{"title":"Paradoxes of mindfulness: The specious promises of a contemporary practice","authors":"Elgen Sauerborn, Nina Sökefeld, Sighard Neckel","doi":"10.1177/00380261221108570","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p>The growing popularity of Western secular mindfulness programs in recent decades has frequently been criticized by sociologists. Mindfulness in this line of argument is viewed as the quintessential neoliberal and capitalist technology of the self. However, this – quite justified – functionalist critique does not account for how mindfulness is increasingly being used to escape growth driven-based optimization pressure. We therefore show, on the basis of our extensive empirical field research, how mindfulness is negotiated as a response to contemporary crises and social change, how this phenomenon can be understood as a symptomatic, contemporary cultural phenomenon. From our ethnographic data from 121 hours of participant observation in mindfulness courses in Germany and six interviews with mindfulness teachers, as well as analysis of relevant literature, we reconstruct four paradoxes of mindfulness. With reference to this, we show to what extent mindfulness is a program of specious promises. For in the final analysis, the broad accessibility and popularity of the program are based on the fact that its application is just as paradoxical as the social problems to which it promises to be a solution.</p>","PeriodicalId":48250,"journal":{"name":"Sociological Review","volume":"78 3","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.1000,"publicationDate":"2022-07-04","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"2","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Sociological Review","FirstCategoryId":"90","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/00380261221108570","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"SOCIOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 2
Abstract
The growing popularity of Western secular mindfulness programs in recent decades has frequently been criticized by sociologists. Mindfulness in this line of argument is viewed as the quintessential neoliberal and capitalist technology of the self. However, this – quite justified – functionalist critique does not account for how mindfulness is increasingly being used to escape growth driven-based optimization pressure. We therefore show, on the basis of our extensive empirical field research, how mindfulness is negotiated as a response to contemporary crises and social change, how this phenomenon can be understood as a symptomatic, contemporary cultural phenomenon. From our ethnographic data from 121 hours of participant observation in mindfulness courses in Germany and six interviews with mindfulness teachers, as well as analysis of relevant literature, we reconstruct four paradoxes of mindfulness. With reference to this, we show to what extent mindfulness is a program of specious promises. For in the final analysis, the broad accessibility and popularity of the program are based on the fact that its application is just as paradoxical as the social problems to which it promises to be a solution.
期刊介绍:
The Sociological Review has been publishing high quality and innovative articles for over 100 years. During this time we have steadfastly remained a general sociological journal, selecting papers of immediate and lasting significance. Covering all branches of the discipline, including criminology, education, gender, medicine, and organization, our tradition extends to research that is anthropological or philosophical in orientation and analytical or ethnographic in approach. We focus on questions that shape the nature and scope of sociology as well as those that address the changing forms and impact of social relations. In saying this we are not soliciting papers that seek to prescribe methods or dictate perspectives for the discipline. In opening up frontiers and publishing leading-edge research, we see these heterodox issues being settled and unsettled over time by virtue of contributors keeping the debates that occupy sociologists vital and relevant.