This essay is Part One of a revision of the pedagogical essay, “Writing Under the Bodhi Tree,” published in Academic Exchange Quarterly, Summer 2005.
As you may have discerned from my past publications, Buddhist Philosophy provides a fitting set of guidelines for civil discourse. One such guideline, Buddhist monk Thich Nhat Hanh’s “Charter of Interbeing”, supports the importance of rhetoric. Hanh’s work concerns Kairos (discerning the proper means of persuasion for a given context) and audience consideration, in general. It also provides a model, through its concept of “sangha” (community), for a society conducive to liberal and pluralistic society, i.e., civil society. Hanh’s “Charter” provides a holistic foundation for those who wish to participate in the “marketplace of ideas.” Interbeing may be the key to effective civil discourse and, by extension, a free and pluralistic society.
But first, we must clarify what Hanh means by “interbeing.” In his book Interbeing: Fourteen Guidelines for Engaged Buddhism, Interbeing, what Hanh calls “Tiep Hien,” denotes “being in touch with” (Tiep) and “realizing” or “making it here and now”.
An “Order” of Interbeing, then, is a group of people devoted to being connected with others based on the dictates of a particular situation and not on an unattached, arbitrary dogma like tradition or racial essentialism. There seems to be a parallel between the Order of Interbeing and those who believe in a kind of civil discourse. By analyzing Hanh’s “Charter of the Order of Interbeing” we can better see the connections between a marketplace of ideas and a Buddhist sangha (community). We should consider each principle of Interbeing (nonattachment from views, direct experimentation, appropriateness, and skillful means) separately and consider the parallels of Civil Discourse and Buddhism thought. I believe Interbeing presents guidelines quite apropos for maintaining a free and civil society.
This essay will focus on the first principle, “nonattachment from views.” Each subsequent weekly essay will address one of the remaining principles.
Nonattachment from Views
To be attached means to be caught in dogmas, prejudices, habits, and what we consider to be the ultimate Truth. The first aim of the practice is to be free of all attachments, especially attachments to views. According to Hanh, this is the most important teaching of Buddhism. Participants in civil discourse should not bring preconceived notions, let alone a strict ideology (other than the idea that communication is productive and good for society) to any dialogue or monologue, for that matter. This erases the individual and his or her specific situation and replaces both with a ready-made issue or attempts to solve a problem with a ready-made solution. This is what happens when a narrative replace critical thinking as the prominent way of knowing and reacting. This was a primary detriment of contemporary social justice initiatives; only those initiatives based on a particular ideology were acceptable, even if other initiatives seemed more practical.
We must not attach ourselves to particular ways of doing things. We must not be attached even to the idea of mastery, that we know all there is to know about an issue. Paradoxically, we must not even be attached to Interbeing; times may emerge when mutual understanding is not enough to mitigate a clear and present danger brought on by others’ words or actions. But, ideally, no matter what, we must gauge a particular situation (Kairos) and act accordingly.
Yes, this is easier said than done, but necessary to progress as a society. Otherwise, we risk exacerbating the schisms already forming and enlarging. Thus, a level of emotional intelligence, specifically self-awareness and emotional self-management is imperative.
I have an example from when I was a graduate writing consultant at the University of Illinois at Chicago. There, I tutored a student who wrote a paper that was, extremely, almost risibly, offensive. His argument was that Blacks were trying to take over the country for the worse. He wrote that Whites were becoming enslaved by social mandates and that Blacks must be stopped before they control everything and ruin the White way of life. I originally was amazed and wondered if the student recognized that I was black (I have very dark skin and, at the time, dreadlocks past my shoulders). He delivered this information in a nonchalant way, as if he were saying nothing at all controversial. He, himself, seemed to be of Middle Eastern descent.
Secondly, I realized that if I reacted in an understandably negative way, the student would either shut off or not take my advice seriously; I’d just be one of those Blacks trying to take over and would probably try to sabotage his paper. I had to detach myself from my beliefs and my offended ego and point out the several flaws of reasoning in his argument. In the name of ethos and general credibility, I let him know that many sections in his paper needed proof and legitimate citations. I also tried to familiarize him with logical and material fallacies, i.e., flaws in reasoning and sufficient evidence, respectively. We went through the whole paper in this manner. When the session was over, he thanked me and walked out of the writing center; I never saw him again. I do not know what happened to him or what grade he ended up getting, but I am quite certain that showing my anger and talking to him like an enemy would have ultimately been detrimental for both of us.
I had every right to read this student the riot act. The key to my chosen method was nonattachment from views. These days, this would be seen as perpetuating white supremacy and oppression. However, I firmly disagree. I did not tell him that what he was saying was okay. I told him it was not okay but explained his issues from a rhetorical standpoint. Contemporary social justice dogma insists that I should have stopped and told him how oppressive, evil, and brainwashed he was. As a 20-something student of rhetoric in a context in which I was charged to improve people’s critical thinking and communication skills, I thought such a method would be counterproductive to say the least. I still think so. Again, I don’t know what happened to that student, but whatever happened would have been worse if I shamed him in ways deemed appropriate in today’s social justice circles.
Efficacy in civil discourse must consist of a repertoire of rhetorical methods, and never a “one size fits all” way to manage every situation. Put simply, not all people can be spoken to in the same way. Good communicators acknowledge this and do not need to attach themselves to a particular method. This may be tall order for many, but it is most conducive to achieving the utmost communication effectiveness.