Neohumanism and Democracy

Kathleen Kesson, May 2025

John Dewey, a preeminent North American philosopher of democracy, reminded us that democracy is more than a form of government, “it is primarily a mode of associated living, of conjoint communicated experience” (1916, p. 87). Theorists contrast “strong democracy” and “weak democracy.” Weak democracy emphasizes property rights and individualism, and the  basic principles usually taught in civics classes: majority rule, due process, voting, representative government, etc. A strong democracy, on the other hand, is characterized by free inquiry,  robust public debate over issues, and engaged citizens involved in the affairs of government. Importantly,  strong democracy implies an extension of rights and responsibilities to more and more people, many of whom have been marginalized or excluded in the past.  It also extends democratic practices to other cultural sites, from the voting booth into the workplace, the community, the school, the home. 

Neohumanism is a philosophy propounded originally by Prabhat Ranjan Sarkar (1921-1990), also known by the spiritual name of Shrii Shrii Ánandamúrti—Indian philosopher, guru, social reformer, linguist, author, and composer—in The Liberation of Intellect: Neohumanism (1982). Sarkar also gave many detailed discourses on social, political and economic theory, outlining principles for the development of a just, peaceful, and cooperative society.  The synthesis of his ideas can be found in Prout (an acronym for PROgressive Utilization Theory), the subject of a discourse first presented in 1959. A careful study of the linked principles of Neohumanism and Prout suggest their affinity to a “strong” democracy. 

There is a moral dimension to democracy that emphasizes the public interest over the private good. Neohumanism can be read as a treatise on the extension of individualism and private concerns outward to an ethic of care, of a universal love capable of transcending narrow self-interest. With the theory of Prout, economic and social institutions are designed to facilitate the attainment of these highest of human potentialities: self-realization, compassion, and love for all beings. In these ways, Sarkar’s ideas illuminate what Dewey might have meant by “conjoint, communicated experiences” as a way of life characterized by empathy, equity, commitment, and connection.  

We live in an era where parts of the world are increasingly turning away from these generative social commitments toward tyranny and authoritarianism. Here, Sarkar’s theory of the social cycle, which posits the existence of four distinct “classes” or groups of people that dominate recurrent phases in social evolution, can be instructive. He identified four different types of people: Workers (Shudra);  Warriors (Ksattriya); Intellectuals (Vipra); and Entrepreneurs or Capitalists (Vaeshya) and indicated a dynamic social pattern wherein each age, or phase, gives way to the next (often involving periods of upheaval). Sarkar might term our historical moment as a peak time of Vaeshyan domination. Since the 1980’s in the US, for example, resources and capital have flowed upwards dramatically, so that a very small fraction of the population holds a significant share of the national wealth, and poverty is increasingly widespread. In authoritarian societies, government and wealth are seamlessly intertwined, and democracy gives way to elite rule, or the power of oligarchs (rich business people with undue political influence). 

In the current moment in the United States, the democratic foundations of society are under attack from within. Democracy has been revealed as an imperfect system as it seems to have failed to prevent both massive wealth inequality and the current turn towards tyranny and authoritarianism. But it is sometimes easy to forget that the United States of America is the world’s first constitutional democracy.  Just 237 years old, we are still, in the larger scheme of things, an experiment. Many scholars of democracy suggest that the only antidote to the failures of democracy is more democracy.  We might perhaps now witness the emergence of a cyclical change in the United States, as workers and the middle class are beginning to feel the harm caused by the dismantling of the services and protections, as well as the system of governmental checks and balances, that have been built into the US system throughout the 20th and early 21st centuries. The outcome of the current troubles is uncertain and the timeline unpredictable. But the struggle for democracy is emerging on many fronts: political, economic, international, educational, scientific, artistic, and religious. There is an awakening of “people power” as more and more folks organize themselves for mutual aid, support, and advocacy in this transitional period.

Another well-known quote by John Dewey: “Democracy has to be born anew every generation, and education is its midwife” (1980, p. 139). How can we best facilitate the growth of young people in the continuous rebirth of democracy as a moral way of life? In Neohumanist education, the cultivation of empathy, emotional intelligence, and universal love is fostered alongside the learning of academic content. The task of Neohumanist educators is to facilitate the movement of young people through an ever-expanding circle of identity and connection, resulting in a universalist outlook. In this way, Neohumanism seeks to bring about a world characterized by equity, ethics, justice, care, critical thinking and free inquiry; in other words, a mode of associated living capable of supporting a strong democracy.

Dewey, J.  (1916).  Democracy and education.  The Free Press.

Dewey, J. (1980). The middle works, 1899-1924. SIU Press 

Sarkar, P.R. (1982). The liberation of intellect: Neo-Humanism. Ánanda Márga Pracáraka

Samgha.

(Caveat: the author of this blog is a U.S. citizen, and thus limited in perspective. We invite you to expand the ideas in this blog post by commenting on the problem of democracy from your cultural or experiential position)