We have a European Union and an African Union. We can form an Asian Union, and converge all the unions into a World Union...or something to that effect. That is the vision that has been ingrained in my mind since I heard His Holiness, the Dalai Lama speak at a conference on "Democracy in a Multipolar World" in Prague a few months ago. A “World Union” is a dream of a united society bridging all borders and roadblocks into a world of cooperation, collaboration and unimaginable growth and peace. The Dalai Lama’s words were idealistic and impractical, yet something about his presentation helped me visualize the big picture, the ultimate goal for all international efforts. His Holiness has not preached, but shared his views on democracy and non-violence with students and teachers alike across all nations, religions and cultures. He is a Nobel Peace Prize recipient, a many-time-over honorary scholar. He has been THE leader for the international protest movement against the “cultural genocide” of Tibet, as well as teachings of interfaith harmony and Buddhism. The Dalai Lama defines a public intellectual through his integrity in teaching his world views to the world of academia, but making them accessible to the general public as well.
His Holiness is an emblem of the ability to preserve religion and international diplomacy through interfaith efforts. Yes, America is built on the principle of freedom of religion, but it was also founded on the Protestant work ethic. The key word for making miracles happen according to His Holiness: FAITH. America isn’t that far off. Stephen Mack’s essay on “Wicked Paradox: The Cleric as Public Intellectual” elaborates.
That is, American politics “uses” religion in the sense that it draws something vital out of it, redefining it in the process as something secular, essentially social and not at all dependent on the belief systems of particular faiths. In short, liberal democracy takes from religion what it cannot supply on its own: a deep sense of belonging.
And from this stems the “American Dream”, that anyone can be anything, and contribute significantly to the nation that we have built from the ground-up. The Dalai Lama has taken these concepts and internationalized them. I don’t believe his dedication to religious teachings has inhibited or clouded his ability to effectively convey his diplomatic views. He is merely using faith in general terms as a propeller for world harmony.
His Holiness can indeed be identified as a public figurehead, but he is not limited to such. He is in all ways a public intellectual, yet many suggest that this term is becoming less and less relevant. No, he didn’t get a Ph.D from Harvard and pursue a career of academia and discourse. But he is in all ways a representative of “intellectualism” brought to the public. I believe that there is therefore a demand for the widening of the definition of a public intellectual, which is depicted in Stephen Mack’s essay, “The “'Decline' of Public Intellectuals?”.
You may not agree with the Dalai Lama’s views, but he is the type of individual that we should be aspiring towards, not the rich and famous. America is based on materialism, and the Dalai Lama bases his views on simplicity and contentment. And look what he has accomplished for the world. AND HE IS HAPPY. FILLED WITH JOY. I can vouch for that myself. I have never seen someone speak with such an eminent glow of hope and peace. All the money in the world can't buy that kind of cerebral smile. If only I could move past my own upbringing’s necessity for material wealth and success to go be a monk and teacher. And being referred to as "Her Holiness" wouldn't be so bad either. But I guess caring about that title would negate the whole principle of contentment with bare essentials and simplicity.
I think you are dead on in saying that the conception of a public intellectual is too narrowly defined and that figures like the Dalai Lama rightfully deserve to share the title. I especially enjoyed when you wrote, that the Dalai Lama is "teaching his world views to the world of academia, but making them accessible to the general public as well." An intellectual who only resides in the world of academia has a very limited scope for creating change and having their ideas gain traction. The word "public" is a very important qualification. The word of the Dalai Lama is widely received and has significant impacts on society at large, all the while influencing the discussions of intellectuals. I'm just jealous you got to see him in Prague.
ReplyDeleteI too agree that, in your presentation of the Dalai Lama, you provide a very strong argument that the definition of "public intellectual" has become one that is too narrowly defined. From the outset you captured my attention by stating that while the views of the Dalai Lama may be incredibly idealistic and perhaps impractical, there is something about them to which individuals are drawn. I believe that it is the very same faith, which you claim drives the Dalai Lama, that draws individuals to these ideals. We all have faith in something, and often times this same faith causes us to believe in the possibility of additional actions taking place. As you have presented him here, the Dalai Lama is someone who not only has publicly stated his beliefs, but has caused others to take a step back and look at what drives them as individuals and from where their beliefs stem. If this does not qualify the Dalai Lama as a public intellectual, I am not sure what will.
ReplyDeleteI will not argue that the Dalai Lama is not a public intellectual, because I agree with you that he is. What I want to comment on is the complete infeasibility of his proposed "World Union." This would be like condensing all of the languages of the world into one language...while that sounds great on paper and in theory, it is downright impossible. Dialects and accents form that even if we could pick a point in time and have everyone speak the same exact language, it would break down over time. Suppose this utopian, ideal World Union was formed. I would expect a similar situation in which groups would eventually form opposing the group, and it would all break down. I don't see something like that every actually happening, although it is something interesting to think about.
ReplyDelete