierarchies of value and the accompanying forms of alienation in order to secure our fragile self-worth. To be freed from the felt need for superiority is to be freed from antagonism. This is why, in Roberts’s words, “The one who liberates reconciles, and the one who reconciles liberates.”
For Gandhi, similarly, true swaraj [self-rule] cannot be limited to political independence from colonial powers. He contends that individual swaraj, local swaraj, and national swaraj are all profoundly interconnected. Freedom is not only freedom from oppression, but the capacity to restrain our own selfish impulses and the capacity to work alongside others as partners. We cannot attain freedom in the fullest sense without investing ourselves in compassionate and collaborative efforts with the people around us, and this involves working for reconciliation whenever we are divided.
Like Gandhi, Śāntideva renarrates the fundamental conflict not as a struggle between people, but as a struggle of all people against the tendencies that create hostility. In Śāntideva’s Bodhicaryāvatāra, the crucial conflict is not between us and our human enemies but rather between all living beings and the greed, hatred, and delusion that ensnare them. Thus, the path to liberation from saṃsāra is simultaneously the path toward greater compassion for others and greater identification with others.
In comparing these three perspectives, I am not claiming that Christian, Hindu, and Buddhist ethics all teach the same moral lessons. Rather, I am arguing that the common-sense understanding of freedom—assumed both by activists who seek liberation and peacemakers who seek reconciliation—is inadequate. Furthermore, while these three religious traditions (and arguably all others) have spurred individualistic and antagonistic actions, there are resources within at least these three traditions to paint a different picture of the relationship between liberation and reconciliation, one in which they are not only compatible but inseparable.
All three authors share in common the notion that one cannot seek freedom without seeking peace and one cannot seek peace without seeking freedom. This recognition, I argue in conclusion, should inform how we pursue social and political change. Comparing these authors’ arguments points toward an alternative paradigm for integrating the urgent demand for emancipation with the urgent need for cooperation.
In political discourse, liberation and reconciliation are often seen as competing goals. Liberation and freedom are conceived in terms of autonomy, while reconciliation and unity are conceived in terms of mutuality. Against these customary associations, the Black liberation theologian J. Deotis Roberts insists, “There can be no liberation without reconciliation and no reconciliation without liberation.” Roberts’s Christian theology offers an alternative, dialectical picture of the interplay between freedom and interdependence. This paper compares Roberts’s argument with the work of Mohandas Gandhi. In Hind Swaraj, Gandhi argues similarly that true independence is not possible without taking responsibility for one another. The eighth-century Buddhist monk Śāntideva likewise offers a vision of liberation in which one is freed for the sake of others, and freed by caring for others. Comparing these authors’ arguments points toward an alternative paradigm for integrating the urgent demand for emancipation with the urgent need for cooperation.