The New Age Racket and the Left

[sean]

Excerpt from:

 

Where's Mao When You Really Need Him?

The New Age Racket and the Left

By Justin E.H. Smith

 

But enough about me. Let's get to the issues. I would like to discuss that movement often covered by the umbrella term 'New Age', and to argue, specifically, that New Agers should be ashamed of themselves, for abandoning all concern with those goals that have traditionally served as the driving force of progressive politics, like social justice, equality, the end of oppression, etc., and allowing -nay, aiding- the cynical and opportunistic power-mongers to make the world as disappointing a place as it currently is.

 

Before this polemic begins in earnest, perhaps it will be best to sketch out a definition of the concept that concerns us. By 'New Age' I mean to refer to any world-view that:

 

1. is decidedly postmodern, in that it picks and chooses from vastly older traditions those features it finds useful;

 

2. is sloppily multiculturalist, in that it levels out and denies legitimate distinctions between the traditions from which it borrows;

 

3. is individualistic, in that it takes spirituality to be a 'quest', and sees the ultimate end of this quest as self-fulfillment (however much it may borrow from traditions that emphasize self-overcoming or dissolution of the ego, even at times insisting that it shares this goal);

 

4. is nostalgic, in that it maintains that with the rise of modernity, humanity experienced the loss of a distinctly 'spiritual' disposition, in contrast with the rational disposition;

 

5. in large part as a consequence of its suspicion of rationality, is also uncritical as a matter of principle;

 

6. portrays itself as apolitical, or, better, as tapping into a reality so profound that any explanation of it in terms of the social, economic, and historical plights of its adherents can be safely dismissed as irrelevant.

 

I propose, in contrast to the last of these, that the New Age movement can only be understood politically. In an atmosphere, moreover, in which one rarely come across a self-identified anarchist, socialist, environmentalist, or progressive who will not also willingly identify his or her star sign and proceed to expatiate on the finer details this totemic affiliation reveals about his or her personality, I must add that it is exceedingly urgent that we come to a political understanding of how it has come to this, and then proceed to purge this disgraceful tendency utterly from our ranks, either through re-education or, for the intractable, banishment.

 

That's right. It's time for all of us who consider ourselves even mildly progressive to get at least a little bit Maoist on the occultists' asses, confident in the singular correctness of the scientific world-view, and intolerant of 'difference' when all this manages to give us is muddle-headed obscurantism.

 

Full article here: http://www.counterpunch.com/smith08282004.html

 

 

Not saying I agree with this article. Just food for thought.

 

Sean.

[monucka]

I do! While enlightenment may be necessary to effectively help others (a la mahayana literature), most guru/marketers sling hype aimed at making their product a... well... product. Better orgasms, more amazing insights, cracking all the wood in your house late one night, immortality, whatever.... cool, but I'd prefer if it wasn't called spirituality. And your excerpt on single path processes (as opposed to spirituality a la carte)- that was awesome. <grin>. Thanks! = Jeff

[rex]

Another food for thought article on new ageism, Narcissism and Spiritual Materialism: The New Age Legacy

 

http://www.dharma-world.com/eng/showart.as...d=233&cat_id=14

 

People who for whatever reason find themselves unable to relate fully to the established religion and/or dominant culture of their society have to start looking somewhere don't they?

[spyrelx]

I think there is a lot of truth to those six points in the article quoted above. And I read the other article by Kobutso Malone and there's some good observations there, but I fundementally disagree with Malone's overall race-centered premise. See this quote:

 

"We may buy a book on indigenous shamanism, we may gather the feathers, the drum, the medicine bag, the herbs, the pipe, all the "required" paraphernalia... and pretend to be a shaman. We may go to someone who claims to be such a person to learn from them. But after we've done all that, after we've read everything that can be read on the subject, acquired all the props, dressed ourselves in the native clothes, painted our faces -- when we look in the mirror -- we are still a white person pretending to be someone other than who we are. We are a clumsy approximation of a shaman at best. If we study an oriental tradition we can never become an oriental person, we can not undo our past and somehow recreate a cultural heritage. In short, we are who we are and need to become used to the idea that we do not have the right to steal the heritage of another culture to satisfy our unbridled greed and arrogance."

 

That's a remarkable thing for a "zen buddhist priest" to say, made even more remarkable by the fact that Kobutso Malone a middle aged white guy. I don't know what's going on there but I think he's gotten a bit carried away with his critique.

 

The shopping cart aspect of modern american spirituality troubles me, as does the ego-based desire to "acquire" egolessness like one would acquire a new shade of lipstick.

 

But, I also believe in self transformation. I believe in reinvention. Perhaps that is my cultural heritage as an American, the belief in the endless possiblility for reinvention. I think I CAN become a shaman. Not a rough approximation of one, but a real one, just like some pudgy middle aged white guy named Malone can become a zen priest.

 

There are many paths to enlightenment. It's arrogant and wrong to say there is only one path. But it is just as arrogant and wrong to say that any one particular path can only be practiced by a particular ethnic group.

 

Just my two cents worth.

 

spyrelx

[mbanu]

If you follow elemental archetypes, those 6 points do a very good job of describing a Water-type person.

[peter falk]

what were we in the dim past before the invention of religion? shamen.

 

i resent all those naysayers or pop cultural observers who way we are a "christian" society. i don't know about you guys but my ancestors native religion is shamanism. it later evolved into "paganism". christianity was forced on us by the Romans, who themsleves were pagans and shamen before that. i believe constantine is to blame for that.

 

you can even go back further than shamanism to a great er purity, and then where does the race based view of religion stand. the one advantage christianity and islam have over other religions is that anyone can be a christian or muslim. aside from taht, they are still religions...