The Socrates Express: In Search of Life Lessons from Dead Philosophers

by Eric Weiner

Let’s examine a simple dispute from a Gandhian perspective. You and your partner are going out to dinner to celebrate a milestone. You want Indian food, she wants Italian. You know for certain Indian is the superior cuisine, while your partner is just as certain Italian is the better food. There is a conflict. What to do? The quickest solution is a “forced victory.” You could compel your partner to dine with you at Bombay Dreams by bundling her into a burlap sack. There are downsides to this approach. Alternatively, you could insist on Indian food, period. No further discussion. Let’s say your partner agrees. You’ve won, right? You haven’t. The uneasy calm over dinner is illusory. No one likes being bludgeoned into submission. “What appears to be the end of the dispute may be just the opening in another chapter in the conflict,” says Mark Juergensmeyer, author of Gandhi’s Way: A Handbook of Conflict Resolution. And by resorting to “veiled violence” you harm not only your partner but yourself, too. Conversely, you could “appease” your partner by agreeing to Italian, yet spend the entire evening seething. This result is simply another form of violence—worse, it is dishonest, “unclean” violence. Better to fight for your principles than pretend you don’t have any. You could suggest a compromise cuisine. Japanese, for instance. But that means neither of you gets what you want, and meanwhile, the underlying conflict festers. Gandhi was wary of such compromises. He was all for gi...