The Spiritual and the Political: Beyond Russell Brand

January 26, 2014 by
Filed under: Social Brain 

For me, the solution has to be primarily spiritual and secondarily political.

–Russell Brand

 

About three months after Russell Brand’s iconoclastic call for a ‘revolution in consciousness’ on Newsnight (c10 million views on Youtube) and in New Statesman (103,000 Facebook ‘likes’) the dust has settled, and, well, nothing much has happened.

That’s a real pity.

Perhaps Brand’s fame, his main asset, proved to be a liability, in the sense that the messenger subsumed the message. That big story of October 2013 proved to be more about who Brand is(former drug addict, now celebrity, with challenging political views) how he got the better of Paxman, and what he did(edited New Statesman) than the content of what he was saying.

The minor tragedy is that beyond Brand’s sizzling ego, zealous eloquence and sharp eyebrows lies a coherent argument that we need to take deadly seriously. 

The minor tragedy is that beyond Brand’s sizzling ego, zealous eloquence and sharp eyebrows lies a coherent argument that we need to take deadly seriously. He is absolutely right to say that we need a deeper appreciation for who we think we are and why we think we are here before we can face up to the inadequacy of our existing social, political and financial institutions. Only then might we build the requisite will and insight needed to create a better world.

(In case you still have no appetite for the message due to the messenger, one of the world’s most respected Philosophers, Robert Unger, has a view of political change that, while several orders of magnitude more complex, is similar in its insistence on starting from a more spiritual account of human aspiration: “The commanding objective must be the achievement of a larger life for the ordinary man and woman”).

However, while Brand’s call to spiritual arms spoke to millions, it did not convince everybody. The message sounded fresh, but on examination it appeared half-baked because there was no clarity about the nature of the meaning of ‘spiritual’ or the link between the spiritual and the political, nor what it would mean to develop it in practice (in his own defence, he said he was busy that week being a magazine editor…).

And his suggestion that a corollary of his view is that we shouldn’t vote sounded overblown, because as anybody who takes spiritual progress seriously knows, a shift in consciousness may place your work in perspective, but it never does the work for you. To paraphrase an old Zen saying: before enlightenment – use your vote, after enlightenment – use your vote.

But his intervention was timely and profoundly important and we shouldn’t lose sight of it.

Modern political debates have become too tactical and technocratic to inspire political hope, and the idea that politics has lost touch with deeper foundations of human nature and aspiration not only rings true, but chimes with the RSA’s emerging worldview. As Adam Lent suggests, we have lost faith in conventional politics, and as Matthew Taylor argues, it is questionable whether better policymaking will ever change that.

Curiously, at least for those who believe in Zeitgeists, Brand’s public statements came out a few days after the first of six public events on taking spirituality seriously. I gave a short speech there, which I developed further and published in New Humanist in December. The editor Daniel Trilling kindly allowed me to repost that piece (some of which is lightly edited above, and some of which is lightly edited below).

If Russell Brand were ever to ask me for advice on how to flesh out the idea that the spiritual is primary and the political is secondary, here is the material I would draw upon to help him advance the case (Warning, c3000 words ahead).

To paraphrase an old Zen saying: before enlightenment – use your vote, after enlightenment – use your vote.

Taking Spirituality Seriously:

The capacious term ‘spirituality’ lacks clarity because it is not so much a unitary concept as a signpost for a range of touchstones; our search for meaning, our sense of the sacred, the value of compassion, the experience of transcendence, the hunger for transformation.

There is little doubt that spirituality can be interesting, but what needs to be made clearer by those who take that for granted is why it is also important. To be a fertile idea for those with terrestrial power or for those who seek it, we need a way of speaking of the spiritual that is intellectually robust and politically relevant.

This goal looks achievable when you realise that Spirituality is not centrally about ‘beliefs’. The conventional notion that to believe something means endorsing a statement of fact about how things are is an outdated and unhelpful Cartesian relic, grounded in a misunderstanding of how our ideas and actions interact.

Consider the story of two rabbis debating the existence of God through a long night and jointly reaching the conclusion that he or she did not exist. The next morning, one observed the other deep in prayer and took him to task. “What are you doing? Last night we established that God does not exist.” To which the other rabbi replied, “What’s that got to do with it?”

The capacious term ‘spirituality’ lacks clarity because it is not so much a unitary concept as a signpost for a range of touchstones; our search for meaning, our sense of the sacred, the value of compassion, the experience of transcendence, the hunger for transformation.

The praying non-believer illustrates that belief may be much closer to what sociologist William Morgan described as “a shared imaginary, a communal set of practices that structure life in powerfully aesthetic terms”. This perspective chimes with the emerging 21st century view of human nature as fundamentally embodied, constituted by evolutionary biology, embedded in complex online and offline networks, largely habitual, highly sensitive to social and cultural norms, riddled with cognitive quirks and biases, and much more rationalising than rational. This perspective helps to move beyond simplistic accounts of ‘belief’ and sheds light on the three main perspectives on spirituality in the UK today.

Three forms of spirituality

First, there is religious spirituality, in which religions can be understood as the cultural and institutional expression of the spiritual. This association explains why those who feel antipathy towards religion are wary of bringing spirituality into the public realm. As the Humanist Anthropologist Matthew Engelke put it at a recent RSA workshop on the idea of ‘spiritual commitment’: “the word spiritual has a history, and that history has a politics.”

Second, there is the ‘spiritual but not religious’ category, an expression that does little to illuminate the nature of the spiritual beyond the disassociation with religion. ‘SBNR’ is now a bizarrely demographic box to tick that serves mainly to carve out a space on the census form for amorphous worldviews. Indeed, this large and heterogeneous group does not have anything resembling ‘class consciousness’, nor culturally recognised institutional forms.

One of the reasons we tend not to take spirituality seriously is that people in this category get attacked ‘from both sides’; from atheists for their perceived irrationality and wishful thinking, and from organised religion for their rootless self-indulgence and lack of commitment. However, while survey findings on such matters have be treated with considerable caution, this broad categorisation arguably captures the majority of the British population. For instance, a 2012 meta-analysis of attitude surveys by the thinktank Theos, revealed that about 70% of the British population is neither strictly religious nor strictly non-religious, but rather moving in and out of the undesignated spaces in between.

Thirdly, there is a perspective that might be called secular spirituality, which is typically atheistic or humanistic but does not disavow the idea that some forms of experience, ritual or practice may be deeper or more meaningful than others; a perspective that still finds value in the term ‘spiritual’ as a way to encapsulate that understanding.

Consider, for instance, humanist celebrants giving dignity to marriages and funerals, or the completely open nature of the ‘higher power’ that participants in alcoholics anonymous are asked to place their faith in, or ecstatic dancing, sublime art, the charms of nature, the birth of a child, or even the sexual union that led to it. For all the problems with the word spiritual, there are forms of life where we seem to need it to point towards an appreciation that would otherwise be ineffable.

Personal transformation and Social Transformation

So spirituality can come out the closet. It is by no means a minority issue, and there is no need to be embarrassed by the term. Indeed, we need to talk more freely about it to understand the connection between these diverse and widespread spiritualities and the social, economic and political challenges we face.

For all the problems with the word spiritual, there are forms of life where we seem to need it to point towards an appreciation that would otherwise be ineffable.

I see the connection in Mahatma Gandhi’s famous line that “we must be the change we want to see in the world”. These evocative words are a distillation of a much longer statement rather than a direct quotation, but they nonetheless landed on t-shirts, posters and bumper stickers around the world, because the expression speaks to us deeply. We must be the change we want to see in the world.

When I read that line I think to myself: Yes, that’s what I want and need – to close the gap between my actions and my ideals; to make my daily decisions speak to the vision of the kind of world I would like to help bring into being.

But how on earth do I go about that?

Gandhi’s statement highlights the forgotten imperative to connect social transformation with personal transformation, which his leadership of the Indian Independence movement exemplified. The contention here is that we struggle to make this connection because, unlike Gandhi, our identification with the spiritual in private realms is not manifesting publicly. Indeed, our public discourse seems to be becoming spiritually illiterate.

Perspectives, Experiences and Practices:

When it comes to the very practical business of aligning our vision and values with our actions on the word, we look like amateurs, unfamiliar with the tools we need. Spiritual experiences, perspectives and practices are wrongly framed as otherworldly, rather than precious human resources to bring our ideals into being.

By spiritual experiences, I mean experiences that make the world feel viscerally meaningful; moments of aliveness, rapture and homecoming that, as Psychologist Guy Claxton puts it, make ordinary experience seem vapid and attenuated by comparison.

By spiritual practices I mean the disciplined and creative activities that support human development, like meditation and yoga, but also for instance writing, art, or even running – things we do to strengthen our inner lives.

And by spiritual perspectives I mean the value-rich visions of what it means to be here, to be human, our worldviews that contextualise our experiences and practices.

This question of perspective is important, and formative for many, but the science-religion debates of the last few decades struggled to find traction because they said so little about practices and experiences, which for many are closer to the heart of why the spiritual matters.

Our Ground and our Place

For me, there is nothing more spiritual than the impact of death on our lives, which has a particularly powerful humanising and levelling quality. Our shared recognition of a brute existential reality brings us back to our common humanity. Life as such is precious to all of us, but our experience of it becomes more visceral, shared, and tangible when it is threatened, as witnessed for instance in the solidarity and kinship widely experienced in the aftermath of terrorist attacks or natural disasters.

For me, there is nothing more spiritual than the impact of death on our lives, which has a particularly powerful humanising and levelling quality. 

Such moments illustrate a useful and generative distinction. Common to the three main manifestations of the spiritual highlighted above, and therefore fundamental to the concept, spirituality is about our ground, rather than our place. This contrast stems from Buddhism, but it can also be inferred in Heiddeger’s emphasis on the philosophical primacy of the lived experience of being human, or as he puts it, ‘Being-there’.

By our ground I mean the most basic facts of our existence: that we are here at all, that we exist in and through this body that somehow breathes, that we build selves through and for others, that we’re a highly improbable part of an unfathomable whole, and of course, that we will inevitably die. Another way to characterise the relevance of our ground comes from the psychotherapist Mark Epstein who refers to the spiritual as ‘anything that takes us beyond the personality.’

As anybody who has faced a life threatening illness will know, reflecting on our ground heightens the importance of not postponing our lives, of using the time we have for what really matters to us. And yet, research on the main regrets of the dying indicates the sad fact that we rarely actually do this – most of us do in fact postpone our lives.

And why? Because the world perpetuates our attachment to our place, by which I mean our constructed identities, our fragile reputations, our insatiable desires. We get lost in our identification with our place, and all the cultural signifiers of status that come with it: our dwellings, our salaries, our clothes, our Twitter followers. As T.S. Eliot put it: “We are distracted from distraction by distraction, filled with fancies and empty of meaning.”

And this shouldn’t surprise us. In 21st century Britain the average urban adult is exposed to about 3000 adverts a day, and we find ourselves caught up what Economist Tim Jackson calls ‘the social logic of consumption’.

There is no simple causality in such matters, but while our attachment to our place fuels consumption, our experience of our ground may provide immunity to the idea that we need to consume to validate ourselves.

Our failure to come back to the basic conditions of our existence may also be closely connected to the gradual and relentless shift in the public being described as consumers rather than citizens, a shift meticulously documented by the Public Interest Research Centre in national broadsheet references. Consumption predates capitalism, and is part of being human, but consumerism is less benign, a vision of human life that takes us away from our existential ground and threatens our ecological ground in the process.

Of course we need governments and markets, but their qualities and priorities depend on our qualities and priorities as citizens. And where are we in that respect? And how would we know?

Spiritual practice indicates that our everyday consciousness is not a particularly reliable or benign set of states – in fact we are more or less deluded most of the time. Meditation is the best teacher of this troubling fact, which might sound provocative, but is a completely uncontroversial idea for the millions engaged in regular spiritual practice. For instance, former Buddhist monk Stephen Batchelor characterises our default functioning in the world in terms of ‘compulsive becoming’ and ‘existential flight’.

In this respect, Tocqueville comes to mind. He argued for the moralising power of participation in his classic book, Democracy in America, but on his account religion was a prerequisite for that moralising process, and in lieu of church attendance, which is declining everywhere except, curiously, London, we may need something that serves a similar function to revive collective political will.

This will not be easy. We scramble away from our ground because the alternative is deeply disconcerting. When we succeed in slowing down, it can be quite a shock to glimpse the machinations of our own minds from an unfamiliar vantage point. In most cases we find that our mind’s default state is not to be calm and focussed and judicious, but more like a noisy self-serving storyteller, fuelled by self-concern and anxious justification.

When we succeed in slowing down…in most cases we find that our mind’s default state is not to be calm and focused and judicious, but more like a noisy self-serving storyteller, fuelled by self-concern and anxious justification.

It is hard for us to accept that we rely on such wayward minds to act on the world, but when you begin to sense this inner confusion, you are less inclined to look outside of yourself for answers. For starters, the familiar saying, that if you’re not part of the solution, you are part of the problem, begins to look entirely misconceived. American academic Bill Torbert suggests it’s the other way round: “If you don’t realize you’re part of the problem, you can’t be part of the solution.”

Our refusal to face up to our ground, and experience it more viscerally on a regular basis has also made most of us complicit in allowing public policy to become pseudo-objective in its emphasis, characterised by forms of evidence that squeeze out the emotions and experiences that they seek to promote.

We document patterns of social isolation rather than emotionally connect with those who are lonely. We tweak institutional design to improve social care, but say little about showing kindness to neighbours in need. We confidently debate the efficacy of treatments for clinical depression but often conceal our own experiences of sadness. We strain to justify the arts instrumentally, expressing their value in economic terms, while knowing in our hearts that that’s not what they are for. And a growing number of environmentalists, increasingly desperate for traction, now find themselves referring to mother nature – God bless her? – as natural capital.

The neglect of our ground goes beyond political discourse. In every day life ubiquitous technology, abundant news, and an uncomfortable awareness of all the things we will never do or be make our lives feel increasingly centrifugal, in the literal sense that we are drawn away from our centre. Spirituality can therefore be seen, helpfully, as a centripetal force, bringing us back to our ground, back to the fuller version of ourselves that we need to act constructively in the world.

Spirituality as a Radical Perspective

So while spirituality is often charged with escapism, is it not the evasion of the spiritual that is the real escapism? A renewed activism, grounded in spiritual perspectives, practices and experiences may be precisely the radical stance towards the world we now need.

So while spirituality is often charged with escapism, is it not the evasion of the spiritual that is the real escapism? A renewed activism, grounded in spiritual perspectives, practices and experiences may be precisely the radical stance towards the world we now need.

It is no longer radical to suggest that it is mad to fetishize economic growth measured in percentiles of gross domestic product – a measure of human progress that is, above all, completely unrecognisable at a personal scale.

It is no longer radical to suggest that the default five-day working week is not the only way to structure our lives, and looks like an unhelpful convention when many are ill due to overwork, and others, especially the young, remain unemployed.

And it is no longer radical to suggest, along with our finest scientific minds, that the climate alarm cannot be snoozed away, and we urgently need to wake up to plug more than 7 billion people in to an almost entirely different source of energy, to retain a liveable planet in the second half of this century, not some point in the unimaginable future.

What is somewhat radical, however, is to suggest that the reason we are not acting on such imperatives with sufficient conviction is because we are not paying attention to our ground. We have lost sight of the potency of spiritual perspectives, practices and experiences in bringing the fundamentals back to our attention.

Former Mayor of Vancouver Sam Sullivan offers an inspiring example. He suffered a skiing accident when he was nineteen, which left him quadriplegic, in a wheelchair for life. A spiritual experience brought him out of despair and sustained spiritual practice related to stoicism helped him forge a celebrated career in disability activism and public service.

Soon after the accident, while contemplating suicide, he imagined his own death in vivid, visceral and bloody terms. After carefully simulating the gunshot in his imagination, he describes how he felt as the witness to his own continued breathing, witnessing the sensation that remained in his disabled body but highly functional mind; now from a renewed, life-affirming perspective: “Somebody could do something with that,” he thought. “Hey, I could do something with that.”

Knowing our Ground.

We need to know ourselves more fully because the resulting awareness helps to make sense of why the gap between the way we are living and the world we would like to create endures.

We need to know ourselves more fully because the resulting awareness helps to make sense of why the gap between the way we are living and the world we would like to create endures.

But how much do we know about our ground, experientially, relationally, scientifically? For most of us, not much (see the seminal essay for the project as a whole: The Brains Behind Spirituality) The experience of spiritual practice, and a growing body of scientific research, reveals just how far our common understanding of who we are is mistaken. Three features of what makes us human illustrate the validity of this broad point.

We are not the isolated, conscious minds often assumed in our folk psychology. Rather, we are fundamentally embodied. Any spirituality that ignores how the body influences what we think and do will not be usefully transformative. The success of Yoga in the west may be precisely because it is grounded in that understanding.

We also need to challenge the modern presumption of automaticity, the idea that we are forever doomed to be creatures of habit, condemned to live in a preoccupied fog, vulnerable to whatever is thrust upon us as salient. So much of the recent emphasis on ‘behaviour change’ in public policy takes our automatic natures as a given. However, the growing mindfulness movement, for instance, speaks to the possibility of individually and collectively waking up from the habitual rumination that keeps us experientially absent, and less than fully alive.

And we need to think about what we call the deep social – not merely that we are social creatures, which is a truism, but that we are physiologically social – that we have evolved through and for each other. While empathy for our family and friends may come naturally, we can also dramatically expand this sense of who ‘we’ are in space and time, through particular forms of spiritual practice – like loving kindness meditation – that have been honed precisely for this purpose. Such practices are not merely nice, but rather essential for international and intergenerational problems like climate change, which we seem to lack political motivation to solve, partly due to the biological limits of empathy.

Coming back to the connection between the spiritual and the political, unlike Russell Brand, Martin Luther King clearly lived and breathed this link and combined both to great effect for civil rights. His reference to love in the following statement is by no means synonymous with the spiritual, but it serves a similar function:

“Power properly understood is …the strength required to bring about social political, and economic change… One of the great problems of history is that the concepts of love and power have usually been contrasted as opposites- polar opposites- so that love is identified with the resignation of power and power with the denial of love.

Now we’ve got to get this thing right…Power without love is reckless and abusive, and love without power is sentimental and anaemic…It is precisely this collision of immoral power with powerless morality which constitutes the major crisis of our time.”

Spirituality, for me, is about tapping into the deep sources of our own power and love, and the lifelong challenge of bringing them together in practice.

###

Dr Jonathan Rowson is Director of the Social Brain Centre at the RSA. He tweets at @Jonathan_Rowson

 

Comments

  • Pingback: Ritual México | Spirituality

  • http://jayarava.blogspot.com Jayarava

    Russell Brand is a clown, playing the clown, and he didn’t make any difference because he didn’t say anything that anyone could actually get on board with. Don’t vote? Have a revolution? The best response to Bland was by right-wing comedian Simon Evans on Stand up for the Week. Never was a revolution less likely. “The poor are fat… genius!”

    There’s nothing really vague about the term spiritual. It is a felt commitment to an ontological duality between matter and spirit. This commitment comes with several explicit or implied entailments. Spirit is more valued and matter less. Spirit interacts with the material world only lightly and mainly resides in an immaterial “spiritual” realm which is only accessible in the afterlife or by specially qualified people like shaman. Humans are generally speaking passive with respect to spirit – most of us cannot interact with the spirit realm while alive and under most circumstances.

    The ontological duality probably emerges from collective experiences of phenomena like out of body experiences. Yes, experiences described as “spiritual” can be inspiring, but on the whole they don’t help unless we can actualise them in some way. And most people can’t. The vast majority, even within spiritual communities (I’m a member of a worldwide Buddhist Order) do not have the kind of life changing “spiritual experiences” that are mentioned in the article. Most of us slog away at it and don’t get any Big Experience.

    Priests and other intermediaries make their living from interpreting how we ought to live with respect to the spiritual world precisely we cannot access it. In reality neither can most priests. And pushed further there are better explanations for the experiences that the very tiny minority who have out of body experiences and the like.

    Spirit is valorised and prioritised by people who are spiritual. We project goodness onto the spirit in the spirit world. Meaning and purpose in this dualistic view are not to be sought in the material world but in the imagined needs of the spirit in its spiritual realm. The corollary is that matter is bad. As embodied beings we are inferior (to say, angels or bodhisattvas). Flesh is weak. Thus we maintain a separation in which we remain uncommitted to the material world and ineffective in treating material world problems.

    What is vague is the rhetoric used for talking about the immaterial, spiritual realm. This is not helped by unintegrated psychological projections into this other realm. Overlaying our discussion about values with legacy religious terms and 19th century Romanticism is what makes the discussion vague (this article is positively dripping with unreconstructed Romanticism).

    The real problem as I see it, contra this article, is that we take this spirit realm, spirits who inhabit it, and the whole concept of “spiritual” far too seriously. It distances us from human and material world problems. Climate change for example is not a spiritual problem and cannot have a spiritual solution. It is a problem of *human values* that is obscured by the spiritual rhetoric. Part of the problem is that we value the afterlife and/or some immaterial realm more than this one.

    Greed is not a problem because it prioritises the material over the spiritual. It is a problem because it unbalances the world. Because it causes our values to skew. Because it’s an expression of a negative emotional response to other people. Because it’s a sign of fear and a sense of lack.

    We cannot afford to prioritise the supernatural when the natural is crying out for attention. If we frame our problems in spiritual terms then we place them outside the context in which we can affect solutions. Human beings are ineffective in the spiritual realm. Almost all discourse informed by the “spiritual” council disengagement with the material world, though sometimes nature just about makes it into our purview because somehow it carries a lot of projections of “spiritual”.

    It really is time we cut to the chase and dealt with problems in terms that empower people to act. Characterising them as “spiritual” makes people switch off. We especially need to challenge the role of Romantic discourses in modernity – we need to really inquire into the applicability of Romantic ideology to the world we live in. We could certainly look into the morality of the Romantics! Why do we frame our values in Romantic terms? And while we do frame them in these terms why are we still surprised when Neoliberals largely ignore us? We need to be clear that dividing the world into two realms, only one of which we are active in is deeply unhelpful.

    Once one sees the underlying dualistic worldview the vagueness of spirituality sans-religion resolves itself – we have a confusing surface layer that draws on multiple sources (Romanticism, Spiritualism, Religion, and Mysticism), but a simple undercurrent of matter/spirit duality that is extremely unhelpful in fighting Neoliberalism and the rape of the planet. Unhelpful because it seems that Neoliberals are not vague or passive in respect to the world. They are certain and active and totally focussed on the material. If we’re going to fight them effectively we have to get to the heart of our own worldview and see why it makes us ineffective opponents of greed.

    We need to be able to state our values clearly in material terms since the changes we seek are in fact material changes – changes to how resources are allocated, how resources are exploited, how people are treated by the law. While we frame our values in spiritual terms the Neoliberals are free to ignore us. We need to consider very carefully how we communicating our values in human terms.

    Rather than carrying on with outmoded language and unhelpful frames we ought to be inquiring into how political and social change actually come about and choosing our language and our frames to suit.

    • frazzled

      I think it was brave to say something…. anything to challenge the status quo of the masses being bled by a “squeeze”. The media acceptance that this must be the only way perpetuates a continuous drain of economic slavery that supercedes any we have ever known before. The very mention of frames illucidates the current goal of defining life as a narrative to be “percieved”. Suffering is just a state of mind etc… Human beings are the only creatures that can create waste that is independant of the biosphere, this must be indicative of an imbalance which requires redress. Extinction on the scale of the twentieth century indicates a distinct threat to human life on the planet. Human beings created the mechanics of megadeath, for our children to inherit. Every world image I see of poverty has men with guns, why is this money not spent feeding people? Armaments are still such a great money spinner, this is a sign of a distinct spiritual emptiness in human life, particularly when most religions talk about a natural law of respect for life. What went wrong, and how can we foster respect for life again? Our politicians can’t even respect the right to privacy, declared in the UN convention for human rights!

      • http://jayarava.blogspot.com Jayarava

        If you want workable alternatives then seek out and pay attention to Ann Pettifor and the Green New Deal. Or follow the New Economics Foundation.

  • Casper ter Kuile

    This is stellar, Jonathan. Thanks for sharing.

  • MatthewMezey

    An attendee at the RSA spirituality event where Jonathan gave the speech above offered – after the second event, on ‘embodied spirituality’ – to organise some small discussion events in parallel to this lecture series (for RSA Fellows and other interested people).

    If you’d like an invitation to these spirituality discussions, if they go ahead, please e-mail: matthew.mezey@rsa.org.uk

    I haven’t thought particularly hard about the Brand stuff, unfortunately. This is possibly as it reminds me of the views I had as a teenager, as did most of my friends.

    I had a poster with lots of little crosses on it and the slogan: ‘This is your lifetime’s supply of democracy – please don’t run off with the pencil!’ (or something like that) ;-)

    Those views of mine have been transcended and included into a larger picture by now (as Ken Wilber might put it). A lot of twists and turns over the decades since then – but looking at deeper foundations, spirituality etc seems as important as ever. So Brand is right about that. (And I won’t forget that my one most memorable ‘glimpse’ (aka peak experience) was as a teen – and seemed to have pretty much all the characteristics that Guy Claxton described so well at the second RSA spirituality event).

    By now though, I’m far more aware of the nitty-gritty of how particular organisations have been transformed by ‘spiritual’ leaders – indeed how many of the most transformative leaders out there have a strong spiritual foundation, even if they don’t usually share this fact.

    These things give me hope, in a way that focusing on politics doesn’t (and clearly doesn’t for Brand either).

    Even in politics, there’s plenty of room for optimism – the policy guru Geoff Mulgan at the end of one Downing Street meeting urged all the Government future strategy experts to seek to apply the ‘Integral’ model of Ken Wilber in their policies – Wilber offers an interesting elaboration of a ‘spiritual’ worldview as it might apply in the real world. It has fans as diverse as Bill Clinton, Al Gore and the Bishop of London…

    It even resonated with a few of the people in the room… ;-)

  • johndowdle

    Much of this article is sheer nonsense, as is belief in a spiritual domain.
    Instead of using the words spirit or spiritual, try using ethics and ethical. What is needed is a higher order set of ethical standards on the part of senior politicians and other main influencers.
    In his State of the Union address, President Obama made reference to the growing levels of inequality on the USA.
    It could be added that this unwelcome phenomenon is visible in most other “advanced” economies, which – according to Keynesian economic theory – means that the marginal propensity to consume within any society is overwhelmed by the marginal propensity to invest (though just what present-day modes of investment actually represent anymore is a whole other area for debate).
    This explains why the poor in our societies continue to grow ever poorer and the rich continue to grow ever richer.
    Overall, while there are clear problems of a growing world human population and the increased environmental strain this places on the whole planet Earth asset base, it also has to be acknowledged that population trends are flattening out and are projected eventually to begin declining in the future.
    So, I do not share the doom-monger outlook of some of the contributors to this blog.
    To return to the original point of this article, I think people will start taking politics seriously when they see politicians taking them seriously.
    None of the main political parties in the UK or elsewhere in the “developed” world are offering us any kind of truly ethical leadership – so why should we feel inspired to want to support them electorally?
    Forget spiritualism; try ethicalism instead.

  • Jonathanrowson

    Thanks for all the comments. I’m not too sure where to start in response.
    Johndowdle – You are not the only one not to like the term spiritual, but for what it’s worth, I do try pretty hard in the piece to explain what I think the term means and why it matters, and your reference to ‘belief in a spiritual domain’ makes me wonder how closely you read it.
    Jayarava – welcome back! I struggled to follow your comment, to be honest. You seem to have a very definitive idea of what spiritual means and what it’s place is, but I don’t see the connection to my argument, nor to your own religious position. Nor do I see a cogent challenge to links I was drawing between spiritual perspectives, practices and experiences as resources that inform the arguably urgent need to connect personal change to social change. However, reading between the lines, I suspect we would agree on a lot, given time to clarify what we are respectively on about.

    Frazzled-your comment is befitting of your name!…Personally I am not starting from a position of despair. There is much that is going right in the world, but we do seem to be paying too much attention to some things (GDP, ‘global race’, interest rates) and too little to others(climate change, inequality) and personally I do see a link there to an over-emphasis on ‘place’ and a neglect of ‘ground’, as unpacked above.
    If you haven’t already, read: Zen in the Art of Motorcycle Mainteance by Robert Pirsig; if you have, try ‘How much is enough’ by Robert and Edward Skidelsky – both are good for the spirit in different ways.

    • http://jayarava.blogspot.com Jayarava

      Hi Jonathan.

      Yes I do have a definite idea about what “spiritual” means, or at least what it boils down to. Which is: ontological duality (matter/spirit) + an associated set of values wrt to the two domains. If you are interested I’ve written about this more cogently here: http://jayarava.blogspot.co.uk/2013/04/metaphors-and-materialism.html

      If I am right then your “spiritual perspectives” are not relevant to solving the kinds of problems you cite. They merely get in the way or, worse, cause the problems in the first place.

      I’m not sure how you see my “religious position”.

      • Jonathan Rowson

        Thanks. I read enough of that link to know I should read it more carefully in due course, but there is quite a big difference between your commitment to a metaphysics of ontological dualism, and my attempt to frame spirituality in as rigorously inclusive a way as possible.
        I personally don’t think we (in terms of societal change) can revive and develop what matters about spiritual perspectives, experience and practices (as unpacked in my piece) by drawing a line in the sand on major philosophical conundrums (which is not to say that might not be the best way forward for any given individual).
        Out of interest, what is your view of Stephen Batchelor’s work?

      • Jonathanrowson

        Thanks. I read enough of that link to know I should read it more carefully in due course, but there is quite a big difference between your commitment to a metaphysics of ontological dualism, and my attempt to frame spirituality in as rigorously inclusive a way as possible.

        I personally don’t think we (in terms of societal change) can revive and develop what matters about spiritual perspectives, experience and practices (as unpacked in my piece) by drawing a line in the sand on major philosophical conundrums (which is not to say that might not be the best way forward for any given individual).

        Out of interest, what is your view of Stephen Batchelor’s work?

        • http://jayarava.blogspot.com Jayarava

          Sorry? I *do not* have “a commitment to ontological dualism”. The point of the article is that the word “spiritual” connotes such a commitment. I reject it completely. I’m with Owen Flanaghan when he says, “Just say no to the supernatural.”

          It doesn’t matter how you dress it up, “spirituality” is all about “spirit” – something I argue simply does not exist. There is no such thing as a “spiritual perspective”, a “spiritual experience”, or a “spiritual practice”. It’s enormously unhelpful to even think in those terms precisely because of the underlying supernatural metaphysics. There are just perspectives, experiences and practices.

          I don’t have much interest in SB. I’ve read a couple of his books and thought they were a bit obvious and boring. I’m influenced particularly by Sue Hamilton on the Buddhist side and Thomas Metzinger on the Neuro side.

          • Jonathanrowson

            I fear we are talking at cross purposes- I meant that you are framing spirituality as if it necessarily entailed such a commitment (to ontological dualism) and I’m saying it does not. The etymology of spirituality suggests roots relating to aliveness and vitality, not metaphysics, and I went out of my way to unpack broader meanings of spirituality in the article e.g. “The capacious term ‘spirituality’ lacks clarity because it is not so much a unitary concept as a signpost for a range of touchstones; our search for meaning, our sense of the sacred, the value of compassion, the experience of transcendence, the hunger for transformation.”

            You don’t seem to have engaged in that argument – you have just stated that it’s not what spirituality is. That’s fine, but it doesn’t move things any further on. Unless I’m missing something?

          • http://jayarava.blogspot.com Jayarava

            Seems my reply to this got nixed. Not sure how to take that. You want the last word?

          • Jonathanrowson

            I didn’t know the word ‘nixed’, so thanks, but no, I suspect it was just a delay- no nixing on this side…

      • bella mark

        Are you a good musician or a business man or as well any worker and you need excess of money and you also want to become famous and wealthy here is your chance to become a member of the Illuminati and become a star in your life. if really you are interested in becoming a full member of the Illuminati don’t hesitate to email us or call and we also want you to know that there is nobody that is to determine your future because your future is right in your hands so join us now and become a responsible human being okay, so email us now if interested in becoming rich and powerful email us now at : illuminatinationwild2@gmail.com or contact this number for your quick initiation:+2349034224808

  • Wes G

    Hi,

    Im surrprised not a single person has noted or suggested the work carried out by Carl Jung with regard to spirituallity.

    in his book ‘secret of the golden flower’ he (impo) clearly outlines and describes how we indivudually invisage in our minds/dreams a geocentric image known as the ‘Mandala’ , this mental projection is the root of religion and spirituality according to jung, and is also the root to a persons individuation into a whole being. (different from individualization process that atomizes the person.)

    Part of me thinks the root to unlocking the true connective potential of all religions, beleif systems, cultures and states is to tap into this notion of the mandal, or those central figure heads like ‘mandela’, might we even look to the mathmatical images created by ‘mandelbrot’ and whats often been called ‘gods fingerprint’??

    I also think Jung can help with social change on a large scale with his work on the animus and amina, but that i would have thought would come after some sort of global awakening.

    • Jonathan Rowson

      Thanks for this thought. I am of course aware of Jung and read lots of his work about a decade ago, and although not mentioned by name here, there is perhaps a link between the mandala and an idea that is mentioned- that certain forms of spirituality might act as centripetal forces in a centripetal world.

    • Jonathanrowson

      Thanks for this thought. I am of course aware of Jung and read lots of his work about a decade ago, and although not mentioned by name here, there is perhaps a link between the mandala and an idea that is mentioned- that certain forms of spirituality might act as centripetal forces in a centripetal world.

      • Wes G

        absolutly with you on that notion, certainly worth keeping in mind.

        i also think that other forms of that type of abstraction beit in the mind or in society at large (in our stories , building, places and important figureheads) might also hold clues to something larger , something far more interconnected.

  • Pingback: RSA Looks to Elevate the Discussion on Spirituality | Those Damn Liars

  • Pingback: RSA Looks to Elevate the Discussion on Spirituality - The Illuminati | NWO | New World Order

  • Filmstv Andlife

    I think his point might be that there are 85 people in the world that have as much wealth as the rest of it, such concentrated wealth means that governments act on behalf of corporations rather than people, individuals rights are barely even existent, and voting has now become somewhat irrelevant because there is a shift in politics.Governments no longer have control or power over corporations therefore no matter who you vote for you are voting for a corporation that has no obligation to the well being of a politicians electorate. Democracy has become a farce, that I think may have been his intended message. A revolution against the REAL people in power.

  • Jonathanrowson

    First of all, I’m grateful for your time and expertise – it’s great to have a considered critique rather than just a casual dismissal of the issue and argument.
    On ‘religious position’, I was merely referring to you coming from a broadly Buddhist perspective; nothing more precise or pejorative.
    On Etymology – I would say there is no final verdict there and we could easily swap sources to support competing positions, but if you take ‘animating principle’ into the 21st century I don’t think you need to (even if you could) get supernatural at all!
    In any case seeking to resolve things too definitively with etymology looks like pedantry – my point in highlighting the link to breath, prana, aliveness and so forth was just that you haven’t shown that an interest or valuing of the spiritual is concomitant with a belief in ontological dualism. If you really think you have, and that the choice is between that, and conceptual incoherence in speaking of the spiritual, then we just have to agree to disagree, but in either case I’m happy for you to have the last word!…

    • http://jayarava.blogspot.com Jayarava

      Think we’ll just have to agree to disagree. Cheers.

  • Pingback: The spirit of the body: touched, moved and inspired : RSA blogs

  • Pingback: No Appetite | When Was Jesus Born? New information is shocking!

  • Pingback: The Inner Power to Create : RSA blogs

  • Pingback: What happened to ‘the soul’? : RSA blogs

  • Pingback: Easter is for Grown Ups : RSA blogs

  • Williams Belli

    Am glad today because am now a successful
    man of Illuminati,i have taught of been one
    of the Illuminati member so that i will be
    wealthy, popular, and famous in life and my
    family will be forever rich. I get a linked up
    by my primary school friend who is well
    known. He introduce me to a man who have
    a successful influence with this occult
    Illuminati. He really did all for me, and now
    am so glad of becoming a Illuminati
    member, I am now rich and wealthy.
    Illuminati is a great and powerful means to
    get popular in life. So if you really want to
    be like me today Contact: illuminatirandom@live.com
    or call +2348035831826

  • Pingback: Death, Toast, and Civilisation : RSA blogs

  • Pingback: laser hair growth treatment chicago

  • Pingback: annuity rate watch

  • Pingback: backflow prevention pompano beach fl

  • Pingback: Laser Hair Growth Treatment

  • Pingback: Can spirituality inform public policy? Three ways to look at it: : RSA blogs

  • Pingback: moving services In las vegas Nv

  • Pingback: RSA Looks to Elevate the Discussion on Spirituality - AwarEvolution.com

  • Pingback: cajon pass ca weather conditions

  • Pingback: social media marketing for beginners

  • Pingback: west palm beach movers cheap

  • Pingback: affordable moving companies columbus ohio

  • Pingback: kitchen ferguson plumbing pompano beach

  • Pingback: clash of clans gemmes gratuit

  • Pingback: moving and storage containers Canada

  • Pingback: celebrity dresses for sale

  • Pingback: korean plastic surgery story

  • Pingback: tristram marine Nz

  • Pingback: i wanna hold your hand youtube

  • Pingback: Laser Hair Regrowth Treatment Cost

  • Pingback: Bay Area Rhinoplasty

  • Pingback: daveluy's watertown ct

  • Pingback: weight loss hcg drops

  • Pingback: botox For migraines Vs Regular Botox

  • Pingback: varicose veins stockings walmart

  • Pingback: cosmetic dentistry before and after wi

  • Pingback: hair restoration des moines iowa

  • Pingback: miss america 2014 nina davuluri video

  • Pingback: dan hill and rique franks sometimes when we touch

  • Pingback: boca raton cpa john Miller cbs news

  • Pingback: Percussionist Latin Flamenco Beach

  • Pingback: best quality hcg weight loss

  • Pingback: moving companies in florida for sale

  • Pingback: social media marketing numbers

  • Pingback: plastic surgery news 2013

  • Pingback: fake braces editor online

  • Pingback: facial plastic surgeon louisville

  • Pingback: tin ujević udutu

  • Pingback: boca raton social media marketing for hotels

  • Pingback: Biking Shorts Padded

  • Pingback: homeopathic hcg drops

  • Pingback: hcg drops for Weight loss Yahoo

  • Pingback: cerrajeros en castelldefels

  • Pingback: meg ryan uma thurman plastic surgery before after

  • Pingback: container Store

  • Pingback: celebrity dresses for rent

  • Pingback: doumbek with built what is the horse's name in jingle bells

  • Pingback: hcg weight loss jacksonville nc

  • Pingback: bodycon dress sewing pattern free

  • Pingback: How To Turn Your Source Wave Review From Blah Into Fantastic

  • Pingback: celebrity dress look alikes for sale

  • Pingback: back braces for heavy Lifting

  • Pingback: social media marketing conferences 2014

  • Pingback: plastic surgery houston tx