Best Of

@Kerome said:
Recently I have been interacting with a Dutch Buddhist who is also a follower of anarchism (which is also referred to as libertarianism in some parts of the world), and I have found it interesting to consider what the meeting of the two might mean. Personally I’ve never been that interested in political philosophy, and the whole idea of class struggle is something that I have rarely contemplated.

I’ve always thought that if you decline to be fitted into other people’s compartments for easy identification, you can consider yourself more of an individual, more free in a way. Which is why I don’t apply isms to myself, because they always seem to come with certain expectations. One of the main things I have learnt from Buddhism is that a lot of the movement towards freedom comes from dissolving ones own previously held convictions, the restrictions we have placed on ourselves.

Of course this is also about identity, a lot of people define themselves by being a member of certain groups. This then brings in attachment to the groups ideals and goals, which then starts to stir the emotions. It seems a set of behaviours which is not really conducive to the path...

How do you feel about identity and being part of movements? How does it work with your Buddhism?

There are many ways to approach this, and while I wasn't going to comment, I suppose I could add a few things since I suppose this is the kind of area people most expect me to weigh in on. One is, you're not necessarily more "free" simply by refusing to identify as one thing or another, or by refusing to be engaged in certain things, such as politics. For one, you can still be controlled by material and ideological forces whether or not you adopt a certain identity or refuse to consciously engage in politics. Often times, these things are ubiquitous and omnipresent and conditions us without us even realizing it. And where Buddhism can be useful is in helping us to discover that conditioning. As for identities themselves, the expectations or lack thereof are entirely up to us.

For example, me being a socialist and Marxist is due to the fact that I think everyone deserves to own their labour and have a more equitable share of the wealth their labour creates and that Marxism offers a useful method of analysis to understand the logic of capitalism and the shape of our society in an effort to transform it. Conversely, me being a Buddhist is due to the fact that I see a great deal of wisdom and utility in the Buddha's words and practices when it comes to understanding our minds and how to transform them. I find these approaches complimentary. And it can be useful to use labels such as socialist, Marxist, or Buddhist to give people an idea of what my ideas are and what I'm all about. Of course, there's a danger of attaching to those ideas and identities and become slaves to them, but Buddhism has helped me to avoid the worst of that so I can use the world's designations, expressions, ways of speaking without grasping them.

In essence, an identity for me is something that's useful. The goal of Buddhism (at least to me) isn't to become devoid of personality and the total death of any sort of convention self, but the ability to use those things skillfully so that they eventually cease to contribute to our experience of suffering. Self-identification is useful to a point. As Thanissaro Bhikkhu puts it, "In the areas where you need a healthy sense of self to act skillfully, it's wise to maintain that sense of self." And when it's no longer useful, you let it go. We can't really function as a human being without some level of selfing involved. We need some level of understanding, empathy, and motivation. And to communicate and act effectively in the world, we need the ability to foster a healthy sense of self. We are a social species, after all, and much of our success stems from our degree of socialization and cooperation.

Of course, it is up to each of us to figure out what works best. To figure out what we believe in and desire to work towards. And our unique biology and experiences will help to inform that. Mine have lead me to see that we need to work on both our mental and material well-being in order to lessen the suffering we experience as a species and as individuals since the material basis of society acts as the foundation for our psychological potentials and experiences, helping to shape them. Yes, there is freedom in letting go of what isn't ours. And some of us may be at a spiritual level where we are completely free from those conditionings and attachments and the control they exert over us. But most of us are not, and not everyone is up to training their minds to accept and weather any material condition no matter how painful, so it benefits society to try and make those material conditions as conducive to happiness as possible.

Think of Maslow's hierarchy. If people's basic physiological needs aren't met, how can they hope to work on their safety and security? And without both of those needs being met, how can they develop things like love and sense of belonging? And if they are unable to develop those kinds of intimate connections, how can they ever be expected to develop self-esteem and self-actualization? It would be exceedingly difficult. And I think suttas such as DN 5 make the case that, in general, people can't be expected to be happy, law-abiding people when their material needs aren't meant. In the story that the Buddha tells, the king wants to eradicate the thieves and barbarians causing crime and violence within his kingdom by imprisonment, banishment, or death, but his wise advisor says:

Rather, here is a plan, relying on which the barbarian obstacle will be properly uprooted. So let the king provide seed and fodder for those in the realm who work in farming and raising cattle. Let the king provide funding for those who work in trade. Let the king guarantee food and wages for those in government service. Then the people, occupied with their own work, will not harass the realm. The king’s revenues will be great. When the country is secured as a sanctuary, free of being harried and oppressed, the happy people, with joy in their hearts, dancing with children at their breast, will dwell as if their houses were wide open.’

So here is another area where my identity as a Buddhist, socialist, and Marxist coincides and interacts, reinforcing one another and hopefully helping me to avoid some of the issues that can come with grasping those identities too hard. And for the past 10 years or so, I've found no issues with such an approach. Others have found their own happiness and contentment with doing the opposite and eschewing any sort of political or "worldly" action, retreating into their own internal and external solitude. So I can't say which is best, only that the former has worked for me because I've found myself unable to do nothing in the face of the suffering of others. If my freedom depends upon the privation and suffering of others, it's not a freedom I deem worth having.

That may put me into a bondage of sorts to those identities and ideas, but at least it's a form of bondage born out of compassion. And this discussion has reminded of why I was drawn to both the bodhisattva ideal and the life and works of Eugene Debs. The former vows, "Suffering beings are numberless, I vow to liberate them all. Attachment is inexhaustible, I vow to release it all. The gates to truth are numberless, I vow to master them all. The way of awakening is supreme, I vow to realize." And the latter stated, "Years ago I recognized my kinship with all living beings, and I made up my mind that I was not one bit better than the meanest on earth. I said then, and I say now, that while there is a lower class, I am in it, and while there is a criminal element I am of it, and while there is a soul in prison, I am not free." Our freedoms are all interconnected.