Mudita Journal

Buddhism and Conservatism

August 13, 2003 · Filed under: Buddhism, Individualism, Politics
Share

In response to my comments on the subject of Mudita and Individualism, Zen meditation instructor Craig Richards posted the following to Mudita Forum:

I came across this paper today: “In what follows, we consider evidence for and against the hypotheses that political conservatism is significantly associated with (1) mental rigidity and closed-mindedness, including (a) increased dogmatism and intolerance of ambiguity, (b) decreased cognitive complexity, (c) decreased openness to experience, (d) uncertainty avoidance, (e) personal needs for order and structure, and (f) need for cognitive closure; (2) lowered self-esteem; (3) fear, anger, and aggression; (4) pessimism, disgust, and contempt; (5) loss prevention; (6) fearof death; (7) threat arising from social and economic deprivation; and (8) threat to the stability of the social system.”

I don’t think the study is definitive, but it does reflect some underlying trends. Although political choices don’t always fit into a liberal/conservative form, there is a tendency to choose one of them to identify with in our current political culture, and I’m not surprised that Buddhists in general don’t resonate with conservative ideas that are associated with the list above, especially the first item.

My response:

It’s interesting you should forward this study about the psychological attributes of conservatives. As it happens, I know a bit about the study, chiefly from observing other scientists and academicians—who don’t share the authors’ political radicalism—discuss the study’s questionable methodology and unjustified conclusions.

A key thing to remember is that the study was published by avowed leftists, as a “scientific analysis” of individuals holding opposing political views. The study’s central thesis is not a new finding in the scientific literature; rather, it is a recycling of similar “findings” that have been published by Marxist theorists since the 1950s, beginning with Theodor Adorno’s book The Authoritarian Personality.

If right-wing scholars were to publish a study dissecting the underlying motivations of leftists, it would be similarly eye-opening. And worthless. In truth—and this is something that any Buddhist can appreciate—we are all much more capable of understanding, and appreciating, our own motivations than those of our adversaries.

I don’t wish to imply the need for utter relativism, here. But it is undoubtedly the case that forming an objective opinion of your adversary requires a sincere kind of self-honesty. And the authors of the article you cite have fallen far short of that kind of restraint.

For one thing, they have lumped together “conservatives” from the United States with those from eleven other countries. As you may know, the “conservative” view in many countries is often more like the “liberal” view in our country, at least in terms of the perceived desirability of a powerful, centrally-controlled government and economy. As a result, the authors have very likely discovered more about the psychological qualities of American liberals than of American conservatives.

Anyone who wishes to read more about the history of this particular study can get started with the commentary by J.J. Ray. Ray has published more articles in academic journals on this particular topic than anyone, which by conventional academic standards would make him the acknowledged authority on the topic. (He provides links to many of his published articles at the end of the above essay.) However, the Psychological Bulletin, which published the Jost et al study you cite below, is unlikely to ever publish his or any other significant dissenting response, since they have their own agenda.

Like many Rand admirers, I consider myself more libertarian than conservative. And while there are many conservatives who hold views I want nothing to do with, I increasingly observe that liberalism has become the new conservatism in the United States, and in more than just the nominal sense of the word. This particular study, and the editors’ customary refusal to air the opinion of dissenting experts, appears to be a regrettable case in point.

Returning to my original point about Buddhism and politics, I continue to wonder why so many Buddhists—who are the most consistent advocates of psychological freedom imaginable—seem indifferent to the concept of individual rights, which has done more to advance political freedom, and freedom from the material origins of human suffering, than any socialist or statist institution in the history of mankind.

I’m genuinely interested in this subject, and would welcome questions or dissenting opinions.

Posted by Joshua Zader · Trackback URL · Link
  • http://www.gibes.org/blogopad/weblog.php Kernon

    Joshua,

    Just FYI, I think that Virgina Postrel’s blog post was also about this same study.

  • http://www.InfiniteSmile.com Michael McAlister

    You ask why we Buddhists seem so indifferent to individual rights?

    Personally, I don’t see this as the case. But we also recognize that there really isn’t much to the idea that an individual should be extended rights at the exclusion of all other things. Among the most basic of all Buddhist teachings is that nothing exists in isolation. All of us depend on gravity, clean air, clean water, food, other beings, and everything else in order for our egos to claim individuality. So while the concept of the individual itself is intriguing, it is only ever a construction of mind that is experienced as a truth of existence. Nothing, therefore, is really independent of anything else. Even free will ultimately depends on whether or not you can get your car started.

    So “individual rights” can be troubling if wisdom and compassion don’t inform their extension. If, for example, “individual rights” are extended to protect someone’s ability to act in a way that doesn’t take the whole of his culture and society into account, then the “right” becomes destructive. On the other hand, a “right” that works to serve the whole as well as the individual can and will be helpful to everyone.

    As a practitioner and teacher of Zen, I am constantly dealing with one major impediment to spiritual growth. People think that there is a “self” inside of them, while everything else is on the outside. The entire experience of human suffering can be drawn from this single problem simply because it is the ego’s job to establish and maintain this separation of self and other in order to live and act as the CEO of our consciousness. And it doesn’t want to give up its position. As we grow, we begin to form an identity with ego and build a mask that we call “personality”, and this personality is what we use to defend ourselves against all threats from “out there”. Buddhist practice shows us that while there is an “out there” it is not separate from what is “in here”. In fact, all things that are perceived as being separate from us are precisely the delusion that Buddhist and other nondual spiritual practices work to dissolve.

    On the other hand, countless other practices and philosophies work to reify the ego as being an end in itself. Here I would respectfully ask you to help me understand how the self or individual is somehow an end in, and of, itself. It can’t be a fixed entity since it evolves. It is also dependent on everything else, and because of this it only exists as a series of ever-changing relationships. Yet even these relationships themselves are not fixed. They are temporary and interdependent as well as all other things including the self. And still we persist on holding fast to what best represents a fixed “me” or what needs to be protected as an absolute “mine”.

    Scholars like Ken Wilber and Don Beck, as well as teachers like Andrew Cohen and Eckhart Tolle believe that our evolution as a species depends upon the realization that we are all divine manifestations of the Infinite, and that none of us is separate from anything else. As our spiritual center of gravity shifts to meet this profound Knowing at each moment, “mudita” flows as effortlessly as the infinite compassion and grace from which we were born. Unless, however, we have begun to fearlessly endeavor to walk the tightrope between these conventional and ultimate truths of life through a grounded practice, we will remain trapped by our identification with the delusions of mind. Until we can experience and know what in Zen we call “no mind”, all relationships are merely egoic negotiations that keep us from the radiant and ever-present awareness of Spirit.

    -Michael
    http://www.InfiniteSmile.com

blog comments powered by Disqus