Can 'Contemplative Practices' Lessen Hatred in Social and Political Activism in the U.S.?
By Ramdas Lamb, from Tarka Volume 6: On Spiritual Citizenship
Social and political activism to change some aspect of the status quo has a long history in our world. The form it takes in most societies has been relatively predictable because people within them learn to live by and function within social norms and customs meant to facilitate harmonious interactions, and this often applies to methods for disagreement as well. From time to time, however, situations occur that lead to a significant level of disagreement between people. When a large enough number of individuals align with dissenters, social and political movements are born.
In contemporary America, issues regarding race, gender, climate change, and politics are among those that generate the most attention, intensity, and division. Individuals group together with the goals of “correcting” the problems they perceive. Some find peaceful ways of attempting solutions, but increasingly prevalent and visible are those with feelings of such intense animosity of the “other,” i.e. the people or entities holding opposing points of view, that hatred and violence can become likely tools. This paper looks at some of the people and situations that lead to activism, what forms and methods are taken, and how and if mind focusing practices can help alleviate some of the more volatile situations that arise and inspire instead a sense of dialogue and harmony in place of hatred and violence.
Activist groups traditionally organize around the ideas of a few who speak out about issues they want to change. One can view individuals and groups as being on a spectrum that spans from peace-oriented idealists at one end to fundamentalist ideologues (both religious and secular) at the other, with most finding a place somewhere in between. Idealists or idealistic movements have typically been grounded in non-violence, compassion, and recognition that self-awareness must be a part of all their actions. Common to many who have inspired and led past movements have been a belief in the ultimate goodness of humanity and commitment to a spiritual and/or moral foundation to guide them and their followers. Personal insight and spiritual wisdom have often been a part of their goals. Consequently, many of these have led to positive outcomes, if not in accomplishing goals set forth, but at least in the effects they have had on people involved and those touched by the leaders. Notable examples of past idealistic leaders include Mahatma Gandhi, Martin Luther King, Jr., and Nelson Mandela. A few current examples are the Dalai Lama, the environmentalist Vandana Shiva, and the Hawaiian elders (kūpuna) who in 2019 inspired thousands to spend months camped on Mauna Kea, a sacred mountain, in an attempt to protect it from being desecrated with yet another telescope. All these leaders have taught that positive change happens when idealistic beliefs and actions go hand in hand with ethical commitments for the purpose of improving the lives of all people, not just those who agree with them. They have sought rational approaches to address their grievances as opposed to hatred and emotional outrage. However, such individuals have been rare and many have been relatively unknown because they have not sought personal fame or acclaim as they strive to help make the world a better place for all its residents.
More common, conspicuous, and vocal today are leaders at the other end of the spectrum who demand change at all costs, irrespective of negative consequences on others. They are more monolithic, exclusivist, fundamentalist, and Machiavellian in their actions and goals. They promote a view of reality in which only their own beliefs have validity, while all opposing views and their adherents (collectively, the “other”) are condemned. Because they rarely allow moral or ethical restrictions to limit their chosen methods of action, they tend to attract those who are susceptible to fanaticism, hatred, and violence. In his True Believers (1951), Eric Hoffer discusses common elements of the latter type of movements and the role that a predefined evil “other” plays in their formation and functioning: “Mass movements can rise and spread without belief in a God, but never without belief in a devil. Usually the strength of a mass movement is proportionate to the vividness and tangibility of its devil” (Hoffer, 89-90). In this way, the stated goals of a group ultimately matter less than the actual values, motives, and methods that activists align with. A commitment to winning at all costs, irrespective of the consequences, will lead to a far more violent and destructive outcome than a commitment to seeking justice and a positive resolution for all those involved.
