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 Liberal Arts and The Guild

Liber, latin for freedom, is the root of liberal arts – originally, the studies in classical antiquity that were deemed essential for a free person to master in order to distinguish themselves from slaves.

A Roman free person is one who participates in a democracy, and is therefore expected to be well-informed about the world in which they share control and responsibility.  Notably, the classical liberal arts – grammer, logic and rhetoric – were not studies aimed at accumulating content, but aimed at how to engage with knowledge itself. A free person is one who knows how to read the world intelligently, critically reflect and communicate skillfully.

A liberal arts education – once the backbone of American public education and now an endangered species – is about learning for the sake of learning, imparting knowledge and developing intellectual capacities without aim of financial reward or vocational purpose.

Yet the liberal arts are intimately entwined with class and privilege, and share this with another approach to education – education as a credentialing system.

Continue reading