Liberation as Revolutionary Praxis: Rethinking Buddhism Materialism

While it is only in recent decades that scholars have begun to reconsider and problematize Buddhist conceptions of “freedom” and “agency,” the thought traditions of Asian Buddhism have for many centuries struggled with questions related to the issue of “liberation”—along with its fundamental ontological, epistemological and ethical implications. With the development of Marxist thought in the mid to late nineteenth century, a new paradigm for thinking about freedom in relation to history, identity and social change found its way to Asia, and confronted traditional religious interpretations of freedom as well as competing Western ones. In the past century, several attempts have been made—in India, southeast Asia, China and Japan—to bring together Marxist and Buddhist worldviews, with only moderate success (both at the level of theory and practice). This paper analyzes both the possibilities and problems of a “Buddhist materialism” constructed along Marxian lines, by focusing in particular on Buddhist and Marxist conceptions of “liberation.” By utilizing the theoretical work of Japanese “radical Buddhist” Seno’o Girō, I argue that the root of the tension lies with conceptions of selfhood and agency—but that, contrary to expectations, a strong case can be made for convergence between Buddhist and Marxian perspectives on these issues, as both traditions ultimately seek a resolution of existential determination in response to alienation. Along the way, I discuss the work of Marx, Engels, Gramsci, Lukàcs, Sartre, and Richard Rorty in relation to aspects of traditional (particularly East Asian Mahāyāna) Buddhist thought.

Double Take Project: Using Applied Theatre For Campus Climate Change

Despite research gathered in the Campus Climate Report, I believe that it underrepresented the student experience of the social scene. The document primarily served as an identification tool for four major problems on campus: binge drinking, sexual assault, diversity, and disengagement in the classroom. Double Take Project also identifies similar issues however, this project uses theatrical techniques to gather the anecdotal reality of the student perspective. Double Take Project expands beyond the Campus Climate Report to inspire dialogue in a variety of student-to-student interactions and, more importantly, the project seeks action and solution plans. The social scene dominates our culture and its many issues result in concern for the safety, self-identity, and development of Bucknell students into thriving adults. Double Take Project is rooted in the belief that theatre is a palpable tool for social change. Over the course of many events, Double Take Project has utilized facets of theatre to provide opportunities to voice discontent, widen perception of normalcy on campus, and inspire confidence to act on personal beliefs. The Double Take Project uses many Applied Theatre methods to impact the social scene. For example, I conducted 36 student interviews and transformed the stories into a one-woman show, Rage Behind Curtains, which I performed at multiple venues across campus. I also used interviews to create a radio show airing one story per day. I conducted ten workshops with student groups, Fraternities and Sororities, and in the classroom utilizing Augusto Boal’s Theatre of the Oppressed (TO) techniques. I also created a “social scene confessional” where I stood outside the Elaine Langone Center with a sign that read, “Tell me a story about the social scene” from a wide variety of Bucknell students. Finally, I have assembled a Forum Theatre Company based on Augusto Boal’s method of the spect-actor, utilizing participants as both actors and spectators in the theatre piece. All of the names indicated in this paper have been altered to protect the identity of the participants. While planning events and conducting various theatrical experiences, I learned that there are a series of internal and external issues contributing to our social environment. Internally, students are conflicted with personal beliefs while battling outward social pressure. Whether they are on the outskirts or center of the social scene determines their response to this conflict. For example, I have discovered that students on the borders of the social culture respond with criticism because they feel excluded, whereas the student’s centrally involved critique the culture in private and while their persona appears to not want change. Externally, there are many structural issues that contribute to the current social climate such as without Fraternity meal plans, Cafeteria space is not sufficient to feed all of the students, exclusive party culture, and gendered housing. Through meetings with Deans and staff, I have learned there are also problems between administration and students, resulting in resentment and blame. Although addressing structural issues would instigate immediate change, in my opinion, internal student conflicts are the primary cause for the current negative social atmosphere. I believe that pressure to conform is rooted in lack of personal identity. Because students simply do not know themselves, they form strong social groups that become the definition of themselves. Without confident self-awareness, large and powerful groups coerce students to accept social norms resulting in the individual’s outward distaste for change, yet internal discomfort.

Men's Modesty, Religion, and the State: Spaces of Collision

This article examines religious practices in the United States, which govern modesty and other dress norms for men. I focus both on the spaces within which they most collide with regulatory regimes of the state and the legal implications of these norms, particularly for observant Muslim men. Undergirding the research are those ‘‘gender equality’’ claims made by many religious adherents, that men are required to maintain proper modesty norms just as are women. Also undergirding the research is the extensive anti-Islam bias in American culture today. The spaces within which men’s religiously proscribed dress and grooming norms are most at issue—indicated by First Amendment legal challenges to rights of religious practice—are primarily those state-controlled, total institutions Goffman describes, such as in the military and prisons. The implications of gendered modesty norms are important, as state control over religious expression in prisons, for example, is much more difficult to contest than in other spaces, although this depends entirely on who is doing the contesting and within which religious context. In American society today—and particularly within the context of growing Islamaphobia following the 9/11 attacks—the implications are greatest for those men practicing ‘‘prison Islam.’’