Recently, I have seen quite a few questions on whether westerners practicing Zen, or Buddhism in general, is an example of cultural appropriation.
Without exception, there are always replies which are dismissive of cultural appropriation as even being a thing, based on the notions that cultures have always mixed and taken ideas from each other.
So, what to think?
The crux, for me, rests on the second Buddhist training precept:
Adinnadana veramani sikkhapadam samadiyami
I undertake the precept to refrain from taking that which is not given
Given that cultural appropriation is defined as the act of taking or using things from a culture that is not your own, especially without showing that you understand or respect this culture (Cambridge English Dictionary) there is an obvious connection here.
Some things are common within most human cultures, but others are cultural signifiers which are held as important in terms of a society self-defining itself. Each culture should have ownership of those things and taking them and using them without either respect for their meaning, or permission from the culture of origin, would seem to be an act of theft and potential cause of offence and harm.
Developed western nations have had a bit of a history of exploiting other cultures and are often rather more interested in defending their liberties than upholding their responsibilities. Is it right for a western designer to use traditional fabric designs from another culture in order to earn millions of dollars in clothing sales with no benefit to the culture that has produced it? (especially when at the same time, that designers own work will be protected by sophisticated copyright law) Is it okay for western festival goers to stick bindis (the Hindu/Jain red dot painted between the eyes signifying both the opening of the third eye and the origin of the entire universe) on their face without any connection with either religion and regardless of how people of those faiths see it? Is our ‘fun’ and profit more important than consideration of others?
How would we feel if rakusus were turned into a fashion item? How about rakusus with guns on them or dollar signs? What about other countries using our war medals as fashion accessories? Respect is a two-way street but often one of the roads has considerably more power to stop traffic.
For me, why would I want to cause harm or take things from another culture against their wishes? This in no way prevents people from sharing ideas and learning from traditional craftspeople and others inside a culture, and growing knowledge with respect and consideration. It merely warns against the exploitation of one culture by another.
So, what about Zen and Buddhism? Are we engaging in cultural appropriation by practicing these religions from other countries (assuming you are not from a majority Buddhist country yourself)?
My answer is no (although with provisos!)
Why is that? For me, it is because both Buddhism and Zen have been passed on willingly, by teachers from inside the culture who then authorised outsiders as teachers to pass on those teachings. Gudo Nishijima was a Japanese man and Zen teacher who willingly taught westerners such as Jundo and Brad Warner, asking them in turn to teach others whether Japanese or western.
However, even with that permission, it is still necessary to practice Zen and dharma with respect and learn it properly rather than propagating some second-hand imitation of what we have received. We also need to learn how to respect the symbols and ideas of the tradition (travellers to Thailand quickly learn what the locals think about Buddha tattoos!). Buddhism has changed with each culture it has met on its travels, yet there are still elements of it that hold true to its original transmission.
In a nutshell my view is that cultural appropriation is a matter of respecting where things have come from, and the people they are important to, rather than seeing ourselves as free to take and do what we like without responsibilities or consequences.
In the end, a culture and its people own their cultural signifiers and ideas and it is up to them whether we get to use them or not. Anything else is clearly taking the not given and, as Buddhists, we need to be mindful of that. What is a cultural signifier may be a matter of argument but if your use of something is causing offence to a culture, it is probably a good sign you are want to consider what you are doing and maybe speak to someone from that culture to see if you are on the right path.
In Zen we say we are not one and not two but although we may all be connected on this planet and beyond, rising out of numerous interactions and causes, some of us are born into circumstances in which we have a great more cultural and economic power than others. It is our responsibility to use that wisely.
Gassho
Kokuu
-sattoday/lah-
Without exception, there are always replies which are dismissive of cultural appropriation as even being a thing, based on the notions that cultures have always mixed and taken ideas from each other.
So, what to think?
The crux, for me, rests on the second Buddhist training precept:
Adinnadana veramani sikkhapadam samadiyami
I undertake the precept to refrain from taking that which is not given
Given that cultural appropriation is defined as the act of taking or using things from a culture that is not your own, especially without showing that you understand or respect this culture (Cambridge English Dictionary) there is an obvious connection here.
Some things are common within most human cultures, but others are cultural signifiers which are held as important in terms of a society self-defining itself. Each culture should have ownership of those things and taking them and using them without either respect for their meaning, or permission from the culture of origin, would seem to be an act of theft and potential cause of offence and harm.
Developed western nations have had a bit of a history of exploiting other cultures and are often rather more interested in defending their liberties than upholding their responsibilities. Is it right for a western designer to use traditional fabric designs from another culture in order to earn millions of dollars in clothing sales with no benefit to the culture that has produced it? (especially when at the same time, that designers own work will be protected by sophisticated copyright law) Is it okay for western festival goers to stick bindis (the Hindu/Jain red dot painted between the eyes signifying both the opening of the third eye and the origin of the entire universe) on their face without any connection with either religion and regardless of how people of those faiths see it? Is our ‘fun’ and profit more important than consideration of others?
How would we feel if rakusus were turned into a fashion item? How about rakusus with guns on them or dollar signs? What about other countries using our war medals as fashion accessories? Respect is a two-way street but often one of the roads has considerably more power to stop traffic.
For me, why would I want to cause harm or take things from another culture against their wishes? This in no way prevents people from sharing ideas and learning from traditional craftspeople and others inside a culture, and growing knowledge with respect and consideration. It merely warns against the exploitation of one culture by another.
So, what about Zen and Buddhism? Are we engaging in cultural appropriation by practicing these religions from other countries (assuming you are not from a majority Buddhist country yourself)?
My answer is no (although with provisos!)
Why is that? For me, it is because both Buddhism and Zen have been passed on willingly, by teachers from inside the culture who then authorised outsiders as teachers to pass on those teachings. Gudo Nishijima was a Japanese man and Zen teacher who willingly taught westerners such as Jundo and Brad Warner, asking them in turn to teach others whether Japanese or western.
However, even with that permission, it is still necessary to practice Zen and dharma with respect and learn it properly rather than propagating some second-hand imitation of what we have received. We also need to learn how to respect the symbols and ideas of the tradition (travellers to Thailand quickly learn what the locals think about Buddha tattoos!). Buddhism has changed with each culture it has met on its travels, yet there are still elements of it that hold true to its original transmission.
In a nutshell my view is that cultural appropriation is a matter of respecting where things have come from, and the people they are important to, rather than seeing ourselves as free to take and do what we like without responsibilities or consequences.
In the end, a culture and its people own their cultural signifiers and ideas and it is up to them whether we get to use them or not. Anything else is clearly taking the not given and, as Buddhists, we need to be mindful of that. What is a cultural signifier may be a matter of argument but if your use of something is causing offence to a culture, it is probably a good sign you are want to consider what you are doing and maybe speak to someone from that culture to see if you are on the right path.
In Zen we say we are not one and not two but although we may all be connected on this planet and beyond, rising out of numerous interactions and causes, some of us are born into circumstances in which we have a great more cultural and economic power than others. It is our responsibility to use that wisely.
Gassho
Kokuu
-sattoday/lah-
Comment