How Counterfeit Cultural Diversity and Social Justice are the Antithesis of Buddhist Teachings

It may be nice to think or to say that through Buddhist teachings, one will or must come to the conclusion that social justice or forced cultural diversity is the end result of the Buddha’s teachings. Perhaps it even may feel good to think that one has challenged and confronted perceived social inequities, thereby releasing them of some kind of moral guilt that they have leveled upon themselves. But in reality, these kinds of endeavors not only stray away from Buddhist teachings, both philosophically and historically, but are the antithesis of a Buddhist path. Indeed, in most academic circles, where these kinds of theories are propagated, there is a tendency to define, to divide, to rate and to rank people and cultures based on mostly superficial characteristics, which lead to conclusions that are at best, completely subjective from the point of view of self.

I would argue, and I think even the Buddha would, that the point is to define less, not more. To live in a world where one begins to believe their social theories are absolute truth is to forget that there is no us and them. Worse yet, to push these ideas of division and stratifications and rankings of suffering or pain or perception of other people as some glorified tenet of Buddhism, moves a Buddhist path into the false realm of social and political relative truths. While these fights may be justified or righteous, in the end they have nothing to do with the dharma. Furthermore, in the West, where this leftist or liberal interpretation of Buddhism was born from the counter-culture movements of the 60’s, or most recently social theories of class equality, whether they be Marx or Hegel or Strauss or Engels, actually is nothing more than an appropriation of a privileged (mostly) white movement. In other words, the West continues to trap and confine itself in terms of a Buddhist path, based on nothing more than a superficial and horribly unhealthy marriage of radicalism, powered by white guilt elitism and basic Buddhist teachings. They are, in fact, in direct contrast to each other, splitting the one into the innumerable; and in reality this kind of political connection is as silly as a sporting team thanking God for their victory over their opponent.

What one finds out in the long run is that they run into so many contradictions, not only in a philosophical and moral sense, but also in a practical sense, such as notions of strict pacifism or this idea of engaged Buddhism, that they often find they must choose between the two. While these may be noble causes to take up, I sense, at least in the white or politically radical Buddhist community, that there resides an overwhelming feeling this marriage of social justice and Buddhism is the only true and correct path. What we end up with is a Western Buddhism that is confined to insular and isolated Asian enclaves, wealthy privileged mountain retreat center whites and a small community of political radicals, most of whom are white. It leaves little room for the regular middle to lower class person, regardless of race or region, or even political beliefs. Ironically, while much of these political and socially engaged Buddhists rant about social justice and marginalization from what they see as the mainstream Buddhist media, they are indeed, in their own rhetoric, marginalizing and disregarding the middle of the road, lower to middle class moderate, or even some conservative folks who may be interested in Buddhism.

Not to say the two can’t co-exist, as of course they can. Just as I think one could take up a pursuit of social justice and be Buddhist, one can also be a hockey player, or a fisherman or a bouncer at a bar and still be Buddhist. The West needs to stop defining what being a Buddhist is, and start to ask rather, how we can get others interested in exploring Buddhism in all its forms, and not just those defined by the wealthy retreat center whites, insular Asian communities or political radicals. As much as carrying around unnecessary cultural baggage can be a hindrance, so can unwittingly redefining the parameters of who can and cannot be a Buddhist based on a relativistic ideas of political leanings, social mores, wealth or even cultural identification. I’d like to ask these insular and isolated Asian enclaves, wealthy privileged mountain retreat center whites and the community of political radicals, where is room at the inn for the rest of us?