Gandhi and Celibacy vs Sexuality in feminist thinkers

Introduction

The chapter attempts to make an analysis of the notion of sexuality as presented in

Gandhi vis-à-vis feminist thinkers, Luce Irigaray, Simone de Beauvoir and Judith
Butler’s thought. When one talks of the notion of sexuality in Gandhi, it is largely
referred to his experiments of celibacy. I aim to make an attempt to study the celibacy
experiments performed by Gandhi and understand his views on sexuality pertaining
from the same and the contribution to feminist theory, if any.

Gandhi and Brahmacharya

We have discussed Gandhi‘s views on women vis-à-vis the feminist thinkers (Simone
de Beauvoir, Luce Irigaray and Judith Butler) in the first chapter. Here however, the
discussion shifts from the general question of the concept of womanhood to specific
questions of celibacy and the role of sexuality in gender relations. The
aforementioned feminists present the modern liberal point of view on sexuality,
especially that of female sexuality. Gandhi‘s views regarding his Brahmacharya
experiments and other issues regarding birth control etc, as discussed above provide
the basis for comparing and contrasting his theory of gender relations with respect to
marriage and sexuality with those of the feminists chosen for our study. While the
feminists premise their arguments on a theory that sexuality is not only a natural
instinct of human beings enjoyed by both members, male and female, they believe
that is a means of subjugation in a male dominated world. Gandhi comes to the same
conclusion but he argues that sexuality outside not just marriage but even 21 Gandhi,
1947;p.61 50 within marriage is natural only when indulged in with the exclusive
purpose of procreation in mind. Otherwise it is an indulgence and an aberration. As
pointed out earlier, Gandhi holds that it is brotherhood/sisterhood that defines gender
relations and not conjugality. Simone de Beauvoir and Gandhi The only similarity we
can find in the approaches of Gandhi and Simone de Beauvoir are that they both
wanted women to play an equal role to men and that both wanted women to refuse to
be subordinated. However, they have drastically different views when it comes to
celibacy among men and women. Gandhi seems to hold the old fashioned/ traditional
view that it is men that require restricting their carnal desires and that women are not
interested in sex. Simone de Beauvoir is of the opinion, however, that women need
sex as much as men do and she advocates as much sexual freedom for women as men
have. Simone de Beauvoir criticizes the restrictions that social conditioning puts on
the sexuality of a woman. According to Simone de Beauvoir, ―Sex pleasure in
woman is a kind of magic spell; it demands complete abandon; if words or
movements oppose the magic of caresses, the spell is broken.‖ 22 However, the very
concept of manhood in modern times counters this view and Beauvoir remarks that,
―No one is more arrogant toward women, more aggressive or more disdainful, than a
man anxious about his own virility.‖23 Gandhi however, argues that virility comes
from self-restraint over sexuality and sexual desire rather than abandon. He laments
that he waited too long to start the celibate life after marriage. This view is in
consonance with the principles of non-violence and truth which he feels will be
incomplete and impossible without Brahmacharya. In his words, ―It is my full
conviction, that if only I had lived a life of unbroken Brahmacharya all through, my
energy and enthusiasm would have been a thousand fold greater and I should have
been able to devote them all to the furtherance of my country's cause as my own. If an
imperfect Brahmachari like myself can reap such benefit, how much more wonderful
must be the gain in power, —physical, mental, as well as moral, —that unbroken
Brahmacharya can bring to us!‖24 . According to Gandhi, conserving sexual energy
makes a man more powerful and energetic mentally and physically. 22 Marso, 2006;
p.77 24 Gandhi, 1947;p.29 24 Gandhi, 1947;p.29 51 However Simone de Beauvoir
vouches for continuous sensuous enjoyment between couples. She states, ―My worst
mistake has been not grasping that time goes by. It was going by and there I was, set
in the attitude of the ideal wife of an ideal husband. Instead of bringing our sexual
relationship to life again I brooded happily over memories of our former nights
together.‖25 The attack here is against society for having blunted the feelings of
women due to its male dominance. Gandhi, argued, as seen above, that it was natural
to man to view all women as mothers and sisters; anything to the contrary would have
devastating effects. Beauvoir, along with other feminists would view Gandhi‘s views
as representative of patriarchal society. It maybe argued that Gandhi‘s views here are
more of a wish than a depiction of reality. Gandhi would argue however that sexual
desire only represented the animal instincts of human beings rather than their true
nature ―Procreation is a natural phenomenon indeed, but within specific limits. A
transgression of those limits imperils womankind, emasculates the race, induces
disease, puts a premium on vice, and makes the world ungodly. A man in the grip of
the sensual desire is a man without moorings. If such a one were to guide society, to
flood it with his writings and men were to be swayed by them, where would society
be? Bestiality is as far removed from manhood as matter from spirit.‖26 Beauvoir, on
the other hand, is of the opinion that the attraction is natural. She believes that women
have to use their sexuality to gain control hence this renders celibacy useless in her
view. To quote, ―The body is the instrument of our hold on the world.‖27 The female
body is ―destined for eternal freshness‖ with no need for artifice however, the
paradox lies in that the more she delighted man, the more ―he destines her to
artifice.‖ 28 Luce Irigaray and Gandhi Both Gandhi and Irigaray envision a world
where men and women live their own ways in which neither attempts to dominate or
engulf the other gender. The stereotyping of men as providers and caretakers for
women unfortunately results in men exploiting women and according them an inferior
position in the society. Gandhi quotes the well known English 26 Gandhi, 1947;p.36-
37 26 Gandhi, 1947;p.36-37 27 Beauvoir, 2009;p.44 29 Irigaray, 2004; p.6 52 noun
―better half‖ to assert that women are equal to men. However Irigaray points out that,
―Everything, beginning with the way in which the subject (sexual difference) has
always been written in the masculine form, as man, even when it claimed to be
universal or neutral.‖29 Irigaray means that all our scriptures, texts, philosophies,
rules, guidelines and laws etc. are written by men hence reflecting and partial towards
man‘s views. Gandhi also acknowledges this difficulty with respect to the history of
legislation and religious scriptures. He remarks that, ―Legislation has been mostly
the handiwork of men; and man has not always been fair and discriminate in
performing that self–appointed task. The largest part of our effort in promoting the
regeneration of women should be directed towards removing those blemishes which
are represented in our Shastras as the necessary and ingrained characteristics of
women‖30 According to Irigaray, men have defined a woman‘s place as one that is
contained within men and her place cannot be taken out as an independent entity. Man
enjoys woman‘s body with the ultimate aim to impregnate her. In other words, man
simply exploits woman to further his race and to serve his needs. If a woman allows
to be enveloped by a man then she will not be able to separate herself from him and
would rather become indivisible or inseparable and rather is defined or used by a man
as his ‗starting-point‘. While Gandhi is against women being an object of lust for
men, he sees the civilizational role that women play in the act of procreation, unlike
Irigaray who, it appears, sees even this as an ― use‖ men find for women. Irigaray
considers this theory, ―Our subsequent tradition has even taught us that it is
forbidden or futile to be lovers unless there is procreation‖,31 but points to the
alternative tradition citing Diotima‘s view that the most divine act is the union of man
and woman. Irigaray promotes desire and wants to expand the notion of the way we
view it. She argues that, ―If there is no double desire, the positive and negative poles
divide themselves between the two sexes instead of establishing a double loop in
which each can go toward the other and come back to itself"32. Thus Irigaray holds
that desire should be viewed as a continuum that spans past, present and something
that cannot be quantified. Gandhi is forthright in stating that avoiding carnal desire
will serve the betterment of society by 29 Irigaray, 2004; p.6 30
http://www.mkgandhi.org/momgandhi/chap60.htm (Last accessed on 13/09/14 , 5:37
PM) 31 Irigaray, 2004;p.27 32 Irigaray, 2004;p.9 53 conserving human energy that
can be directed to more valuable causes. However, it is not clear on how/why Irigaray
thinks that redefining desire will result in any positive impact. Gandhi had nothing
against the institution of marriage though he believed that it was a hindrance in the
way of a life of service. However, if Brahmacharya was practised in its true spirit
within marriage, husband and wife would treat each other as equal partners in a life of
service and not as objects of desire. Thus their love for each other would be founded
in a desire for service, something beyond themselves. Irigaray also sees that marriage
is a mode of imprisonment by man of woman. The woman is seen as an envelope by
man and, as described in the first chapter, she is seen as having no independent space
of her own, as ‗the other‘ who usurps his space. Therefore Irigaray argues that while
appearing to envelope her in return, he actually imprisons her: ―In exchange – but it
isn‘t a real one- he buys her a house, even shuts her up in it, places limits on her that
are the opposite of the unlimited site in which he unwittingly situates her. He contains
or envelopes her with walls while enveloping himself and his things with her
flesh‖.33Irigaray is of the opinion that men place boundaries around women by
trading material comforts with her for sexual pleasures. In order for the women to
escape this, the concept of relationship between men and women has to be redefined.
Irigaray‘s solution to the problem envisages the relationship to be of purely love and
of physical nature without the boundaries of marriage. She acknowledges that
traditionally there existed a goal or purpose beyond desire between two individuals
bound by marriage that prevented their ―consuming‖ or destroying each other.
Irigaray says, ―One sex is not entirely consumable by the other. There is always a
remainder. Up until now this remainder has been entrusted to or reserved for God.‖34
However that solution is no longer available to us. Instead Irigaray formulates the
problem in terms of a concept of wonder that determines sexual relations on
principles of freedom. According to her, the absence of wonder has resulted in
―attraction, greed, possession, consummation, disgust, and so on‖35. Irigaray offers
wonder as the remedy for the possibility of sexual attraction with freedom, between
men and women. Gandhi, on the other hand, conceives of a relation between husband
and wife where there can be love between couples not based on carnal desire but on
detachment. It is this detachment that liberates them from each other and frees them
for love and service of others. 33 Irigaray, 2004;p.11 34 Irigaray, 2004; p.14 35 Mc
Carthy, 2011; p.83 54 Judith Butler and Gandhi It is hard to compare Judith Butler‘s
views on celibacy against that of Gandhi‘s simply because, most of Butler‘s views are
challenging the fact that gender and sex are always aligned. Butler says that society
equates male to masculinity and female to femininity and she is totally against this
and is of the opinion that gender and sex are just states that can be exhibited by
anyone. A man can exhibit feminine qualities and a woman can exhibit manly
quantities. So gender and sex are just states and cannot be attributed to physical
features according to Butler. But Gandhi clearly saw physical differences between
men and women and even opined that men are better suited to some activities that
require strength than women. To quote Gandhi, ―Equality of sexes does not mean
equality of occupations. There may be no legal bar against a woman hunting or
wielding a lance. But she instinctively recoils from a function that belongs to man,
nature has created sexes as complements of each other. Their functions are defined as
are their forms.36‘ Thus we see that the fundamental premise from which both
Gandhi and Butler make their points are radically different. The closest we see
Gandhi reflecting Butler‘s views is in the following quote: ―I make no distinction
between man and woman. Woman should feel just as independent as men. Bravery is
not man‘s monopoly.‖37 Gandhi voices the opinion that women should not feel that
some qualities are gender specific. For eg. women should be brave but that does not
mean that they have to carry weapons and fight. But Butler‘s views are much deeper
and she questions the gender identification at birth itself and the qualities thrust upon
men and women based on it. According to Butler, ―Once ‗sex‘ itself is understood
in its normativity, the materiality of the body will not be thinkable apart from the
materialization of that regulatory norm. ‗Sex‘ is, thus, not simply what one has, or a
static description of what one is: it will be one of the norms by which the ‗one‘
becomes viable at all, that which qualifies a body for life within the domain of
cultural intelligibility.‖38 Butler simply states here that sex is just a state of a being
and it need not be permanent as we think today. It is rather a performative act of a
person. 36 Harijan, 2-12-1939, p. 359 37 Harijan, 5-1-1947, p. 478 38 Butler,
2011;p.2 55 In fact, Butler opens the question of sexuality to the possibility of
different gender and sexual preferences that overcome the stereotype of a binary
sexual classification. However, as has been argued in Ch. 1, Gandhi‘s understanding
of womanhood based on principles of non-violence and truth, redefines the strength of
human subjectivity in terms of the feminine ability of self-suffering rather than manly
virility. In so far as this is so, as has been argued earlier, Gandhi too emphasizes a
performative understanding of gender, but with a difference. While Butler‘s theory is
based on individual choice and disposition, Gandhi‘s is based on a principle of non-
violence which he sees as the essence of human subjectivity. Conclusion We analyzed
three prominent feminist authors‘ views regarding sexual interactions and compared
and contrasted them against Gandhi‘s views on celibacy. As we have exhibited in the
passages above, none of the authors are against the idea of partaking in sexual
activities for pleasure. One of them even promotes sex as a way for women to achieve
their goals. Another wants men and women to approach each other with wonder and
keep desire constant as a remedy to one sex trying to dominate another. This is the
essential difference between the feminist thinkers and Gandhi. While all of them see
the possibility of sexuality being oppressive and a form of imprisonment for women,
Gandhi emphasizes the view that, in the ultimate analysis it confines both men and
women.. In this chapter, we see Gandhi‘s engagement with issues of sexuality and
gender relations that have been equally the focus of concern for the feminists.
Gandhi‘s response presents a unique position on sexuality in gender relations from the
point of view of nonviolence, truth and Brahmacharya. Though he appears to hold, for
some, a stereotypical patriarchal understanding, he rises above it by redefining human
subjectivity in terms of femininity and non-violence and sexuality in terms of celibacy
that liberates rather than the notions of individual freedom and choice that the
feminists advocate. Gandhi goes beyond feminist theory in so far as he challenges
traditional stereotypes and the concept of Brahmacharya itself with his experiments in
Brahmacharya and his understanding of marriage as based on celibacy rather than
sexuality