Having just returned from a lecture on De-ethnicization in Neo-Hindu movements and the Kabbalah center, I wanted to collect my thoughts on the lecture.
To recap, there have been globalizing efforts by some neo-Hindu groups, centered around a Guru promoting wisdom and regional practices of yoga. In comparison, the professor brought into the fore the Kabbalah center that promotes the Jewish Kabbalah and its ancient wisdoms. Both groups have focused on the universal application for their practice and thought tradition. In other words, it wasn't something specific to Jewish or Hindu persons but to all. Both groups de-emphasized their localized contexts and the significance their stemming traditions have with "ethnicity." The term ethnicity carries its own set of problems with identity. Especially in a taxonomic sense of categorizing persons into certain heritages and identities. Hindu can mean several things and the term Jewish becomes problematic when we start thinking about Jewish persons of different regions, europe, the middle east, africa, etc. But this is a whole different set of issues concerning ethnicity.
The two movements that the professor presented pertained primarily about the applicability of these movements and their allure, their "exoticism" or mysticism, that they present to the "counter-culture" group of youth who rebel against their prior institutions but are still on "soul-searching" missions. Searching for mystical and other spiritual forms of truth and "finding themselves." The Kabbala center, which presents a sense of Jewish mysticism, and the Neo-Hindu movements have sought to do these things. The motivations for this may be to preserve a tradition and disseminate it globally in an act of preservation. At the same time this could also be a reaction to the global marketplace where religious traditions and new ones are competing for membership and the reproduction of the truths that they have to offer. Here both groups sought out non-Hindu, non-Jewish members and made their traditions accessible to them. They promoted a policy of inclusivity. The problems of this "de-ethnicization" the professor said was the inter-subjective dynamic that evolved with the notions of privilege, order, and orthodoxy. In other words, there were certain privileges that the Hindu practitioners or the Jewish members observed that weren't necessarily accessible to the non-ethnic members. This inherently creates tension while the policy is that everyone can have access to these ancient wisdoms, truths, and practices. And at the same time, we have the problems of identity and the privileges of identifying with a particular tradition and being part of that ethnicity.
Some of the things that are also important, is that despite their proclamations of universals and they state that they are not bringing anything new but that the spirituality is there. They are not bringing anything new to these new people looking for some sense of spiritual truth. Nonetheless, the religion cannot be completely detached from the culture. In other words, the discourse and language by which these practices and truths are taught still stem from the language of their originating traditions. The practices are developed from those traditions as well. And the legitimacy to these truths that they are providing are granted validity and legitimacy from a long-stemming tradition. Masters of masters, gurus of gurus, and a long succession of such. The Kabbalah center proclaims an ancient text of wisdom and truth for all of humanity, something that stems from the Judaic tradition. This is not necessarily a criticism of the intentions of these groups but rather a socio-historical point of religion and culture, and their inability to detach from one or the other.
While the professor was going on, I couldn't help but draw analogy to Bruce Lee and his case of bringing kung-fu to the United States. The martial art was considered exclusive to the Chinese and abominable to let out the secrets of the masters to those who were not. This is parallel to the tensions faced by Berg of the Kabbalah center and some of the other Neo-Hindu movements. Nevertheless, Bruce Lee taught kung-fu to his fellow university students. This was considered heresy. In a way, he was providing a new religion, or a new "way of life" to these students. Ultimately the tensions and limitations of kung fu forced Bruce to create his own: Jeet Kun Do. Perhaps the creation of this new form was in part motivated by the strong installments of orthodoxy, identity, and privilege. And I wonder if this is the direction for these neo-hindu movements and Jewish movements seeking to provide an accessibility to others. That the creation or derivation in its own form is necessary to avoid some of these inter-subjective dynamics and tensions that stem from identity, privilege, and orthodoxy.
No comments:
Post a Comment