American Society in the Buddhist Mirror

·期刊原文
American Society in the Buddhist Mirror
Reviewed by James V. Spickard
Sociology of Religion
Vol.55 No.3 (Fall 1994)
pp.368-369
COPYRIGHT Association for the Sociology of Religion 1994

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

This little book is both less and more than it seems. Though one
might think so from its title, it is not an analysis of American
society from a Buddhist point of view. Indeed, it contains little
about Buddhism per se, much less what Buddhists might think about
America. Tamney knows that Buddhism does not have opinions about
such things. The book's task, rather, is to examine Americans'
reception of Buddhism as a sign of the changing face of our culture.
Buddhism is a window through which many Americans have looked,
hoping to get a new view of the world. Instead, the author argues,
they see themselves. Though deceptively simple, the book contains
many insights and is well worth reading.

The book is divided into two parts. The first chronicles Americans'
personal interest in Buddhism, from the mid-nineteenth century
Transcendentalists to today's New Agers. As the author shows,
Buddhism's appeal changed from generation to generation. The
earliest serious interest, by Emerson and Olcott, grew out of a
two-fold rebellion against Puritanism. Emerson rejected its moral
strictness, Olcott its superstitious dogmatism. Each looked to
Buddhism for support and found what he sought, though Tamney doubts
either encountered real Buddhism at all.

Early twentieth-century interest grew out of an anti-modernism that
turned to the Far East as a refuge. Though other authors have
identified modernity's stresses as stemming from our emphasis on
work, reason, and profit, Tamney sees the key issue as our need to
construct a self. Faustian, natural, ethical, or stylish, the modern
self is built, not given. Those who wished to escape this chore were
drawn to a religion that deemphasizes the self. In return, they
emphasized this aspect of Buddhism, playing down other parts.
The Beat and Hippie generations were a bit different. Struck by the
emptiness of modern life, they responded to Buddhist meditation,
which promised a higher truth, and to Buddhist community, which
relieved loneliness. Kerouac, Pirsig, and those who read them sought
the deeper connection with the universe, the unity of the spiritual
and the empirical they saw in Buddhism. Later seekers have focused
on Buddhism as a source of self-control, or direct religious
experience, and of spiritual or physical healing. In all this, their
seeking says more about the culture they wish to change than it does
about the Buddhism they seek.

Though most of the material in this first section is gleaned from
secondary sources, Tamney keeps his critical eye and provides some
interesting insights. His discussion of the modern need for
self-construction is particularly worthy, as it includes much
material that sociologists usually do not consider. This, plus the
tremendous ground covered, make the section quite fruitful reading.
It is a fast overflight, however, most readers will want more.

The second part of the book records interest in Buddhism on the part
of American philosophers, humanistic and transpersonal
psychologists, theologians, and other intellectuals seeking
solutions for modernity's problems. Tamney argues that like lay
interest in Buddhism, this professional interest says more about
these problems than it does about Buddhism itself. Here he goes into
more detail, arguing, for example, that the western tradition of
agapic love is incompatible with Buddhist detachment, even though
some modern thinkers have tried to equate the two. But why, he asks,
do people want to make this equation? What does it tell us about our
own culture, that we seek its salvation in another? "Is Western
Civilization in the process of evolving to a new form or of
self-destructing?" Tamney asks, but provides only the sketch of an
answer to these worthy questions.

This, of course, is the problem with the book. It would be too much
to ask anyone to diagnose fully the state of American society
reflected in the Buddhist mirror. In this volume, we learn a lot
about Anglo-America's reception of Buddhism and about the kinds of
issues with which a cultural sociology of modem life must deal.
Tamney opens up resources and topics that others have not touched.
But it all happens too fast -- never shoddily, but by no means
intensively enough to be satisfying. Tamney has rightly chosen to
cover much ground; as a consequence, many depths remain unplumbed.
Perhaps this is simply to say that the book is very Buddhist. Rather
than giving us dogmatic answers, it raises issues and awareness,
inviting us to explore. We should accept the invitation.
James V. Spickard University of Redlands