Now, this is an admirable goal no doubt, but I personally came out of the meeting with certain concerns. I am extremely thankful that the government here is chairing this whole committee (and I’m amazed at the level of intelligence and awareness coming out of the government here: the PM’s opening statement was highly intelligent, putting anything coming out of the mouths of any other politician I know to shame), and the government has stepped in to ensure things are progressing in accordance with the GNH vision. But I was left a little bit concerned that by putting GNH into the hands of Western scholars and asking them to come up with something palatable to the whole world, certain of the essential dimensions of GNH may be lost in the translation. In particular, I am worried that the unique cultural and spiritual context will be set aside in favour of a vision that fits in with the secular paradigm of the West. And I am worried that what we will be left with is a materialistic solution to a materialistic problem, which is thus bound to fail.
Anyways, I have written an open-letter about this matter which I am submitting to the working group, as well as as an op-ed, and I am posting it here if you are interested, though really it just expands on what I have just said, but if you are interested..
An open letter to the Steering Committee for the New Development Paradigm, the Gross National Happiness Commission, and the International Expert Working Group (IEWG),
Having attended the recent IEWG meeting in Thimphu as an observer, and as a visitor to Bhutan, I am left wondering about the attempt to translate it beyond the unique context of this country. While the New Development Paradigm is based in Bhutan, and is being steered by Bhutanese, most of its experts are from all over the world, and are representatives of Western academia. While some of the great scholarship from the last few decades is undoubtedly represented by this working group, it is important to remember that academia remains very much a secular institution. I am thus somewhat concerned about how this development paradigm that has arisen out of the unique spiritual and cultural context of Bhutan, and which is a unique contribution from the developing, and still somewhat traditional, world, will be transformed through its being put into the hands of representatives of the modern, developed world, in such a way that much of what makes it unique and special risks being lost.
It is not that I think that the core principles of GNH cannot be taken beyond the Bhutanese context and applied at a universal level. Rather, I am concerned that the holistic and overarching paradigm upon which GNH is based, a paradigm that I think is necessarily spiritual in nature, may be forgotten, as already seems to be happening somewhat in the translation of the concept of ‘happiness’ (a term distinctly Buddhist in spirit) into the scientific, and in my opinion somewhat watered-down, term ‘psychological well-being’. Now, before I turn anyone off by continuing to use the term ‘spiritual,’ let us remember that it is the distinctly materialistic quality, the greed and consumerism, of the old paradigm that is attempting to be addressed by the ‘new paradigm’. But without looking beyond the material world, how can we expect to provide meaningful and lasting answers? Without acknowledging a higher purpose to human development than what can be scientifically measured, do we not risk remaining within the materialistic confines of the old paradigm?
Let me note also that when I use the term ‘spiritual,’ I’m not referring to any specific spirituality, but rather something more universal, the same spirituality that David Suzuki noted, in his speech at the meeting, informs the world-view of indigenous groups not only in Canada, but all around the world, and which allows them to see the earth as a living, and life-giving, entity, rather than only as a source of resources and material wealth. It is this distinction, for me, that is necessary to make for any ‘new development paradigm’ to be meaningful, and substantially different from the materialistic old paradigm that we are trying to change. Without a recognition that human beings are more than just material bodies, that there is a higher purpose of human development, of our very being here, then I for one am not convinced that we will ever get beyond the predicaments of our current paradigm and truly find lasting happiness and well-being.
Not that I have a problem with psychological well-being: it is an important component of what we are trying to achieve, and is already used as such by the GNHC, as part of the already existing 9 GNH domains. But it is also part of the scientific model, and is therefore hardly the same thing as a spiritual understanding of the true goal of human development. To put it bluntly, modern science is too often limited by its inability to see beyond what it can measure, while GNH also strives to define humans according to a spiritual paradigm that is also measured through faith, as expressed in its measurement of prayer recitation and meditation, as well as non-material cultural dimensions such as knowledge of local festivals and folk stories. A spiritual definition of being necessarily encompasses all of the multi-facetted nature of human being, while psychological well-being focuses specifically on the mental. What makes GNH both effective and beautiful is its all-encompassing, holistic, and universal nature, and this should not be forgotten. Placing it in the realm of secular scholarship, without retaining its grounding in the spiritual dimension, risks depriving it of its ability to encompass the full multi-dimensional nature of human being, and thus watering it down to the same materialistic paradigm it seeks to replace. It risks turning the holistic and multi-dimensional nature of GNH into a uni-dimensional model.
I plead with you not to forget the inherently spiritual dimension of GNH, nor the importance of at least attempting to quantify this through processes like the measurement of spiritual practice. Bhutan should stand strong with this unique conception of development, and its great insight that there are higher, non-material purposes of being human, and not allow this insight to be lost in its translation into a scientific tool. Long-term, sustainable human happiness may truly depend on the endeavours of the government and its international expert advisory panel on this issue. Perhaps my concerns are misguided, and perhaps you are already taking this matter into consideration. But if not, I plead with you not to allow what makes GNH unique to be lost or diluted in a well-meaning effort to turn it into something palatable for the ‘developed’ world. I pray Bhutan stands with its unique creation, and holds firm to the spiritual dimension of GNH, even while striving to make it universally applicable. And I thus pray that what makes GNH unique is not washed away in an attempt to placate the demands of the old paradigm.
Thank you, and Tashi Delek,
A Concerned Observer
Excellent points, Kevin. And a really well-written letter. I sure hope it gets read by those who need to hear the message.
ReplyDeleteThis scenario - where something beneficial is developed in a unique context and then an attempt is made to export it outside the original setting - must be one of the most common challenges not just in development but all wide-spread human endeavors, whether it's spreading democracy or sustainable agricultural practices.
There's obviously no practical way to export the entire Bhutanese context, with it's unique rich cultural traditions and specific interpretations of happiness, to the rest of the world without losing a lot in translation. But if the core fundamental ideas are as universal as we suspect, the original concept of GNH will flourish in a diversity of ways. Some of these new versions may perhaps be being watered-down and less-than-effective, but perhaps others might be new visions more applicable or appropriate for the current reality of fast-paced Western consumer culture...and as such be more effective in this context than an exact translation.
You mention the scientific paradigm as a threat to the underlying spiritual principles of Bhutanese-style GNH. I think I understand what you mean (i.e. evidence-based, data-driven and empirically-measured results as opposed to something broader and more holistic?) I also feel that there's so much opportunity at this point in our evolution for science and spirituality to grow closer, in part through their shared diversions with religious fundamentalism and material-wealth capitalism. I don't know if science is the real threat here. Think of the Harper conservatives muzzling scientists and shutting down countless scientifically-driven environmental protection endeavours. Like any tool, science can be manipulated or used to various ends, but at its core, it seeks to answer some of the same fundamental questions as spirituality about how the world works and our place in it. Personally, I'm more concerned about the ideologies rather than the paradigms.
It sounds like a really exciting opportunity to be so close to the source of this ambitious project. I'm sure you would be an important addition to the dialogue. So often our leaders - both academic experts and politicians - live in a bit of an isolated reality. I wish I didn't have such a hard time envisioning the Canadian government adopting something similar to the GNH model!
Thanks for the update and insight...
Thanks Jason, great to have some feedback. I agree with most of what you say, just a couple of points:
ReplyDeleteI think you're right about science not necessarily being opposed to spirituality, in fact in pre-modern times science was always necessarily linked to a spiritual paradigm (Hindu science, Chinese science, Islamic science). My concern is more that science has become a tool for what I think of as the fundamentalism of modernity, that is, of modernity's avowed secularism and materialism, and its insistence that everyone subscribes to this agenda, often at the expense of the traditional culture and spirituality of which I speak in the post. Now, if you look at history, religious fundamentalism is a fairly recent phenomenon, and has always risen as a reaction to Western ideologies (as can be seen most explicitly in the Islamic world, where fundamentalism has been a reaction to the imposition of Western values, norms, and power from the outside). So, for me, these are the same thing, two sides of the same coin.
We are in agreement that fundamentalism is the danger, I just worry that there are certain fundamentalist assumptions that permeate too much of modern science. But certainly many scientists are doing great work, and some of these are working on this New Development Paradigm, so hopefully they can see beyond some of the myopia of their field (which I mention also in a previous post) enough to truly see what a 'new paradigm' would need to consist of.
And, regarding your comment about the Canadian government, I totally agree, but I guess that in the same we need to separate scientists from science, there are so many Canadians doing good work in this area. For one, the International Development Research Council of Canada is one of the major funders of the event I attended, and has been supporting GNH for years, though this of course far precedes Harper's government. We had many great Canadians in attendance as well, including Ron Colman from Global Progress Indicators Atlantic, who was one of the chairs, and has worked here so long that he has a Bhutanese title, as well as John Helliwell, global happiness specialist who works at UBC and also is an advisor, and of course David Suzuki, see my photo above. So, governments come and go, and though sadly I do think that people get the governments they deserve, hopefully we'll get a better one, though, it really isn't looking so promising that that will happen anytime soon ..
Hello Kevin,
ReplyDeleteJason notified me of your post and I'm glad to be invited into this discussion.
Your concern is well put: in universalizing GNH "the unique cultural and spiritual context" will certainly be put aside. It has to be. The Bhutanese culture and spiritual tradition only exists in Bhutan. It itself cannot be exported. But like jurisprudence, the rights of women, or any number of universally applicable cultural concepts, the cultural context of an idea's origins need not come with, and in many cases can not come with if the idea has any hope of gaining traction in a new and different cultural milieu.
What I hear in your concern is a greater grief about the materialistic and anti-spiritual nature of Western academia and its mandarins. And I hear your plea to include the importance of distinct cultural practices and spiritual dimensions as measures of Gross National Happiness.
I have on optimistic suspicion about what may happen if GNH were to be widely applied, even by secular Western scholars and governments.
I suspect that over time, even stripped of its cultural and spiritual context, GNH indicators when compared country to country will begin to demonstrate the heart of your concern. Material progress alone will not lead to greater "psychological well-being". Equity of income, education of women, cultural identity, and yes, spiritual practices, will emerge as the leaders in GNH, even if these measures are themselves excluded as indicators. It will then be incumbent upon governments which are sincerely betrothed to GNH to encourage and support a variety of unique cultural contexts and distinct spiritual practices and freedoms. It won't be those of Bhutan; they will be the practices and distinct contexts of Western British Columbia or the East Pyrenees. Or more likely, they will have no national or geographical home.
With increased urbanization and global migration we can expect cultural and spiritual practices to be spotted around the world, mosaicing our urban landscapes. The important element will be that people feel that they belong to a distinct culture and that that culture has its own spiritual beliefs and traditions.
If, as you say, we need the recognition of a higher purpose to break out of the old materialist paradigm, and if breaking out of that paradigm offers a genuinely happier and healthier world-view, then let the indicators show it. Fear not. So long as the indicators are not themselves solely materialist (and if they were they would not differ from GDP) then the non-material elements will show their import. Let Western academia be blind to cultural and spiritual aspects of human existence. It matters not. So long as what they do measure is a genuine and not spurious notion of human thriving.
Now, if you have reason to suspect that the new measure of GNH will not genuinely reflect happiness or well-being then shout loudly. But this will require more than bemoaning the despiritualization of the Bhutanese context. This will require engaging in the language of the Western high priesthood: empirical, rational science.
Empiricism is not antithetical to spirituality, but it is antithetical to "seeing beyond what it cannot measure." And that is its strength. Spirituality, even the most universally inclusive sort, emerges out of highly specific individual and collective contexts. It is inherently subjective in scope and valuation. Therefore, if we are to have any kind of GNH index that can have meaning across cultural contexts, it cannot include any specific reference to spiritual or cultural practice itself. And it need not. We can have objective measures on the health effects of diet without reference to recipes. We can measure the benefits of laughter without agreeing on what counts as funny. And we can measure the benefits of a belief in a higher purpose without speculating on what that purpose may be.
May Spirit always recognize itself,
Sasha Viminitz
Dear Sasha,
DeleteThanks for your reply, I've been mulling it over. I agree with most of what you are saying, until you get to your conclusions at least, which seem to take certain logical jumps. I guess it depends on how you define 'objectivity', or maybe 'Objectivity': the difference in spelling may be the difference in definition. For me, the strength of spirituality is that its objectivity (Objectivity in this case) is not in the material world, it does not lie in the empirical, nor need it for its justification. All spiritualities rely and are founded in an Objective Absolute, whether positively defined, as in most Western religions, or negatively, as in the case of Buddhism. But the Objective transcends the fleeting world of material reality, the 'world of red dust' as the Daoists say. It is this Objective sense and sensibility that I think should be at least be attempted to be preserved in measurements of what is meaningful to us. And it is precisely what is lost in our attempts to measure ourselves materially and judge our 'development' by those dimensions. We already know from numerous studies that, beyond a certain point, money means very little in terms of happiness and well-being. So, we might ask, what really is necessary to be well, happy and healthy. It is, to me, that purpose that you say we need not speculate about which is fundamental, and therefore needs to be speculated on. The benefits are the side effect, and sure, it is they that we must measure, as they are all that indeed we can measure. But they are the finger pointing at the moon, and if we don't consider that purpose, the moon that is, how can we truly remember where to focus our gaze?
Kevin