![]() While Marx's account of fetishism addresses the exchange-value of commodities at the level of the economic relations of production, it fails to deal in any detail with the use-value or consumption of commodities. In the work of both, the idea of the fetish involves attributing properties to objects that they do not ‘really’ have and that should correctly be recognised as human. It implies for these two theorists of the social, a particular form of relation between human beings and objects. The idea of the fetish has a particular presence in the writings of both Marx and Freud. ![]() The relationship based on form and structure has been largely missed thus far because of two factors, both addressed by the analogical methodology: preoccupation with either showing or disproving essential identity and difficulty accepting many assumptions and beliefs of traditional Buddhadharma on their own terms. We show this with a methodology of functional and structural analogy that correlates MBIs with deeper strata of Buddhadharma than usual and promotes mutually fruitful dialogue. Instead of Buddhadharma’s essence, however, MBIs do embody important aspects of its form and structure, translated to a very different ontological level. This places MBIs squarely within clinical psychology and not at all as a form of Buddhadharma, despite their use of meditation. MBIs pursue relief of psychological suffering rather than the transcendental roots that Buddhadharma posits. They do not aim at the goals of Buddhadharma and do not engage the vital wisdom that leads there. We critique the claim that MBIs embody the essence of Buddhadharma. MBIs are increasingly employed as aftercare and adjunct care to professional medical and psychological treatments for specific maladies and also for self-care, general emotional well-being, and other psychological goals.ĭespite their psychological character and eclectic content only partly inspired by and derived from Buddhadharma, MBIs have increasingly acquired an alternate identity as a form of Buddhadharma itself, as the essence of Buddhadharma recontextualized for the mainstream of society. Incorporating elementary meditation techniques inspired by Buddhist practices, mindfulness-based interventions (MBIs) are group-based programs of psychoeducation and self-help skills in behavioral medicine and clinical psychology. In the paradigm of a functional differentiation between " religion " and " biomedicine ", its presence in biomedical institutions seems to provide a counterexample, which will be discussed in the final section. ![]() It will be argued that MBSR bears elements of salvetive, but also of salvific meditation. To provide a more fitting criteriology, we propose to distinguish between " salvific " (" liberating ") and " salvetive " (" healing ") settings of meditation, of which the latter denotes a more " therapeutic " outlook. Questions if and how practices such as " Mindfulness-based Stress Reduction " (MBSR) are to be conceptualized as " religious " still require further analysis. So far, studies were mainly interested in clinical evidence for salutogenetic effects. In therapeutic settings, it has been claimed, it became a secular " consciousness technology ". Developed in the context of a traditional Asian religious tradition, mindfulness meditation originally serves soteriological goals. Corporate mindfulness reinforces neoliberalism through the corporate individual, the transformation of the self of the corporate individual, and the creation of the corporation as a community and means of social connection for the corporate individual.įor about 25 years, mindfulness meditation attracts growing attention. The formalized packaging of corporate mindfulness began in the late 1970s but was built on a long tradition of attempts to hack the minds and mindsets of workers. Corporate mindfulness is the favorite labor management technique of the neoliberal period. This research focuses on those labor management techniques particular to neoliberalism and the ways in which cultural movements and trends of the neoliberal period are mined and deployed as yet another useful resource in the disciplining of workers. This pursuit to squeeze more productivity out of workers while also managing worker discontent in the cheapest way possible has spawned innovations in labor management which reflect the institutional milieu of the respective time. Maintaining the delicate balance between a worker who is just “not-unhappy” enough or desperate enough to continue working while also cutting costs to the bone presents a continuous challenge for business interests. Capitalism has always and will always depend on a compliant workforce.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |