Suffering & Social Justice
(This is a reflection I wrote several years ago, at a time when I was trying to articulate why I was struggling so much with the unexamined attitudes within many Christian religious organizations toward the concept of "Social Justice." I felt the phrase was a kind of 'buzz-word' which had become a place-holder for a whole set of assumptions that really were in need of critical examination. I still feel that way.)
I almost always have a feeling of discontent (dukkha) when I encounter a way of looking at the world that urges me to define suffering as victimization. When people define suffering in this way they are inclined to become social activists, fighting “injustice,” “poverty,” and “violence,” and they are likely to believe that they can change “society” to make it a 'better' place. This way of thinking seems to me to miss the point. I call it “bootstrapping,” because it makes me think of the old saying that describes a certain kind of futility by the phrase, “trying to pull yourself up by your own bootstraps.” It can't be done. It seems to me that people often perceive ideological concepts like “injustice” as entities in their own right, with a kind of inimical but impersonal life of their own. This leads to the belief that ideas can do battle with ideas in the arena of social activism, and when righteousness is the victor, then “society” will change for the better. I see this as a form of delusion, and exactly the sort of error that creates suffering in the first place.
I also object to the idea that human misery results from conditions such as hunger, poverty, disease, or violence. These things simply exist as part of the natural creation. Hunger manifests in our bodies as a need for food. If we do not eat enough we become thin and eventually we starve. “Poverty” as a word has meaning only when compared to “Wealth.” If by 'poverty' we mean lacking the necessities of life, then we must talk about shelter, warmth, clothing, and food. When those needs are met, then we might begin to consider whether the lack of meaning and fulfillment in our lives might constitute another kind of poverty. Disease and injury produce physical pain, and sometimes death comes sooner because of them. Violence in the sense of forceful action produces no suffering, unless it results in injury or death to ourselves, or a creature that we love. If a human being intentionally directs violence to another human being because of anger or hatred, this causes even greater suffering.
I understand all this, but I cannot bring myself to make the correlation that being hungry makes a person a victim of hunger, or that being poor makes a person a victim of poverty, or that being sick makes a person a victim of disease, or that being assaulted makes a person a victim of violence. The Latin word 'victim' originally meant a person sacrificed to a god, with the possible implication that the person sacrificed had been vanquished or conquered in war. I find it interesting and quite revealing that the word “dupe” comes up in an internet search as the most common synonym for “victim,” with “culprit” as the antonym. Even if we allow that the meaning has changed over time, still the word “victim” implies that the victimized has a mutual relationship with a victimizer, or culprit.
If we make the culprit into a vague concept, instead of a person, we have a ready-made excuse for failing to shoulder our share of responsibility for the suffering in the world.
I believe that suffering does not arise from pain, discomfort, or unfulfilled needs. I believe that suffering comes from how we react to pain, discomfort, and unfulfilled needs. We then get lost in the search for some outside agent with the power to cancel our reactions, without realizing that no such agent can possibly exist.
On the other hand, I think that whenever any of us try to alleviate suffering we do a good thing.
I would just like to add my understanding to the mix. To think of victims without considering the existence of culprits means that we can only see ourselves as victims and never as culprits.
I hope that we will use caution, and examine our hearts carefully for the symptoms of distraction and denial which manifest themselves in the feeling of 'not doing enough,' or the sense of inadequacy that makes us say to ourselves, “We should do this better,” or “ We shouldn't feel this way.”
A little, dangerous voice inside us always tries to tell us that those Other People over there need our help more than this person right next to us, and the only way we are supposed to help is by donating money, or by making a sign and marching down the street, or by signing a petition, or by voting in every election. We believe they are the only ones who need our help— those far away people that we can't hear or see or smell, but only imagine, like actors in a movie that made us cry.
Nothing we can do will fix anything.
Without suffering, enlightenment would not exist.
Without enlightenment, suffering would not exist.
Abide all things.
Resist not evil.
Remember we are dust and to dust we will return.
Pay attention.
Carry on.
I almost always have a feeling of discontent (dukkha) when I encounter a way of looking at the world that urges me to define suffering as victimization. When people define suffering in this way they are inclined to become social activists, fighting “injustice,” “poverty,” and “violence,” and they are likely to believe that they can change “society” to make it a 'better' place. This way of thinking seems to me to miss the point. I call it “bootstrapping,” because it makes me think of the old saying that describes a certain kind of futility by the phrase, “trying to pull yourself up by your own bootstraps.” It can't be done. It seems to me that people often perceive ideological concepts like “injustice” as entities in their own right, with a kind of inimical but impersonal life of their own. This leads to the belief that ideas can do battle with ideas in the arena of social activism, and when righteousness is the victor, then “society” will change for the better. I see this as a form of delusion, and exactly the sort of error that creates suffering in the first place.
I also object to the idea that human misery results from conditions such as hunger, poverty, disease, or violence. These things simply exist as part of the natural creation. Hunger manifests in our bodies as a need for food. If we do not eat enough we become thin and eventually we starve. “Poverty” as a word has meaning only when compared to “Wealth.” If by 'poverty' we mean lacking the necessities of life, then we must talk about shelter, warmth, clothing, and food. When those needs are met, then we might begin to consider whether the lack of meaning and fulfillment in our lives might constitute another kind of poverty. Disease and injury produce physical pain, and sometimes death comes sooner because of them. Violence in the sense of forceful action produces no suffering, unless it results in injury or death to ourselves, or a creature that we love. If a human being intentionally directs violence to another human being because of anger or hatred, this causes even greater suffering.
I understand all this, but I cannot bring myself to make the correlation that being hungry makes a person a victim of hunger, or that being poor makes a person a victim of poverty, or that being sick makes a person a victim of disease, or that being assaulted makes a person a victim of violence. The Latin word 'victim' originally meant a person sacrificed to a god, with the possible implication that the person sacrificed had been vanquished or conquered in war. I find it interesting and quite revealing that the word “dupe” comes up in an internet search as the most common synonym for “victim,” with “culprit” as the antonym. Even if we allow that the meaning has changed over time, still the word “victim” implies that the victimized has a mutual relationship with a victimizer, or culprit.
If we make the culprit into a vague concept, instead of a person, we have a ready-made excuse for failing to shoulder our share of responsibility for the suffering in the world.
I believe that suffering does not arise from pain, discomfort, or unfulfilled needs. I believe that suffering comes from how we react to pain, discomfort, and unfulfilled needs. We then get lost in the search for some outside agent with the power to cancel our reactions, without realizing that no such agent can possibly exist.
On the other hand, I think that whenever any of us try to alleviate suffering we do a good thing.
I would just like to add my understanding to the mix. To think of victims without considering the existence of culprits means that we can only see ourselves as victims and never as culprits.
I hope that we will use caution, and examine our hearts carefully for the symptoms of distraction and denial which manifest themselves in the feeling of 'not doing enough,' or the sense of inadequacy that makes us say to ourselves, “We should do this better,” or “ We shouldn't feel this way.”
A little, dangerous voice inside us always tries to tell us that those Other People over there need our help more than this person right next to us, and the only way we are supposed to help is by donating money, or by making a sign and marching down the street, or by signing a petition, or by voting in every election. We believe they are the only ones who need our help— those far away people that we can't hear or see or smell, but only imagine, like actors in a movie that made us cry.
Nothing we can do will fix anything.
Without suffering, enlightenment would not exist.
Without enlightenment, suffering would not exist.
Abide all things.
Resist not evil.
Remember we are dust and to dust we will return.
Pay attention.
Carry on.
Comments
Post a Comment