[Buddha-l] "Western Self, Asian Other"

[JKirkpatrick]

Sorry not to have read the article yet--but your description of
the charge of orientalism (the idea originally of Edward Said) is
right on the mark, as I see it anyway. But I would add the term
"romantic" to your definition, as I have done below.
Will now get to the article (which I have a funny feeling I
already read months ago)......Joanna

RH:
As I understand the charge of Orientalism, it is the charge that
a scholar either deliberately or unwittingly portrays a culture
in an unflattering [and/or romantic] way and thereby reinforces
the idea that the other culture is backwards and perhaps in need
of being nudged toward higher levels of civilization by another
culture; Orientalism, as I understand it, goes hand in hand with
justifying colonization, invasion and warfare 

-----Original Message-----
From: buddha-l-bounces at mailman.swcp.com
[mailto:buddha-l-bounces at mailman.swcp.com] On Behalf Of Richard
Hayes
Sent: Monday, December 28, 2009 11:12 PM
To: Buddhist discussion forum
Subject: Re: [Buddha-l] "Western Self, Asian Other"

On Dec 28, 2009, at 10:33 AM, Richard Hayes wrote:

> There is an interesting article in the current edition of the
on-line 
> Journal of Buddhist Ethics. It's entitled "Western Self, Asian
Other: 
> Modernity, Authenticity and Nostalgia for 'Tradition' in
Buddhist 
> Studies," by Natalie E. Quli. It can be downloaded from the
Buddhist 
> Ethics website: http://www.buddhistethics.org/current.html

Quli's article begins with this observation: "There has been
considerable rancor and finger-pointing in recent years
concerning the intersection of the West and Buddhism." This
observation is followed by two claims. The first claim is that
Western scholars of Buddhism and Western converts to Buddhism are
"regularly labeled Orientalists." The second claim is that Asian
Buddhists who appropriate Western ideas are "routinely dismissed
for appropriating Western ideas and cloaking them with the veil
of tradition, sometimes for nationalistic purposes, and producing
'Buddhist modernism.'" The examples she gives of Asians who are
subjected to this treatment for this reason are Anagārika
Dharmapāla and D.T. Suzuki. 

Later in the article, Quli paints a picture of general hostility
toward all people who mix Western and Buddhist modes of thinking.
Scholars who do so are accused of imposing their cultural biases
on what they study. Converts (or Asian Buddhists writing for
Western audiences, or Asian Buddhist who now live in the West)
are accused of contaminating the Buddhist tradition with foreign
elements. As the picture she is offering comes into focus, Quli
claims that there is a persistent trend so oppose a Western Self
with an Asian Other and to perceive Buddhism as authentic only
when it is seen purely as Other. Some, she suggests, glorify the
Other and portray it is being free of all the shortcomings of the
Self; others glorify the Self and see the Other as less civilized
and refined; but whether one glorifies the Western Self or the
Asian Other, she claims, one is trading in a false dichotomy.
Moreover, she claims that this false dichotomy has damaging
consequences. (More will be said about that in a subsequent
post.)

I believe what I have said so far is a fair, although (for now)
somewhat simplified, account of what Quli says. Others of you, as
you read her article, may disagree with my reading and offer
refinements or corrections to it.

Now here are my first questions about the article. Have any of
you witnessed the sort of "rancor and finger-pointing" that Quli
refers to? Have you seen academic scholars of Buddhism accused of
Orientalism? Have you seen people like Suzuki and Dharmapāla
dismissed for the reasons she states; that is, have you seen them
dismissed for offering a picture of Buddhism that is inauthentic
because it is mixed with Western ideas?

I have to say that in thirty-seven years of being an academic
student of Buddhism I have never been aware of myself or my
colleagues accused of Orientalism. As I understand the charge of
Orientalism, it is the charge that a scholar either deliberately
or unwittingly portrays a culture in an unflattering way and
thereby reinforces the idea that the other culture is backwards
and perhaps in need of being nudged toward higher levels of
civilization by another culture; Orientalism, as I understand it,
goes hand in hand with justifying colonization, invasion and
warfare. This charge is often made by Muslims of European and
American scholars of Islam. But is it made by Buddhists of
European and American scholars of Buddhism? I haven't seen such a
charge made, but perhaps I live in a sheltered world.

Twenty-seven years have passed since I officially and openly went
for refuge to the three jewels and took on a Buddhist name.
During that time I have been accused a number of times (almost
always by other Buddhists) of not really understanding Buddhism.
Even more often than being accused by others of intellectual
density, I have readily admitted that there are many aspects of
Buddhism I don't accept or understand, and that my failure to
understand them comes from a clash between some of the dogmatic
aspects of Buddhism and my childhood upbringing in a home where
the dominant outlook was rational skepticism and secular
humanism. And yet I can't think of a time when I, or others who
think as I do, have been "dismissed" (even once, let alone
routinely) for "cloaking [Western ideas] with the veil of
tradition, and producing 'Buddhist modernism.'" But again,
perhaps I am so obtuse that I fail to see what is going on around
me, and perhaps (no, certainly) my memory is quite selective.
That's what human memory is: a filter that sifts out everything
that does not fit with one's current world view.

So on the first page of this article I see a problem being
identified as important, and I see a hint of a promise that the
article will help provide a solution to the problem, but I find
myself never having seen this problem in either the academic
world or the world of Western Buddhist practice. So I'm thinking
"This article is off to a very bad start; it sees a problem where
none exists." (I went on to read the article anyway and found it
quite interesting, because I have learned over the years that bad
starts can sometimes lead to good finishes, or that a bad opening
and a botched endgame can still have some interesting moves in
the middle.) 

If any of you have managed to download the article and read the
first page, please share your impressions. Or read the second
page and give your impressions of that.

Perhaps we should invite Natalie Quli to join this discussion. Or
maybe it would be better to send her the archives of the
discussion after it has taken place (if indeed one takes place at
all) and let her respond if she feels so inclined.

Richard Hayes
Department of Philosophy
University of New Mexico
http://www.unm.edu/~rhayes
rhayes at unm.edu







_______________________________________________
buddha-l mailing list
buddha-l at mailman.swcp.com
http://mailman.swcp.com/mailman/listinfo/buddha-l