10 ms·

The mindfulness conspiracy

75 points by acsillag 7y ago

mirkonasato 7y ago
As soon as I read "meditation may be the enemy of activism" the image of the Vietnamese monk Thích Quảng Đức burning himself to death in 1963 popped up in my mind. From Wikipedia (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Th%C3%ADch_Qu%E1%BA%A3ng_%C4%90%E1%BB%A9c https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Th%C3%ADch_Qu%E1%BA%A3ng_%C4%9...) "Đức calmly sat down in the traditional Buddhist meditative lotus position on the cushion. A colleague emptied the contents of the petrol container over Đức's head. Đức rotated a string of wooden prayer beads and recited the words Nam mô A Di Đà Phật ("Homage to Amitābha Buddha") before striking a match and dropping it on himself." "Photographs of his self-immolation were circulated widely across the world and brought attention to the policies of the Diệm government. John F. Kennedy said in reference to a photograph of Đức on fire, "No news picture in history has generated so much emotion around the world as that one.""
- AstralStorm 7y ago
  Buddhism is not just meditation. It is a big ethical system. By stripping ethics from it you would stop all its activism.
  - CPLX 7y ago
    Indeed. But a premise of Buddhism is that the ethics came about as the result of meditation.
    - kranner 7y ago
      Please cite a source for this. Ethics are supposed to help with Buddhist practices towards achieving enlightenment from what I’ve read, not the other way round. If they came about as a result of meditation automatically, the Vinaya would not need to list so many rules for monks and nuns.
      - AstralStorm 7y ago
        Neither meditation is said to be sufficient for enlightenment, at least to Buddhists who are not Zen (or Ch'an) practitioners. We cannot just ask Siddhartha Gautama anymore about the practices and his words were mysticized and changed over generations, as were ethical rules and especially the added monastic rules. Even Pali Canon is suspect in pieces and that's a more reliable source in the practices he reformed.
    - gbuk2013 7y ago
      This is not the premise of Buddhism. Here is a good starting point for understanding what is: http://ftp.budaedu.org/ebooks/pdf/EN074.pdf http://ftp.budaedu.org/ebooks/pdf/EN074.pdf
      - CPLX 7y ago
        I didn't say it is "the" premise of Buddhism. I said it is a premise of Buddhism. It is. The story of Shakyamuni Buddha achieving enlightenment after 49 days of meditation under the Bodhi tree is pretty well known. There, of course, are a lot more antecedents to contemporary Buddhist thought and ethics than that one incident, but it's fair to say it's a pretty core part of the historical tradition, and precedes essentially everything that came after. For context in this discussion, I am a practicing Zen Buddhist.
        gbuk2013 7y ago
        Ethics affect the seeds you plant. If your seeds are bad you will not even have the opportunity to learn meditation. Meditation is for going beyond all that. > I am a practicing Zen Buddhist Who?
bayesian_horse 7y ago
I think the author doesn't understand mindfulness. Achieving mindfulness can only help you to know what exactly you want to change and what you can change. It seems to me that the author favors radical change, either in general or he assumes everybody knows what exactly must be changed and how. Which I doubt. "Capitalism" has spared the Western world increasingly more suffering, so there is no point in "going back" anywhere. While I do favor corrections in terms of wealth distribution, I'd be hesitant to implement any unproven radical changes. I fail to see why mindfulness meditation is any obstacle to this.
- jahaja 7y ago
  > "Capitalism" has spared the Western world increasingly more suffering "Spared" implies that there's a clearly worse and inevitable alternative. Unless we shake off this ingrained cold-war mentality no other alternatives than status-quo will seem plausible.
  - kaolti 7y ago
    Who is disputing that there are clearly worse alternatives? Pick almost any part of history. You're talking about alternatives to the status-quo. Sure, there's lots to be improved, that's not what the disagreement is. The disagreement is whether to have a calm conversations and plan for a better future, or - like the Guardian suggests - burning it all to the ground because capitalism = bad.
    - jahaja 7y ago
      > Who is disputing that there are clearly worse alternatives? No one, and neither do I. That's why I added inevitable. Because the problem is the false dichotomy of Capitalism or Stalinism. It's obvious that the people calling for radical change are not even close to supporting Stalinism. But for some reason this is always assumed when just criticism towards Capitalism is presented. > The disagreement is whether to have a calm conversations and plan for a better future Moderates never ever find a "good" time for true change. It should always be delayed and slowed down until it eventually evaporates.
dev_north_east 7y ago
From an outsider's perspective, it just seems like a way to replicate daily prayers. I'll stick with the Rosary thanks.
- philsnow 7y ago
  The rosary is great for contemplative prayer [0], but does your mind ever wander from what you 'should' be thinking about to various mundane things (last weekend's sporting events, your car needs an oil change, what to make for dinner)? One part of mindfulness meditation is deliberate practice at directed focus, and that practice improves your ability to think about what you want to think about rather than what your mind wanders to. There's another common practice where you actually intentionally practice allowing your mind to wander, and consciously choose to dismiss those thoughts. I see mindfulness meditation as orthogonal to actual prayer, a little axe-sharpening that improves not only my prayer life but my general thought processes as well. If I only have time for one and not the other, obviously prayer is more important. [0] For people who don't know, the Rosary is a series of meditations on different aspects of the lives of Jesus and Mary and the ministry of Jesus, in the form of an easily-memorized sequence of rote prayers. The rote nature of the prayers allows the person saying the rosary to use the brain's fuzzy focus to think about each aspect in turn. In total it consists of the Apostle's Creed, 6 "Our Father"s, 53 "Hail Mary"s, 6 "Glory Be"s, and one "Hail Holy Queen", taking between 10 minutes (if you're in a rush) and 20 minutes (if you're sleepy).
  - dev_north_east 7y ago
    Many thanks, very interesting reading
- crusso 7y ago
  Prayer is concentration. Mindfulness is not concentration. There's a huge difference that you have to experience with practice in order to begin to appreciate. Learning how to get out of your typical all-consuming "thought loops" is a skill worth having and cultivating.
Mo3 7y ago
There we go. The authors biased and naive opinion of mindfulness is just that. His opinion. Without any awareness of itself. What happens when we have nothing to think about but thoughts? We lose ourselves in the content of thought without seeing them for what they really are. Human says "my thoughts", yet believes himself to be the content of the thoughts, the seemingly very important thoughts that start with "I" and everything that comes after it. Where are the thoughts appearing in? That's you. And staying in this perspective on purpose is mindfulness. And being mindful sets a lot of things straight. Radical change starts within and everything outside follows after it. And you don't need to do anything for it. In fact, sometimes you need not to.
- bArray 7y ago
  > There we go. The authors biased and naive opinion of > mindfulness is just that. His opinion. Except, it's not labeled as opinion. At this point I just consider the entirely of The Guardian an an opinion piece.
  - pjc50 7y ago
    This is the "lifeandstyle" section, as per the URL.
    - bArray 7y ago
      "Life and style" can still be factual reporting (i.e. interviews, presenting multiple opinions, etc). This is very clearly an opinion piece and should be labelled as such, the author is injecting themselves into their writing.
      - marcus_holmes 7y ago
        There is an "adapted from his book (McMindfulness)" attribution at the bottom. I think the problem is that the author thinks his opinions are facts,though.
  - AstralStorm 7y ago
HNLurker2 7y ago
Zizek may say this is late capitalism of the west.
pygy_ 7y ago
Counterpoint: mindfulness makes one less prone to the torrent of distracting junk we're being fed and lets us focus on the problem we could act on...
Viruptc 7y ago
I was in a relationship with a girl that had Borderline Personality Disorder. This totally rewired my brain and I had to go to therapy. There I was recommended mindfulness meditation. It really helped me a lot to get rid of racing thoughts and finally get some sleep and general peace of mind.
- partyboat1586 7y ago
  Hey, I'm glad mindfulness helped you. I think my girlfriend might have BPD and i'm not sure what to do, would you mind sharing your story? Can PM if you would prefer.
  - Viruptc 7y ago
    Yes, of course. But how can I contact you?
kaolti 7y ago
The article has obviously nothing to do with mindfulness and is a cheap attack on capitalism from the growing socialist revolution propaganda machine. Anyone who actually knows what mindfulness is can immediately see that they're building the biggest strawman ever with the sole purpose of forcing anti capitalist agenda down our throats. Remember this: It used to be that news were facts and you formulated an opinion on them. Now the news is opinion and you're trying to figure out what the facts were.
rocgf 7y ago
This is not only ridiculous, it may actually be dangerous journalism because it hints at the fact that this may be a conspiracy by the people 'ruling the world'. And it does that with no real evidence. Anything has pros and cons, even if they are not obvious at a first glance. Doesn't mean there is an obscure element to it.
- AstralStorm 7y ago
  It doesn't. That's your interpretation reading between the clear lines of text. It is being promoted by high stakes journalism and corporations though. No conspiracy needed, as it brings desired results. The motive is clear and not ulterior. Companies want to keep you happy so that you can be exploited more, and if that falls they want you to internalise blame for your own mental state. If you internalise mindfulness, you might be amenable to internalising other values beneficial to the company. Article does say that the practice can make odious status quo palatable, removing a source of discontent and thus activism. There are comparisons between the style McD was sold and mindfulness, but nowhere do I see implication that it is some kind of conspiracy. Article has an ethical dig at neoliberal values at the end, equating them to magical thinking.
  - jariel 7y ago
    "Companies want to keep you happy so that you can be exploited more, and if that falls they want you to internalise blame for your own mental state. If you internalise mindfulness, you might be amenable to internalising other values beneficial to the company." This is as conspiratorial as the article. "the practice can make odious status quo palatable, removing a source of discontent and thus activism." Not only are both of these things likely not true, I don't see how they are even related. Mindfulness, I don't think is really going to change many people's lives, and in the grand scheme it's basically irrelevant. It's a soft nice-feeling meme flowing through the world right now that I think is worth at least considering.
  - rocgf 7y ago
    > nowhere do I see implication that it is some kind of conspiracy Except in the title, for starters. And then in your comment, which is built on the assumption that mindfulness benefits corporations. Your whole argument is a stretch at best, but even if I were to concede that companies benefit from this, it is hardly proof that they would actively invest time, money and effort into playing this incredibly long game through which their gains are, at best, indirect. I think you're looking for a conspiracy theory where there is none.
kaolti 7y ago
Mindfulness is being aware of what goes on in your mind. How can anyone argue that it's a BAD? How is staying blind to what you're actually thinking good in any way? All it does is make us a reactionary creature, which is exactly what you need to be to burn a whole society to the ground. Thanks Guardian, this is exactly what we need. More violence, more escalation, more rash decisions. Journalism 2019 - and they ask for your donations.
- icebraining 7y ago
  The article is not arguing against being aware of what goes on in your mind.
tmoravec 7y ago
The article literally starts with this: "It is sold as a force that can help us cope with the ravages of capitalism..." For a more meaningful discussion of mindfulness, I recommend the "Mind The Mindfulness Hype" episode of The Psychology Podcast [1] . They dig into what the scientific method has to say to mindfulness, what studies have been made and what is missing, and what benefits can be realistically expected. And what's over the top hype. [1] https://www.scottbarrykaufman.com/podcast/mind-the-mindfulness-hype-with-david-vago/ https://www.scottbarrykaufman.com/podcast/mind-the-mindfulne...
- mikeyjk 7y ago
  Sam Harris regularly claims that it reduces the half life of emotions such as rage. I personally find that a 'deterministic' view of life achieves that for me. For whatever reason when I meditate I can only leverage it as a relaxation tool, as opposed to witnessing my thoughts occur, which I think is somewhat 'mindfulness'.
  - herghost 7y ago
    I've struggled to get very much out of mindfulness (primarily via Sam Harris) but this 'half-life of an emotion' thing is one of the bits that has worked. The best example I've experienced was being in an argument with my wife about something or other that had gotten heated to the point I was getting angry. But then I got a phone call from someone at one of my clients - I immediately had to be a different person for that call. Once it had finished I came back to my wife and felt like I entirely had the _choice_ as to whether I would be angry again. I was, in fact, almost certainly treading an automatic path down which I _would have_ made myself angry to continue from where we were. Instead, the obviousness of this was so apparent that I didn't - because it suddenly felt artificial.
    - kranner 7y ago
      What Sam Harris teaches in his meditation app is not 'mindfulness' as commonly understood, i.e. in the vein of Vipassana or even MBSR. It's more like his own lite version of Dzogchen practices.
1penny42cents 7y ago
One goal of mindfulness and meditation is to reduce the amount of noise in our heads so that we can see things clearer. This allows us to take more _effective_ actions. The author seems to have a clear bias that radical == good, and this puts me off. Radical action can be good, and it can be bad. Mindfulness can help us see which case is which.
- ptah 7y ago
  Fully agree, mindfulness can help one come up with even more radical actions. It can be a tool for activists to cope with the pressures of activism. It doesn't sound like the author has done any mindfulness practice
  - AstralStorm 7y ago
    Does it though? Do we have any kind of data about it? If it helps one activist and million corporate drones and people looking for status quo, the practice is not on the whole a friend of activism. So what are the numbers?
    - ptah 7y ago
      You are adding the goal of turning status quo warriors into activists. Mindfulness is not designed for that and has never claimed to do that
      - AstralStorm 7y ago
        No, more like not turning activists into content status quo followers. But it's problematic to discern the two. Perhaps a study on how many activists quit when using or not using mindfulness techniques. Though the confounder is huge, people trying this have some sort of a psychological problem most of the time...
        ptah 7y ago
        it doesn't work like that. you should try it for yourself
herghost 7y ago
Be mindful of the source of this - the quality of content coming out of The Guardian has slipped since its recent change of editorial - it is much more content with click-bait and sensationalism than with anything more substantial. From the opening line this seems to be coming across as little more than a virtue signalling piece for anti-Capitalists, and progresses into tired old tropes about Western consumerism.
collyw 7y ago
The bias clearly show through in the writing. "Societal problems", "unjust society", " systemic change that might remove it". Mindfulness is somewhat oversold these days, but his understanding of it seems very simplistic "Mindfulness is nothing more than basic concentration training." Surprise surprise, he has a book to sell about it. https://guardianbookshop.com/mcmindfulness-9781912248315.html https://guardianbookshop.com/mcmindfulness-9781912248315.htm...
- bayesian_horse 7y ago
  I also feel he assumes that there has been a better society somewhere in the past.
  - coldtea 7y ago
    Well, in some aspects there has been, in others not. I'm pretty sure a Syrian or a Venezuelan, for example, who was living in way better conditions a decade ago, can very easily agree that this is so. The relative stability and prosperity aside (which itself is arguable, with a declining middle class and stagnant wages, but anyway), I'm not so sure why it's so hard for e.g. many Americans to see this, as if today is the culmination of anything good in history. Yes, today they have black civil or gay rights that they didn't in the 30s. They also have more mass shootings than any other time, more inequality, a opioid epidemic, tons of police shootings of blacks, more incarcerated people than any other time, not the best president (and neither the best democratic opponents), and lots of other issues besides. And while TV might be better today, it's not the most memorable decades for movies or novels. Technology is cumulative (short of a catastrophic event, like the fall of Rome). Culture and society and politics are almost a random walk. They can go either way. Even the most sophisticated societal advancements can go away in a heartbeat, as they found in '30s Germany...
    - bayesian_horse 7y ago
      "Inequality" doesn't mean that even the poorer part of a society has slid backwards. Considering the situation of Afroamericans, I think you underappreciate the amount of lynchings, violence (not just by police) and structural discrimination that took place. All of that is at a record low, if still much too high. There is still a lot of work to be done, but undoubtedly their situation has improved, long term.
sebow 7y ago
Another ranty tabloid-like article from MSM. Meditation doesn't "depoliticize" stress, it allows you to move on for the moment and postpone your stress/thoughts. Anyone doing meditation probably knows that those thoughts will come back, meditation is not exactly a "full stress-relief" like lifting weights, doing intense exercise,ranting,sex,etc.Arguably the deepest fears/stress don't go away depending on the severity, in which case, again, meditation is not to blame for ameliorating a troubled mind. Feels like the author is just mad there's less "activism" because of meditation.Clearly upset about the fact that her wishes don't get attention while people get on better with their lives thanks to some "neat tricks" we've learned about our brain. "Mindfulness" is really the most subjective thing ever, and it's rather hard for one to develop a technique to set their minds straight on their objective during the day.Looks like some people think this "life-style" is overrated just because they can't do it themselves.Obviously being a journalist/intaking a lot of news daily will make you more stressed than not,which makes it harder to "cope".
blunte 7y ago
This makes the assumption that our priority is to change/fix things. I'm usually of this mindset too, but there's something to the argument of accepting what is and being calm and present to the moment. We can't really know which approach is best, because we can't A/B test human life. Who knows... perhaps if everyone were calm and peaceful, much would change without activism.
- vidarh 7y ago
  If you want to change/fix things then being calm and present is a useful skill to be able to assess what the problem actually is and how to address it without being being drawn to actions that are not thought through. Mindfulness does not imply you should not get angry at injustice, for example, but that you might want to observe that emotion arising and understand what you're actually angry about and why before you act. Sometimes you'll catch yourself being manipulated, or you'll realize you're angry about the wrong thing, or lashing out at the wrong person or entity. As such I think the author would have done much better to focus on why mindfulness is not about inaction, and should not be used as an excuse for inaction. If someone wants to focus only inwards, that's got nothing to do with mindfulness, and in fact if they use mindfulness as an excuse for that, they are failing at being mindful if they're not mindful that it is just an excuse. Mindfulness certainly can make some people more ready to accept life as it is, but the point then is that suffering for the sake of suffering is pretty irrational - if you can find a way to accept your current situation, then that is good. But accepting it does not mean you can not want to change it. But you should be aware of why, not just blindly fight for something that might not make you or others any happier. I do think you're right that if everyone were calm and peaceful much would change without activism, but I also don't think mindfulness means no activism. Different activism, perhaps.
- m-i-l 7y ago
  "there's something to the argument of accepting what is and being calm and present to the moment" Ah, but that's what they want - something to reduce our immediate suffering and distract us with a pleasant fantasy so we can all keep slaving away at those dark satanic mills without question - "the sigh of the oppressed creature, the heart of a heartless world, and the soul of soulless conditions";-) But more seriously, I'm not disagreeing with you, and I'm not wholly convinced by the article's argument. It strikes me as like saying antibiotics are bad because they don't encourage good hygiene and can be misused e.g. overuse on farm animals. Well yes those things might be true, but it isn't the antibiotics that are the problem. Its like technology, it in itself isn't good or bad, it is people and what they do with it that makes it one or the other.
kranner 7y ago
> Other sources of cultural malaise are not discussed. The only mention of the word “capitalist” in Kabat-Zinn’s book Coming to Our Senses: Healing Ourselves and the World Through Mindfulness occurs in an anecdote about a stressed investor who says: “We all suffer a kind of ADD.” So the author is upset that Kabat-Zinn omitted to name "capitalism" specifically and railing against its evils in a self-help book? One might as well write an article jumping all over CBT: that by helping patients recognise Automatic Negative Thoughts and breaking the loop, psychologists are conspiring to keep society in the evil grip of capitalism. This whole thing comes across as a strawman argument.
- AstralStorm 7y ago
  CBT and MCBT (which uses mindfulness), has control and "being able to progress" as the goal, not just changing emotional state consciously, which the pure mindfulness as taught can devolve into. (A crutch instead of a fix.) Acceptance of the present should not mean letting it stay the same forever. It's more "what's done is done". MCBT still has you focus on repeated occasions when you do this, and changing them h this might be by changing yourself but not necessarily the only way you can approach it. A sane therapist will tell you if the situation you're in is not conducive to therapy. Acceptance is a tool. If all you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail, which is why CBT and MCBT have more tools than mindfulness which is taught in a tiny version of ACT.
  - kranner 7y ago
    > Acceptance of the present should not mean letting it stay the same forever. It's more "what's done is done". I'm not sure how mindfulness could possibly be construed to intend letting things stay the same forever. Impermanence is one of the pillars of Buddhist thought and mindfulness directly addresses it.
bArray 7y ago
Just the first statement says alot about the writer: > It is sold as a force that can help us cope with the > ravages of capitalism, but with its inward focus, mindful > meditation may be the enemy of activism. Every interaction I've had with mindfulness so far hasn't been that it was "sold", it was just simply offered. It's not an organized religion or ideology, from what I've seen there doesn't appear to be a hidden agenda. I've personally found it quite interesting to reflect on the subject of mindfulness and my (current) conclusions I have regarding how to live my life - there's a lot of overlap. It's not something that exists to "help us cope with the ravages of capitalism". Political ideology aside, it's simply there to help you think and act more freely by understanding your thinking and acting. My friend who studies mindfulness says (para-quoting): "it's about understanding your actions and why you take them, it's about separating yourself from your immediate reality". I think most people could potentially benefit from such an idea. In general I believe people should take more time to "do nothing" and reflect. As for being "the enemy of activism", if clear thinking is the enemy of activism, I think this says more about the current state of activism than it does about mindfulness. In general, I believe we shouldn't be striving to produce a society who dedicate their lives to activism. It's perfectly okay to be an activist, but there has to be more - life is short after all.
- bildung 7y ago
  > Every interaction I've had with mindfulness so far hasn't been that it was "sold" In defense of the author, it isn't really hard to come to the conlusion that mindfulness is mostly an attempt to sell stuff: Open the search engine of your choice, type in "mindfulness" and look at the results. Look at any pop-psychology, lifestyle or fashion magazine, and be greeted with advertorials for "calm" or similar apps.
bencollier49 7y ago
This is an interesting reversion to form for the Guardian. Religion as the opiate of the masses is straight from Marx.
- golergka 7y ago
  As if it hasn't long time ago.
  - bencollier49 7y ago
    Oh, of course. But this one is particular is a classic Marxist trope, it's interesting to see it popping its head up in a new context.
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]
wnkrshm 7y ago
Depression can be created by a hostile environment in individuals with no prior issues. With a background of ever-increasing pressures on the individual to perform, the author rightfully calls out self-help for being "damage control procedures" only: practices that can help individuals cope with an untenable situation for longer. The manner of the calling-out is hyperbole and full of opinions but in my opinion there is some truth at the core.
- marcus_holmes 7y ago
  I would agree, or at least acknowledge that there was some truth here, if the worker's revolutions that have happened actually made anyone happier or less stressed. The only thing I've seen in all my travels that made anyone any happier is strong family ties.
  - icebraining 7y ago
    > the worker's revolutions that have happened Which ones are you thinking of?
    - marcus_holmes 7y ago
      Russia, Cambodia and Vietnam are the ones I've personally visited (and I live in Berlin, so plenty of stories of life under communism here). But I've also spoken to people from Cuba and Venezuela.
tmpfs 7y ago
It should be pointed out that mindfulness is one of many practices in various esoteric belief systems (typically with a view to complete self-realization) and when taken out of context and practiced alone it can have benefits (depending upon the individual) but is much more powerful when combined with all the practices of a belief system (Buddhism, Taoism, Bon etc).
aaron695 7y ago
Everyone sees the irony that this was written to sell a book?
colechristensen 7y ago
I don't know whether to be frightened of the cult-of-activism or just confused about this disorganized rant. I see fascism hidden in words like this. The whole motivation seems to be that you must feel rage about anyone and anything which disagrees with your social ideals and any other reaction is unacceptable.
lackoftactics 7y ago
his arguments doesn't make sense. Using this way of thinking psychoteraphy is bad, because you are not fighting the system that damaged you. Of course he is using Zizek as authority and he treats his word of gospel, I think he lacks critical thinking that he advocates
tareqak 7y ago
I enjoyed the article. I see mindfulness being a truly helpful tool, but I can also see it as being a bludgeon to numb people to the status quo. The closest thing that I can think of that is similar is physical exercise. Physical exercise is legitimately helpful for maintaining a healthy life for nearly all (if not all) human beings, but there is definitely an industry around getting people to buy things to get them into shape with various probabilities of success. Similar to the author’s assertion about physical exercise, there are credible factors that affect physical health outside of just physical exercise such as diet/nutrition and physical/mental stress. Dealing with these other issues that affect physical health is more difficult and particularly when food-producing industries have a vested interest in getting people to eat more, and employers have a vested interest in getting the most out of their employees. For what it is worth, The Guardian’s “the long read” section has the following in the subtitle, “The long read In-depth reporting, essays and profiles“ [0]. I think they could stand to add a bit more guidance / messaging to indicate that this piece is separate from their reporting without harming their brand or appearing to insinuate some position over another. [0] https://www.theguardian.com/news/series/the-long-read https://www.theguardian.com/news/series/the-long-read
- colechristensen 7y ago
  Mindfulness walks you away from living on autopilot and having your thoughts driven by emotion. If it "numbs" you, I'm not sure what you're doing but it isn't anywhere near awareness. People seem to really be addicted to this emotionally driven autopilot existence and seem over and over to insist that if you aren't being driven by emotion you're incapable of doing good. It seems to be the next wave of the attempt to reject the – what I would call – first order rationalism which builds its understanding of the world out of what easily fits into straightforward models and rejects or handwaves the existence of everything else. -- Anything remotely beneficial (any many things that aren't) will have a whole herd of self-help industrialists trying to sell it to you, they're better off ignored. Their presence really has no signal as to the legitimacy to what they're selling.
  - tareqak 7y ago
    Thank you for replying 'colechristensen. The example that I would give is how someone might view homelessness in San Francisco, the first time, the next few times, and then subsequent n times. The first time a person can truly be utter shock. The next few times might remain uncomfortable, but less of a shock. In the subsequent n times, this person might stop seeing homelessness altogether except for the more gratuitous moments. I am refining my thoughts here, and the part I see at issue is not mindfulness as a whole, but its partial or selective application. The author’s point is that the parts of mindfulness industry and parts of the economy as a whole benefit from the spread and application of the self-regulation/desensitization of mindfulness and it is in their interest to stop any sort of follow through action that would disrupt the status quo. By stopping mindfulness at self-regulation and not following through with action, an outside observer would be hard pressed to find the difference between someone practicing this much mindfulness and someone who is just apathetic. I think this is where the calls to emotion that the author makes, and my use of the word “numb” comes in: it is question posed by someone else asking, “Do you not care?” In this way, I think the author is trying to argue that some of parts of this mindfulness industry is effectively selling mass-produced apathy and mass-produced self-regulation/compliance. To take this even farther, I think it would be possible to argue that this combination of desensitization and no-follow-through is basically learned helplessness [0]. To be completely honest with you, after writing all this out, I think the author could have made this point more clear. [0] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Learned_helplessness https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Learned_helplessness
shrimpx 7y ago
I directly know "mindfulness" people and some TM people. They all seem to doing roughly the same thing: avoiding thoughts, or pushing thoughts out of their focus/ignoring thoughts that arise. My bystander observation is they're all developing memory problems. Obviously mentally replaying and analyzing memories strenghtens retention and these people avoid doing it. It's idiotic.
- mercer 7y ago
  I feel there's a subtle difference between 'pushing thoughts out' or 'ignoring' them, and 'observing them (impassively)', which is what I've been taught when it comes to mindfulness/meditation/zen. When I meditate, my impression is not that I avoid or push away thoughts. Rather, it's as if I observe them from a distance, and inspect them, smell them, turn them over, etc. In many cases, true, these thoughts sort of dissolve of 'disappear'. But in other cases they merely change a bit in quality, or they remain with some context added. Generally speaking it's not so much about avoiding, replaying, or analyzing memories (and strengthening retention), as it is about developing and practicing discernment as to what thoughts are worth replaying, analyzing or avoiding.
- partyboat1586 7y ago
  I think those people are doing it wrong but tbh you can't blame them given then quality of instruction available. Another case of knowing a little is more dangerous than knowing nothing at all.

75 points by acsillag 7y ago

As soon as I read "meditation may be the enemy of activism" the image of the Vietnamese monk Thích Quảng Đức burning himself to death in 1963 popped up in my mind. From Wikipedia (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Th%C3%ADch_Qu%E1%BA%A3ng_%C4%90%E1%BB%A9c https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Th%C3%ADch_Qu%E1%BA%A3ng_%C4%9...) "Đức calmly sat down in the traditional Buddhist meditative lotus position on the cushion. A colleague emptied the contents of the petrol container over Đức's head. Đức rotated a string of wooden prayer beads and recited the words Nam mô A Di Đà Phật ("Homage to Amitābha Buddha") before striking a match and dropping it on himself." "Photographs of his self-immolation were circulated widely across the world and brought attention to the policies of the Diệm government. John F. Kennedy said in reference to a photograph of Đức on fire, "No news picture in history has generated so much emotion around the world as that one.""

AstralStorm 7y ago
Buddhism is not just meditation. It is a big ethical system. By stripping ethics from it you would stop all its activism.
- CPLX 7y ago
  Indeed. But a premise of Buddhism is that the ethics came about as the result of meditation.
  - kranner 7y ago
    Please cite a source for this. Ethics are supposed to help with Buddhist practices towards achieving enlightenment from what I’ve read, not the other way round. If they came about as a result of meditation automatically, the Vinaya would not need to list so many rules for monks and nuns.
    - AstralStorm 7y ago
      Neither meditation is said to be sufficient for enlightenment, at least to Buddhists who are not Zen (or Ch'an) practitioners. We cannot just ask Siddhartha Gautama anymore about the practices and his words were mysticized and changed over generations, as were ethical rules and especially the added monastic rules. Even Pali Canon is suspect in pieces and that's a more reliable source in the practices he reformed.
  - gbuk2013 7y ago
    This is not the premise of Buddhism. Here is a good starting point for understanding what is: http://ftp.budaedu.org/ebooks/pdf/EN074.pdf http://ftp.budaedu.org/ebooks/pdf/EN074.pdf
    - CPLX 7y ago
      I didn't say it is "the" premise of Buddhism. I said it is a premise of Buddhism. It is. The story of Shakyamuni Buddha achieving enlightenment after 49 days of meditation under the Bodhi tree is pretty well known. There, of course, are a lot more antecedents to contemporary Buddhist thought and ethics than that one incident, but it's fair to say it's a pretty core part of the historical tradition, and precedes essentially everything that came after. For context in this discussion, I am a practicing Zen Buddhist.
      - gbuk2013 7y ago
        Ethics affect the seeds you plant. If your seeds are bad you will not even have the opportunity to learn meditation. Meditation is for going beyond all that. > I am a practicing Zen Buddhist Who?

bayesian_horse 7y ago

I think the author doesn't understand mindfulness. Achieving mindfulness can only help you to know what exactly you want to change and what you can change. It seems to me that the author favors radical change, either in general or he assumes everybody knows what exactly must be changed and how. Which I doubt. "Capitalism" has spared the Western world increasingly more suffering, so there is no point in "going back" anywhere. While I do favor corrections in terms of wealth distribution, I'd be hesitant to implement any unproven radical changes. I fail to see why mindfulness meditation is any obstacle to this.

jahaja 7y ago
> "Capitalism" has spared the Western world increasingly more suffering "Spared" implies that there's a clearly worse and inevitable alternative. Unless we shake off this ingrained cold-war mentality no other alternatives than status-quo will seem plausible.
- kaolti 7y ago
  Who is disputing that there are clearly worse alternatives? Pick almost any part of history. You're talking about alternatives to the status-quo. Sure, there's lots to be improved, that's not what the disagreement is. The disagreement is whether to have a calm conversations and plan for a better future, or - like the Guardian suggests - burning it all to the ground because capitalism = bad.
  - jahaja 7y ago
    > Who is disputing that there are clearly worse alternatives? No one, and neither do I. That's why I added inevitable. Because the problem is the false dichotomy of Capitalism or Stalinism. It's obvious that the people calling for radical change are not even close to supporting Stalinism. But for some reason this is always assumed when just criticism towards Capitalism is presented. > The disagreement is whether to have a calm conversations and plan for a better future Moderates never ever find a "good" time for true change. It should always be delayed and slowed down until it eventually evaporates.

dev_north_east 7y ago

From an outsider's perspective, it just seems like a way to replicate daily prayers. I'll stick with the Rosary thanks.

philsnow 7y ago
The rosary is great for contemplative prayer [0], but does your mind ever wander from what you 'should' be thinking about to various mundane things (last weekend's sporting events, your car needs an oil change, what to make for dinner)? One part of mindfulness meditation is deliberate practice at directed focus, and that practice improves your ability to think about what you want to think about rather than what your mind wanders to. There's another common practice where you actually intentionally practice allowing your mind to wander, and consciously choose to dismiss those thoughts. I see mindfulness meditation as orthogonal to actual prayer, a little axe-sharpening that improves not only my prayer life but my general thought processes as well. If I only have time for one and not the other, obviously prayer is more important. [0] For people who don't know, the Rosary is a series of meditations on different aspects of the lives of Jesus and Mary and the ministry of Jesus, in the form of an easily-memorized sequence of rote prayers. The rote nature of the prayers allows the person saying the rosary to use the brain's fuzzy focus to think about each aspect in turn. In total it consists of the Apostle's Creed, 6 "Our Father"s, 53 "Hail Mary"s, 6 "Glory Be"s, and one "Hail Holy Queen", taking between 10 minutes (if you're in a rush) and 20 minutes (if you're sleepy).
- dev_north_east 7y ago
  Many thanks, very interesting reading
crusso 7y ago
Prayer is concentration. Mindfulness is not concentration. There's a huge difference that you have to experience with practice in order to begin to appreciate. Learning how to get out of your typical all-consuming "thought loops" is a skill worth having and cultivating.

Mo3 7y ago

There we go. The authors biased and naive opinion of mindfulness is just that. His opinion. Without any awareness of itself. What happens when we have nothing to think about but thoughts? We lose ourselves in the content of thought without seeing them for what they really are. Human says "my thoughts", yet believes himself to be the content of the thoughts, the seemingly very important thoughts that start with "I" and everything that comes after it. Where are the thoughts appearing in? That's you. And staying in this perspective on purpose is mindfulness. And being mindful sets a lot of things straight. Radical change starts within and everything outside follows after it. And you don't need to do anything for it. In fact, sometimes you need not to.

bArray 7y ago
> There we go. The authors biased and naive opinion of > mindfulness is just that. His opinion. Except, it's not labeled as opinion. At this point I just consider the entirely of The Guardian an an opinion piece.
- pjc50 7y ago
  This is the "lifeandstyle" section, as per the URL.
  - bArray 7y ago
    "Life and style" can still be factual reporting (i.e. interviews, presenting multiple opinions, etc). This is very clearly an opinion piece and should be labelled as such, the author is injecting themselves into their writing.
    - marcus_holmes 7y ago
      There is an "adapted from his book (McMindfulness)" attribution at the bottom. I think the problem is that the author thinks his opinions are facts,though.
- AstralStorm 7y ago

HNLurker2 7y ago

Zizek may say this is late capitalism of the west.

pygy_ 7y ago

Counterpoint: mindfulness makes one less prone to the torrent of distracting junk we're being fed and lets us focus on the problem we could act on...

Viruptc 7y ago

I was in a relationship with a girl that had Borderline Personality Disorder. This totally rewired my brain and I had to go to therapy. There I was recommended mindfulness meditation. It really helped me a lot to get rid of racing thoughts and finally get some sleep and general peace of mind.

partyboat1586 7y ago
Hey, I'm glad mindfulness helped you. I think my girlfriend might have BPD and i'm not sure what to do, would you mind sharing your story? Can PM if you would prefer.
- Viruptc 7y ago
  Yes, of course. But how can I contact you?

kaolti 7y ago

The article has obviously nothing to do with mindfulness and is a cheap attack on capitalism from the growing socialist revolution propaganda machine. Anyone who actually knows what mindfulness is can immediately see that they're building the biggest strawman ever with the sole purpose of forcing anti capitalist agenda down our throats. Remember this: It used to be that news were facts and you formulated an opinion on them. Now the news is opinion and you're trying to figure out what the facts were.

rocgf 7y ago

This is not only ridiculous, it may actually be dangerous journalism because it hints at the fact that this may be a conspiracy by the people 'ruling the world'. And it does that with no real evidence. Anything has pros and cons, even if they are not obvious at a first glance. Doesn't mean there is an obscure element to it.

AstralStorm 7y ago
It doesn't. That's your interpretation reading between the clear lines of text. It is being promoted by high stakes journalism and corporations though. No conspiracy needed, as it brings desired results. The motive is clear and not ulterior. Companies want to keep you happy so that you can be exploited more, and if that falls they want you to internalise blame for your own mental state. If you internalise mindfulness, you might be amenable to internalising other values beneficial to the company. Article does say that the practice can make odious status quo palatable, removing a source of discontent and thus activism. There are comparisons between the style McD was sold and mindfulness, but nowhere do I see implication that it is some kind of conspiracy. Article has an ethical dig at neoliberal values at the end, equating them to magical thinking.
- jariel 7y ago
  "Companies want to keep you happy so that you can be exploited more, and if that falls they want you to internalise blame for your own mental state. If you internalise mindfulness, you might be amenable to internalising other values beneficial to the company." This is as conspiratorial as the article. "the practice can make odious status quo palatable, removing a source of discontent and thus activism." Not only are both of these things likely not true, I don't see how they are even related. Mindfulness, I don't think is really going to change many people's lives, and in the grand scheme it's basically irrelevant. It's a soft nice-feeling meme flowing through the world right now that I think is worth at least considering.
- rocgf 7y ago
  > nowhere do I see implication that it is some kind of conspiracy Except in the title, for starters. And then in your comment, which is built on the assumption that mindfulness benefits corporations. Your whole argument is a stretch at best, but even if I were to concede that companies benefit from this, it is hardly proof that they would actively invest time, money and effort into playing this incredibly long game through which their gains are, at best, indirect. I think you're looking for a conspiracy theory where there is none.

kaolti 7y ago

Mindfulness is being aware of what goes on in your mind. How can anyone argue that it's a BAD? How is staying blind to what you're actually thinking good in any way? All it does is make us a reactionary creature, which is exactly what you need to be to burn a whole society to the ground. Thanks Guardian, this is exactly what we need. More violence, more escalation, more rash decisions. Journalism 2019 - and they ask for your donations.

icebraining 7y ago
The article is not arguing against being aware of what goes on in your mind.

tmoravec 7y ago

The article literally starts with this: "It is sold as a force that can help us cope with the ravages of capitalism..." For a more meaningful discussion of mindfulness, I recommend the "Mind The Mindfulness Hype" episode of The Psychology Podcast [1] . They dig into what the scientific method has to say to mindfulness, what studies have been made and what is missing, and what benefits can be realistically expected. And what's over the top hype. [1] https://www.scottbarrykaufman.com/podcast/mind-the-mindfulness-hype-with-david-vago/ https://www.scottbarrykaufman.com/podcast/mind-the-mindfulne...

mikeyjk 7y ago
Sam Harris regularly claims that it reduces the half life of emotions such as rage. I personally find that a 'deterministic' view of life achieves that for me. For whatever reason when I meditate I can only leverage it as a relaxation tool, as opposed to witnessing my thoughts occur, which I think is somewhat 'mindfulness'.
- herghost 7y ago
  I've struggled to get very much out of mindfulness (primarily via Sam Harris) but this 'half-life of an emotion' thing is one of the bits that has worked. The best example I've experienced was being in an argument with my wife about something or other that had gotten heated to the point I was getting angry. But then I got a phone call from someone at one of my clients - I immediately had to be a different person for that call. Once it had finished I came back to my wife and felt like I entirely had the _choice_ as to whether I would be angry again. I was, in fact, almost certainly treading an automatic path down which I _would have_ made myself angry to continue from where we were. Instead, the obviousness of this was so apparent that I didn't - because it suddenly felt artificial.
  - kranner 7y ago
    What Sam Harris teaches in his meditation app is not 'mindfulness' as commonly understood, i.e. in the vein of Vipassana or even MBSR. It's more like his own lite version of Dzogchen practices.

1penny42cents 7y ago

One goal of mindfulness and meditation is to reduce the amount of noise in our heads so that we can see things clearer. This allows us to take more _effective_ actions. The author seems to have a clear bias that radical == good, and this puts me off. Radical action can be good, and it can be bad. Mindfulness can help us see which case is which.

ptah 7y ago
Fully agree, mindfulness can help one come up with even more radical actions. It can be a tool for activists to cope with the pressures of activism. It doesn't sound like the author has done any mindfulness practice
- AstralStorm 7y ago
  Does it though? Do we have any kind of data about it? If it helps one activist and million corporate drones and people looking for status quo, the practice is not on the whole a friend of activism. So what are the numbers?
  - ptah 7y ago
    You are adding the goal of turning status quo warriors into activists. Mindfulness is not designed for that and has never claimed to do that
    - AstralStorm 7y ago
      No, more like not turning activists into content status quo followers. But it's problematic to discern the two. Perhaps a study on how many activists quit when using or not using mindfulness techniques. Though the confounder is huge, people trying this have some sort of a psychological problem most of the time...
      - ptah 7y ago
        it doesn't work like that. you should try it for yourself

herghost 7y ago

Be mindful of the source of this - the quality of content coming out of The Guardian has slipped since its recent change of editorial - it is much more content with click-bait and sensationalism than with anything more substantial. From the opening line this seems to be coming across as little more than a virtue signalling piece for anti-Capitalists, and progresses into tired old tropes about Western consumerism.

collyw 7y ago

The bias clearly show through in the writing. "Societal problems", "unjust society", " systemic change that might remove it". Mindfulness is somewhat oversold these days, but his understanding of it seems very simplistic "Mindfulness is nothing more than basic concentration training." Surprise surprise, he has a book to sell about it. https://guardianbookshop.com/mcmindfulness-9781912248315.html https://guardianbookshop.com/mcmindfulness-9781912248315.htm...

bayesian_horse 7y ago
I also feel he assumes that there has been a better society somewhere in the past.
- coldtea 7y ago
  Well, in some aspects there has been, in others not. I'm pretty sure a Syrian or a Venezuelan, for example, who was living in way better conditions a decade ago, can very easily agree that this is so. The relative stability and prosperity aside (which itself is arguable, with a declining middle class and stagnant wages, but anyway), I'm not so sure why it's so hard for e.g. many Americans to see this, as if today is the culmination of anything good in history. Yes, today they have black civil or gay rights that they didn't in the 30s. They also have more mass shootings than any other time, more inequality, a opioid epidemic, tons of police shootings of blacks, more incarcerated people than any other time, not the best president (and neither the best democratic opponents), and lots of other issues besides. And while TV might be better today, it's not the most memorable decades for movies or novels. Technology is cumulative (short of a catastrophic event, like the fall of Rome). Culture and society and politics are almost a random walk. They can go either way. Even the most sophisticated societal advancements can go away in a heartbeat, as they found in '30s Germany...
  - bayesian_horse 7y ago
    "Inequality" doesn't mean that even the poorer part of a society has slid backwards. Considering the situation of Afroamericans, I think you underappreciate the amount of lynchings, violence (not just by police) and structural discrimination that took place. All of that is at a record low, if still much too high. There is still a lot of work to be done, but undoubtedly their situation has improved, long term.

sebow 7y ago

Another ranty tabloid-like article from MSM. Meditation doesn't "depoliticize" stress, it allows you to move on for the moment and postpone your stress/thoughts. Anyone doing meditation probably knows that those thoughts will come back, meditation is not exactly a "full stress-relief" like lifting weights, doing intense exercise,ranting,sex,etc.Arguably the deepest fears/stress don't go away depending on the severity, in which case, again, meditation is not to blame for ameliorating a troubled mind. Feels like the author is just mad there's less "activism" because of meditation.Clearly upset about the fact that her wishes don't get attention while people get on better with their lives thanks to some "neat tricks" we've learned about our brain. "Mindfulness" is really the most subjective thing ever, and it's rather hard for one to develop a technique to set their minds straight on their objective during the day.Looks like some people think this "life-style" is overrated just because they can't do it themselves.Obviously being a journalist/intaking a lot of news daily will make you more stressed than not,which makes it harder to "cope".

blunte 7y ago

This makes the assumption that our priority is to change/fix things. I'm usually of this mindset too, but there's something to the argument of accepting what is and being calm and present to the moment. We can't really know which approach is best, because we can't A/B test human life. Who knows... perhaps if everyone were calm and peaceful, much would change without activism.

vidarh 7y ago
If you want to change/fix things then being calm and present is a useful skill to be able to assess what the problem actually is and how to address it without being being drawn to actions that are not thought through. Mindfulness does not imply you should not get angry at injustice, for example, but that you might want to observe that emotion arising and understand what you're actually angry about and why before you act. Sometimes you'll catch yourself being manipulated, or you'll realize you're angry about the wrong thing, or lashing out at the wrong person or entity. As such I think the author would have done much better to focus on why mindfulness is not about inaction, and should not be used as an excuse for inaction. If someone wants to focus only inwards, that's got nothing to do with mindfulness, and in fact if they use mindfulness as an excuse for that, they are failing at being mindful if they're not mindful that it is just an excuse. Mindfulness certainly can make some people more ready to accept life as it is, but the point then is that suffering for the sake of suffering is pretty irrational - if you can find a way to accept your current situation, then that is good. But accepting it does not mean you can not want to change it. But you should be aware of why, not just blindly fight for something that might not make you or others any happier. I do think you're right that if everyone were calm and peaceful much would change without activism, but I also don't think mindfulness means no activism. Different activism, perhaps.
m-i-l 7y ago
"there's something to the argument of accepting what is and being calm and present to the moment" Ah, but that's what they want - something to reduce our immediate suffering and distract us with a pleasant fantasy so we can all keep slaving away at those dark satanic mills without question - "the sigh of the oppressed creature, the heart of a heartless world, and the soul of soulless conditions";-) But more seriously, I'm not disagreeing with you, and I'm not wholly convinced by the article's argument. It strikes me as like saying antibiotics are bad because they don't encourage good hygiene and can be misused e.g. overuse on farm animals. Well yes those things might be true, but it isn't the antibiotics that are the problem. Its like technology, it in itself isn't good or bad, it is people and what they do with it that makes it one or the other.

kranner 7y ago

> Other sources of cultural malaise are not discussed. The only mention of the word “capitalist” in Kabat-Zinn’s book Coming to Our Senses: Healing Ourselves and the World Through Mindfulness occurs in an anecdote about a stressed investor who says: “We all suffer a kind of ADD.” So the author is upset that Kabat-Zinn omitted to name "capitalism" specifically and railing against its evils in a self-help book? One might as well write an article jumping all over CBT: that by helping patients recognise Automatic Negative Thoughts and breaking the loop, psychologists are conspiring to keep society in the evil grip of capitalism. This whole thing comes across as a strawman argument.

AstralStorm 7y ago
CBT and MCBT (which uses mindfulness), has control and "being able to progress" as the goal, not just changing emotional state consciously, which the pure mindfulness as taught can devolve into. (A crutch instead of a fix.) Acceptance of the present should not mean letting it stay the same forever. It's more "what's done is done". MCBT still has you focus on repeated occasions when you do this, and changing them h this might be by changing yourself but not necessarily the only way you can approach it. A sane therapist will tell you if the situation you're in is not conducive to therapy. Acceptance is a tool. If all you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail, which is why CBT and MCBT have more tools than mindfulness which is taught in a tiny version of ACT.
- kranner 7y ago
  > Acceptance of the present should not mean letting it stay the same forever. It's more "what's done is done". I'm not sure how mindfulness could possibly be construed to intend letting things stay the same forever. Impermanence is one of the pillars of Buddhist thought and mindfulness directly addresses it.

bArray 7y ago

Just the first statement says alot about the writer: > It is sold as a force that can help us cope with the > ravages of capitalism, but with its inward focus, mindful > meditation may be the enemy of activism. Every interaction I've had with mindfulness so far hasn't been that it was "sold", it was just simply offered. It's not an organized religion or ideology, from what I've seen there doesn't appear to be a hidden agenda. I've personally found it quite interesting to reflect on the subject of mindfulness and my (current) conclusions I have regarding how to live my life - there's a lot of overlap. It's not something that exists to "help us cope with the ravages of capitalism". Political ideology aside, it's simply there to help you think and act more freely by understanding your thinking and acting. My friend who studies mindfulness says (para-quoting): "it's about understanding your actions and why you take them, it's about separating yourself from your immediate reality". I think most people could potentially benefit from such an idea. In general I believe people should take more time to "do nothing" and reflect. As for being "the enemy of activism", if clear thinking is the enemy of activism, I think this says more about the current state of activism than it does about mindfulness. In general, I believe we shouldn't be striving to produce a society who dedicate their lives to activism. It's perfectly okay to be an activist, but there has to be more - life is short after all.

bildung 7y ago
> Every interaction I've had with mindfulness so far hasn't been that it was "sold" In defense of the author, it isn't really hard to come to the conlusion that mindfulness is mostly an attempt to sell stuff: Open the search engine of your choice, type in "mindfulness" and look at the results. Look at any pop-psychology, lifestyle or fashion magazine, and be greeted with advertorials for "calm" or similar apps.

bencollier49 7y ago

This is an interesting reversion to form for the Guardian. Religion as the opiate of the masses is straight from Marx.

golergka 7y ago
As if it hasn't long time ago.
- bencollier49 7y ago
  Oh, of course. But this one is particular is a classic Marxist trope, it's interesting to see it popping its head up in a new context.
deleted 7y ago
[deleted]

wnkrshm 7y ago

Depression can be created by a hostile environment in individuals with no prior issues. With a background of ever-increasing pressures on the individual to perform, the author rightfully calls out self-help for being "damage control procedures" only: practices that can help individuals cope with an untenable situation for longer. The manner of the calling-out is hyperbole and full of opinions but in my opinion there is some truth at the core.

marcus_holmes 7y ago
I would agree, or at least acknowledge that there was some truth here, if the worker's revolutions that have happened actually made anyone happier or less stressed. The only thing I've seen in all my travels that made anyone any happier is strong family ties.
- icebraining 7y ago
  > the worker's revolutions that have happened Which ones are you thinking of?
  - marcus_holmes 7y ago
    Russia, Cambodia and Vietnam are the ones I've personally visited (and I live in Berlin, so plenty of stories of life under communism here). But I've also spoken to people from Cuba and Venezuela.

tmpfs 7y ago

It should be pointed out that mindfulness is one of many practices in various esoteric belief systems (typically with a view to complete self-realization) and when taken out of context and practiced alone it can have benefits (depending upon the individual) but is much more powerful when combined with all the practices of a belief system (Buddhism, Taoism, Bon etc).

aaron695 7y ago

Everyone sees the irony that this was written to sell a book?

colechristensen 7y ago

I don't know whether to be frightened of the cult-of-activism or just confused about this disorganized rant. I see fascism hidden in words like this. The whole motivation seems to be that you must feel rage about anyone and anything which disagrees with your social ideals and any other reaction is unacceptable.

lackoftactics 7y ago

his arguments doesn't make sense. Using this way of thinking psychoteraphy is bad, because you are not fighting the system that damaged you. Of course he is using Zizek as authority and he treats his word of gospel, I think he lacks critical thinking that he advocates

tareqak 7y ago

I enjoyed the article. I see mindfulness being a truly helpful tool, but I can also see it as being a bludgeon to numb people to the status quo. The closest thing that I can think of that is similar is physical exercise. Physical exercise is legitimately helpful for maintaining a healthy life for nearly all (if not all) human beings, but there is definitely an industry around getting people to buy things to get them into shape with various probabilities of success. Similar to the author’s assertion about physical exercise, there are credible factors that affect physical health outside of just physical exercise such as diet/nutrition and physical/mental stress. Dealing with these other issues that affect physical health is more difficult and particularly when food-producing industries have a vested interest in getting people to eat more, and employers have a vested interest in getting the most out of their employees. For what it is worth, The Guardian’s “the long read” section has the following in the subtitle, “The long read In-depth reporting, essays and profiles“ [0]. I think they could stand to add a bit more guidance / messaging to indicate that this piece is separate from their reporting without harming their brand or appearing to insinuate some position over another. [0] https://www.theguardian.com/news/series/the-long-read https://www.theguardian.com/news/series/the-long-read

colechristensen 7y ago
Mindfulness walks you away from living on autopilot and having your thoughts driven by emotion. If it "numbs" you, I'm not sure what you're doing but it isn't anywhere near awareness. People seem to really be addicted to this emotionally driven autopilot existence and seem over and over to insist that if you aren't being driven by emotion you're incapable of doing good. It seems to be the next wave of the attempt to reject the – what I would call – first order rationalism which builds its understanding of the world out of what easily fits into straightforward models and rejects or handwaves the existence of everything else. -- Anything remotely beneficial (any many things that aren't) will have a whole herd of self-help industrialists trying to sell it to you, they're better off ignored. Their presence really has no signal as to the legitimacy to what they're selling.
- tareqak 7y ago
  Thank you for replying 'colechristensen. The example that I would give is how someone might view homelessness in San Francisco, the first time, the next few times, and then subsequent n times. The first time a person can truly be utter shock. The next few times might remain uncomfortable, but less of a shock. In the subsequent n times, this person might stop seeing homelessness altogether except for the more gratuitous moments. I am refining my thoughts here, and the part I see at issue is not mindfulness as a whole, but its partial or selective application. The author’s point is that the parts of mindfulness industry and parts of the economy as a whole benefit from the spread and application of the self-regulation/desensitization of mindfulness and it is in their interest to stop any sort of follow through action that would disrupt the status quo. By stopping mindfulness at self-regulation and not following through with action, an outside observer would be hard pressed to find the difference between someone practicing this much mindfulness and someone who is just apathetic. I think this is where the calls to emotion that the author makes, and my use of the word “numb” comes in: it is question posed by someone else asking, “Do you not care?” In this way, I think the author is trying to argue that some of parts of this mindfulness industry is effectively selling mass-produced apathy and mass-produced self-regulation/compliance. To take this even farther, I think it would be possible to argue that this combination of desensitization and no-follow-through is basically learned helplessness [0]. To be completely honest with you, after writing all this out, I think the author could have made this point more clear. [0] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Learned_helplessness https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Learned_helplessness

shrimpx 7y ago

I directly know "mindfulness" people and some TM people. They all seem to doing roughly the same thing: avoiding thoughts, or pushing thoughts out of their focus/ignoring thoughts that arise. My bystander observation is they're all developing memory problems. Obviously mentally replaying and analyzing memories strenghtens retention and these people avoid doing it. It's idiotic.

mercer 7y ago
I feel there's a subtle difference between 'pushing thoughts out' or 'ignoring' them, and 'observing them (impassively)', which is what I've been taught when it comes to mindfulness/meditation/zen. When I meditate, my impression is not that I avoid or push away thoughts. Rather, it's as if I observe them from a distance, and inspect them, smell them, turn them over, etc. In many cases, true, these thoughts sort of dissolve of 'disappear'. But in other cases they merely change a bit in quality, or they remain with some context added. Generally speaking it's not so much about avoiding, replaying, or analyzing memories (and strengthening retention), as it is about developing and practicing discernment as to what thoughts are worth replaying, analyzing or avoiding.
partyboat1586 7y ago
I think those people are doing it wrong but tbh you can't blame them given then quality of instruction available. Another case of knowing a little is more dangerous than knowing nothing at all.