Walz and Ritchie / Gandhian Principles in Social Work Practice: Ethics Revisited
213
CCC Code: 0037-8046/00 $3.00 © 2000
National Association of Social Workers, Inc.
Gandhian Principles in Social Work
Practice: Ethics Revisited

Social work as an expression of culture is a highly value-laden
activity. The emergence of many new ethical issues resulting from
technological and scientific advancements suggests a need for
greater attention to values and ethics. In this article the authors
argue that the thought of Mahatma Gandhi, as revealed in his
social activism, is relevant to social work ethics and a resource for
its ethical enrichment. Principles such as seeking truth through
service to others, individual self-development, nonviolent social
action, and material simplicity could enhance the current NASW
Key words: ethics; Gandhi; nonviolence; social justice; spirituality
Social work scholars and practitioners have given limited attention to the principles of Mahatma Gandhi as a source of theory
building. When one considers the overlap of
social work values with Gandhian principles,
this omission is surprising. This article presents
Gandhian thought as a source of ethical theory
building for the profession and as a complement to the current knowledge that informs
social work practice. Volumes have been written on Gandhi’s theory of nonviolent social
change. On the subject of social work and
Gandhian thought, the scant literature available
has focused on social development, community
organizing, conflict resolution (Bonnee &
Sharma, 1991; Dasgupta, 1982; Sharma, 1989;
Sharma & Ormsby, 1982), and, on rare occasions, social services activities (Dayal, 1986).
Shachter and Seinfeld (1994) have entreated the
profession to “rediscover the transcending wisdom of such passionate philosophers of nonviolence as Mohandas Gandhi, Martin Luther
King, Jr., and Erik Erikson” (p. 349) in exploring the connection between personal violence
and cultural violence. A few scholars (Walz,
Sharma, & Birnbaum, 1990), however, have addressed how Gandhian thought could enhance
social work ethics.
Ethical Paradigm
The enrichment of the ethical foundation of a
profession is as critical as the expansion of its
knowledge base. Ethical research and theory
building in social work practice has long been
overshadowed by the belief that knowledge
theory are more critical variables in the
s development (Holland & Kilpatrick,
1991; Reamer, 1982).
s thought as a guide for service to
others and the pursuit of social justice is
complementary to social work practice theory.
His method, based on an integration of social
service and social action, combined both micro
and macro interventions, something social
Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/sw/article/45/3/213/1927081 by Flinders University user on 26 March 2023
214
Social Work / Volume 45, Number 3 / May 2000
work has struggled to synthesize. Gandhi
achieved this integration by reducing his ethical
theory to two primary foci: service to others
and social justice.
Gandhi’s ethical system rejected the Western
model of utilitarianism, with its focus on the
greatest good for the greatest number in society.
In contrast, Gandhian theory emphasized social
justice as fairness to the individual, with priority to disadvantaged people. In their writings
Rawls (1973) and Gewirth (1978) closely followed Gandhian ethical principles. Rawls defined justice in terms of an equality principle
that gives each individual equal rights to basic
liberty and modifies this with a “difference
principle” in which inequality may be justified
if the least-advantaged individuals in society are
better off than if there were total equality.
Gewirth, similarly, advanced distributive justice
in his “principle of generic consistency,” which
is defined as “distributing freedom and wellbeing for each person, rather than pursuit of the
greatest possible aggregation of some good”
(cited in Reamer, 1982, p. 73). Gandhi (1926),
Rawls, and Gewirth addressed distributive justice from a poorest-of-the-poor philosophy,
justice to the most vulnerable first. Gewirth relied solely on reason as the mechanism for determining justice, but Rawls and Gandhi believed that an appeal to intuition or “the heart”
should settle questions of priority. To Gandhi,
the heart was of greater importance than just
logic; he believed that at times intelligence
failed to apprehend things clear to the heart.
Throughout his life, Gandhi believed that
unjust rules, laws, and institutions must be reformed or abolished. Similarly, Rawls (1973)
argued that there are circumstances in which
civil disobedience is appropriate to protest unjust laws. However, both agreed that fidelity to
the law is an imperative; a person must accept
the punishment for breaking a law to protest
injustice.
Gandhi’s activism against social injustice was
first devoted to overcoming apartheid against
Indians in South Africa and later to pursuing
political independence for India. His critique of
colonialist-influenced industrial capitalism is
evident in his ethical response to economic materialism. When he argued for swaraj or selfrule, he believed that India should return to her
“spiritual” traditions. This position reflects the
classic Industrial Age dichotomy between the
spiritualism of the East and the materialism of
the West.
This examination of Gandhian thought as an
ethical paradigm for social work comes at a
time when the profession is reviewing its own
use of spirituality in practice (Bullis, 1984;
Canda, 1988, 1990; Constable, 1983; Joseph,
1987). Contemporary interest in spirituality in
social work emerged in the 1980s in both professional literature and conferences and was focused primarily on the place of spirituality in
needs assessment and practice interventions.
The profession was called on to expand its exploration of spirituality in both education and
practice (Cornett, 1992; Dudley & Helfgott,
1990; Sheridan, Wilmer, & Atcheson, 1994). In
discussing the role of spirituality in practice,
Canda (1997) identified the following as points
of intervention: in the helping relationship in
which the worker links personal and professional growth, in the worker’s dialogue with
clients about their frameworks for meaning and
morality, in the worker’s appreciation of diverse
religious and nonreligious expressions of spirituality, and in the worker’s support of creative
resolutions of life crises using spiritual resources relevant to the client.
Spiritual values can assist an individual in
giving meaning to experience, as well as giving
meaning to ultimate reality, a feeling of belonging, and universal justice (Sermabeikian, 1994).
Recent literature has called for increasing
knowledge of spirituality and religion in crosscultural work (Boyd-Franklin, 1989; Canda &
Phaobtong, 1992) and in assessing how spirituality influences client beliefs regarding change
(Karnik & Suri, 1995). Similar to Gandhian
thought applied to social work, the literature
also uses religious frameworks such as Islam as
a foundation for social work practice (Haynes,
Eweiss, Abdel Mageed, & Chung, 1997).
Social Work Ethical Code
By the mid-20th century, the social work profession had devised a formal code of professional ethics. Ethics refers to the values, norms,
and moral judgments that guide professional
Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/sw/article/45/3/213/1927081 by Flinders University user on 26 March 2023
Walz and Ritchie / Gandhian Principles in Social Work Practice: Ethics Revisited
215
behavior of social workers as practitioners with
clients and as a collective profession (Levy,
1984). The Code grew out of the profession’s
Judeo-Christian underpinnings and the rules of
acceptable conduct in society. The social work
ethical system included such moral imperatives
as nonjudgment, acceptance, confidentiality,
individualization, respect for colleagues, and
loyalty to agencies. In some respects, however,
the social work Code of Ethics can be said to reflect minimalist qualities. As it functioned
chiefly to discipline professionals for extreme
misconduct, early versions of the Code offered
little toward inspiring the profession to a
higher ethical level of practice. The recently revised Code of Ethics (NASW, 1997) now includes a section on promoting issues of social
justice on behalf of disadvantaged populations
and on advancing global understanding of human development.
One could argue that the lacunae in the development of social work’s ethical system as it
relates to social justice is a reflection of the level
of moral development in contemporary culture
(Reamer, 1995; Rhodes, 1986). Western culture
has derived its definition of human worth, as
well as the reciprocal obligations of the individual and society, primarily from a religious
tradition (Constable, 1983). As a secular knowledge-based profession, social work has disassociated itself from this tradition, giving practitioners few moral resources for answering
complex ethical questions.
Foundations of Gandhian Thought
Overview
Gandhi’s ethical system developed out of his
lifelong “experiments with truth” (Gandhi,
1993). These experiments were based in a turnof-the-century non-Western culture. This begs
the question: Are his ideas relevant to the current post-Industrial Age? Many revolutionary
developments have occurred since Gandhi’s
death. Foremost among these is the advancements in technology and the spread of capitalism. Yet what Gandhi found to critique in the
industrial age has hardly disappeared from
today’s world (Walz & Canda, 1988). There is
evidence that global economic developments
are neocolonial and that violence and terrorism
are associated with the redistribution of power
from the political to the economic sector. Environmental degradation also is closely linked to
the economic development quest. From this
perspective, a Gandhian critique is timely and
would appear to be appropriate for social
work.
Gandhian principles are predicated on a set
of philosophical beliefs—cooperation over
competition, interdependence over rugged individualism, compassion for others over pursuit
of self-interest, and social justice over individual achievement. The cornerstone of
Gandhian ethics is service to others (sarvodaya)
and justice for all (satyagraha). Gandhi’s
thought on social development rests on the
foundation of truthfulness, love of all, harmonious relations, and service to others.
The following concepts of Gandhian thought
have been selected for examination for the purpose of enriching social work’s ethical standards: unity of all things or the principle of harmonic nature of the universe; ahimsa, the
Sanskrit word for noninjury that Gandhi expanded to include the principle of nonviolence,
truthfulness, and love of all; sarvodaya, the
principle of the self-development through service to others, with emphasis on service to those
in greatest need; satyagraha, the principle of a
nonviolent social change for addressing social
injustice; swadeshi, the principle of human scale
and immediacy; and material simplicity and the
corollary principles of nonattachment,
nonstealing, and trusteeship.
In the presentation of Gandhian thought,
some concepts overlap. This is a result of the
holistic nature of Gandhian thought and the
way in which his experiments with truth unfolded around a set of core principles, such as
nonviolence. Gandhi’s choice of Sanskrit words
to identify core concepts means that his narrative loses some efficacy when translated into
English.
Unity of All Things
Gandhi believed that all of life as creation was
interdependent and could best be characterized
by its harmonic quality. He rejected the view of
women and men as necessarily caught up in a
Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/sw/article/45/3/213/1927081 by Flinders University user on 26 March 2023
216
Social Work / Volume 45, Number 3 / May 2000
competitive environment. When conflict occurred, Gandhi assumed it to be an aberration;
nonviolence and cooperation were the norm for
the universe. From this perspective Gandhi
viewed women and men as only part of the universe, not its center.
This ethical view pushes us beyond thinking
of the world as a social system, a foundation
concept in much of social work education.
Gandhi preferred that we think of the world in
holistic terms, with no center or boundaries. All
life is equal and to be respected; no part is
greater than the whole. Each individual has an
investment in maintaining and serving others
because mankind is one. Gandhian ethics
changes the Christian adage
from “do unto others as you
would have them do unto you”
to “what you do to others, you
also do to yourself” (Weber,
1991). Himsa or violence
against another is himsa
against oneself,because the self
and all sentient beings are one.
From this perspective the
ethics of a profession should
not be limited to a narrow
domain. Social work should
not restrict itself to just the
human social environment but should concern
itself with broader environmental issues as well.
Whereas Germain (1991) suggested this direction with the ecological perspective on social
work, Gandhian thought extends to professional concerns for the health and quality of the
planet, including attitudes toward sustainable
and just lifestyles. In this regard, social work
should address issues of frivolous and reckless
consumption, as well as those of poverty. Thus,
any social functioning patterns perceived by the
profession as a threat to planetary sustainability
could be a target for professional intervention.
Whereas the NASW Code of Ethics binds us to
responsible behavior with respect to client and
community, Gandhian ethics call for responsible behavior toward all things.
Ahimsa
Blending Hindu, Jainist, Buddhist, and Christian thought, Gandhi practiced the concept of

or nonviolence. Ahimsa is not just the
absence of violence or nonharming but a condition of mental purification and positive acts
through body, speech, and mind. Ahimsa
means viewing people as good and kindhearted, each with inner resources to seek love
and understanding of others.
Ahimsa as love is viewed by Gandhi as truth,
which he defines as universal justice or God. It
is right-mindedness and right actions. Truth is
a moral position toward which one strives. It
assumes a right and a wrong, although ambiguity may make it difficult to always be clear
about a moral course of action. Ahimsa ideally
defines all human relationships forming the basis of our connections with
all of life.
In 1957 Biestek, a Jesuit
social work scholar, published The Casework Relationship. He successfully
identified the centrality of
relationship in the helping
process, making it an essential part of social work ethics. The nature of this relationship, however, has been
processed through a variety
of theories—some advocating the need to maintain objectivity and social
distance from clients and others advocating
some form of professional joining. Biestek, like
Gandhi, addressed the ethical base of human
relationship as a guide to professional work, but
Gandhi went even further in exploring the ethics of human relationships. Love of all is the absolute ethical position toward which one strives.
Applied to the social work relationship, the
Gandhian position postulates that social workers should maintain a close, personal, nonexploitative, and nonmanipulative relationship
with clients. It is a disciplined relationship, not
a managed relationship. It is a truthful relationship characterized by absolute honesty and
nonviolence and one to be monitored carefully
through both supervision and self-evaluation
practices. There can be no compromise on issues that, at times, do not command truthfulness from the worker, such as discussing with
clients mental or physical states. Nor could a
All life is equal and to be
respected; no part is
greater than the whole.
Each individual has an
investment in maintaining
and serving others because
Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/sw/article/45/3/213/1927081 by Flinders University user on 26 March 2023
Walz and Ritchie / Gandhian Principles in Social Work Practice: Ethics Revisited
217
practitioner ethically withhold information
from clients for their “own good.” Agency
record keeping would be designed to protect
confidentiality carefully but would remain fully
accessible to the client.
Gandhian ethics emphasize that practitioners
respect honesty in all relationships, especially
with clients and oneself. Like the strengths perspective, the practitioner would be expected to
have absolute respect for the client’s understanding of his or her own needs and problems
(De Jong & Miller, 1995; Saleebey, 1997).
Gandhian thought goes beyond this expression,
however, by giving a qualitative definition of
the nature and meaning of relationship. Relationship is agape or love, a love that desires to
give to others unconditionally.
Some social work practices at both the clinical and community level could be challenged on
truthfulness. Clinical practice theories sometimes
seek to achieve ends through forms of manipulation (for example, paradoxical therapeutic
techniques or imposed interpretations of client
behavior). Likewise, clinicians frequently falsify
information in their paperwork to expedite a
client’s request for services (Reamer, 1982).
Community workers may use exploitative techniques like encouraging others to think of those
with differing views as enemies for the purpose
of strengthening their own organization. The
Alinsky (1971) school of organizing, popular in
many schools of social work, was essentially a
“win”-oriented approach, with an apparent
willingness to compromise the means for the
end. From a Gandhian perspective, legitimate
ends can never be achieved with less than truthful means. Gandhi (1959) argued that a nonviolent imperative must be present in all actions.
The expression ahimsa includes a dual mandate of service to others and the pursuit of social justice. Gandhi’s concept of ahimsa as receiving through giving challenges the common
perceptions that service to others is a depleting
activity from which a person must protect the
self. By providing services, a person receives ultimate satisfaction, experiences personal growth,
and develops enriched compassion. Gandhi’s
philosophy is predicated on a view that the purpose of life is the spiritual development of self,
achieved through service to humanity.
One example of this spiritual development of
self involved an oncology unit in a midwestern
hospital that encouraged its staff to become
more closely involved with the dying patients
and their families (for example, attending funerals or sharing with family members in their
loss). Staff’s previous expectations were to be
objective and show discipline of emotions. Staff
did become more involved with dying patients
and their families, and the work environment,
once characterized by depleted morale, turned
into a unit with renewed energy. Even the staff
noted how much healthier and better they felt
being able to freely express themselves in their
work with dying people.
The second path to the development of self,
the other face of ahimsa, is the pursuit of justice. Gandhi defined justice also as truth. Injustices, Gandhi argued, are not relative, simply a
matter of perception or moral preference. Violence and injustice, he believed, could be identified and addressed. Only the judgmental manner with which injustice is approached must be
consistent with his other principles (for example, ahimsa). Because individuals define
their own truths, total (universal) truth can
never be assumed (Bondurant, 1958). One
needs always to understand and respect another
person’s perspective, especially one’s opponents. But respecting another’s opinion in no
way mitigates a person’s or a profession’s responsibility to confront injustice.
Historically, the social work profession has
followed the ethical mandate of being nonjudgmental in service to others. The pursuit of truth
through social justice is not followed as vehemently, despite its role as an organizing principle in the profession. The social activist side of
the profession is underdeveloped; during the
past 25 years, there has been a significant decrease in protest-type political activism against
injustice and an increase in activities such as
lobbying for professional licensing (Reeser &
Epstein, 1990).
Social action springs from a commitment to
and passion for justice. One promising development has been NASW’s Violence and Development Project, which draws social work into
connecting global peace and justice pursuits
with the promotion of human development.
Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/sw/article/45/3/213/1927081 by Flinders University user on 26 March 2023
218
Social Work / Volume 45, Number 3 / May 2000
This project should help sensitize the profession
to occasions of social injustice associated with
global economic expansion, the violence of
neocolonialism, and the trauma experienced by
its victims.
Satyagraha
Gandhi was best known for his nonviolent social action philosophy, which he called
satyagraha. Literally, satyagraha means holding
onto the truth. Because no one is capable of
knowing the absolute Truth, this approach begins with respect for one’s adversary and a commitment to the cocreation of truth (Burrows,
1996). Gandhi believed that an opponent has
the right to be informed of all intentions and
future actions of the satyagraha effort to allow
for dialogue and response.
Satyagraha is a dialectical process in which
the satyagrahi (the practitioner of satyagraha)
seeks a greater degree of unity among participants. A satyagrahi withstands another person’s
violence without retaliation to demonstrate
moral courage. Acts of moral courage, Gandhi
believed, would serve to convert the opponent
to the rightness of a desired social change.
Moral courage has not been a frequent topic
of study in social work education, nor does it
carry any explicit statement in the NASW Code
of Ethics. It rarely surfaces as an admission criterion to social work or as an objective in a
practicum contract. Yet the concept would appear to be a rich area of study for social work
researchers, particularly in assessing motivation
and ethical commitments.
Likewise, nonviolence as a theoretical concept is not widely discussed or deeply explored
by social workers. On the other hand, violence,
especially domestic violence, is a common
topic of research and study in the profession.
Gandhian thought would appear to have much
to contribute toward a richer theoretical understanding of the violence–nonviolence construct.
Sarvodaya
Although the principle of ahimsa clearly delineates a path for self-realization through service
and social justice, Gandhi further elaborated on
this principle through sarvodaya or “welfare of
all.” In developing this principle, he drew heavily
from Ruskin (1967), in addition to studies of
the Jainist and Buddhist traditions, which teach
that one cherishes most those who face grave
difficulties and who are typically shunned by
society (Kongrul, 1987; Lobsang Tharchin, 1998).
Sarvodaya also means assistance first to the
neediest of the needy. Thus, service to others
has a general imperative and a specific ethical
obligation to serve first those in greatest need.
As an ethical principle, sarvodaya could enrich social work. Although the NASW Code of
Ethics variously gives guidance on the promotion of the general welfare of society, prevention of discrimination, and the assurance that
all persons have access to the resources, the
Code of Ethics does not directly address the allocation of social work resources (Reamer, 1995).
Historically, this was not an ethical problem for
social work, because the profession was more or
less directed to the needs of impoverished immigrants. However, as social services become
increasingly influenced by economic forces, social services could fail those in greatest need
(Specht & Courtney, 1995; Walz & Groze, 1991).
Swadeshi
Gandhi was troubled by large institutions that
distanced themselves from the people. In particular, he believed that large corporate industrial institutions and centralized governments
were unable to address the spiritual and social
development needs of populations, especially
rural populations. In response to corporate approaches that tended toward social control,
Gandhi offered locally controlled forms of social organization. Schumacher (1973) was a
Gandhi protégé and was particularly concerned
that technology, along with organizations,
should remain at a “human scale.” Schumacher
advocated an intermediate technology, keeping
a balance between human labor and mechanical
energy that would be best suited to human and
economic development. Intermediate technology also could make the greater claim to nonviolence than high-tech or large industry.
Swadeshi was used by Gandhi to describe a
person’s ethical responsibility to the immediate
local environment and community. All personal
expressions of service and social action were
expected to have an immediacy about them and
Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/sw/article/45/3/213/1927081 by Flinders University user on 26 March 2023
Walz and Ritchie / Gandhian Principles in Social Work Practice: Ethics Revisited
219
in so doing would lead to larger responses. The
famous phrase “think globally, act locally” captures the essence of this principle. Gandhi believed that one should strive to live a moral life
within the immediate context of one’s life but
with an intentional ripple effect that could and
would move one on to wider levels (Sharma,
1989).
One could argue that social services should
be organized on a human scale. This would call
into question the growth of large public and
private services bureaucarcies as the best way to
deliver social services. According to Gandhian
thought, the small, locally based social services
agency can be viewed as the most response
mechanism through which to serve the immediate and individualized needs of clients. The
expansion of large corporate welfare approaches should be reviewed cautiously. Values
of efficiency and productivity are secondary to
values of human worth and dignity.
Material Simplicity
Once Gandhi established his philosophy of selfrealization through service and action, he began
to identify principles that would assist a person
in fulfilling this social purpose. One of the foremost of these principles is material simplicity.
The concept advocates moderation in consumption: living a full life without taking unnecessary material things such as excess food,
shelter, clothing, and so forth.
In operationalizing the principle of material
simplicity, Gandhi included some corollary
principles: nonattachment, nonstealing, and
trusteeship. To avoid the dilemma of constant
addiction to outside stimuli and desires, Gandhi
incorporated the Eastern tradition of nonattachment to material goods and personal desires. To Gandhi, stealing meant that if one uses
more than what one needs, it is an act of violence rather than simply a crime involving personal property. In viewing all wealth as belonging to all peoples, Gandhi offered trusteeship as
the solution for those who had already accumulated more than they needed. Unlike Islam,
which also believes in trusteeship but mandates
involuntary contribution or zakat, Gandhi advocated that those with surplus wealth voluntarily should share with those in need.
Material simplicity directly addresses social
goals central to the practice of social work. It
also offers an ethical guide to the behaviors of
the profession with regard to its own development. To what extent are social workers involved in supporting clients in the pursuit of
personal goals that may not contribute to a
nonmaterial view of quality of life? For example, what role should the profession play in
organizing day care services in situations in
which one consequence could be to enhance a
high standard of living at the expense of a
child’s nurture and development. What role
should social work play in educating consumers
(citizens) about the relationship among personal consumption, world poverty, and global
sustainability? What response should the profession make to the increasing costs of health
and welfare services, relative to other choices
that could be made for the use of these funds?
Of equal concern is the amount of attention
the profession gives to its own advancement. As
identified by Reeser and Epstein (1990), concerns of social justice are being set aside as the
profession pursues state-supported monopolies
of its practice. How many people currently are
attracted to a services profession by aspirations
of private practice? What underlying forces motivate contemporary recruits to professional social work education? With what kinds of role
models are students presented in practice and
in education?
Criticism of Gandhi’s Ethical System
Despite its lofty intentions, Gandhian social
thought has drawn its critics. Some feminists
find Gandhi’s philosophy inconsistent with
some of his behaviors, especially what they perceive to have been the patronizing treatment of
his wife, Kasturbai, and his authoritarian decision making with respect to his children. These
behaviors are viewed as less than nonviolent,
taking advantage of the power position bestowed on males in most societies. Feminists
also object to his elevation of woman’s moral
position, despite the fact that Gandhi advocated
gender equality and many progressive measures
for women in India.
Other critics are bothered by Gandhi’s idealism, especially his assumptions about the
Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/sw/article/45/3/213/1927081 by Flinders University user on 26 March 2023
220
Social Work / Volume 45, Number 3 / May 2000
naturalness of nonviolence and the spiritual
power of nonviolence as a tool in social change.
Gandhi’s positions on nonviolence could be
viewed as naive and unrealistic and as advocating
martyrdom. To not respond to violence is seen
as self-destructive, not self-sacrificing. Gandhi

steadfast position on nonviolence seems farcical
in some instances, such as in his advice to the
Allied forces to use satyagraha even in the face
of Hitler’s conquest of Europe (Gandhi, 1940).
What are the limits of nonviolence as a means
of organizing, particularly when it is severely
tested by horrific wars and militaristic repression? What would be a profession’s responsibility to issues of social justice under this model?
Gandhi felt that even a
person’s life was subject to resistance against violence. Is it
feasible to train social workers
in this type of social action?
Currently, many people
would dismiss Gandhi as a
neo-Luddite: a conservative
reactionary resisting the forces
of change and progress. His
attack on industrial capitalism and his embracing voluntary poverty is seen as questionable. For those who
measure progress in terms of “modernizationand “materialization,” Gandhian thought is
hopelessly antiquated. Most scholars and intellectuals are committed to advancing the material base of society through technology. They
perceive any attempt to throttle this development or to deconstruct it as reactionary. Some
find Gandhian ideas of material simplicity to be
inappropriate and even dangerous to the wellbeing of a capitalist society. Can practitioners
realistically advocate material simplicity—necting personal practices to worldwide development—in a culture that equates status and
personal happiness with material acquisition?
Western ethics has inherited the tradition of
utilitarianism and its emphasis on reason, as
seen in the works of philosophers such as
Locke, Hume, and Kant, who viewed knowledge as the basis of morality and ethical standards. Through reason alone, a person arrives
at the meaning of Truth and thus is able to distinguish right from wrong. The profession has
begun more recently to follow the postmodernist
path, which expresses uncertainty about the
idea of universal ethical principles. Under this
belief, values have become neutral or relative;
the nonjudgmental manner of the practitioner
equates to an unquestioning acceptance of the
ethical lifestyles of most clients and the priority
of service. This “impartial” approach, derived
“value-free” social science, equates moral
ethics with moralism (Siporin, 1975). Valuefree science, however, “implies a morally hypocritical position that provides no solution but
compounds the moral conflicts involved”
(Siporin, 1982, p. 522) between the practitioner’s
own moral philosophy and
professional positions.
Most likely, criticism of
Gandhi has not been moderated by the acceptance or
rejection of his ideas but instead by a disinterest in his
ethical positions. Although
this is beginning to change
for social work, most professions are focused on theory
and knowledge building,
which provide an easier fit
with contemporary culture
and the values of the positivist Enlightenment
tradition.
Conclusion
Gandhi has been referred to as a practical idealist, a heuristic social practitioner with high ethical standards founded on his practice wisdom
and spiritual philosophy. Gandhi’s experiments
with truth show him to have been scientifically
curious and, like social work practitioners, concerned with a self-evaluation of practice.
’s practice was also similar to social
work by his inclusion of concerns for racial,
gender, and class justice; the empowerment of
people; the overcoming of poverty; and the development of a culture that promotes healthy
human development.
Gandhi’s commitment and dedication to service and justice make him an exceptional role
model for the profession. His thought is built
heavily on his study of the world’s great religions,
[Gandhi’s] thought is built
heavily on his study of the
world’s great religions, a
body of literature often
neglected by students of
the social professions.
Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/sw/article/45/3/213/1927081 by Flinders University user on 26 March 2023
Walz and Ritchie / Gandhian Principles in Social Work Practice: Ethics Revisited
221
a body of literature often neglected by students
of the social professions. Although he was not a
conventional theorist, Gandhi’s ethical system
has attracted the interests of many great writers
and theorists from Thomas Merton (1965) to
Erik Erikson (1969). In this light, it seems odd
that Gandhi has not received greater attention
from both practitioners and theorists in social
work.
Knowledge building is a critical part of any
profession’s development. Social work has been
able to steadily make its own distinctive contributions to practice theory. Gandhian thought
offers a rich repository of knowledge for study
and exploration by the social work practitioner
and theorist. The difference in studying Gandhi
is that his insights dealt more with ethical concepts than so-called scientific statements.
Gandhi’s methods offer more than a technique
for the delivery of either services or justice; they
offer a philosophy and set of ethical principles
that help define the ends and means of practice.
At a time when the profession is proactive in
enriching its Code of Ethics and encouraging
practitioners to advance social reforms more
actively, a systematic review of Gandhian
thought and comparison with the works of
other ethics scholars such as Rawls, Gewirth,
and Levy would be timely. Although of a different era and age, Gandhi’s ideas and those of his
protégés seem especially appropriate as guideposts in addressing expected problems of the
21st century. ■
References
Alinsky, S. (1971). Rules for radicals: A practical
primer for realistic radicals. New York: Random
House.
Biestek, F. (1957). The casework relationship. Chicago: Loyola University Press.
Bondurant, J. (1958). Conquest of violence. Princeton,
NJ: Princeton University Press.
Bonnee, M., & Sharma, S. (1991). Satyagraha, ahimsa,
and tapasya: Nonviolent conflict resolution
through a reform of the heart. Proceedings of the
12th international symposium on Asian studies (pp.
653–659). Hong Kong: Asian Research Service.
Boyd-Franklin, N. (1989). Black families in therapy:
A multisystems approach. New York: Guilford
Press.
Bullis, R. (1984). Spirituality in social work practice.
Washington, DC: Taylor & Francis.
Burrows, R. (1996). The strategy of nonviolent defense: A Gandhian approach. Albany: State University of New York Press.
Canda, E. R. (1988). Conceptualizing spirituality for
social work: Insights from diverse perspectives.
Social Thought, 14, 30–34.
Canda, E. R. (1990). An holistic approach to prayer
for social work practice. Social Thought, 16, 3–13.
Canda, E. R. (1997). Spiritualism. In R. L. Edwards
(Ed-in-Chief), Encyclopedia of social work (Suppl.,
pp. 299–309). Washington, DC: NASW Press.
Canda, E. R., & Phaobtong, T. (1992). Buddhism as
a support system for southeast Asian refugees.
Social Work, 37, 61–67.
Constable, R. (1983). Values, religion, and social
work practice. Social Thought, 9, 29–41.
Cornett, C. (1992). Toward a more comprehensive
personology: Integrating a spiritual perspective
into social work practice. Social Work, 37, 101–
102.
Dasgupta, S. (1982). Towards a no poverty society.
Social Development Issues, 6, 4–14.
Dayal, P. (1986). Gandhian approach to social work.
Ahmedaba, India: Gujurat Vidyapith.
De Jong, P., & Miller, S. (1995). How to interview
for client strengths. Social Work, 40, 729–736.
Dudley, J., & Helfgott, C. (1990). Exploring a place
for spirituality in the social work curriculum.
Journal of Social Work Education, 26, 287–294.
Erikson, E. (1969). Gandhi’s truth: On the origins of
militant nonviolence. New York: Norton & Company.
Gandhi, M. (1940). How to combat Hitlerism. In S.
Bandopadhaya (Ed.), My non-violence (p. 116).
Ahmedabad: Navajivan Publishing House.
Gandhi, M. (1959). Collected works of Mahatma
Gandhi (Vol. 45). Delhi: Publications Division,
Ministry of Information and Broadcasting, Government of India.
Gandhi, M. (1993). An autobiography: The story of
my experiments with truth. Boston: Beacon Press.
Germain, C. (1991). Human behavior in the social
environment: An ecological view. New York: Columbia University Press.
Gewirth, A. (1978). Reason and morality. Chicago:
University of Chicago Press.
Haynes, A., Eweiss, M., Abdel Mageed, M., &
Chung, D. (1997). Islamic social transformation:
Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/sw/article/45/3/213/1927081 by Flinders University user on 26 March 2023
222
Social Work / Volume 45, Number 3 / May 2000
Considerations for the social worker. International Social Work, 40, 265–275.
Holland, T., & Kilpatrick, A. (1991). Ethical issues in
social work: Toward a grounded theory of professional ethics. Social Work, 36, 138–144.
Joseph, M. V. (1987). The religious and spiritual
aspects of clinical practice: A neglected dimension of social work. Social Thought, 13, 12–23.
Karnik, S., & Suri, K. B. (1995). The law of karma
and social work considerations. International Social Work, 38, 365–377.
Kongrul, J. (1987). The great path of awakening: A
commentary on the Mahayana teaching of the
seven points of mind training. Boston: Shambala.
Levy, C. (1984). Values and ethics: Foundation of
social work. In Dillick, S. (Ed.), Value foundations
of social work: Ethical basis for a human service
profession. (pp. 17–30). Detroit: Wayne State
University.
Lobsang Tharchin, S. K. (1998). The essence of
Mahayana lojang practice: A commentary to
Geshe Langri Tangpa’s mind training in eight
verses. Howell, NJ: Mahayana Sutra and Tantra
Press.
Merton, T. (1965). Gandhi on non-violence. New
York: New Directions.
National Association of Social Workers. (1996).
Code of ethics. Washington, DC: NASW Press.
Rawls, J. (1973). A theory of justice. Cambridge, MA:
Belknap Press of Harvard University Press.
Reamer, F. (1982). Ethical dilemmas in social service.
New York: Columbia University Press.
Reamer, F. (1995). Social work values and ethics. New
York: Columbia University Press.
Reeser, L. C., & Epstein, I. (1990). Professionalization
and activism in social work: The sixties, the eighties, and the future. New York: Columbia University Press.
Rhodes, M. (1986). Ethical dilemmas in social work
practice. Boston: Routledge, Kegan Paul.
Ruskin, J. (1967). Unto this last. Lincoln: University
of Nebraska Press.
Saleebey, D. (Ed.). (1997). The strengths perspective
in social work practice. New York: Longman.
Schumacher, E. F. (1973). Small is beautiful: A study
of economics as if people mattered. London: Blond
& Briggs.
Sermabeikian, P. (1994). Our clients, ourselves: The
spiritual perspective and social work practice.
Social Work, 39, 178–183.
Shachter, B., & Seinfeld, J. (1994). Personal violence
and the culture of violence. Social Work, 39, 347–
350.
Sharma, S. (1989). Gandhian development: An exploration of the conceptual, structural, and valuational linkages. Journal of International and
Comparative Social Welfare, 5, 62–75.
Sharma, S., & Ormsby, H. (1982). The concept of
social development in Gandhian philosophy:
Some preliminary observations. Social Development Issues, 6, 15–25.
Sheridan, M., Wilmer, C., & Atcheson, L. (1994).
Inclusion of content on religion and spirituality in
the social work curriculum: A study of faculty views.
Journal of Social Work Education, 30, 363–376.
Siporin, M. (1975). Introduction to social work practice. New York: Macmillan.
Siporin, M. (1982). Moral philosophy in social work
today. Social Service Review, 56, 516–537.
Specht, H., & Courtney, M. (1995). Unfaithful angels: How social work has abandoned its mission.
New York: Free Press.
Walz, T., & Canda, E. (1988). Gross national consumption in the United States: Implications for
Third World development. International Journal
of Contemporary Sociology, 25, 165–175.
Walz, T., & Groze, V. (1991). The mission of social
work revisited: An agenda for the 1990s. Social
Work, 36, 500–504.
Walz, T., Sharma, S., & Birnbaum, C. (1990).
Gandhian thought as theory base for social work
(University of Illinois School of Social Work Occasional Paper, Series I). Champaign-Urbana:
University of Illinois.
Weber, T. (1991). Conflict resolution and Gandhian
ethics. New Delhi: Gandhi Peace Foundation.
Tom Walz, PhD, is professor emeritus, School of
Social Work, University of Iowa, 312 North Hall,
Iowa City, IA 52242-1223; e-mail: [email protected]. Heather Ritchie, MSW, BA, is
legislative advocate, Evert Conner Rights and Resources Center for Independent Living, Iowa City.
Original manuscript received May 6, 1998
Final revision received February 1, 1999
Accepted May 20, 1999
Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/sw/article/45/3/213/1927081 by Flinders University user on 26 March 2023