Modern, or should I say post-modern, life is in some large part obsessed with ‘escaping’ the stressful tensions of daily life in late-capitalist society. What free time we do allow ourselves to have is spent in searching for methods of ameliorating ‘future shock’ as it is popularly understood.
In Europe, and to a lesser extent in the States, the most popular recourse is to Buddhism or Taoism, in new, Westernized forms. Through this Asiatic ‘ideological superstructure’, we are to find our way - to be able to retain and maintain Gelassenheit and inner peace without abandoning our ‘post-ideological’ stance as post-moderns. Supposedly, by using Buddhism and Taoism, we are able to step outside of the cultural dynamics of our late-capitalism and ‘recharge our batteries’ or ‘rediscover our authentic selves’ depending on whether or not we wish to see our detour from daily life as functional or spiritual.
The basic premise of this Westernized Buddhism, that instead of trying to cope with the accelerating change and upheaval of our lives we should renounce that endeavor in order to retain control of ourselves. This ironic perfection of post-modern logic of ‘letting oneself go’ is that the distancing of ourselves from the technological upheaval that threatens us (if it did not threaten us we would not be looking for escapes) is the method by which we allow ourselves to more fully participate in the very dynamic we claim to want to escape (even if only briefly).
Western Buddhism can then be seen as not opposed to our post-ideological ideals, but as a cunning statement of them, as it is no ideology at all, but a fetish - the embodiment of a lie that enables us to sustain the unbearable truth. It enables you to fully participate in the frantic scramble of the capitalist, consumerist game while maintaining the perception that you are not really in it, that you are aware of the vapidity and worthlessness of the spectacle.
This is a step beyond, well beyond, commodity fetishism and brand identification. Western Buddhism is a tacit agreement that modern consumerist society requires that you maintain a certain pose of ironic detachment, of cynical distance from the social and collective reality in order for it to have any validity at all. As such, the thin veneer of rebellion that coats Western Buddhism (and Simple Living, Voluntary Simplicity, and a host of other fetishes) hide beneath it a vast well of true conformity.
Tags: Post-Industrial
These are the ramblings of 
I suppose I’m just tired of all the labels. Not trying to fit in anybody’s mold or idea of what I should be. I just am. I do what makes me happy and what puts a smile (most of the time) on my family’s faces. Although I suppose one might label me a hedonist…
What labels exactly?
The labels folks use to try to apply, taxonomy wise, to my existence. Am I a Republican, a Randian, a Jew, a… whatever. I’m me. I like watching the goofy birds tussle over seed at the feeder when it’s cold outside and I’m puffing on my pipe and sipping some not so cheap Scotch. I teach my kids right and wrong according to the way I see it and then let them go out into the world and make their own mistakes. I give to charity when I feel like it and I don’t do it out of guilt. I’d like to think there’s a God, but I hate religion and rather think there isn’t really a God, anyway. Lot’s of folks would plaster all kinds of labels on me so that my persona fits in some kind of cosmic order of things. Meh. Just me.
Well, what exactly is wrong with other people applying those labels to you, or anyone else? We all label each other, or deny each other the benefit of certain labels, based on our understanding of those people and those labels. That doesn’t make the process of labeling wrong. Usually what people mean when they object to being labeled is that they object to the labels that are being applied to them, either because the labels too closely or not closely enough approximate the labels they have applied to themselves. I mean, face it - you’re the skinny Jew from Texas, aren’t you
I am but one. But if you’ll re-read my original comment, I didn’t say that there was anything wrong with those labels, per se. I said that I was tired of them. Often times, the whole process of labeling can descend into some kind of intellectual prize fight (I have no idea what the prize is). It seems that energy is better spent in other places… Like making a good roux.
Sure, labeling for the sake of labeling can be asinine, especially when the labeling is being used in some sort of non-representational sense.
Must remember to not burn the roux today.
This comment is a couple of months behindhand, I see, but I thought it was an interesting observation you made. I agree that eastern philosophy/religion seems to be a current ‘fad’ and probably in some ways a result, or reaction against, “the fast pace of modern life”, as one might say.
Having found the pursuit of, let’s say, capitalism, or consumerism, failing to lead to happiness, people turn and look for what else might bring them the happiness and peace they so yearn for. Without, of course, REALLY giving up too very much of what they’ve already got.
I am not sure that it is a matter of not being willing to give up what they already have as much as it is the way in which they choose the thing (in this case westernized Buddhism). In reaction to rampant consumerism and it’s ills, they go about Buddhism or whatever as consumers, picking it off a shelf of religions like another consumer packaged good to be purchased, used and discarded.
It is a matter of framing and intent, not hypocrisy, I believe. To choose something that outwardly looks different than the dominant consumerist culture, but inwardly was picked according to the same rules and methods, is not much change at all, and is just as likely to disappoint, perhaps leading to the conclusion that nothing is going to satisfy them, when in fact it is the attitude that is causing the problem, not the thing picked.
This of course begs the question of whether or not consumerism can be made less damaging by a change in attitude, whilst still retaining the goods and services provided by the late-capitalist model. Perhaps, but consumerism itself is the attitude. We as humans are very good at confusing the symbol with the thing and so believe that the problem lies in our having so much ’stuff’ when in actuality the problem is in being the type of person that accumulates so much stuff, and in why we do it, not in the ’stuff’ itself.
Agreed. Many people shop for a religion (or a church, for that matter) much as you would shop for anything else, and then go home and add it to their ‘closet’. Feeling stressed out, perhaps they read in a magazine how yoga or meditation might help, and go sign up for a class or take out a book from the library on it, adding it on to their lives. Very much “me-based” thinking: What’s good for me? My health, my well-being, my sanity, my quality of life, etc. etc. Humans are remarkably self-centred. Or, not so remarkably. After all, life forms, in general, are (self-centred). Survival and all that.
Humans, however, have an additional puzzling quirk in that, generally speaking, most would not terribly appreciate being called “self-centred”. They wouldn’t like it. It would be a tiny bit derogatory to them, and very likely they would take offense and become defensive. Interesting, isn’t it? This little idea that they shouldn’t ought to be, or do, something or other, and yet they go on doing and being it in spite of themselves. And they don’t particularly like others pointing this out to them, either, thankyou very much. Anyway, I ought to stop rambling on about myself.
Seriously, though, upon the subject of hypocrisy, how many people do you think would come out squeaky clean upon a careful examination? Especially an evaluation by anyone who’s actually lived with them? (Though, by the bye, I actually hadn’t intended to accuse anyone of hypocrisy per se. I think there are many, many people who are honestly seeking the truth, and a better way to live. Lots just have a hard time letting go of what they’ve already fought for and won. I am no different.)
Consumerism. Capitalism. More of those “isms” out there than you can shake a stick at….. That’s social science for you, I guess, eh?
Again, I agree with you. The “stuff” is not the problem, so much as it is a symptom of an attitude or inner condition. Accumulating stuff. Using it. Throwing it away. Why DO we do it?
Thinking out loud here, I think accumulation of possessions may well be rooted in that deep, probably instinctive fear of starving to death or dying of exposure. Very self-protective. Keeping a little bit of food and clothing about us and building a shelter. Now that’s just common sense. Perhaps with increases in wealth and ‘buying power’ (”power” may be a key word here) - and an increase in stuff to be bought - this condition, this disease, of Consumerism begins to become problematic. It’s kindof fun to buy things. It does give one a certain sense of power, and control, in one’s life. It can become something of a serious addiction, after a certain point. Again, one must pause to ask the question, “Why?”
ConsumerISM. Here’s a conundrum. So, at what point does one cross the line from being a consumer (which we all are), to being a consumerIST (if that’s a word, and if that’s the right word to use there)?
What do you think:
a) Why do you think consumerism is a problem?
b) What do you think is the cause?
c) What do you think might be the cure?
(Maybe you’ve written the answers to all that, but I’m new here and haven’t read everything yet. And now that I’ve written all that I’ve just written I have to go make supper.)
PS. I’m trying to (3) Be more funny. (and still make some kind of sense) Did it work? At all?
a) it is a Ponzi scheme
b) capital
c) moving beyond capital
Moving beyond capital? That means making our living without so much as a digging stick to assist us: digging in the ground with our hands. I suppose there are people who would be satisfied with that standard of living, but count me out.
a) Had to look up “Ponzi scheme”….
b) Looked up “capital” - just to make sure I had the officially correct understanding of the word. Because, you see, I thought to myself, “What?! This Jon fellow doesn’t think anyone should own anything because it might lead to consuming it? Or trading it for something to consume?” I’m a bit confused. Is that what you are saying? The dictionary I had at hand stated that “capital” meant “money that is invested” (or at least, that was one of the meanings). “Capitalism” was defined as an “economic system based on ownership of resources by individuals or companies and not by the state”. Dictionary definitions aside, though, perhaps you could explain what you meant by “capital”? I mean, are you advocating for “non-ownership” of any kind?
c) By all means! That’s a capital idea.
@Rich Paul: Digging in the ground with our hands? Surely you are having a laugh. No one can be so naive as to think that my intention is a “return to the jungle”. That type of primitivist thinking is far more at home in some Thatcherite collection of individuals, devoid of society; monads living by the “natural rights” or “natural laws”.
@LilyRose: No, I meant capital as in the current late-capitalist mode of organizing society. I have no idea what would come next, what could replace it, but it seems to me that the concept of capital becomes increasingly irrelevant as the ‘means of production’ become less and less scarce.
It is possible, easy even, to imagine a time not too far in the future in which the capitalist system we have now is replaced by something else. I don’t pretend to know what it is, but to believe that capital is somehow the end of history seems a bit naive to me…
It seems like a classic straw man argument, you define ” Westernized Buddhism, that instead of trying to cope with the accelerating change and upheaval of our lives we should renounce that endeavor in order to retain control of ourselves” in a way that allows you to attack it.
But Buddhism, even in the West, is less about control than acceptance. Control is imposing your will on reality. acceptance is stopping the struggle against the parts of reality you don’t like. You don’t escape the stresses, you accept them but within a greater perspective. Its really not ironic detachment, but immersion in something beyond just everyday consumerism.
Fetishism seems a strange description of it or its adherents. But hey, you have to have some language that denotes your rebellion to cover up your underlying conformity.
Perhaps it would be useful to know that I am not speaking of the Friends of the Western Buddhist Order in this post, but of the representations of “Eastern” philosophy and religion that are culturally current in the “Western” world; through self-help books, new-age bookstores, etc.
Also helpful would be reading Le bouddhisme mondialisé. Une perspective sociologique sur la globalisation du religieux. By Raphaël Liogier. Paris: Ellipses, 2004, 638 pages, ISBN 2-7298-1402-7 (cloth).
The important bits are the prevalence within the Westernization of Buddhism, defined as the transformation of Buddhism in reaction — tp be not positive reactions of adaptation but negative ones of identity withdrawal (p22) and that the practical distinctions between Westernized Buddhist traditions are less matters of fundamental differences than of “aesthetic choices.” (p. 23-24)
It is worth noting that Liogier, and myself, are in favor of the type of “Engaged Buddhism,” represented by the Dalai Lama and Thich Nhat Hanh, and this post criticizes the non-engaged forms (both “belonging without believing” and “believing without belonging”) that are missing the core feature of this ideology: its dialectic between the individual and the global, both revolving around an adapted notion of the “environment.”
Buddhism is about having a particular view of things and living a life consistent with that understanding. It is not about “self” or “soul” or “god”, and ideas and concepts are understood as temporary aids that are to be discarded as understanding increases–that is, understanding or insight is not dependent upon words.
Western Buddhism has about as much to do with the teachings of Buddha as Western Christianity has to do with the teachings of Jesus. All religions contain superstition, and the first aspects to be adopted by westerners tend to be those that are superstitious and superficial.
Organized religion changes doctrine. For example, after the advent of Christianity, the concept of “heaven” proved very popular. So rather than lose market share, certain Buddhist authorities invented their own heaven–something called “Pure Land”, complete with mythological dieties etc. Now that is truly an ‘ideological superstructure’.
As long as people who choose to do so simply adopt a buddhist lifestyle, I don’t see that there should be any problem. To some extent it is compatible with other religions, as the writings of Thomas Merton attest.
“The basic premise of this Westernized Buddhism, that instead of trying to cope with the accelerating change and upheaval of our lives we should renounce that endeavor in order to retain control of ourselves.”
You have a superficial understanding of Buddhism, what you regard as a premise stems in fact from experiencing anatta or “no self”. Pure awareness and complete immersion are both valid solutions to life’s problem.
No, actually, I have a pretty decent understanding of Buddhism, but the actual practices of Theravada, Mahayana, Vajrayna or any of the myriad of other schools of Buddhism is not what I was addressing. I was speaking to the pop-buddhism or self-help buddhism as manifested in such silliness as “zen rocks” and the annoying American tendency (present in myself for sure, no need to point it out) to syncretize only those bits and pieces of “other” religions as do not place any real demands on us.
I am well aware that there are many Western (and even American) practitioners of various Buddhist schools who are very serious about there studies and practice, and I was in no way trying to attack or otherwise offend them.
As to anatta, it is my understanding that all phenomena other than Nirvana obtain anatta, along with anicca and dukkha, so experience of anatta should be complete and ongoing for all who are not in Nirvana.