Stout, Daniel R. ‘How the Buddhist concept of Right Speech would be applied towards diplomatic actions using the media: a case study from the 2002 State of the Union’. M.A. thesis, 2009. [http://hdl.handle.net/2097/1485/PDF]
From the Abstract
State of the Union Address, 2003 (AP)In this analysis it is argued that current strategies of media diplomacy do lead to violence because they encourage power plays, violence, and overemphasis on national ego. The proposed alternative is to embrace a Buddhist alternative identified as Right Speech to overcome current deficiencies. The study found that President Bush’s 2002 State of the Union violated the tenets of Right Speech. The implications of violations including the increased likelihood of violence between nation states will be discussed.
3 Replies to “Stout, ‘Buddhism & the State of the Union’ (2009)”
I.S., I’m rather surprised you are citing this thesis on your normally very rigorous blog. Have you gone through it? The misunderstandings of basic Buddhist terminology and the decontextualisation of “right speech” is really quite glaring and almost too painful to follow. To boot there is a good mix of essentialism and orientalism.
(64-5) “As long as traditional western ways of communicating in the international system prevail, conflict is ensured.”
What on earth is a traditional western way of communicating in the international system? Are we to presume that conflict between Buddhist countries like Thailand, Burma, Cambodia etc is due to their “western way of communicating in an international system”? Those Buddhists, such a wise and peaceful bunch!
Then we have such will-o-the-wisps as:
(66) “As the karma of society changes, countries could be forced to change their practices as the polis changes their demands from the government.”
Erm, yeah that’s usually called the democratic process…
or this cracker:
(33-34) “Without the distinction between means and ends there is no progress that is being attempted. If there is no progress being attempted then that means there is no beginning, middle, and end juxtaposed to a static entity. Without a worry about progressing or obtaining any goal Invitational Communication is showing that individuals are time. Understanding that we are time is a
prerequisite for Harmonious Speech to occur because only when there is no recognition of the ego “I” self can a true connection be made as is required to obtain this level of speech.”
Individuals are time…? Really…? What would be the Buddhist source for that assertion?
I wonder if Mr Stout has ever considered that the major rate-limiting step to his utopian adoption of Right speech in IR policy is upAyakaus”alya?
Definitely not a serious, critical study worthy of reference in a website like yours, IMHO. This is the kind of flaky stuff that gives Buddhist studies a bad name.
Posting does not necessarily constitute endorsement; it is just a way of showing that something exists. Of course there is shoddiness in Buddhist studies, and like other long-time readers you will appreciate that I don’t shy away from it. I am especially wary of the “Buddhism and [insert topical issue]” genre; the cited thesis is an example.
It’s actually quite a shocking example of two things: declining academic standards in US universities and the misappropriation of Buddhistic themes and tropes by political theorists on the Left.
There was once a time that I thought that only Australian universities produced IR theses of such poor rigour and methodological standard. I was wrong.
There was also a time when the misappropriation of themes and tropes from a major world religion (scil. Christianity) were de rigour in the formation of IR theory predominantly on one side of politics (scil. the Religious Right). No longer.
I.S., I’m rather surprised you are citing this thesis on your normally very rigorous blog. Have you gone through it? The misunderstandings of basic Buddhist terminology and the decontextualisation of “right speech” is really quite glaring and almost too painful to follow. To boot there is a good mix of essentialism and orientalism.
(64-5) “As long as traditional western ways of communicating in the international system prevail, conflict is ensured.”
What on earth is a traditional western way of communicating in the international system? Are we to presume that conflict between Buddhist countries like Thailand, Burma, Cambodia etc is due to their “western way of communicating in an international system”? Those Buddhists, such a wise and peaceful bunch!
Then we have such will-o-the-wisps as:
(66) “As the karma of society changes, countries could be forced to change their practices as the polis changes their demands from the government.”
Erm, yeah that’s usually called the democratic process…
or this cracker:
(33-34) “Without the distinction between means and ends there is no progress that is being attempted. If there is no progress being attempted then that means there is no beginning, middle, and end juxtaposed to a static entity. Without a worry about progressing or obtaining any goal Invitational Communication is showing that individuals are time. Understanding that we are time is a
prerequisite for Harmonious Speech to occur because only when there is no recognition of the ego “I” self can a true connection be made as is required to obtain this level of speech.”
Individuals are time…? Really…? What would be the Buddhist source for that assertion?
I wonder if Mr Stout has ever considered that the major rate-limiting step to his utopian adoption of Right speech in IR policy is upAyakaus”alya?
Definitely not a serious, critical study worthy of reference in a website like yours, IMHO. This is the kind of flaky stuff that gives Buddhist studies a bad name.
Posting does not necessarily constitute endorsement; it is just a way of showing that something exists. Of course there is shoddiness in Buddhist studies, and like other long-time readers you will appreciate that I don’t shy away from it. I am especially wary of the “Buddhism and [insert topical issue]” genre; the cited thesis is an example.
It’s actually quite a shocking example of two things: declining academic standards in US universities and the misappropriation of Buddhistic themes and tropes by political theorists on the Left.
There was once a time that I thought that only Australian universities produced IR theses of such poor rigour and methodological standard. I was wrong.
There was also a time when the misappropriation of themes and tropes from a major world religion (scil. Christianity) were de rigour in the formation of IR theory predominantly on one side of politics (scil. the Religious Right). No longer.