正念的悖论:当代实践的似是而非的承诺

IF 2.1 2区 社会学 Q2 SOCIOLOGY
Elgen Sauerborn, Nina Sökefeld, Sighard Neckel
{"title":"正念的悖论:当代实践的似是而非的承诺","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":"{\"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}","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

摘要

近几十年来,西方世俗正念项目的日益流行经常受到社会学家的批评。正念在这一论点中被视为自我的新自由主义和资本主义技术的精髓。然而,这种相当合理的功能主义批评并不能解释正念如何越来越多地被用来逃避基于增长驱动的优化压力。因此,在我们广泛的实证实地研究的基础上,我们展示了正念是如何作为对当代危机和社会变革的回应而进行协商的,这种现象如何被理解为一种有症状的当代文化现象。通过对德国正念课程的121小时参与者观察、对正念教师的6次访谈以及对相关文献的分析,我们重构了正念的四个悖论。据此,我们展示了正念在多大程度上是一种似是而非的承诺。因为在最后的分析中,该计划的广泛可及性和受欢迎程度是基于这样一个事实,即它的应用与它承诺解决的社会问题一样矛盾。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Paradoxes of mindfulness: The specious promises of a contemporary practice

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.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Sociological Review
Sociological Review SOCIOLOGY-
CiteScore
4.20
自引率
4.00%
发文量
72
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.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信