The Politics of Not-Self

Photo by Artem Beliaikin on Unsplash

The Insights of Buddhism

Buddhism has come to inform my thinking about a lot of things. The uniqueness of Buddhism among philosophies is that it is confirmed by modern science. Although Buddhists have come to their beliefs through direct meditative experience, evolutionary psychology has reached the same conclusions through the analysis of scientific data. In his book Why Buddhism is True: The Science and Philosophy of Meditation and Enlightenment, the evolutionary psychologist Robert Wright explains the ways in which modern science validates the claims of Buddhism.

Buddhism teaches that life entails dukkha. This is usually translated as “suffering” but such a translation is inadequate to convey the meaning of this doctrine. Dukkha refers to the suffering that results from the insatiability of human desires or the fleeting nature of human satisfaction. When you are horney, you can satisfy your urge through sex or masturbation. However, the satisfaction is fleeting. Lust is insatiable. You will just want more sex later. When you are hungry, you can satisfy your urge by eating. However, the satisfaction is fleeting. Hunger is insatiable. You will just want more food later. Evolution did not design the human being to be happy and satisfied. Natural selection designed us to survive and reproduce. The mechanism through which natural selection gave us the drive to survive and reproduce is taṇhā (craving, thirst, hunger, lust, desire, et al.). Taṇhā is a product of evolution and is not, in itself, good or bad. Often, our cravings have a good purpose. Hunger makes me want to eat, which keeps me alive. Thirst makes me want to drink, which keeps me alive. Lust makes me want to fuck, which can help create a lasting bond with my wife. However, natural selection is neither a benevolent God nor a malevolent one. It is just a creative force driving on a natural process.

Natural selection is the true Creator God. The evolutionary process is the demiurge, the craftsman, that fashioned us. The early Gnostic Christians held that the Creator God, the demiurge, was neither good nor evil. Indeed, the demiurge is just a “blind god” (Samael), akin to the “blind watchmaker” of which Richard Dawkins spoke. The “blind watchmaker,” in Dawkins’ writings, refers to the blind evolutionary processes that produced organisms with an apparent design. The demiurge (natural selection) fashioned us for survival and procreation, not necessarily for our own well-being. All creatures are tragic examples of a lack of benevolence in the demiurge. It is not that the demiurgic evolutionary process is evil — it is neutral. All things brought to life must die. It seems that all things that are conscious of their own existence suffer. By being born it is guaranteed that we will suffer and die. The Luna moth emerges from its cocoon without a mouth, so it can no longer eat. It is suddenly beautiful but also damned to immanent death. Yet the demiurgic evolutionary process has also provided us with the capacity for joy, happiness, love, and pleasure. It has blessed us with all of those things that we call good and cursed us with all those things that we call bad.

When the taṇhā (craving/desire) that the demiurge has given us is in our best interest, we can embrace it as a good. We can go along with the demiurge’s “will,” when it happens to suit our own best interests. However, often the taṇhā is not in our own best interest. I want to make my wife happy, but I also want to fuck all the beautiful women in the world. The indulgence of my lust (taṇhā) is not in my highest interest. The actions that our desires lead us to engage in are not always conducive to our own happiness. Even when they do bring us pleasure, it is fleeting. This is because the demiurgic evolutionary process of natural selection did not design us for happiness. It designed us to survive long enough to reproduce and gave us the will to reproduce. My own highest interest here is to rebel against the demiurge, to fight against the passions that are within me — to resist the urge to do what my lust encourages me to do. This goes beyond sexual lust to all sorts of other cravings and desires. I may crave food, drink, exercise, or any number of things. This craving, in itself, is not bad. However, the craving can easily go beyond the point of optimum utility. When I have eaten quite enough, I may still want to eat more. When I have exercised quite enough, I may want to push harder at the risk of damaging my body. Moderation is the key. And this is one of the core insights of Buddha’s middle way, his path between the extremes of self-indulgence and self-mortification. There is a path between excessive hedonism and excessive asceticism.

Photo by Milan Popovic on Unsplash

Clinging to our desires causes us an immense amount of suffering. Clinging often leads to indulgence. If I eat too much, I become unhealthy and suffer as a result. If I cannot control my lust, my wife will leave me and I may get an STD. If I cannot control my temper, I may lose my friends. We can eliminate dukkha, the suffering caused by clinging to our cravings, by ceasing to cling to our desires. We must realize when our cravings are encouraging us to do things that are not conducive to our own happiness and we must resist the temptations of the demiurge at that point. By ceasing to cling to our cravings, we can release ourself from the bondage of taṇhā and the dukkha it creates. This doesn’t just mean resisting temptation. We need to let go of the desires themselves. When tempting thoughts arise, don’t entertain them. They will pass. Cease to cling to your desires. The means of doing this is the Eightfold Path: (1) right view, (2) just intention, (3) just speech, (4) just conduct, (5) just livelihood, (6) right effort, (7) right mindfulness, and (8) right concentration.

Through mindfulness, one comes to realize the doctrine of anātman (not-self, no-essence). Mindfulness is a meditative technique whereby one silences their own mind by observing thoughts arising without engaging with them. Eventually, you realize that your thoughts are not part of you. You also realize that your emotions and feelings are not part of you. The “self,” the observer, is distinct from the body, from the emotions, from the thoughts, from the desires, and from everything else. And, ultimately, you come to realize through observation that the “self” is illusory. There is no there there! The self lacks an essence. The self exists in some sense, since the phenomenon of consciousness is real, but it also does not exist. It is impossible to pin down the essence of the self. The Theravada tradition usually confines this doctrine of not-self to the realm of the soul, mind, or psyche. The self is an illusion. However, the term anātman can also be translated as “no essence,” which means that the doctrine of not-self can be interpreted more broadly to mean that essences do not exist. The Mahayana tradition has emphasized this point. Not only does the ego lack essence, but so do all other things. A table is just a cluster of particles, which are just clusters of subatomic particles, which reduce to energy — the essence of the table is illusory. Of course, tables have an essence, but the real essence is a human convention. We have created a category in our minds and decided that this is what a table is. Trees, dogs, cats, and everything else also lack essence. Each individual is unique, distinct, but we create categories to classify things into groups. The essence, in reality, is just a construct created for categorization, classification, and definition. Dogs have no essence. Each dog is just a point on a spectrum, with the overall picture being one of constant change and evolution. The “essence” of dogness is just the space between two arbitrary lines we have drawn on the spectrum of mammalian evolution. In turn, the “essence” of mammals is just the space between two arbitrary lines we have drawn on the animal family tree. The essence of “blue” is just the space between two arbitrary lines we drew on the light spectrum. We could just as well have drawn those lines elsewhere, as other societies actually have — the Japanese drew their arbitrary lines in different spots on the light spectrum so that their word for “blue” contains shades of what we call blue and of what we call green.

Photo by Wilson Ye on Unsplash

The Epistemological Significance of Not-Self in the Realm of Politics

I think this doctrine of not-self or lack of essence has an interesting implication for politics. Just as one culture can choose to draw the lines defining “blue” in different places on the light spectrum, so too can different people choose to draw the lines defining terms in political economy in different places. The lines we draw are somewhat arbitrary. Of course, we must draw lines, because that is what gives things definition and allows us to talk about them. Without drawing arbitrary lines, we wouldn’t be able to carry on a coherent conversation. However, it is important to realize that the lines we draw are kind of arbitrary. This means that where I draw the arbitrary lines is likely going to differ from where the lines are drawn by the person I am speaking too. We see this with a whole host of terms and concepts used in the realm of politics and political economy. Terms like socialism, libertarianism, capitalism, anarchism, distributism, liberalism, republicanism, neoliberalism, and conservatism all lack essence. The terms are vague and shifting, changing over time, and mean different things to different folks. Ideas and terms evolve and change but the old versions and usages don’t necessarily go extinct. Any term we use actually means multiple things since these concepts and terms lack essence. To one person, capitalism means a market economy. To another person, capitalism means a system of wage-slavery. To one person, socialism means worker-owned cooperatives. To another, it means State-run industry. When you realize the anātmanic or essenceless nature of these concepts and terms, they start to blur together and their emptiness creates space for unity.

Photo by Helena Lopes on Unsplash

The corollary of anātman (not-self) is śūnyatā (emptiness/openness). If things lack essence, they are less restrictive. If the terms socialism and capitalism lack essence, their emptiness becomes an openness that allows them to comingle and merge. Thus, we can see that the apparent opposites are not quite so opposed as we thought. Capitalism can make room for socialism and socialism can make room for capitalism.

The Ethical Significance of Not-Self in the Realm of Politics

The doctrine of śūnyatā means that we must move beyond identity politics. Identity politics is exclusive. “Identity politics is the tendency [of people who] share a particular racial, religious, ethnic, sexual, social, or cultural identity to form exclusive political alliances, instead of engaging in traditional broad-based party politics, or to promote their particular interests without regard for interests of a larger political group.”(Wikipedia) The concept of intersectionality broadens the scope of identity politics but still excludes the “other.” Identity politics promotes the needs and interests of one group over another. For instance, feminist identity politics exclusively promotes the interests of women, while queer identity politics promotes the interests of queers. Thus, identity politics, in its most extreme form, tends to become single-issue politics, focussing exclusively on the demands of one community to the exclusion of the consideration of others. The phrase “all politics is identity politics” is somewhat accurate, as all politics is informed by the individual and the group with which he or she identifies. It is natural for each individual to put their own interests above the interests of others. The intersectional approach, however, broadens the scope of identity politics by recognizing that there can be overlapping interests. Thus, intersectional feminists may stand for LGBTQ liberation because they see the liberation of women and the liberation of queers as being entangled. Nevertheless, this intersectional approach remains exclusivist and remains, at root, a form of identity politics. The politics of not-self, however, transcends identity politics altogether. The interests of various oppressed groups are important, but they are only important insofar as they are bound-up with the interests of all people. The politics of not-self cannot be queer identity politics, feminist identity politics, black identity politics, or white identity politics. All such things are anathema! The politics of not-self entails universal intersectionality, unity politics, and diversity politics — it is sentient identity politics! It is identity politics that transcends identity politics, but also the negation of identity politics. The opposite of identity politics is humanity politics! The politics of not-self is śūnyatā politics — the politics of openness. This politics of openness meshes well with Karl Popper’s notion of the “Open Society.” It is liberal and democratic in nature.

We must realize that groups also lack essence. Race and gender are social constructs. The partisans of identity politics have affirmed this too, but they have not realized its full significance. When you realize the anātmanic or essenceless nature of both sides in these identity conflicts, the emptiness opens space for unity. The two groups in conflict actually lack individual identity and so their fundamental nature is śūnyatā (emptiness/openness). The people on both sides are fundamentally the same in essence. That is to say, their essence is emptiness. What is emptiness but openness with the potentiality to be redefined? Suddenly, we no longer see in terms of us vs. them, me vs. you, mine vs. yours — now we can see in terms of us! The whole game of life and politics shifts from appearing as a zero-sum game to being revealed to be non-zero-sum. “When everyone is better off, everyone is better off.” My success does not necessarily imply your failure. You winning does not mean that I have to lose.

Transcending identity politics, the impetus is no longer to ask what I must do to preserve my own privilege or improve my own lot, but rather to ask what can we do to make us (all humankind) better off. The dialogue and the dialectic remains. The conversations about the needs of queers, of women, of black people, of immigrants, and of white people must still be had, but now we see the “other” as part of us! The solutions we propose must not be one-sided or zero-sum. No, śūnyatā politics means that we recognize the essential unity of all. We no longer seek our own self-interest because we recognize the fundamental unity of human experience. We are all united by our common nature (emptiness/openness) and our common experience of suffering and pleasure. Thus, the politics of not-self beckons us to seek to lessen the suffering of others because the very notion of “otherness” is illusory. What unites us is greater than what separates us.

“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.” — Eugene V. Debs

Photo by Brian Kraus on Unsplash

The Need for the Politics of Not-Self Today

Identity politics stirs conflict. Even when the concerns and objectives of those engaged in identity politics are legitimate and totally understandable, the nature of identity politics is such that it naturally leads to an opposing reaction. This is where the Buddhist notion of karma comes in. Karma literally means action and the reaction it elicits. One’s actions become the conditions for reaction. Karma is just action-and-reaction, causality, or the notion that every action is conditioned by preceding actions. The karma of identity politics is retaliation. An oppressed group labeling their opposition as “the oppressor” will be perceived as an attack (even if the accusation is correct), which will naturally lead to retaliation and even more oppression. Female identity politics gives rise to male identity politics. The MRAs (Men’s Rights Activists) are a reaction against the perceived excesses of feminism. Black identity politics gives rise to white identity politics. The Alt-Right is a reaction to the perceived excesses of the left. This is not to say that feminists and racial justice advocates are wrong. They may very well be right. However, there is more to politics and ethics than merely being right! Hate and anger give rise to more hate and anger, even when the hate and anger are justifiable and understandable.

“Let us move now from the practical how to the theoretical why: Why should we love our enemies? The first reason is fairly obvious. Returning hate for hate multiplies hate, adding deeper darkness to a night already devoid of stars. Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that. Hate multiplies hate, violence multiplies violence, and toughness multiplies toughness in a descending spiral of destruction. So when Jesus says ‘love your enemies,’ he is setting forth a profound and ultimately inescapable admonition. Have we not come to such an impasse in the modern world that we must love our enemies — or else? The chain reaction of evil — hate begetting hate, wars producing more wars — must be broken, or we shall be plunged into the dark abyss of annihilation.” — Martin Luther King, Jr. (Where Do We Go From Here?)

The karmic cycle can only be brought to an end by an enlightened approach to politics. It is mindfulness that is needed. Our instinct is to see one side as the “enemy” or the “other.” When someone says or does something that we think is wrong, we instinctively attack them. We label them as evil. When someone punches us, we instinctively punch them back. This approach just adds fuel to the fire of karmic reaction — it feeds the negative karma of hate and anger. The only way forward is to be mindful and compassionate — to counter hate/fear with compassion and understanding. Love is the only force that can bring the cycle of hate to a stop. If we respond in kind to the violence and nasty rhetoric of our opponents — even if we crush them today — they will regroup and come back to crush us tomorrow. We must resist through non-resistance. Non-resistance is non-violent resistance. We must hold true to the logic of non-resistance in speech as well as in action. This does not mean that we do not counter bad arguments or respond to hateful speech, but it does mean that we do not respond in kind. We must respond mindfully and compassionately. We must lead by example and hope that others will be converted to our side when they see our right conduct. This is the path we must walk. This is the politics of not-self.