Commentary by Shelton A. Gunaratne, professor of mass communications emeritusƒÆ’-¡ƒ”š‚ at Minnesota State University Moorhead

ƒÆ’-¡ƒ”š‚ The following story is an excellent example of process reporting. With some editorial touches, a journalist can convert it to Buddhist-oriented journalism (BJ). It does pass muster the principal BJ criterion of reducing or controlling dukkha (sorrow/ unsatisfactoriness). ƒÆ’-¡ƒ”š‚ 

I will comment on and analyze the story in parenthesis using the Four Noble Truths (FNT), Noble Eightfold Path (NEP) and the principle of dependent co-arisingƒÆ’-¡ƒ”š‚  (paticca samuppada) as my framework.

Andrew Sheng wrote this 1,000-word essay for the Asia News Network. Sheng is the author of the book From Asian to Global Financial Crisis.

ƒÆ’-¡ƒ”š‚ Change or Continuity

July 29, 2011, 4:55 pmƒÆ’-¡ƒ”š‚ 
By Andrew Sheng

ƒÆ’-¡ƒ”š‚ In Chinese history, several famous reformers failed, the most prominent being the Chinese Song Dynasty reformer Wang Anshi (Chancellor from 1070-1086), who was no idealist but highly talented and experienced. He wanted to strengthen governance and finances through major tax, land and market reforms, but failed when he lost political support. The Qing Dynasty reformer Kang Yuwei (1858-1927) was also not successful because he was too loyal to the dynastic system and did not have sufficient experience in the bureaucracy to push through necessary reforms.

ƒÆ’-¡ƒ”š‚ [The story is about anicca (change/impermanence), one of the three truths of existence. Unlike Western reporters, Sheng highlights two Chinese reformers thereby intimating to the audience that reformers are not the monopoly of the West.ƒÆ’-¡ƒ”š‚  I gave context to the names by supplying the dates to show that the two were eight centuries apart.]

ƒÆ’-¡ƒ”š‚ This problem was well articulated by the Italian political philosopher Machiavelli [1469-1527], who argued: “It should be considered that nothing is more difficult to plan, more doubtful of success, nor more dangerous to manage, than to put oneself at the head of introducing new orders. For the introducer has all those who benefit from the old order as enemies, and he has lukewarm defenders in all those who might benefit from the new orders. This lukewarmness arises partly from fear of adversaries who have the laws on their side and partly from the incredulity of men, who do not truly believe in new things unless they come to have a firm experience of them. Consequently, whenever those who are enemies have opportunities to attack, they do so with partisan zeal, and the others defend lukewarmly so that one is in peril along with them.”

ƒÆ’-¡ƒ”š‚ [The writer then moves to the famous Italian Machiavelli (note the addition of dates relating to his lifespan), whom he quotes to make the point that change agents are faced with resistance from those who benefit from the status quo and with lukewarmness of those who might benefit from change.

ƒÆ’-¡ƒ”š‚ [Buddhist philosophy asserts that everything in the universe goes through change continuously; therefore, anatta (no self) is the truth. Self is an illusion that misdirects living beings to indulge in tanha (craving), the cause of dukkha (unsatisfactoriness). The Buddhist approach would explain the cycle of anicca, anattaƒÆ’-¡ƒ”š‚ and dukkha citing the problems Buddha himself experienced as a change agent. Did Anshi, Yuwei, and Martin Luther face similar resistance?

ƒÆ’-¡ƒ”š‚ [If everything changes every moment, why do reformers emerge? Perhaps the reason for their emergence is the avijja (ignorance) of sentient beings to presume that every namarupa has an atta (self) capable of upadana (grasping) spurred by tanha (craving/greed). The latter attributes cause namarupas to resist change and maintain the status quo. Change agents emerge under such conditions.]

ƒÆ’-¡ƒ”š‚ The problem of reform is particularly urgent in the current global context, where global issues of rapidly changing population, climate warming, unemployment, water and energy constraints, terrorism and corruption are exponential in risks, whereas national mindsets, institutional effectiveness and change are linear. The Arab Spring is a volatile combination of rising population, massive youth unemployment and the inability of corrupt and ineffective government to deal with discontent spread widely through the Internet.

ƒÆ’-¡ƒ”š‚ [This graf implicitly refers to the Chinese yin-yang model to examine the global problems with exponential risks (yang), and the national problems with linear risks (yin). The writer asserts that the Internet is widely spreading dukkha (discontent)]

ƒÆ’-¡ƒ”š‚ But reforms of the system are very tough. Witness the reforms in the financial sector with dogged resistance and lobbying by the financial community. Recently, Financial Times columnist Clive Crook brought to our attention a presentation by the University of Virginia social psychologist Jonathan Haidt at an Aspen Ideas Festival on the different psychological make-up of liberals and conservatives. I personally hate the labels “liberals” and “conservatives”, since many liberals have very conservative views and vice versa.

ƒÆ’-¡ƒ”š‚ Professor HaidtƒÆ’‚¢ƒ¢-¡‚¬ƒ¢-¾‚¢s main research interest is on the moral foundations of politics. He defines moral systems as “interlocking sets of values, practices, institutions, and evolved psychological mechanisms that work together to suppress or regulate selfishness and make social life possible.” Of course, no one admits that they are selfish, but the whole foundation of unfettered capitalism is individual greed adding up to public good. We now know that this is a hope, not reality, since greed has to be restrained by self or by society for the system to be stable.

ƒÆ’-¡ƒ”š‚ [Now, the reporter transports the reader to the world of Professor Haidt, an expert on the moral foundations of politics. A BJ practitioner can immediately compare HaidtƒÆ’‚¢ƒ¢-¡‚¬ƒ¢-¾‚¢s moral foundations with the sila (ethical conduct) dimension of the NEP.ƒÆ’-¡ƒ”š‚  All the factors constituting NEP work together as a system of ƒÆ’‚¢ƒ¢-¡‚¬ƒ…-interlocking sets of values, practices, institutions and evolved psychological mechanismsƒÆ’‚¢ƒ¢-¡‚¬ƒ”š‚ to regulate selfishness (the illusion of self or atta).ƒÆ’-¡ƒ”š‚  This is paticca samuppada in operation. ƒÆ’-¡ƒ”š‚ The implication is that unfettered capitalism spurs individual greed without adding up to public good. Thus, society, as well as each namarupa, must take action to control greed. Adherence to samadhi (mental development) dimension of NEP will help to purify the mind

ƒÆ’-¡ƒ”š‚ HaidtƒÆ’‚¢ƒ¢-¡‚¬ƒ¢-¾‚¢s improvement on MachiavelliƒÆ’‚¢ƒ¢-¡‚¬ƒ¢-¾‚¢s analysis is to introduce psychological reasoning behind the game between liberals and conservatives. He argues that there are five psychological systems that underpin global moralities. Liberals ƒÆ’-¡ƒ”š‚ [I believe that liberals are distinct from libertarians] argue for change because they think more about harm/care and fairness/reciprocity, whereas conservatives [I also believe that conservatives can be extreme libertarians (e.g., Rupert Murdoch) or authoritarians with racist, religious and gender biases.] have these as well as in-group/loyalty, authority/respect, and purity/sanctity.

ƒÆ’-¡ƒ”š‚ In other words, conservatives are groups that respect loyalty to the existing institutions of authority, faith or cultural values. They benefit most from the current system and do not feel comfortable with change, which bring risks and unknowns, including loss of benefits or franchise. By definition, reformers want a game-change, because they see that the present system is unfair or uncaring, or that the externalities are harming people, so they want someone to do something about it.

ƒÆ’-¡ƒ”š‚ [The two preceding grafs roughly analyze the Buddhist perspective of the Daoic authoritarian (yang)-libertarian (yin) distinction. Libertarians are extremists similar to Daoists who do not want any social shackles. They believe in the supremacy of the individual and the pursuit of unbridled greed. The liberals stand for social responsibility. The social democrats occupy the right-of-center position in in the yin-yang continuum. The authoritarians believe that only an elite of politically savvy educated people is fit to rule over the vast majority of ignorant hoi polloi. They are conservative and change resistant. The extreme libertarians who have amassed wealth through greed also turn conservative to preserve their wealth.]

ƒÆ’-¡ƒ”š‚ ƒÆ’-¡ƒ”š‚ Global warming is a good example where reformers cannot prove to the public in concrete terms that the future is better with reforms, whereas conservatives can defend against change zealously, because they stand to lose real benefits. There are many who question whether the environmental scientists are at best guessing or whether the data and methodology to predict global warming is shaky. This is why during war, crises or natural disasters, there is greater support for reforms because those who are harmed in real terms see the urgent need for change.

ƒÆ’-¡ƒ”š‚ Leaders who miss that narrow window of opportunity for change “waste” the crisis opportunity. When conditions go back to “normal”, the momentum for change is often lost.

ƒÆ’-¡ƒ”š‚ [The reporter wants the change-agents to make good use of the ƒÆ’‚¢ƒ¢-¡‚¬ƒ…-narrow window of opportunity.ƒÆ’‚¢ƒ¢-¡‚¬ƒ”š‚ ItƒÆ’‚¢ƒ¢-¡‚¬ƒ¢-¾‚¢s good advocacy. BJ requires journalists to be change agents,]

ƒÆ’-¡ƒ”š‚ In his new book, The Globalization Paradox: Democracy and the Future of the World Economy, Harvard Professor Dani Rodrik argues that those who are strongly for globalization are the urban elite who benefit from globalization. They are the talent that can go global and win big. The rural masses, however, see globalization as the erosion of family or local values, erosion of respect for local institutions, cultures or religions, so that the reaction is about loyalty and sanctity. He shrewdly states, “when globalization collides with domestic politics, the smart money bets on politics”.

ƒÆ’-¡ƒ”š‚ The trouble is that the world is also urbanizing very fast. Thus, in addition to the impossible trinity of fixed exchange rates, monetary freedom and capital flows (in which you can have two but not all three), Rodrik argues that there is a “political trilemma” where nations cannot simultaneously pursue democracy, self-determination and economic globalization. He argues convincingly that because all politics is local, the world is too diverse to have one single global political community.

[The reporter brings in another expert, Rodrik, to explain the yin–yang clash between globalization (backed by urban elites) and localism (backed by rural masses). The Buddhist position is that globalization has been going on ever since the solar planetary system came into being. ItƒÆ’‚¢ƒ¢-¡‚¬ƒ¢-¾‚¢s the sudden acceleration of globalization wrought by western technology that has created mayhem. The Buddhist principle of ƒÆ’‚¢ƒ¢-¡‚¬ƒ…-small is beautifulƒÆ’‚¢ƒ¢-¡‚¬ƒ”š‚ should be the way to go. The globalization-localism dichotomy needs to be looked at in terms of the Daoist solution of harmony and balance.]

ƒÆ’-¡ƒ”š‚ Nowhere is this so obvious as in the European debt crisis. The European politicians are arguing for a single currency, but the financial markets are betting that local politics in Greece are such that a default has happened in everything but name. During the Asian crisis, the currency speculators were similarly betting that central banks could not maintain fixed exchange rates because local politics could not tolerate the pain from financial and fiscal discipline.

ƒÆ’-¡ƒ”š‚ In these turbulent times, it is not political leadership but statesmanship that is called for. Will someone of this generation be willing to sacrifice for the next generation?

ƒÆ’-¡ƒ”š‚ Between the long-term and short-term, bet on most making the short-term decision.

ƒÆ’-¡ƒ”š‚ [The Buddhist solution to conflict resolution should become clear in BJ reporting. The solution is the Middle Path. Buddhism asserts that the universe is a mega system comprising an untold variety of subsystems functioning as an interdependent, interconnected and interactive mechanism. ItƒÆ’‚¢ƒ¢-¡‚¬ƒ¢-¾‚¢s similar to the Dao, which creates diversity through the yin-yang mechanism and ultimately brings all that diversity together under the single umbrellaƒÆ’‚¢ƒ¢-¡‚¬ƒ¢¢”š¬‚the Dao itself. Applying the same analogy, a BJ view favors the world-system as a mega system comprising a variety of diverse units–political, economic, cultural, linguistic, religious, etc. The attempts to westernize the world (in the guise of globalization) are self-defeating because variety is the spice of life.ƒÆ’-¡ƒ”š‚ ƒÆ’-¡ƒ”š‚ 

[Please note that Sheng has not adhered to the requirements of the Western news paradigm. His lead about the two Chinese reformers violates the timeliness news value thereby implying that time and space are infinite. He rejects objectivity and makes no secret of his sympathy for change. He fails to include the mandatory interviews. Instead, he cites two experts from two of their recent books and uses his own expertise for interpretation.]