Identity politics and 21st century Theravada

[retrofuturist]

Greetings,

I'm curious to know what people think of the increasing prominence of identity politics in Buddhism, and for our purposes here, for Theravada Buddhism specifically.

For a good overview on what constitutes identity politics, its bases and its dangers, see the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy entry for Identity Politics.

In light of this piece, and what you know of the Dhamma…

1. What should be the role of identity politics in 21st century Theravada?
2. To what extent is identity politics validated or repudiated by either the Buddha’s teachings or classical Theravada commentary?

I look forward to hearing your thoughts on this matter.

Metta,
Paul.

[NotMe]

Have to voice my respect. Sadhu, Retro!

Honor to offer a quick reply - more later

"The dangers of identity politics, then, are that it casts as authentic to the self or group an identity that in fact is defined by its opposition to an Other."

What would you expect NotMe to say but 'not self' remedies any identity problem? Make 'self' the only other and know it too is fabricated.

1. What should be the role of identity politics in 21st century Theravada?

The role of identity politics should be to further the teachings - suffering and its cessation, in a nutshell.

2. To what extent is identity politics validated or repudiated by either the Buddha’s teachings or classical Theravada commentary?

The ordained can decide for themselves what's what, as a layfollower, i feel free to follow those precepts applicable to my station in life and be in "a politically active moment". Monks on the other hand, imho, should not.

[Kim OHara]

Hi, Paul,
Seeing the 'self' as (pretty much) an illusion, as the Buddha teaches, means that we can't logically get caught up in identity politics on our own behalf: every time we are tempted to march down the street proclaiming our identity (as black or gay or whatever), the impulse will be subverted by the knowledge that we are really not that at all.
However, 'identity politics' in the community is primarily a set of arguments for greater individual rights and freedoms, and as such it it something we can support - even if we have keep remembering that it's just a pragmatic way of organising a group of people - "skillful means", if you like.


Kim

[gavesako]

Ajahn Jayasaro said an interesting thing in one of his talks: From his experience with Thai people who follow different faiths, the Thai-Muslims put "being Muslim" first as their identity and "being Thai" as something secondary, whereas the Thai-Buddhists put "being Thai" first as their identity and "being Buddhist" is secondary to them (i.e. they are willing to compromise it if necessary or if it conflicts with their Thai-ness).

[DNS]

Bhante Gavesako makes the point that I remember the artist formerly known as retro also made a few years ago, that it seems to matter what someone identifies as first. If someone identifies as American first, then that is where their priorities lie and all else become secondary or tertiary. For example, such a person might become somewhat angry if someone disrespects Christianity, but they will be vehemently upset if someone burns the American flag.

Ideally Buddhism is post-racial in that it is opposed to racism and prefers attention to the cessation of suffering. Focus is placed on the cessation of suffering and not the correcting of societies, although there are certainly teachings opposed to racism and discrimination. And then there is the wish to help others with the propagation of the Dhamma. And from this we could construe that it might be necessary to work to end race issues to allow all access to the Dhamma.

For those of us who are members of minority groups (race, ethnicity, etc) it is difficult to go a single day without being reminded of your minority status. For example, some black people have noticed that they walk across the street and some people sitting in a car all of a sudden lock their doors. One professional black male wearing a suit, none the less, noted that when he entered an elevator, a white woman clutched her purse a little tighter. These are difficult things to not notice if you are a member of a minority group. Ideally, these things wouldn't come up and people would only be judged by the content of their character but we are not there yet and racism and discrimination continues to exist.

Having said that, it is also important to not fall into a victim mentality as a member of minority group. It leads to suffering if done from perceived harm where there is none. I have been reluctant to post in the "white privilege" threads due to the pc mentality that any critique is often seen as racist. I am still trying to ascertain what "white privilege" is in terms of Dhamma practice. I am (mostly) white and not a secular Buddhist, nor interested in the corporate mindfulness movement, but don't see it as a white privilege phenomenon and more as a class thing. I am sure there could be plenty of black and Asian corporate mindfulness practitioners. Certainly many practitioners from the West have taken a more secularized approach to the Dhamma, but if that is not your cup of tea, why not avoid it, just don't drink it? If you prefer the more religious aspect to the teachings, then follow that, but I don't see that convert Buddhists are forcing their views on others, are they? And I don't think it needs to broken down into race lines, but rather more into differences of viewpoints.

[NotMe]

Proper presentation uses the form tell-‘em what your are going to tell ‘em; tell ‘em, tell ‘em what you told ‘em.

1) Make 'self' the only ‘other’ and know it too is fabricated.

2) Not self is a strategy of the teachings of the elders. It works along side the allowance that if we insist on using the label of self, the mind is the best place to hang that label. [correct?] Purely a matter of the individual, at the level of an individual. In the context of Buddha’s time there was not the social activity we have today in our context. Then, one did not publicly criticize the King without the risk of losing one’s head, from court jesters to any citizen who’s tongue was not quick enough to thoroughly explain to the King the benefit and goodwill behind the criticism.

Using the western country as the context i know best, it is an obligation of the american citizen to have a voice and to voice disapproval. Times have changed, but not really. One still may be ‘beheaded’ indeed. Regardless, let’s see what we can do to lift the context of not self strategy out of the past and make it present.

Keeping the ‘personal’ level intact with not self — the foundation remains — let’s address the danger of identity politics: Self identity and the Other. We must fabricate a new strategy. Let’s move the old “post-it note” of ‘self’ (that the teachings insist must be used skillfully as possible, if at all), which was placed on ‘the individual mind’ and place it on ‘the Other’, the ‘collective’ mind or the ‘social’ mind of our nations peoples. The result: looking inward we see only ‘not self’, looking out we see only our ‘self’. Contemplate the potential this holds.

3) View (love is an abused word in the west - but it works too - goodwill and compassion etc may do better) your neighbor (your enemy, any ‘other’), as your self. Should sound familiar to most westerners.

Go ahead and crucify if you must. Just making suggestions here, hopefully helpful ones. Can the ‘cultural baggage’ of the west be added to the teachings and the teachings stay fundamentally intact?

1) Marching is not buddhist.

2) The world is aflame, and the masses are asses, sad but true. Worldings march, off to war, off to protest - and it all stirs up passion - not Dhamma. Buddhists sit, walk, lay and stand to calm passion and produce dispassion.

The shaping of our identity politics should use the same template. Using america again, we are “blessed by the powers that be” today with “free speech zones” far removed the main stage of political punditry; secluded is the free speech zone. Hey, we buddhists should have no problem with that! And as americans, we should know the real voice of america is in the free speech zones and lacking in the political platitudes. How do we begin to use it skillfully?

Let's use the power of the masses' asses. Teach 'em to Sit on 'em. A sit-in (oh the howls of deja vu). Label it 'a happening' - grin - maybe a 'lay-sit' works for a label. Begin with group meditation while a dhamma talk is delivered. (As a wise person said, we need to learn how to breath) Just this alone, properly administered can do wonders. Solve all the world’s problems? When pigs fly, but until then we do what we can, nibble by nibble, gnawing away at our individual and collective ignorance, anger and greed. The dhamma will guide the talks as always - tailored for the audience.

This is a proper beginner’s form, yes?

Once “we” are ready for more advanced forms, mobilization may be added. Walking is usually the second correct form of meditation utilized. After getting all the requisites in order (may i see your papers, comrade), we may gain permission to mobilize.

We gotta be modern here, and western and buddhist. Taking what is old and making it new, group sitting meditation is not new. But group walking meditation? No extremism - no placards, no shouting of slogans, no singing of kumbaya, just all (not lockstep) as one body, walking, in meditation.

These are just some “shooting from the hip”, “driving by the seat of my pants” - thoughts I have never thought until Paul’s post. Truth.

3) Do the walk of life.

Enough for now.

[Kim OHara]

Well said, NotMe!

Earlier, David said,

... it seems to matter what someone identifies as first. If someone identifies as American first, then that is where their priorities lie and all else become secondary or tertiary. For example, such a person might become somewhat angry if someone disrespects Christianity, but they will be vehemently upset if someone burns the American flag.

A technique I have used to weaken my attachment to identity (and therefore identity politics) for years is to re-phrase my characteristics as habits or activities rather than identities, so I will say "I teach", not "I am a teacher"; "I try to follow the Buddha's teachings", not "I am a Buddhist"; etc.
It doesn't work so well with some of the basics - for instance, "I am an adult" is undeniable - but the mental habits undermined by the strategy do spill over. As an adult, I blur my adult identity by channelling my inner ten-year-old when I can and as an Australian, I remember that nothing any Australian does is truly "un-Australian" - and that "Patriotism is the last refuge of the scoundrel", as Johnson observed.


Kim

[NotMe]

, Kim. Good to see you again.

[SarathW]

Identity politics can be traced back as far as human history.
Earliest identity would have been the family. (my family)
Then the tribe identity. (my tribe)
Then identify under one flag. (we are Chicago bulls)
Then the street and the block (We kids from the same block)
Identify under a one country (We are Americans)
Then identify under one God (Abrahamic religions. Crusaders and the Mohamed are the most famous)
Then identify as blacks, white, LGBT etc.
Then communism, capitalism ISIS etc.

The objective of all above is to promote harmony among the group members.
Unfortunately this always back fired as the concept is a wrong one.
The above ideas always discriminate another group.
Black man fighting for civil rights come home and bash his wife and children.
White man promote democracy do not treat his co-workers.
Most violence in recent history are attributed to the groups of believing in the one God.

Buddha identify this problem correctly.
Self identity (Mana) is the route cause of all these problems.
The thought I am higher, lower or equal is the result of Mana.
So we find any excuse to discriminate people.
Race, colour, gender, cast, sex, physical appearance a name a few.

Unfortunately self identity will be only eliminated by attaining Arahantship.
Until such time we have to learn to live with this destructive force,

The most surprising thing for me is I have never seen any major force against all type of discrimination.
What we should be fighting is for a no identity politics.
We should ask every person to look at themselves how they discriminate others.
Not to concern how others discriminate them.

[tiltbillings]

We should ask every person to look at themselves how they discriminate others.
Not to concern how others discriminate them.

And then, of course, there is the real world.

[SarathW]

I agree Tilt.
This is easier said and done it.
Look at Buddhist monks in Sri Lanka.
They are grouped based on cast system.
Not much to say about the rest.

[tiltbillings]

I agree Tilt.
This is easier said and done it.
Look at Buddhist monks in Sri Lanka.
They are grouped based on cast system.
Not much to say about the rest.

Watching the question of "identity politics" play itself out in the US, the warm fuzzy notion of transcending identity politics is meaningless in the real world. There are deep seated issues that need to be addressed by hard work, and that horrible video posted above is not the answer. It neatly illustrates just how insidious identity poltics is, in that that video is a really good example of identity poltics at its racist worst.

[SDC]

Tilt, what video are you and sarath referring to?

[tiltbillings]

Tilt, what video are you and sarath referring to?

Oooops. Conflating this thread and Ben's thread: http://dhammawheel.com/viewtopic.php?f=16&t=24826

[SDC]

No worries