What Neohumanism Can Teach Us About Democracy Today

Kathleen Kesson

John Dewey, a prominent North American philosopher of democracy, reminded us that democracy is more than just a form of government. He described it as “a mode of associated living, of conjoint communicated experience” (Dewey, 1916, p. 87).

Theorists distinguish between “strong democracy” and “weak democracy.” Weak democracy focuses on property rights and individualism, encompassing principles taught in civics classes such as majority rule, due process, voting, and representative government. In contrast, strong democracy emphasizes free inquiry, vigorous public debate, and active citizen engagement. Importantly, strong democracy extends rights and responsibilities to marginalized groups and applies democratic practices beyond voting, into workplaces, communities, schools, and homes.

Understanding Neohumanism

Neohumanism is a philosophy introduced by Prabhat Ranjan Sarkar (1921-1990), also known as Shrii Shrii Ánandamúrti. He was an Indian philosopher, guru, social reformer, linguist, author, and composer. In The Liberation of Intellect: Neohumanism (1982), Sarkar discusses social, political, and economic theories. He outlines principles for developing a just, peaceful, and cooperative society.

His synthesis of ideas culminates in Prout, which stands for PROgressive Utilization Theory. This theory first emerged in 1959 and aligns closely with the concept of strong democracy.

The Moral Dimension of Democracy

Democracy incorporates a moral dimension that prioritizes public interests over personal gains. Neohumanism serves as a guide to extending individualism outward toward universal care and love, transcending narrow self-interest. Through Prout, social and economic institutions aim to foster the highest human potential: self-realization, compassion, and love for all beings.

Dewey's ideas of “conjoint, communicated experiences” align with Sarkar’s philosophy and advocate for a lifestyle characterized by empathy, equity, commitment, and connection.

Facing the Challenges of Authoritarianism

Currently, parts of the world are shifting away from generative social commitments, instead tending toward tyranny and authoritarianism. Here, Sarkar’s theory of the social cycle is relevant. He identifies four classes—Workers (Shudra), Warriors (Ksattriya), Intellectuals (Vipra), and Entrepreneurs or Capitalists (Vaeshya)—which dominate different phases of social evolution.

Each era frequently transitions into the next through periods of upheaval. Today, we might describe our historical moment as one dominated by Vaeshyan interests. Since the 1980s in the U.S., resources have increasingly concentrated among a small elite, leading to widespread poverty. In authoritarian contexts, government merges with wealth, and democracy devolves into elite rule or the power of oligarchs—wealthy business people exerting undue political influence.

The Current State of Democracy in the U.S.

In the United States, democratic foundations face internal challenges. Democracy is an imperfect system that has struggled against massive wealth inequality and a growing trend toward tyranny. However, it is crucial to remember that the United States is the world’s first constitutional democracy, just 237 years into this grand experiment.

Many democracy scholars argue that the antidote to these failures is simply “more democracy.” We are beginning to see a shift in the United States as the working and middle classes start to recognize the harm caused by dismantling services, protections, and governmental checks and balances established throughout the 20th and early 21st centuries.

The outcomes of these challenges remain uncertain, but a struggle for democracy unfolds across various fronts—political, economic, international, educational, scientific, artistic, and religious. "People power" is awakening as communities organize for mutual aid and advocacy during this transitional period.

The Role of Education in Sustaining Democracy

John Dewey once stated, “Democracy has to be born anew every generation, and education is its midwife” (Dewey, 1980, p. 139). This raises the question: how can we cultivate young people in the ongoing rebirth of democracy?

In Neohumanist education, we foster empathy, emotional intelligence, and universal love alongside academic learning. The role of Neohumanist educators is to guide young people as they expand their circles of identity and connection, ultimately achieving a universalist outlook.

Neohumanism aims to create a world founded on equity, ethics, justice, care, critical thinking, and free inquiry. In essence, it seeks to promote a mode of associated living that supports a robust 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)