Profit involves the deferral of the true cost of a product to the “Other”, an exercise of power that privileges the consumer, and of course the profiteer whose manipulates this act.  The cost of oil is deferred to vulnerable ecosystems, the cost of high fructose corn syrup is deferred to vulnerable bodies, the cost of fast fashion is deferred to vulnerable populations. The continual creation of commodities to displace in this way is achieved by systematically stripping a product of its context – mutually interdependent social, ecological, emotional, relational, and temporal continuities. Consumer goods serve as vectors that perpetuate established power relations and institutions.  Yet the complexities that are denied in this exercise still remain.

Commodification achieved by stripping something of its context applies to immaterial goods as well as physical ones.  Consider the rising popularity of “mindfulness” in popular culture, as Ron Purser and David Loy question in a recent article.  Citing the increasing adoption of mindfulness concepts and techniques into American institutions – schools, corporations, prisons and government agencies – the authors question the distortion that occurs when mindfulness becomes a legitimized consumer product.

While a stripped-down, secularized technique — what some critics are now calling “McMindfulness” — may make it more palatable to the corporate world, decontextualizing mindfulness from its original liberative and transformative purpose, as well as its foundation in social ethics, amounts to a Faustian bargain. Rather than applying mindfulness as a means to awaken individuals and organizations from the unwholesome roots of greed, ill will and delusion, it is usually being refashioned into a banal, therapeutic, self-help technique that can actually reinforce those roots.

Mindfulness’s popularity is based in its tangibly powerful technology for addressing and transforming suffering.  Everyone wants to be happy.  However, stripping the techniques of mindfulness from their context defers the root causes and conditions involved, in the service of the status quo.  Commodifying mindfulness into relaxation and focusing techniques ultimately protects institutions.  On one level, it protects the institution of the personal ego and its quest for control of experience.  On another level, it protects oppressive and alienating social structures – in the face of which we experience natural feelings of protest – the disquiet, frustration, anxiety, and depression we are often trying to eliminate with meditation.

Mindfulness training has wide appeal because it has become a trendy method for subduing employee unrest, promoting a tacit acceptance of the status quo, and as an instrumental tool for keeping attention focused on institutional goals.

Early in my psychotherapy training I saw video of a woman in therapy recorded in 1964, who was struggling with the same wrenching internalized double-standards of femininity that my contemporaries are still suffering from 50 years later.  A cynicism awoke in me, a dark fear that the role of the therapist would be like a janitor patching up the casualties of our power structures, helping clients to internally cope with harmful social forces.  As such I would be performing in service of established institutional injustices, doing nothing to address the systemic causes of suffering but in fact perpetuating them by pacifying their victims.

A therapy that does otherwise must continually resist becoming a consumer product, merely selling reassurance and quiescence – and at what price?  As a counsellor specializing in mindfulness-based psychotherapy, I am doubly poised for profit. To be honest about the practice I must be in constant dialogue with the practice itself – which is one of recontextualizing, coming into interconnectedness and complexity, and as such, is inherently radical.

If you’d like to see the revolution, it is advised that you purchase tickets and attend the revolution. The revolution is not sold out. In fact, season tickets are still available.

Continue reading

The Flower Lineage & Performativity

“Monsters cannot be announced.
One cannot say: ‘Here are our monsters,’ without immediately turning the monsters into pets.”
-Jacques Derrida

The Flower Lineage

Zen Buddhism traces its origins to the so-called Flower Sermon, when the Buddha Shakyamuni silently held up a single flower among a gathering of his students. Most of the students were confused, but one named Mahakasyapa smiled, which was acknowledged as the moment of his enlightenment.  This is thought of as a direct transmission of enlightened mind – a performative act, not a description or instruction.

From Mahakasyapa a lineage is traced via the influential philosopher Nagarjuna, 3rd century founder of the Mahayana (“Middle Way”) school of Buddhism, and later carried by the 5th century monk Bodhidharma into China and Japan.  This legend illustrates the focus of Zen Buddhism on a wordless direct experience over verbal doctrine, analysis or philosophies.  A Zen proverb professes: one showing is worth a hundred sayings.

The tradition of “show don’t tell” is also strong in the Tibetan Mahamudra (Great Sign) tradition, where the essential teaching is the “pointing out” instruction, which occurs in direct transmission from teacher to student.  This tradition – that core teachings should not be written down but can only occur experientially between teacher to student – seems esoteric and secretive, concentrating power in the hands of spiritual leaders.  But perhaps on another level, this tradition serves to protect the essential quality of insight, which is that it is dynamic and emergent – and therefore necessarily temporal and relational. It is not static information one can fix or possess.

In the Zen tradition, this “direct pointing” is perhaps most immediately conveyed in the arts. Every Zen art is a do, a “way.”  Chado (Tea Ceremony) – the way of tea; Shodo  (Calligraphy) – the way of writing, etc.  The Zen arts are not the creation of representational objects, but they are the trace of a sudden act of awareness, both through the artist’s immediate process of creation and the transmission of that act available through its record.  Yet these moments are not rarified or secret, but are expressed in the interaction with everyday objects and activities: household ceramics, a vase of flowers, a shared cup of tea.  Direct insight is also ordinary experience.

There is deep inspiration here for what I am exploring in this blog

When it comes to the exploration of experience, I am interested in the idea that the generation and communication of meaning is done peformatively, in temporary, propositional, relational tensions and figures.  I want to look at the modes and practices for bringing awareness to this, building a process intelligence, doing it more constructively, creatively and daringly. I think this involves inhabiting a position that is shifted from an objective descriptive posture to a stance that is thoroughly and vulnerably implicated, that focuses on performance and effect rather than stability and product.

Bakemono-do: the art of creating monsters.

The Performative Turn

Attention to the performative appears in contemporary thought as well.  Most associated with Judith Butler’s examination of identities – particularly categories of self, or subjectivity – as something that one “does” rather than something that one “is.”  In this way, performance creates identities, rather than identities creating performance.  E.g. my identity as a “woman” is not a site that I speak from, but a lived reality emerging in my constant relational performance of it within my social context.  This can apply to any identity – be it “leftist” or “chair”. The performative is experience at its most ordinary.

An impact of this perspective is that forces we might take as natural, permanent or continuous elements of the human environment (from gender to race to language to architecture) are seen as interactive agents rather than passive objects.  This awareness empowers one’s performative agency in constructing reality.

This is a strong thread in contemporary culture, an aspect of postmodernism sometimes called “the performative turn,” a paradigmatic shift in the humanities and social sciences that stresses the active, relational, social construction of realities.  In the spirit of the flower lineage, performative contemporary thinkers/practitioners like Derrida, Lacan, Barthes and others, shift from a discourse based in the language and assumptions of fixity, to the plastic, relational and propositional play of figures, tensions, and effects.  Along the way, building a process intelligence, daring to inhabit the uncertainty of emergent, dynamic meaning.

Vulnerability and Hyperreality

Yet the appearance of this performative turn in culture is limited. The suspicion of meta-narratives has sunk deep into the cultural consciousness, but manifests mostly in the deconstruction of outward identities (institutions, nationalism, cultural norms and practices) and is less directed inward towards a de-essentialization of the self.  This pop-deconstruction mistakes the de-stabilization of truth as a rejection of truth, and so avoids the demands of active engagement with a shimmering, moving target.

Here is the critical, ironic stance, an armouring and defense mode that demolishes culture and protect the self from implication. What remains is the spectacle, the simulacrum, where we all know it is a performance without substance, and yet it appears with high significance, hyperreal. I broadcast a ballooning performance of self hour by hour on social media, reality TV, this blog…
Continue reading