The issue I have with a lot of this literature is that late capitalism has ensnared its discourse into market mechanics (or at the very least the social media popularity contest), thus making the finding of actual helpful material difficult due to the profit motive involved in being overly rhetorical and bombastic. If you are referencing white fragility, I will tell you as somebody who has read very interesting scholarly literature on topics related to what the author is maybe going for, found the snippets I did read of that book to be utterly, and absolutely ridiculous.
One example is the comparing of modern white people looking at a messed up prison system in the USA and those in times of yore who attended sunday lynchings for fun. This is exactly the type of stuff that just ruins it for me. I understand the place of hyperbole and all that, but when done with a serious face so you can collect 750k in speaking fees (as the author did one year) is just to me, one big sad joke.
When you collect 30-40k for speaking fees on topics of “diversity and inclusion” you are part of the problem, which I won’t even get into on this post. How does one even reconcile a person getting paid that kind of money going on and on about diversity and inclusion? It is hilarious!
As for the original op … I see very little being done on the Buddhist front in my area (or any area I have came across) regarding community outreach, or breaking down barriers between particular communities of similar people and Buddhist groups. My experience with Buddhist groups has been almost creepy if I am being entirely honest. A friend who is a Buddhist professor runs a shin group, a tradition I have minimal interest in, and I hang out with them because they are down to earth people.
I will look back in my calibre library since I don’t actually own any tangible books on the subject, but some of the authors who come to mind are Richard Delgado, Jean Stefancic, and others who have written on topics around critical race theory, and I am drawing on a blank on one that is more directly related. This was a fleeting area of study for me if I am being completely honest, mostly because what I have read has been really out there, maybe this is my own fault in selection.
The anarchist library is great, and I have found many resources on there. Probably due to what some may say are “communist” or “communitarian” leanings, I tend to forego identity ideals and try to focus more on collective community building, irregardless (and without too much focus on) individually defining characteristics. Jodi Dean is an author (she is a communist and political theorist) who breaks down a lot of the problems in modern over-identification with one’s individual traits or characteristics through the analysis of modern issues, even democracy. It is quite easily demonstrated how that clearly works against community formations and fractures collectively among normally collaborative people. This issue is perpetuated by social media which is designed to not only modify one’s behavior, but modify collective activity and quite literally has been shown to change the society’s perception of reality.
The hard thing now is having an actual conversation about this with people, who maintain if you challenge books like white fragility, it is your very own “white fragility” that is causing you do so. Which is not only unfalsifiable, but typically becomes an ad hominem attack on the challenger, or accusatory statements of being “red pilled” or on the “q train” or something along those lines.
Exactly right. As with everything that comes up, there are those who get in the ground level and somehow make many profits off of whatever “it” is. This does not make them a genius or all-knowing. This was my biggest issue with Donald Trump, those who equated him with being a “genius” because he was an (alleged) billionaire.
I think a restoration of true community would help society solve a lot of issues, but people continue on, obsessed quite literally, with their individual characteristics and things that make them “special” (in their mind) all the while forgetting that no one person is that much different any other one person. But, the challenge to this statement could be the makeup of the individuals within the communities have changes so drastically over the past 100 years, that tribalism and the fact that humans are more comfortable around people who look like them due to natural selection, evolutionary traits, etc., still presents a large challenge.
Excellent book. Having read it I can recommend it. Just be warned, if you are white or benefit from white privilege, it’s going to reveal a lot of unpleasant things. It’s a good opportunity to watch the mind. Seeing that what you thought you had earned was due to a rigged system can be destabilizing. It’s easy to slip into denial.
Even if it does predominantly look at the phenomenon of whiteness in North America, the patterns can be applied to many situations.
On a theoretical level sure. But the way that society treats (and has treated) people is often drastically different. That’s the issue. Not that we don’t all share in having greed, hatred and delusion. And ignoring the vastly different experiences of people does nothing at all to remedy the problem.
To me, that’s what I wish this thread had been about. Discussing the ways that Buddhists, Buddhist teachers, and Buddhist institutions continue to treat people in unwholesome ways because of their race. Instead it’s been a lot of meta talk.
Valid. Propaganda theory assumes we see reality but propaganda and rhetoric somehow trick us into believing in illusions. Arguments of identity politics similarly propose that a true ‘self’ somehow exists outside of the identity political vector.
The ‘socio-politically enlightened identity’ often identifies-with-buddhism as a proposal of one’s enlightenment, albeit visibily not ‘true’ (provisional, not ultimate) to observers. Crtical analysis that deconstructs these ‘forms’ is often motivated, and still ‘provisional’ in its insights.
I’m not clear if anarchy is more in support of community that ‘socially progressive enlightened literature’, or if it would promote a ‘democracy’ that has any valid insights into wholesome and skillful actions aligned with the dharma. Unskillful practice produces unskillful results.
Dialectics of insight and deconstruction often require a willigness to suspend, investigate, and challenge previous forms and convictions. The insight produce is paradigmatic, and thus unavailable to linear-provisional investigations. Insights from one ‘view’ are ‘common-sense’ to another.
Valid. Altho many of these arguments propose community is more about a static-permanent destination, implicitly informed by the authors ‘views’ ‘identity’ and ‘attachments’, with less emphasis on a compassion-informed-process that contemplates impact. Academic forms that create more divisions-within-divisions.
Impermanence of results is politically ignored, or if acknowledged, is incorporated as a defactor argument that the process-strategy builds upon ‘false’ assumptions. Effectively, an argument that if a solution/strategy produces imperfect or delayed results it should not be supported at all.
Skillful practice requires emotional-intelligence and dharma-informed wisdom necessary to practice skilfully as the process (and impermanent results) unfolds. Dialectical extremes that promote an ‘all-or-nothing’ approach are in opposition to the middle way, and unlikely to produce ‘sustainable’ healing.
Fascinating insight. One solution to ‘whiteness’’ or ‘cultural appropriation’ is either for less white people to practice buddhism, or mechanisms to support other communities to participate more. Either represents a potential attachment to solutions regarding ‘what others are doing’, whether or not they are interested in the same path that we propose.
It is my observation this is not convert buddhists, but instead a larger issue of superiority conceit between groups (both directions), and not just towards ‘Asian’ countries. In/out group is a result of how the mind categorizes and responds to familiar/unfamiliar constructs. The issue, in buddhist terms, being that they are constructs and illusions in the first place. Tim Ward wrote an interesting book on ‘what the buddha never taught.’ Gave me insight before entering upasika training.
I do think this could be an issue if buddhism is viewed and practiced as a religion.
Secular practitioners find this less of a concern, since the dharma is treated as an ethical normative path, informed by psychological insights that continue to evolve as the tools available become more sophisticated.
Can you mention some of the things you have seen? If you’d prefer not to mention specific places or names, you could mention general things that you have observed.
Exactly, and that seems to be part of the problem here - people assuming that they know what other people need, usually without even asking them. I don’t have any dealings with groups here in the States, so I don’t really know what the scene looks like, but it seems to me that just like in any other gathering, people are more bound up in social dynamic than they are intent on the goals of practice.
With that, there are at least two dimensions at play, which make it particularly difficult to have this dialogue. If the Dhamma were associated purely with a world view, then all intentions would be flowing in the same direction. The goal would be focused on people and the world as the criteria for whether or not there is suffering. That is not usually the case. Just like the lotus simile, this practice begins in one place but comes to an end in completely different terms, so it cannot be assumed that one’s intentions to improve the world have any relationship to their own development in Dhamma. They certainly can be related, but it also may not be. Being a good person is only one part of building the foundation for understanding on the level of view.
Unfortunately, to have a discussion about the world - in this case, the particular notion of whiteness - the direction of view must be set aside in order to get the particulars straight. This is where things get hairy. Those who want every discussion to include the direction of view, development and liberation are not comfortable having the discussion be so one-sided. However, such a thing is required to see the basis and effects of something as particular as whiteness or climate change or any other worldly topic. The four noble truths are not particular at all. They are in reference to all suffering, the origin, liberation and the way leading to it. To stay on that level is to surmount any such particularities. In other words, we all have read many times:
Now this, bhikkhus, is the noble truth of suffering: birth is suffering, aging is suffering, illness is suffering, death is suffering; union with what is displeasing is suffering; separation from what is pleasing is suffering; not to get what one wants is suffering; in brief, the five aggregates subject to clinging are suffering. -SN 56.11
…which means that specific circumstances of suffering are not also the origin of suffering. Whiteness is suffering for those who accept the criteria, but it is not the origin of suffering. The origin of suffering is craving. Instances of suffering are just suffering.
So, it is necessary to have at least two dimensions to this dialogue. One that sets aside the four noble truths and allows for a particular instance of suffering to be discussed, and another that puts that instance into a different perspective. The former is an absolute necessity if the two sides are going to understand each other. The latter is optional at that point. Why? Because once the dimension of suffering as a whole is deployed, the particulars cease to hold the significance as a fundamental cause of suffering. In other words, the issue is silenced/dissolved and no longer part of the discussion, leaving participants feeling isolated and invisible.
Whiteness as an attitude - as I’m gathering from the participants in this thread - is of course rooted in desire and need not only be practiced by those with white skin to qualify. However, it seems to be in its most potent form when white people engage in the attitude of whiteness. To solve this issue, if it is in need of solving for the individual, white people should avoid commandeering discussions and asserting themselves into positions of prominence. Such positions are optional anyways. If we take refuge in the triple gem, the invitation (or opening) for dominance can slowly close and be left there only for those truly worthy of leadership. With that, all can have an equal voice and the words of all become options rather than commands. I personally find this idea of whiteness to be worthy of the ranks of a legitimate instance of suffering (though not the origin), and can be a useful bridge to the broader perspective that would reveal one’s intentions to be superior. From that point on, it would need to be set aside, but for that duration I do think it can be very helpful to those who may not be seeing their desire for praise and where it is rooted.
Whatever is an inroad to revealing the intentions can be useful as long as one realizes that eventually the issue will be surmounted. The key seems to be allowing to stand for discussion for those who want to understand it’s validity. As I see it, it is the responsibility of both sides to acknowledge this if any reasonable dialogue is to occur.
Insightful and complex analysis. Aligned with how many practitioners view the approach of other schools. To practice with the intent of letting go of everything, or to support a socially engaged practice that requires navigating one’s own attachments in an effort to ‘selflessly’ help others. Arguably, both are ‘intended’ to help others but the latter has better socio-political optics.
Intent easily takes on identity dimensions that not only coincide with dharma discussions of attachments and practice but also socio-political discussions of colonialism and ‘x’ people lead solutions. If not colonialism, salvationist spiritual dimensions also enter the discussion of identity, intent, and how suffering is alleviated. How this mind-field is navigated depends on the school, one’s view(s), and approach.
Representation within the sangha begins with identity. Is this the identity of the economic self? The academic self? The professional self? The political self? The cultural self? The gender self? The biological self? The religious self? Or the spiritual-psychological self? Each of these could be further individualized.
It is clear all of these are intertwined if ‘suffering’ is to be alleviated. But whose suffering and is all ‘types’ of suffering equal? And can ‘I’ alleviate the root cause of suffering to each of the identities mentioned above, within others?
Socio-political engagement emphasizes the root of suffering, the symptoms of suffering, the effects of suffering, and the optics of suffering. For the sake of this post, differentiation is not made between suffering that impacts the body, the mind, one’s social identity, or witnesses. Herzberg’s hierarchy identifies what I consider to be priorities, whereas other practitioners may want to emphasize the top of the pyramid in Maslow’s hierarchy (self-efficacy). Both emphasis can reinforce and add to suffering if not practiced skillfully.
The mind-field of practice does not require we ignore any of the ‘self-identities’ listed above when helping others, but ‘I’ might propose Herzberg’s hierarchy as a mechanisms for prioritizing investigation, inquiry, and practice. Arguably, this would be more concerned with the biological self. Noting, in the dharma context, and emphasis on the religious and/or spiritual-psychological self (ignoring the subtleties and pit-falls of identification in any regard).
The subject of colonialism, from a white perspective, proposes that a top-down solution is neither desirable or sustainable. A bottom up approach is needed. Again, prioritizing and initiating practice at the individual level. The question is ‘who’ and ‘how’ takes practice to the next level? And whether practice is cultivated internally or externally?
The only reason I tend to stop offering specific solutions at this point is because I’m not sure what the members of the groups/organizations/centers the author is referring to need or want. And since I didn’t read the book, I’m not sure what the author is proposing. I also don’t presume to know what people of color or immigrant communities want when considering the criteria the author is discussing. In fact, the meditation centers the author is referring to may not appeal to the average person from the Asian Buddhist community, and it could just be a case of the author wanting a different experience. There are so many factors at play and each is very personal.
I just try to have an open mind and a measured opinion when any sensitive issue is raised, and it is my hope that such an attitude is something the reader can be receptive to. None of us are entitled to a pleasant experience, but we can certainly take steps to behave in a manner that is relatable and kind. In the end, we may have all the best ideas on a macro level, but if we aren’t each capable of basic decency, it all falls to pieces.
This is also my problem. What do various groups need or want? I have strong links with both our local Thai monastery and a local insight group, and some contact with the Sri Lankan monastery and occassionally Fo Guaung Shan. The ethnicity of these groups are, predictably, mostly Thai, white, Sri Lankan, and Chinese respectively, and in decreasing order the sizes would be FGS, Thai, Sri Lankan, Insight. These groups are all quite welcoming. The Thai monastery is probably the most difficult to approach for outsiders, not because the Thai people are unfriendly, but simply due to language, and a lack of any particular plan for involvement of others, apart from at festivals.
Obviously, it’s good to be welcoming, and I can see some advantages of having more interaction between such groups, but it’s not really clear what problems I should personally be trying to solve. The white, fairly secular, group attracts white, fairly secular people. Other ethnic groups interested in Dharma would naturally gravitate to the Chinese, Thai, Sri Lankan centres. As I said in a previous post, providing opportunities for spiritual activities is a bit different from providing opportunities for education or employment. Spiritual activities are very much an optional, personal, decision. By all means, we should be welcoming, but should we be engaged in recruitment?
It depends. As many have mentioned, the monastery can serve a very important cultural need, especially for immigrants, so there may be some benefit in making the community aware of it. Befriending those around us is probably the best first step to getting to know them and only at that point would it make sense to offer support if there is good reason to do so. However, there may not be. As you’ve said, each has their own reason for visiting and just having the facility may be more than enough. Only way to find out is to get to know others, instead of actively trying to be helpful, which can be overwhelming for certain people, and, unfortunately, being that active “problem solver” also seems to exemplify this notion of whiteness in a passive sense (again, based on what I’ve gather from this thread about the meaning). So, it gets tricky.
There is some benefit to that attitude, however. It’s a good place to start trying to discern where things are coming from and where your actions are rooted. Like I said many posts back, westerners tend to think they have access to the most refined and accurate perspective of the world, so it is very easy to solicit it without even knowing it. If whiteness is where you choose to start, I’m sure you’ll eventually get to something illuminating about your intentions.
I think this is the main problem here. Like you said in a recent post about secular Buddhism, some “teachers” are stripping critical components out of Buddhism to create some new-age feelgood system based on Buddhist wisdom but that is pretty clearly not actually Buddhist. It seems like it’s just an economic exercise for them so it makes sense their main customers are going to be the groups that are most well off and already fairly partitioned.
