Day 1

Huatulco is a confusing place. It isn't really a town, a state or any single place. It's like an amalgamation of little villages on the shore of Oaxaca State. I found this out through a super helpful article on the internet. La Crucecita is the closet town to the airport and it has a hostel. It seems pretty safe. That's where I'm heading today.

My flight is early in the morning, and it's a whole 6 hours long. That seems excessive, but I guess I am going quite south. With the timezone difference, I will land at 4:30pm.

Landing in Huatulco is an experience. The airport consists of a series of hay huts. You have to walk across the tarmac to get to customs and it feels very third-world. But I like it. 

There is a gush of warmth and sticky humidity that covers you as the plane opens. It's 32*C. I see a sign that shows me a direction for "Authorized Taxis". I had read that the taxis here were pretty good in the sense that the fares were clearly listed and didn't require negotiation. This was only partly true.

There was a chart with prices at taxi counter and it had the price to La Crucecita listed as 190 pesos. At today's exchange rate, 190 pesos is around 11 USD. The story that follows is agonizing and dull, but I'm writing it this way to convey my feelings at the time: 

That price seemed fine, so I requested a taxi. He then informed me that the price of a taxi would be 500 pesos. I pointed at the screen behind him and asked why. He explained that 190 is the price of a shared taxi and 500 was the cost of going alone. I didn't mind going with others so I said I wanted to take the shared taxi. He told me that wasn't possible because he only had non-shared taxis available. I asked when a shared taxi would be available and he told me in 30 minutes, so I said I'll wait for it. He asked me to pay and I pulled out a US 20$ bill, expecting that he would give me something around 10$ back. He didn't take the money and informed me that the cost was 30$USD. I asked how that was possible when we had just agreed to 190 pesos, which clearly equals 10$. He told me the exchange rate was different at the airport and USD was going to cost me more. I was not interested in being a fool, so I left the counter. 

As I exited the airport a big lineup of local taxis waited. I inquired the price and he said 250 pesos. I asked why it was more expensive than the 190 of the authorizes taxis. So he said that he'd take me for 190. So 10USD it was. I was on my way in a rickety old cab with a cracked windshield and ripped up seats, but I wasn't being fooled as badly. 

I got to my hostel and paid the 70USD for 5 nights.

The place was surprisingly clean and neat. The only person in the communal bedroom at the time was a 50-someting year-old man. It wasn't the demographic I expected to see at a hostel, but I greeted him anyways. He's originally from New Jersey, but lives in Portland now. He doesn't work, and since him and his wife divorced, he's been traveling all around. He had been through the entirety of South America and was phenomenal at giving me a tip for every single destination I mentioned. He had even been to Cuba. I inquired how he did that as an American, and he explained that Americans can travel to Cuba if they fly from Canada. The issue, as it turns out, is not whether or not Cuba will let you in as an American, but rather whether or not the US will let you back without trouble. 

He explained to me that, while Clinton was in office, the relations between Cuba and the US were eased. You still couldn't catch a plane to Cuba from the US, but you weren't going to face any consequences for going through Canada. Then, he said, Bush got into office and the relations became incredibly strained again. Apparently, Americans who returned to the US with a Cuban passport stamp were being given hefty fines. This guy had a brand new passport, valid for 9 more years after his Cuba trip, so he asked the Cuban border authority to not stamp it. There was some miscommunication so it got stamped anyways. He says the stamp was the tiniest stamp, but it still worried him. In his case, he did manage to return to the US without issue. A few months later, he headed out to Asia and asked a Malaysian border guard to stamp right over the Cuban one, thereby hiding any evidence of his trip to Havana.

This man has traveled far and wide, but he carries with him an air of despair; I can sense he is tremendously depressed and terribly lonely. This is confirmed to me as we speak a little more. He says that, after his divorce, travel became an addiction for him and he can't stop now. He tells me I look like a young Sarah Silverman and follows it up with saying it isn't a bad thing. He then clarifies that he wasn't sure if it was my looks or my bubbly personality.  

We chatted for a while as I got settled. He told me that he had just been in Puerto Vallarta and was scheduled to fly back to Portland yesterday. But, upon checking the weather forecast in Oregon, he decided that he wasn't coming back to rain. So he ditched his Oregon flight and booked a new one to Huatulco instead. He had been here many times before and assured me the town was safe. I finally asked him his name and he said Chris. 

After our little chitchat, I thought about my top priority items. I needed to do a few things in the town right away. The first thing was getting some pesos. The second was buying sandals. I had shown up with only runners and it was far too hot. The third thing was adding credit to my Mexican sim card, which I still had with me since my Christmas trip. 

I loaded the map directions to the Oxxo, where I would load my sim and potentially buy some sandals, as well as the ScotiaBank ATM. Downstairs in my hostel, a grandma and grandpa played dominos. They spoke French and looked like hippies. It was endearing to see such old people living in a hostel.

As I began walking, a partly-drunk Englishman was trying to entice an American middle-aged couple to go and grab beers with his daughter and her boyfriend. I tuned in because I could hear English and stopped to hear all of his recommendations for food. 

I was noticeably a little creepy standing behind this group and obviously listening to them, so when they turned around to ask me what I wanted, I asked if I could accompany them to the restaurant they were headed to. They were very open to the idea! The British were going to the local pub to have beers, but the American couple wanted actual food, so they were going to a dinner place. I was quite hungry having gotten off the plane and decided to join the Americans for food. 

Mark, Billie and I made our way to Los Gallos, a restaurant that seemed typical of Huatulco because it was set in a shack with a hay roof. The Englishman spoke very highly of it. The menu was very traditional -- so traditional, in fact, that it was in Spanish only. Since I had gone straight to dinner, I hadn't managed to update my sim card, which consequently meant that I had no internet, and therefore no translator. 

In the little Spanish I did understand, I noticed that one thing on the menu was served on only Saturdays and Sundays. I thought it would be a shame to not try the special item on a Sunday, so I ordered it. When it arrived, it looked like a nice bowl of soup. The broth was fine - a standard Mexican tomato/pepper thing. I wasn't exactly expecting a soup, but figured it was a good thing I got one. The last time I had been in Mexico, I got a nasty travel bug and figured that a thoroughly simmered soup would probably be lowest on the list of things to get food poisoning from. But as I scooped with my spoon, I noticed some interesting chunks. They tasted horrible and had a variety of awful textures. Some were giggly, others were tensely chewy, and absolutely none of them tasted good. 

A local man explained to me in broken English that this was a soup made from the insides of a pig's stomach. Yum.

At least the atmosphere was better than the food. I got to know Mark and Billie, who were an absolutely lovely couple from Phoenix, Arizona. They were staying at an AirBnB on the beach owned by the Englishman, who had a cool story: He had come to Huatulco 2 years ago for a vacation and had never left. He had married a local woman who was a micro-famous singer in the town and now ran an AirBnB. His daughter from another marriage in the UK and her boyfriend were visiting Huatulco, as was the Englishman's mother. Mark and Billie had their own interesting story, though.

As I would find out, were on the first month of what they estimated to be a two to five year vacation around the world. They had taken out their Mexican residency permits, crossed the border and begun their journey through the country. They had been to Puerto Vallarta and La Paz already and were now in Huatulco for 3 weeks. 

A local man named Jorge started telling us about his family and eventually asked Mark and Billie if they had decided to do this trip as a retirement celebration. Indeed, they had recently retired, but there was more to their story. 

For 43 years of their lives, Mark and Billie had been members of a cult. The Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ Latter Day Saints. The leader of their church called himself The Prophet and his word was directly from God. The Church dictated what they could wear, and how to live their lives. It also took 10% of their income. They estimated that to have added up to upwards of 750000$ over the course of their working careers. The Church also had an element of polygamy, and though never Mark and Billie were never polygamous, Billie did think she would eventually have to share Mark.

Mark had revelations about the problems with the Church 10 years ago. When he brought them up to Billie, though, she told him that he had been taken by Satan and distanced herself and the kids. After that, Mark stopped bringing anything up to Billie, but slowly put seeds of doubt into the kids' heads. Eventually, one of their daughters sent Billie an article from the Washington Post that explored how the Church had become one of the wealthiest entities in the US. The Federal Government was investigating them and had suspected their earnings to have been suspicious. 

Billie worked in banking and, after reading through a rabbit hole of information, came to Mark to devise a plan to leave. Soon thereafter, they did all leave the Church. Their family members speak of them as though they're dead because they consider them to have died a spiritual death. They believe Satan took them and that they won't get to be together in "the eternity". 

After that ordeal, Mark and Billie retired, sold their house and everything they owned, and decided to go on a journey of self-discovery. They said they hadn't ever drank or used bad words until the last 2 months, so this was some sort of awakening for them. 

For people who had gone through what they had, they were actually incredibly open-minded and happy. They asked me all about Europe and where they should travel on their 3-month Schengen Visa, and bought me the dinner to cover it. On the way back from dinner, they walked me to an ATM so that I could take out cash safely and then right to the door of my hostel, where they shared their YouTube channel with me. They invited me to see them for another dinner in a few days before I leave and praised me for what they called "the intriguing bravery of going on a journey through South America so young and alone."

Not a bad first day, I have to say. Not nearly as lonely and isolating as I had expected. 

Day 0

About 6 weeks ago, I quit my job on a sort of whim. I had been planning to quit for a while since it was becoming rather intolerable, but I hadn't planned the exact details of the resignation yet. As you may have construed, I was on the brink and didn't need much to send me over the edge. So, when my boss started to get snarky and rude, I opted to quit on the spot. I planned to work for 30 more days after the quit, as my contract had required, but my boss took great offence to hearing that I had applied to other jobs and effectively kicked me out. 

My instinct was to take a trip. Why not? I had no authority to request time off from anymore, so I was essentially free to do as I pleased. Vancouver was still as miserable as ever in the middle of February. The rain was relentless and the cold had not eased up. Additionally, I had saved up a bit of money from working this job for two years. It made sense to take a trip somewhere warm. 

I asked my roommate if he wanted to come and he was potentially interested. He took a look online at flights and found a steal -- 337$ roundtrip to a place in Mexico called Huatulco. Neither of us had ever heard of it, but, after checking out a map, we saw it was in the State of Oaxaca -- a place we had heard of. We mulled a travel strategy for the trip. We'd fly into Huatulco, on the water, have a week of lazy beach days, and then grab a bus to the actual city of Oaxaca, which is inland, to see the culture and whatnot. The plan wasn't set in stone, but it seemed like a good idea overall. We decided to sleep on it for a bit, while my roommate simultaneously sorted out his finances to see if he could afford the trip.

Soon thereafter, my roommate offered I come to his hometown of Calgary with him. I figured the change of scenery would be good for me and it seemed like a relaxing escape. I would live in his childhood home and my meals would be prepared by his family; then, I would go skiing at his family's vacation home in Banff. I estimated the whole thing to cost me a little over $80, the cost of the roundtrip flight ticket there. Accommodation and food were covered, and I guess skiing would be an extra cost. 

I arrived and everything was exactly as I had expected it to be. Living with his parents was a nice experience since their lifestyles were compatible with mine. It was thoroughly relaxing and reviving. I caught up on sleep and felt supremely recharged. I even hit the slopes one day and had a good time. At some point, I mentioned to my roommate that this trip was going well, so we should consider booking the Huatulco one. He said to give him a day so that he could consult with his parents about the trip. We set dates and I booked my one-way ticket that night to lock in the price that same night.

This was a good play because the next morning, my indecisive roommate consulted with his parents, got ready to book and found that the ticket had gone up to 1500$. Needless to say, he was no longer coming. 

Now I had a one-way, albeit refundable, ticket to this place I never even heard of a mere two weeks prior. Two small issues were: 1. I didn't like the date I was leaving. It was a month from now, which didn't make sense because it meant that I would have to pay to live in Vancouver for an extra month. Jobless, I have no reason to be in that city. Additionally, the weather is a huge factor for me. The misery that is Vancouver in the winter (and that does include February, March and even April) is intolerable. I'd much rather escape that as soon as possible. 2. What if I get a job between then and now? I had applied to quite a few and essentially felt like I would have to accept an offer if it came in. I'd lose the non-refundable portion of 100$, but that would probably make sense in the grand scheme of things.  

Anyways, our two-week trip felt slow, but in a good way. Time had been moving far too quickly for me up until that point. I had this random one-way ticket booked and was trying to make a plan for what to do. By the time we were back in Vancouver, I had a mere two weeks to sort things out. I'd either have to commit to quitting my job search and going on a long trip through South America, or accept a job and go back to the 9-5 grind, or cancel both the job and the trip and plan something third altogether. 

I've been struggling to understand why I felt like I had to go on an extended trip. Why couldn't I have simply committed to a little two-week sunshine getaway, as had been my initial plan with my roommate? I have introspected enough to come to determine that it probably had something to do with this irrational fatalistic dread that looms over me. Since I began working full-time, I have felt like I had incredibly limited time. Therefore, time is precious. Therefore, make the most of it. 

When you work 9-5, you tend to be chronically exhausted, so even your time off isn't used for enjoyment -- it's used for sustenance. Sometimes that sustenance takes the form of cooking myself a meal, sometimes it takes the form of cleaning my kitchen, and sometimes it takes the form of sleeping 13 consecutive hours. Regardless, the time off that comes with a full time job is not for enrichment -- it's for survival. You have the minimum you need to physically survive and you are nefariously stifled from getting any time beyond the bare minimum. Your body ages, and your soul dwindles. I know this best because I couldn't open my computer to write a single piece whilst working. I simply didn't have the stamina. 

So I guess that is where my dread stems from. I can't envision having 2-3 months to travel while employed. I can't envision being in a position where I don't have to get that time approved by some bureaucratic assembly of mediocre people. I can't envision having the energy to see new places while employed. I can envision going to a beach resort and being brain dead for 2 weeks every Christmas while employed. But I can't envision feeding my soul while employed. 

And why not enrich my soul some other way? I don't know. I wonder if I could simply stay in Vancouver with my lovely sister and fantastic friends and achieve the same enlightenments. But everyone on social media promotes this as being the golden method for growth, so I guess I have to try it too. 

With this mindset, I decided that now was the time. I was going to call off the job search and commit to an idea I had only ever vaguely considered -- touring South America. At this point, I had about 3 weeks until I was flying to Huatulco, which I figured was enough time to get everything in order in Vancouver and plan a big trip. I was going to see how I could hop through the continent and reawaken my soul that had been tamped by the vicious grip of the 9-5 life. 

So what did I do? Look at Chile. Why Chile? The country's shape has always intrigued me and it's been said that you can experience a lot of different things depending on where you go. So I found a 400$ one-way from Santiago to Vancouver for June 1st and I booked it. I took the next 3 days to devise a plan for the in between. 

In the meantime, I subletted my room and got my paperwork in order. 

I had now committed over 600$ to a 10-week trip I had not really thought about. If my boss hadn't rejected my 30-day resignation thing, I'd still be working the last bit of my contract, but here I was.

The reality of everything only hit me when I started to pack up my room for my subletter. That was also when the panic set in. Things were going well for me in Vancouver; I had some great relationships going. I could have easily stayed and played board games and applied to jobs and gone on a few tiny trips with my friends. I do not know why I am doing this alone. It is riddled with risks. I am a lone, non-intimidating woman in a series of foreign countries I know very little about. I have one backpack packed. I am in tears because something tells me this is a mistake. My life will not end with the beginning of a new job, but now I'm committed and invested. And also, take-off is in 12 hours. 

Meditations on Mindfulness in the West

It does not take much to be conscious of the popular terms of “Mindfulness” and “Meditation”. Living in North America would make it difficult to not be at least somewhat familiar with what they mean. They carry a mystical, exotic and most definitely Orientalist connotation and, for many laymen, they have clear and explicit ties to Buddhism. A quick Google search of either of the over-hyped terms and a plethora of videos, articles and other sources are at a person’s disposal – each one claiming to be more authentic and enlightening than the next. However, the sources quickly begin to sound redundant, flaunting their genuine ties to Buddhism and their nearly-magical abilities to cure any ailment. But can these resources even begin to deliver on their promises when they are set up on unrealistic and uninformed grounds? More importantly, can they even be labelled as or linked to Buddhism?

This paper will critically analyze how the terms have evolved to their modern meaning in the West and become a tool for profiteering, with little true remaining relation to Buddhism. The paper will also explain contextual factors of the mindfulness movement and meditation, as well as Buddhism, with an emphasis put on Tibetan Buddhism. The paper will conclude that, though mindfulness and meditation can be useful tools to individuals, the way in which they are marketed in the Capitalist West makes them inherently separate from the Buddhist tradition, risks harming the Buddhist tradition by eliminating the important components of dialogue and community, and carries potentially harmful political ramifications by pacifying individuals to believe their problems are a matter of perception, instead of a matter of socio-cultural barriers.

To begin, it is important define some of the terms essential to this paper and to establish the recent rise and popularity of self-help in the form of meditation and mindfulness. Defining mindfulness and meditation can be difficult due to the plethora of sources with varying thoughts on the terms and their differences, but for the purposes of this paper, I will try to provide an extrapolated definition of both: Meditation is the sort of umbrella term for a variety of consistent contemplative practices, one of which is mindfulness, or smarti (Mikulas, 2011). These practices can have different purposes and forms. Meditation in the Tibetan Buddhist tradition takes on 3 stages – listening, contemplating and meditating (Rinpoche et al., 1994). Meditation can take on insightful, calming, compassionate and empty purposes, for example (Lopez, 2018). The purposes of it can be for insight, awareness and focus, among others. Mindfulness, on the other hand, is a technique of focusing in which a practitioner attempts to notice his/her current sensations, thoughts and feelings without judging them. It is garnering an observation of 4 dimensions – your own body, own feelings, own mind and phenomena (Mikulas, 2011).

 

In the West, the Buddhist Modernist-linked concepts of mindfulness and meditation have garnered incredible popularity (Caless, 2019). They have become buzz-words popular with celebrities, many of whom claim their own lives have been bettered by beginning the practices. But what is Buddhist Modernism, this goliath standing behind the rise of meditation and modernism?

 

A global movement, Buddhist modernism was like a cultural fusion of Asian and Western Buddhist interests (Sharf, 2007). For the Asian Buddhists, many of whom were coming to terms with the major cultural changes in their homelands, the Western-based religious critiques resonated greatly. For the Western Buddhists, Buddhism served as a unique spiritual alternative to the more common Western Judeo-Christian options. This seems good and fine until it is considered that the Buddhism the Western audiences have grown to embrace is a form of Buddhism that has already undergone massive transformations as a result of Western influences that occurred in colonialized and globalized Asian Buddhist nations, like Sri Lanka and Japan (Lenoir and Vale, 1999). This Buddhism is attractive to the West because it was shaped largely by it, but this begs the question of is it really Buddhism? That will be answered later on in the paper.

 

Founders of Buddhist Modernism, like D.T. Suzuki, seem to condense Buddhism in a series of quick-fix solutions to modern problems. Suzuki introduced the concept of sudden enlightenment, or satori, based on his own admiration of William James, who believed that all religion should be about an unmediated experience with God (Sharf, 2007). Though not necessarily problematic, this idea stood in direct opposition to one of the 3 treasures of Buddhism: the Buddha, the Dharma and the Sangha – the sangha, or community. This notion of Buddhism as a quick-fix solution to life’s problems via meditation became essentialized as the core of Buddhism (Sharf, 2007). It further got touted as a religion that was in line with modern scientific beliefs and could be adopted as a lifestyle, which suits each individual’s needs, as opposed to a structured religion (Prebish and Baumann, 2019). This is harmful because of the Buddhist components it excludes.

 

The ripple effects of Buddhist Modernism are undoubted. In the practices of clinical psychology and psychiatry, too, mindfulness and meditation have become remarkably popular (Chiesa and Malinowski, 2011). A search of the Indigo Website (2021), Canada’s most popular bookstore, yields over three thousand results for the keyword mindfulness and more than twenty-five thousand results for meditation. Clearly, they are relevant and important subjects in the lives of Canadians. Many of the books happen to be classified under the self-help section and tout ties to Buddhism as evidence for their authenticity and effectivity. They come with beautiful covers, often featuring mandalas or other distinctly stereotypical far-eastern Buddhist imagery. They also often come with exorbitant price tags, yet people buy them, and they have become an industry.

 

In fact, they have become so much so an industry that mindfulness and meditation are now worth nearly 2 billion US dollars, and they are not stopping (Caless, 2019). Forecasts predict the industry to grow by 11.4% each year, too. This is hardly surprising when it is considered that mindfulness has penetrated everything from Corporate America, even enjoying a stint at the World Economic Forum in Davos, to the US military, to public schools (Purser, 2020).

 

Keeping this information in mind makes it easy to see why modern mindfulness leaders, like Jon Kabat-Zinn, work in their industry. Leaders like him promote ideas of using meditation and mindfulness as tools to find peace within and escape the stresses caused by modern life. Kabat-Zinn himself believes that Western society suffers from an inability to focus and an intense system of circular thought (Purser, 2019). This “thinking disease”, as he calls it, leads him to claim that “entire society is suffering from attention deficit disorder – big time” (Kabat-Zinn, 2016).

Having established this cultural malaise, Kabat-Zinn, as well as other mindfulness advocates, advocate for a silent and internalized revolution – the kind that only individual mindfulness can inspire (Kabat-Zinn, 2016). Though on the surface a positive-seeming claim, this idea can be harmful in two ways: Firstly, the way the idea is marketed and the claims it makes to Buddhist-affiliations are inherently Orientalist and condescending. Secondly, the notion that an answer to a person’s troubles is within them enables harmful societal constructs and neoliberal capitalist structures to persist and become stronger. Rather than focusing on taking those down in unified and communitarian revolutionary ways, mindfulness and meditation perpetuate the problem and pacify the society.

 

Orientalism is a term coined by Edward Saïd to describe the commonly simplistic, exotified and stereotypical view of the East that the West has (Saïd, 1979). It also has relation to how the West views the East as a single entity, not recognizing the vast cultural differences between cultures there. This Orientalism can manifest in many ways, depending on the culture at hand (Snodgrass, 2003). Though Saïd’s writing focused predominantly on Middle Eastern cultures, and the West’s exotification of Arabia, his writings are still applicable to East Asia.

 

In terms of Buddhist-esque mindfulness and meditation marketed in the West, Orientalism shows itself often in imagery (Snodgrass, 2003). Linking stereotypical imagery like mandalas or the Buddha to books about mindfulness and meditation is not necessarily relevant to the topics at hand. Rather, that sort of imagery is linked to the resources to increase market-value, so that a layman feels the content provided comes from a reputable and genuine Buddhist source, when in actuality, it may have very little linkage to it. This is evidenced by a simple Google search of the “definition of mindfulness in Buddhism” (Google, 2021). Millions of results appear and overwhelm a reader – each one claiming it knows best. Some say that meditation is awareness of nothing, whereas mindfulness is awareness of something (Snodgrass, 2003). Others claim meditation is a way to get to mindfulness. Others tell you that mindfulness is a lifestyle that can be cultivated through practice. But which one is inherently Buddhist and which one is trust-worthy? It is essentially impossible to know.

 

Of course, that is not to say that all mindfulness and meditation resources are Orientalist or inherently malicious and misleading because they are not. The issue is that having so many that are exotifications of the Buddhist tradition causes an oversimplification and misrepresentation of a deeply-ingrained, over-two-thousand-year-old religion (Snodgrass, 2003).

 

Some would argue that this oversimplification of a religion is not intrinsically problematic. After all, every religion is read selectively, so picking and choosing certain parts is a given, especially in a religion like Buddhism that has such a rich canon (Sharf, 2015). Sometimes there is even a benefit to simplification – it makes the religion more approachable and appealing. Though parts of that may be true, it is not necessarily what is chosen that is the issue – it is what gets left behind.

 

It seems that Buddhism in the West has been concentrated and diluted at the same time. In one sense, a lot of the experiential gains that exist over a lifetime of practicing Buddhism have been essentialized into quick glimpses of nirvana that can be achieved in a mere session of meditation (Sharf, 2007). In another sense, a vast assortment of traditions and rituals, all incredibly pertinent to Buddhism, have been lost in the process of over-saturating meditation and mindfulness in the West and then sending it back to Asia to be exported to the West yet again (Farias and Wilkholm, 2015). That is not to say that mindfulness and meditation do not have a place in Buddhism. Of course, they have clear Buddhist roots (Sharf, 2015). Buddha himself became enlightened through meditating under the Bodhi tree. But meditation does not equal Buddhism. Additionally, the purpose and reason behind mindfulness and meditation can be very different (Dorjee, 2010). Rather than being a be-all-end-all destination of Buddhism, they are very much more a pitstop in a much greater journey.

 

Another issue with focusing on these inherently personal and individualistic components of Buddhism is that one of the religion’s three treasures can become lost – the religious community aspect, or sangha (Sharf, 2007). Losing, or lessening, this aspect carries with it a few harmful by-products: First, it can serve to promote a self-centered -and almost narcissistic- practicing of Buddhism, which starkly opposes some fundamental principles of the religion . Modernism, though attractive due to its removed nature from the confounds of traditional religion, is a double-edged sword, which can really stand in opposition to the traditional Buddhist religion (Farias and Wilkholm, 2015). Rather than considering oneself to be the center of the universe and focusing nearly-exclusively on self-centered problems, Buddhism strives to have followers transcend those tendencies and position themselves in a less-egocentric way. When the sangha component is disregarded, an ironic enlarging of those exact self-centric tendencies can appear (Sharf, 2007).

 

Secondly, the sangha provided a system of checks and balances within the Buddhist community (Sharf, 2007). These checks on Buddhist teachers often came from more senior members of the community. I imagine that this ensured a more objective and uniform teaching of Buddhism, which in turn promoted a more cohesive understanding of the religion among followers. With Buddhist Modernism being such a personal experience though, people seeking guidance on the religion are faced with a difficult task when trying to find it. Rather than knowing based on the community which teachers are qualified and effective at passing down religious guidance, finding the guidance sought becomes a confusing task. Often times, the teacher is chosen not for their proven guidance, but for their superficial marketability (Caless, 2019).

 

It is also interesting to note that, often times, the Buddhism that has become popular and mainstream in the West comes from Buddhist teachers who were controversial in their homelands (Prebish and Baumann, 2019). Insight meditation, one of the most popular forms of meditation in North America is based off of techniques established by Burmese meditation teachers who were criticized within their own communities for their propagation of attaining quick-fix experiential Buddhist states, like sotapatti (Sharf, 2007). This really is where the root of the issues faced by Buddhist Modernism begin.

 

This picking-and-choosing of parts of Buddhism risks creating sectarian and closed-off forms of the religion (Farias and Wilkholm, 2015). This is a problem that cuts at the very heart of Buddhism because, according to Professor Robert Sharf of Berkeley (2007), Buddhism “is a conversation about what it is to be a human being: why we suffer, how we can resolve our suffering, what works, what doesn’t, and so forth.” By forming various sects and parts, the ever-important dialogue and conversation between members of the sangha can be cut-off or narrowed and that is an intrinsically negative thing. Again, it is not that simplifying Buddhism is a bad thing, it is that it makes it difficult to have that conversation. Considering that conversation is such an intrinsic component of the religion, losing it would be devastating and simply non-Buddhist (Sharf, 2015).

 

This brings us to another issue when Buddhist Modernism is examined under the neoliberal Capitalist framework. To exist and survive in a Capitalist model, it is pertinent that people buy into a product or service. Rather than taking the cumbersome time and resources needed to educate oneself about a particular subject, it is much easier to walk into a bookstore and buy the book about Buddhism with the most Orientalist cover (Purser, 2020). This conveys a sense of authenticity, though in fact, the book could be very skewed and unrelated to Buddhism. Naturally, the extent to which this is the case varies from book to book. However, often times, the author of the book has little confirmable experience studying Buddhism, or simply refers to his/her writings as Buddhist though they are not, or very minimally Buddhist (Purser, 2019).

 

That issue aside, mindfulness has evolved to be a sort of tool of Capitalist structures to pacify the masses (Purser, 2020). Rather than recognizing grave injustices in society and addressing them through political and revolutionary tactics, people are convinced that their stresses and worries stem from themselves. If they can meditate and be mindful, they will feel at peace with their situations and no societal or structural changes will need to occur. Of course, this is not always true. In many situations, a person’s stress and difficulty stems from a societal impediment to their success: For example, a black man in the United States being marginalized and oppressed due to systemic barriers in the US to his employment. Naturally, these conditions would lead to a feeling of injustice and discontent.

 

If examined, many of these issues could be traced back to the perils of neoliberal capitalism (Purser, 2020). However, with the rise of meditation and mindfulness, rather than addressing those issues in a bold and external way, people are encouraged to deal with them in an internalized way. That is to say that that black man is encouraged to change his thinking and perception, instead of seeking social and structural justice. This can be highly problematic on a much grander scale and cause a form of perpetuation of injustice and stagnation of progress (Purser, 2019).

 

Obviously, this is not always the case. Mindfulness and meditation can serve important purposes and be of great benefit to many people. Some would argue that it is positive that even the slightest bit of Buddhism caught on in the West. Since it is still a relatively new concept here, it obviously cannot be full-fledged yet (Kirmayer, 2015). As well, it obviously needs to be malleable enough to get a foothold in a very different cultural environment, like North America.

 

It is well-known that religions have to adapt with changing times. Many Christian denominations have begun embracing LGBTQ members into their churches (Jenkins, 2002). Even a mere decade ago, this notion would have been unfathomable. In medieval Japan, Buddhism had to undergo changes to catch on as a popular religion. Among these changes were the single practice movements of Jodo Shinsu and Nichiren (Sharf, 2007). Translation, too, tends to be a changing force in religions. In China, when parts of the originally Sanskrit Buddhist scripture were translated, certain words were translated to terms that would be more easily adopted and integrated into the culture of the times (Sharf, 2007). 

 

In the 1970s, there was a reformation within the Protestant Church (Jenkins, 2002). It was conducted because the church was losing members who were disillusioned by strict and rigid customs and traditions. This reformation made True Christianity “a matter of the heart: the personal experience of the divine, a private relationship between an individual and God.” (Sharf, 2007). It gradually evolved to become socially acceptable to proclaim oneself to be a Christian despite not going to Church on Sundays, for example. Perhaps Buddhism in the West is on a similar course.

 

To answer the lingering question of is the mindfulness and meditation movement inherently Buddhist: That is debatable. In some ways it is because it stems from clearly Buddhist ideals, though the amount to which it does tend to be over-emphasized. (Additionally, it often tends to falsely link practices to Buddhism when they in fact have no relation.) (Kirmayer, 2015; Dorjee, 2010). In other ways, it is not because it squashes the ability for conversation and community. In my opinion, the West’s take on Buddhism is the way it is because it is convenient for a society that is too lazy to pester itself with traditions and rituals and community dialogue. This is unfortunate and misleading. I, therefore, would not consider the mindfulness and meditation movements Buddhist.

 

I think there is great merit to why so many of the teachers popular in the West were criticized for providing quick-fixes to their followers. I also think that religion is a lifelong journey and practice. Picking and choosing what works for you and discarding what does not takes away from that experience and makes it much less enlightening than it could be.

 

I would say that the next time you see a White person draped in expensive silk scarves telling you that Buddhism, and mindfulness, and meditation, is a lifestyle choice that saved them from their depression, take a step back and examine whether or not they stand to gain the money they need to finance their soul-searching trips to Cambodia from selling you that vision in a self-help book. Actually, be mindful of how you spend your money and meditate on if that sort of expenditure is actually going to cure your own anxiety or only make it worse.

 

Of course, all things change with time. Maybe a more genuine and holistic embracing of Buddhism is to come in the West – no one can say for sure. What can be said with certainty is that mindfulness and meditation only scratch the surface of a very complex and beautiful religion. 

My Future

I, as I stand, a solitary individual removed from all constraints, have intense and thorough faith in destiny. I believe it will lead me to the path that is determined for me and I will exist happily there. However, I am not a lone creature. This is why, I, as I stand within the confines of my family, and the constructs of my society, must adopt a new, practical and rational approach to ensure my peaceful and tolerable future existence. I must choose the path that best ensures sustainability - not necessarily financially, but mentally. I need to do as much as possible to be certain that I will not regret and experience a mid-life crisis. I need to choose the least terrible path. Does it cause anxiety? Of course, choosing any significant option does.

 But if I choose to rely on destiny, is it possible that it will betray me? What if I do not believe in destiny at some point down my path and become angry with where what I thought was it has led me? What if I curse destiny for taking me down a trail of what I consider suffering? But the idea of suffering is so subjective, as well. It could change so quickly. What if lack of finance is suffering? Lack of status? Lack of family? Lack of experience? Excess of status? Excess of money? Burden of family? Seeing too much? 

How do I choose just to be content for as close to eternity as possible? At the very least, how do I stop questioning and thinking these things because that would be just as good as making the perfect decision -- arguably even better if we accept that there is no perfect decision. 

Perhaps I become a housewife to a kind rich man and never worry my pretty little head. But how do I live with the idea that all I am to those around me is a pretty little head? More importantly, how do I prevent that thought from pervading into my own mind like a worm into an apple? I can become a career woman, too, and then eternally hate myself for not making the meaningful contribution of christening my parents as grandparents. 

Of course, it isn't either-or, but can I be appeased with being simply mediocre in both aspects? Like someone who is bilingual, but doesn't speak either language perfectly. 

Even if I'm not mediocre, how do I sustain with the perception of possibility? If I hadn't had one, could the other have been better? I published 3 articles, but I could have published 5 if I hadn't had to run and pick up my child from its practice. Full devotion, too, could irritate me. If I could not notice the subtle changes in the architecture which accompanies me to my workplace each day because I am perpetually entangled in my work, I would feel pathetic. Not because I would be pathetic at that present time, but because a woeful extension of an empty existence is sure to plague me once my work is no more -- and it will eventually be no more, as all other things. I will be unable to perform the only talent and purpose I had, but I will be too old and contemptible to learn any new one. Like a one-trick pony that has nothing to offer once it has an injured hind leg. And at that point, like that pony, I will put myself down so as to not dwell in the agony of expecting a wretched future. I will exist in eternal bliss, reminiscing on the regrets of the past. 

I thank a friend for this post. Though her technicolor emergence in my life has been, at times, stubbornly challenging, it has injected me with a jolting passion and fervor. The numbness I had become accustomed to has dissipated immensely and that thought has left me with mixed emotions -- but emotions nonetheless. It appears that the forest fire of a spirit I had had tamped out remained with but an ember, which, courtesy of her apparition, has been ignited again. I am chronically piqued by, yet forever grateful to her for showing me the exasperation of naivety, the absurdity of joy and the senselessness of love.

Latin America’s Perpetual Oligarchy: Dealing with Political, Economic, and Populist Waves

Here's my paper on Latin America's issues with oligarchy. It was suggested for publishing in a journal by my professor, which was wildly unexpected since I put it together the night before it was due. The point is that it's good and clearly informative, so enjoy!

Latin America is a region full of examples of oligarchy. Each country in the region has, in some way, been touched by the unfortunate hand of oligarchy. Today, many countries in the region still wrangle with the legacies that oligarchies have left (Haiphong, 2016). Some are in the unfortunate predicament of being under a current rule by oligarchy. Others are taking turns so drastic to avoid the oligarchy that they see in their neighbouring countries, or in their own histories, that they are on the path to landing in the same, if not worse, situations (Hernandez, n.d.) The region is consistently existing in a state of either transition and reform, or a system that benefits a very small chunk of the people. This has resulted in Latin America holding itself back from full democratization. Instead, Latin America is a place where oligarchy and its legacies dominate the political, social, and economic landscape. (Sorj, 2012) This paper will discuss some modern Latin American oligarchic models, their roots, and how they affect democratization in the region. Today’s oligarchies are started mostly through big business, military or populism, and they cause significant detriments -most notably, an inefficiency to democratize- which take shape through inequality, corruption, restrictions on freedoms and liberties, uneven enforcement of rule of law, and a general lack of stability, causing Latin America to be the lagging continent when it comes to democracy.

Before I begin extensive example-based argumentation on why and how this is the case, it is important to fully comprehend all of the relevant terminology that will be repeatedly mentioned.

Democratization is not easily defined. Even the most thorough definition would likely be contention and arguable. However, for the purposes of this paper, democratization is the act of bringing about democracy to a place where in currently does not exist. Democracy, on the other hand, is not simply the rule by the people, as its Greek name would suggest. In fact, democracy is the intertwined system of an electoral regime, a liberal society and a form of governance (Dahl, 1972). According to Linz and Stepan (1996), in a democracy, political and civil rights must be guaranteed to all and equally protected. However, contrary to the common belief that democracy is simply the act of holding free and fair elections, which are truly competitive and transparent, democracy actually entails much more (Dahl, 1972). This is because holding elections that fit those criteria still provides no guarantee that the rights Linz and Stepan discuss are effectively being upheld. Who is to uphold those rights in the first place, though? Quite obviously, the state itself. Thus, democracy cannot exist without an effective state. In order to be effective, that state must have adequate control over its own territory, a good economic capacity and competence in its necessary bureaucracy (Przeworski, 2004). These factors make it possible for citizens to exercise their civic rights and duties easily. Therefore, democracy is a combination of a method of elections, a strong state that is capable of governing effectively, and a civic body that believes in democratic values through a protection of their rights (Linz and Stepan, 1996). In other words, all those at the age of majority need to have the ability to partake in free and fair elections, but they also must have the right to freedom of expression, unbiased education, equity of opportunities, and even enforcement of the rule of law, to start.

The second important term is, of course, oligarchy. In its simplest and most basic form, oligarchy is the rule of the few, for their own benefit. This is, after all, how Aristotle himself defined it. Since the Ancient Greek times, however, oligarchy has certainly evolved and morphed, making it more difficult to predict, spot, and combat. No longer is it just a matter of who controls the politics in government, oligarchy today can be far more latent. Its influences can extend to realms like education, economy, business, military and government with the only connecting factor being the control by the few for themselves (Chernenko, 2018.) A theoretical example of oligarchy would be a board of large corporation, which is based in the country, owning the largest relative proportion of private land in the country. Then, attaining and maintaining enough political power that they can sway government-enacted policies to favor them and their desires, while also controlling multiple state-owned entities and actively coordinating those entities to work in favorable harmony with their own businesses (Chernenko, 2018).

The main separation between democracy and oligarchy, according to Foweraker (2007), is that democracy seeks to promote accountability and transparency in the state, while simultaneously promoting equality and inclusivity among the citizens, whereas oligarchy specifically seeks to make politics exclusionary, while simultaneously seeking immunity from the rule of law implemented by the state.

Oligarchy is a very important part of any nation-state’s socio-political makeup. It can contribute to shaping the entire trajectory of a country’s path to democracy, prosperity, equity, among other things. A country that used to be ruled under an oligarchic system is likely to have degraded institutions, which make it difficult for it to operate under a more democratic system (Haiphong, 2016). A country which currently suffers under oligarchy would have a difficult time eliminating that oligarchy because it would be so well-implanted into every facet of the society and government. And, a country that specifically advocates for a non-oligarchical approach and does so under a populist movement scheme, as so many Latin American countries tend to, usually ends up setting up a wholly new oligarchic structure (Cammack, 2000). Thus, Latin America, as it exists today, shaped by a combination of historical, cultural and social factors, is completely pervious to oligarchy (Garcia, 2017). In this region of the world, inequality is the highest because the richest 10% of the population owns 70% of all of the wealth (Rodriguez, 2016). In fact, even in Chile, a country that is considered by international watchdogs to be one of the best democracies in the region, the average wealth gap between the poorest 10% and the richest 10% is 25 times (Corrigan & Gaviria, 2016).

Latin America has always suffered from a democratic deficit of some sort because the states have rarely been effective. Be it an inability to enforce the rule of law, an inability to redistribute wealth, or an inability to monopolize the use of control and force within their territory (Garcia, 2017). This is thanks to oligarchic politics in a number of ways. Since the colonial times in Latin America, oligarchy has had influence largely because of its relationship with international economic markets. Elites were elites because they owned land on which there were raw materials, which were essential to the subsistence of Latin American economies (Gilbert, 2017). In the 1980s, things got even worse when neoliberal reforms began to take shape (Roberts, 1995). The state-owned enterprises began becoming privatized, with their new owners usually being already-wealthy business groups (Jilberto, 2000).

In terms of the implementation of democracy, some progress was made under neoliberalism by having the conventional oligarchies in the region agree to a formal democracy under certain conditions. These conditions made it so that the oligarchies still had a strong voice in politics and so that they still had plenty of access to the state and its institutions (Foweraker & Krznaric, 2002). One example of this happened in Chile, where the constitution was amended to guarantee oligarchies and military officials’ representation and voice in the Congress (Foweraker & Krznaric, 2002). This was a major problem in the step of formalizing democratic practices. At this point, even though somewhat free and fair elections existed, government and its institutions still remained deeply inclined to side with interests of oligarchies (Klaren, 1998).

As a result of this, oligarchies’ influences began to protrude to other facets of formal democracy, including legislatures, political parties and other governmental bodies (Pavlakovic, 2013). Since the majority of governments in Latin America operate on a presidential form, it is usually imperative for presidents to gain the supports of congress and related legislative bodies to have efficient and effective presidencies. Due to oligarchic presences in those legislative bodies, however, it is extremely difficult for a president to have an effective presidency without the support of oligarchic figures (Garcia, 2017). Presidents who themselves do not have strong enough backings in politics, and are hesitant of appeasing oligarchic figures to some extent are at risk of being removed from their elected posts (Garcia, 2017). An example of this can be seen in Paraguay in 2012, as described by Jatoba & Luciano (2018):

When president Fernando Lugo was elected in 2008, he did not have a strong congressional majority. His campaign had promised very leftist ideals, including massive reforms to agriculture. Naturally, the oligarchs in Paraguay, who had controlled the vast majority of the land Lugo threatened to make reforms to, felt threatened by this. A series of disputes over farm land occurred between farmers and police, which resulted in 17 casualties. Lugo ordered the investigation of the occurrences, and was impeached and deposed 2 days later, in a move that both international watchdogs and other Latin countries described to be a de-facto coup by parliament. In an expression of outrage, Paraguay was suspended from both Mercosur and Unasur. Further evidence that the public was opposed to Lugo’s deposition is provided by the note that Lugo ran for a seat in the Senate just one year after his deposition and was easily elected.

Another example of oligarchic tendencies interfering with political democracy occurred in Venezuela in 2002, when Presdient Hugo Chavez was removed from office for 2 days in an attempted coup d’état (Wilson, 2002). Unlike Lugo, Chavez had very large popular support and a number of loyalists within the military. When his temporary successor, Pedro Carmona, declared the 1999 constitution void, and began undoing many of Chavez’s popular reforms, the public was angered. That, coupled with news beginning to spread that Chavez had not actually resigned as had been initially reported, led to an uprising that surrounded the Miraflores and reinstated the Chavez regime (Wilson, 2002).
These events in Paraguay and Venezuela serve as an example of how much power the oligarchies genuinely do wield in Latin America. Moreover, they prove that it is beneficial for presidents to establish relations with oligarchs in their countries in order to ensure their regimes peaceful and stable survival. Presidents who choose not to appease oligarchs can expect very drastic measures to face them. However, these presidents can also pursue more popular, inclusive, and open political plans because they can be focused on enforcing the will of the people, instead of the will of the elite (Hagopian, 1996).

As the example of Paraguay would imply, easily giving in to the will of oligarchs usually means that wealth redistribution policies, including progressive taxation and agriculture reform, are not going to be implemented. This is a troublesome conclusion for two major reasons. Firstly, as previously mentioned, Latin America has the highest levels of inequality in the world. Secondly, Latin American countries also have some of the lowest fiscal capacities (Rodriguez, 2016). Most economic programs therefore exclude, or detriment, the lower and middle classes. Taxation in the general geographic region is a good example of this, particularly because the lower and middle classes pay a higher proportion of their income as tax. When looked at statistically, those in the wealthiest 10% spend only 5.5% of their income on taxes (Rodriguez, 2016). This statistic does not even take into account that oligarchs generally use their political power to encourage lenient taxing policies, which make it easy for them to receive tax breaks, or evade paying taxes altogether. Moreover, most of Latin America operates on a regressive (as opposed to progressive) taxation model (Rodriguez, 2016). It is easiest to see how greatly Latin America’s inefficient wealth distribution model contributes to a further widening between the rich and poor, when one considers that, in the thirteen years between 2002 and 2015, the millionaires of Latin America managed to grow their wealth 6 times quicker than the average GDP grew in the region (Rodriguez, 2016). This is proof of economic oligarchic practices.

The major detriment caused by this ineffective wealth redistribution is that it -to some extent- incapacitates the state from creating the proper economic (and social) conditions to foster the protection of political, economic and civic rights to the general populace (Mendez et al., 1999). This, in turn, makes it difficult for a state to be democratic.

This lack of democracy is most apparent in Latin America when one considers the minimal efficiency of the state in ensuring individual rights and rule of law to the common people. Oligarchies in Latin America almost systematically commit wrong-doings against those in less-powerful positions, and the government does little to stop them (Mendez et al., 1999). Often, the government turns a blind eye to things like coercive labour or even slavery if an oligarch can promise them legislative votes or aid. These phenomena are what O’Donnell (1999) refers to as “brown areas”. Brown area existence is perpetuated by the friendly relationship between the state and oligarchs. Brazil is one example of this. There, coalition governments, particularly large ones, have efficiently passed legislation. However, they have also unfortunately contributed in large part to the diminishing of accountability and transparency watchdogs, most notably internal ones, like congressional investigative committees. The laws and policies that were effectively and efficiently passed were largely those that benefited oligarchs in some way, especially ones that eased restrictions and lowered costs for labour and material goods (Montero, 2014). This is a good example of oligarchic tendencies, when it comes to the rule of law.

This aspect contributes to the further degradation of civic rights in Latin America, which, as previously mentioned, is essential to democracy. More importantly, it creates a sense that political happenings are skewed from the beginning, which discourages participation in the civic body (Sorj, 2012). Since the politics do not seem to be inclusive, and it becomes evident that only policies benefitting the elite are passed, the average person is less-inclined to even attempt to contribute to the political landscape.

Those are some examples of how oligarchies are involved in politics and the rule of law through the proverbial “backdoor”, but sometimes, Latin American oligarchies take far more bold actions to achieve their desires. Some have even called themselves champions of democracy to defend their influences, decisions, and money (Foweraker & Krznaric, 2002). In particular, oligarchs have repeatedly mentioned that private property is a vital component of democracy, thereby making them as landowners vital to democracy. Although many would agree that private property and capitalism are interlocked with democracy, in Latin America, this argument has helped the wealthy stay wealthy, and avoid having to redistribute their wealth (Foweraker, 2007).

In Bolivia, elites in the natural gas sector conducted numerous protests against Evo Morales’ government, which posed a threat to the elites’ wealth. Here, the oligarchs went so far as to push for separatism from the poorer and more indigenous regions (Garcia, 2017). Again, they claimed themselves to be champions of democracy by disguising their moves as a push for minority rights. What these actions indicate, from an international perspective, is that the fundamental democratic institutions in Latin America, including legislatures and courts, are servile to oligarchs, and thus untrustworthy (O’Donnell, 1999). The attitude from a domestic perspective, though, is even worse. This is evident when it is noted that, in 2016, surveyed Latin Americans reached their lowest satisfaction with democracy level in years. In the same survey, about 80% of Latin Americans stated that they believed that their governments’ actions were primarily to serve the elite because they were influenced by the elite (Latinobarometro, 2016).

Unfortunately, the go-to response to oligarchy in Latin America tends to be populism (Levitsky & Loxton, 2013). Populism seems to rise when political institutions fail to please the majority (Foweraker, 2007). The political exclusion that had taken place prior to the rise of the populist allows him/her to create a narrative that pits the people against the elite. To maintain their narrative, populists tend to avoid speaking with oligarchs because they prefer to demonstrate that they represent solely the masses (Levitsky & Loxton, 2013). The issue with populism in its early stages is that leaders often execute a number of big policies or legislations, and sometimes even change constitutions. To achieve quick and visible change, though, they usually avoid going conventional routes and thereby avoid checks and balances, as well as ignore the rule of law (Roberts, 1995). However, not all of the quick-fixes implemented are truly for the people; some are for the populist leader himself. Examples of such actions include legalizing re-election, or extending presidential terms, both under a guise of it being the peoples’ will. These actions can quickly create the grounds for the creation of a new oligarchy, and in the case of Hugo Chavez, and Peru’s Alberto Fujimori, that largely did happen (Eller, 2003; Lowenthal & Jaquette, 2018).

This is an interesting paradox that shows that populist politics usually end up being oligarchic. In Chavez’s case, legislations were created and implemented without any form of checks and balances. Due to this, governmental corruption was proliferated (Mansilla, 2016). Also similarly to oligarchic regimes, Chavez’s rule saw the punishment of dissidents as commonplace (Mansilla, 2016). Though Venezuela was a relatively rich country during Chavez’s rule (thanks to its oil resources), the people did not live in matching conditions because of the massive corruption. The legacy of the Chavez regime has left Venezuelans in a terrible situation today, with many fleeing their homeland because of food shortages, poor public services, lack of accessible housing, and so on (Mansilla, 2016). With Venezuela as an example, it is easy to see that what starts as populism, usually morphs to oligarchy, and that leaves the very masses that looked to populism as their salvation in an equally bad, if not worse, predicament. Furthermore, what populism often leaves as its legacy is a polarized nation, and fewer checks and balances for successors. Despite history proving that populism is not the answer, populism continues to flourish in Latin America because the large class divide continues to flourish, too.

All this negativity in the politics of Latin America, begs the question of “Will things ever get better?” Perhaps. With the rise of social media, Latin Americans are now better informed than ever before. They are more easily able to discern potential abuses by governments or oligarchies (Garcia, 2017). Resultantly, social media also provides them with an effective platform for having their voices heard, and for creating or calling for changes (Garcia, 2017). One excellent example of this comes from Mexico, where a citizens’ initiative called “Ley-3-de-3” recently amassed well over half a million signatures, thanks to social media. Ley-3-de-3 was created in direct response to rampant corruption and requests that all civil servants be required to publicly disclose their tax returns, conflicts of interest and other assets (Montes, 2016).

Guatemala is an example of how drastic social media’s effects can be. After social media initiated protests, congress eliminated corrupt president, Otto Perez Molina’s, immunity (Valenzuela et al., 2016). Likewise, social media initiatives mobilized the protests that took place prior to the former President of Brazil, Dilma Rousseff’s, impeachment. Similar protests have resulted in anti-corruption watchdogs being created in El Salvador and Honduras (Valenzuela et al., 2016).

Oligarchies stem from weak states. This is undoubted. Therefore, it is easy to see that free and fair elections are not the only catalyst to democracy. A strong state, with strong institutions, and most importantly, a strong, politically-engaged civic body is necessary to facilitate democracy (Dahl, 1972). Though it may initially seem as though the best route to stopping oligarchy is populism, this has been historically disproven.

Oligarchy affects wealth distribution, access to objective education, freedom of thought and speech, levels of corruption, and stability and peace, amongst other things. These things are the fundamental building blocks of a society and of a government (Dahl, 1972). Since equity is one of the driving factors to democracy, a democratic country cannot truly exist without a somewhat even wealth distribution, but in a region like Latin America, wealth distribution is completely skewed towards the few richest folks. Likewise, repressive government actions to stop free speech and protest in Latin America lead to the degradation of individual rights (Sorj, 2012).

The most notable aspects of an oligarchy are the levels of corruption and the lack of enforcement of the rule of law (Mendez et al., 1999). These structures lead to an unequitable society, which sets itself up for turbulence in the future. Moreover, these aspects make a society susceptible to populism (Cammack, 2000). A society that has become disenchanted with their own economic prospects, and has realized that the laws are consistently being changed to benefit the few, while being non-evenly enforced, is likely to seek retribution in the form of voting in a government which largely opposes the status quo, and promises to voice the will of the people (Cammack, 2000).

Oligarchy has plagued Latin America from its beginnings. If the people cannot entrench their civic rights and duties more thoroughly, and if the government cannot build a stronger state, it is likely that oligarchies will perpetuate themselves eternally, and Latin America will never become fully democratized. But, if any lesson can be learnt from the recent events in Latin America, it is that a civic body, which is given the proper instruments, can bring about the change they want to see in their country. This method is far more likely to create meaningful and sustainable positive change for a region that has, for so long, been in turmoil.

Marxists Stick Together: Why the Chinese Communists Formed an Alliance with the Soviet Union in 1950

Lately, I’ve been re-inspired to write whiny diaries, but unlike before, I’ve decided to keep them private, in a password-protected file. Sadly, you won’t be reading about the grievances I’ve been suffering personally any time soon, but I can offer you some academic political papers on various subjects, like this one on China that scored me a near-perfect mark in a Chinese International Relations course. I hope this satisfies at least a few of you.

After the Chinese Communist Party under Mao Zedong took power in China, the country was quick to create a strategic alliance with the Soviet Union, which culminated with the signing of the Sino-Soviet Treaty of Friendship, Alliance and Mutual Assistance on the 14th of February, 1950 (Li, 2012). Out of the two major world powers at the time, the United States (US) and the Soviet Union, the Chinese government decided to actively seek a relationship with the Soviets over the Americans. Eventually, this relationship would sour and the world would see a normalizing in Sino-US relations (Blanchard, 2015). Nonetheless, why Mao Zedong’s government chose an alliance with Joseph Stalin’s is a mostly explainable phenomenon, when looked at through the lens of the International Relations theory of Shared Values.

Shared values theory explains that countries with similar political ideologies and values are likely to align with each other (Neumayer, 2008). The perception of similarity in interpretations of Marxism between the two countries, the perceived scope of difference between Chinese and US values by the Chinese, and the change in leadership, which brings with it varied political and ideological interpretations and aspirations are all potential influencers on China’s decision to ally itself with the Soviet Union in 1950. In theory, if China perceived itself as having a more similar political ideology to the Soviets, also perceived itself as having a completely incompatible ideology with the other major world power, and felt as though the leader of the Soviet Union was a reasonable and suitable interpreter of Marxism, then China would be more likely to ally itself with the Soviet Union. Moreover, in the case that China’s perceived difference from the US shrunk and its perceived difference with the USSR grew, then it would be expected that China would shift its alliance towards the US.

If this theory were true, then it would be expected that China would be allied with the Soviet Union for as long as it felt that it, and the leader at the nation’s helm, was similarly interpreting Marxism, the cornerstone political ideology of China. Likewise, the same would be observed especially if the Chinese perceived the other major world power, the US, to have a political ideology completely juxtaposed to its own, since that would create an even stronger contrast between Marxism and Capitalism. The most appropriate way to measure how ideologically various states are is to compare their official, explicit political ideologies (i.e. is the Communist party in power or not), and to seek out proof of the relevance of ideology in international interaction. 

Post World War Two, China and the USSR were both under Communist Party rule, with the former being led by Mao Zedong and the latter, Joseph Stalin. The leaders had similar, highly-restrictive readings of Marxism. In particular, their shared elimination of political dissidents and bourgeoisie emulated this (Graziosi, 2016). Mao also emulated a number of Stalin’s policies and looked up to him as a true Marxist. Most notably, Mao’s Great Leap Forward of the 1950s was based heavily off of Stalin’s Five Year Plans of the 1930s. Both plans failed and resulted in large loss of lives (Graziosi, 2016). Simultaneously, the US was in the midst of McCarthyism, a movement that was extremely hostile to any Marxist sentiments (Michaels, 2017). Moreover, Mao regarded Stalin as an effective, non-revisionist leader, and made that very clear to Stalin’s successor, Nikita Khrushchev, after Khrushchev gave his Cult of Personality speech in which he denounced Stalin. Mao is thought to have told Khrushchev that “out of Stalin’s 10 fingers, 7 were rotten”, implying that the majority of Stalin’s actions were warranted and good (Kuo, 2001). When Khrushchev began his liberalization of the Soviet Union, known colloquially as the “Khrushchev Thaw”, he freed political prisoners, eased censorship policies and began seeking peaceful coexistence with other nations, including the US. Mao saw this as not only a betrayal of the Soviet relationship with China, but also as a complete betrayal of the principles of Marxism (Bittner et al., 2008). Meanwhile, McCarthyism was dying down in the US (Michaels, 2017).

It was around this time that China’s rift with the Soviets began, and normalization of relations with the US began (Bittner et al., 2008). What this demonstrates is that the theory of Shared Values is largely adequate at explaining China’s relations with the Soviets. While similar versions of Marxism were implemented in the two countries, while the leaders had similar views and while the other power seemed too distant ideologically, the Sino-Soviet relations were good and there was reason for their alliance. Once the two countries began to view each other’s Marxism to be misconstrued, once the leaders began to look down on each other’s interpretations of Marxism, and once the other power’s ideology became less polarized, a disintegration of relations began.

Alternatively, the Sino-Soviet alliance could be explained through the Balance of Threat theory (BOT), which it similar to the Balance of Power theory, though different. It assumes that a country perceives threats from others global actors and forms alliances accordingly (Walt, 1987). Some independent variables that would affect why China would align itself with the Soviets would be perception of threat from major world actors, which would itself stem from the perceived aggregate power, offensive capabilities, and ideology of the world power in question, among other aspects. In 1950 China’s case, the US obviously seemed like a more threatening power than the Soviets, which made it understandable that the Chinese would align with the Soviets. 

Naturally, if China perceived the US to be a greater threat to it than the USSR, it would choose to align itself with the latter, assuming that states inherently desire alliances. Likewise, if threat perceptions, and the ways they are measured shift, then China would shift its alliance to the US. If this theory were true, then China would see itself aligned with the USSR until it perceived the Soviet threat to be greater than the US’s, which would stem from the perception of the Soviet’s aggregate power, offensive capabilities and political ideology. To adequately measure this, finding documents that explicitly state a perception of threat of one nation, as well as corroborating information on reasonable measures that could render a country threatening, like military capacity and ideological positioning, is key. 

Using GDP, export rates and military strength (factors that could be used to assess the threat a country poses), it is clear that in 1949, the Soviet Union was a lesser threat than the US to China. The USSR had a significantly lower GDP per capita, sitting at just over 1500$, comparable to the US’s approximately 12000$ (Maddison, 2006). The USSR was largely self-sufficient, and exported very little, compared to the US’s 8% of GDP. Moreover, 1949 was the year that the Council for Mutual Economic Assistance, which China would go on to join, was founded by the Soviets to encourage particularly communist countries to not stray towards the US-offered Marshall Plan (Weiner, 1981). In the same year, the USA founded NATO, which was seen as a bolstering of their military might (Wood, 2015). Meanwhile, the USSR’s Red Army was suffering at the hands of Stalin’s military purges. All of these factors made it reasonable for China to see the USA as a bigger threat, particularly when that is combined with China’s long-lasting belief that the US is an imperialist force (Kuo, 2001). Thus, it would be reasonable to assume that China would create an alliance with the less-threatening of the two nations, so as to create some mutual support against a common enemy, whilst not giving up any autonomy, as would be expected in siding with the USA. 

The main issue with this theory is that it fails to hold up when the reasons for the Sino-Soviet rift are considered. The USA remained a seemingly bigger threat to China throughout the 1960s and 70s. Their economy and military were both stronger than the Soviets (Wood, 2015). Their political ideology also greatly differed. China’s rift with the Soviets had to have stemmed from something other than pure threat perception, unless other factors dictating threat came to the forefront of Chinese perception, making the Soviets seem more threatening. Examples of such factors could include rift in ideology, proxy wars, or geographic proximity.

Despite their flaws, the first theory, Ideological Affinity, seems to better describe the true outcomes of the Sino-Soviet and its eventual demise, since it seems to face less counter-arguments and aligns better with historical facts. 

Both theories assume that nation-states inherently want alliances with other states. Though, in China’s case, an argument could be made that because of the country’s frail post-war state, an alliance with a stronger, more-well-to-do country like the Soviet Union would be needed and obviously preferable to being isolated, it still is wrong to make a blanket assumption that any type of state prefers alliances to isolationism. Furthermore, the ideological affinities theory relies a lot of subjective evidence, which I feel is common throughout the political sciences field. This is because it is very hard to reach a non-contentious conclusion on what the proper and true implementation of a political theoretical concept, like Marxism, is. Essentially, the entire theory relies on attempting to justify perceptions. This links in with what could be claimed as the primary flaw of the second theory, which is that it assumes states -and their leaders- consistently operate in wholly rational ways, which is untrue (Duru, 2014). Granted, some states may accurately perceive and interpret threats and changes in threats. Often, however, states can sour relations with each other for irrational reasons, like personal distastes or historical memories, and then mold narratives to fit their opinions accordingly. 

Moreover, my hypotheses were both somewhat subjectively phrased, so as to fit the research findings better. If more time and writing space were allotted to this assignment, I would have phrased my hypotheses in more objective ways, and I would actively search out information about other Marxist countries international relations, as those would offer similar foundations, but possibly different outcomes in alliance-formation. Also, I would search for more varied and specific evidence. I felt quite a crunch in this paper in including plenty of evidence, while simultaneously carrying out solid critical tests.

Using the ideological affinity theory, it is evident why China chose to align with the Soviets in the 1949-1950 period. Their leaders had similar interpretations of Marxism, and even emulated each other in implementing Marxist politics sometimes. Though the threat perception theory has its merits, it is harder to argue since it fails to explain why Sino-US relations would improve despite a significant lack in change of threat level of either or the two major powers. Realistically, a single theory cannot explain broad foreign policy decisions since they are made up of an array of political, historical and irrational factors.

My Life in France - Part #1

I recently arrived to a French-Italian border city in the South of France (Provence) on the Mediterranean Sea. This is where I will be beginning and living the next 5 months of my life. It's not a shabby-looking place at all - in fact it's beautiful, albeit quite a bit colder than expected. I think that things will work out well for me here. After all, even if they don't, it's just 5 small months.

Since I am an exchange student here, my workload is very small. Moreover, since I will be experiencing so many new things, it would make sense for me to get back to blogging to document them. I think that my life in Vancouver bored me out and that is why the blogging stopped - things weren't special anymore. But, everything here is new and special and therefore worth mentioning. I have decided to dedicate a lot of this blog's next half a year -in fact, probably all of it- to describing and explaining my time here. Before I begin, a thanks to Nima for actually encouraging this and reminding me of my duty to entertain the small masses that read my blog with the trials and tribulations of my existence.

I would explain my reasons for being on exchange first, but that would take up a great many paragraphs and no one would want to bother themselves with that pathetic-ness, so let's skip that and go straight into the physical departure:

I embarked on my journey from Vancouver with my mom, who I had hoped would be helpful in bypassing the obviously nasty French bureaucracy. I wanted her to help get me settled in my first life alone, and all that other stuff that one would want their mother there for. We planned to spend 3 days in Paris first before heading down to Menton, and so we did.

Paris was not enjoyed by me. First of all, I was jet-lagged. Second, I was sad to have left my friends and family behind. Third, Paris is not a nice place. It's dirty, overrated, arrogant and not so special. I will say that Paris does offer one good thing and that is a motorized scooter service, which one can use to travel from place to place. It is the most fun and handy thing I have ever seen. I rode around the city on my scooter for a long time and it was extremely pleasant. The food in Paris was also nothing to write home about, and therefore I won't be writing out loud about it.

After 3 days of my mother's elation, we made our way down to Nice. Here, we spent about a week together. My mom was very chatty and remarkably happy the entire time, and it made me feel almost as though she was rubbing in how shitty I felt. I know that she wasn't, but I couldn't help feeling that way. I deeply missed my cat, and things we're not going well for me at all. I was sensing a deep coming dread.

On that note, let me explain what has been happening with me for about the past 6 months. I have been experiencing radical emotions. When I am happy, I am euphoric; when I am sad, I am terribly sad. The same principle has applied to my relations with other people - when I like someone, I love them; when I don't, I hate them. The emotions have been fast and strong, and I have felt completely taken by them. It is unfortunate because I am generally such a rational person, who thinks things through, sometimes even too much. No longer do I think anything through - I just go with what I feel. I hope that this will change and that things will go back to normal soon. Frankly, I don't know if it is possible to live life like this. To put things simply: I have been living off vibes for the past six months.

Do you know what that's like for me?

I have been in love 20 times. I have fallen out of love just as many. There is no stability in that.

My emotional rollercoaster has followed me since the start of last semester. It started with smaller things, but gradually progressed to bigger ones. The first thing that comes to mind is the friendship that I started with a guy I met in my Italian class over cookies. I had made cookies for my class as part of a presentation. These cookies were tasted by the class and received generally positive reviews. A Greek guy who I barely knew up until then commented on my cookies after I finished my presentation to say that they were amazing. Not just ok, or good, or fine, but amazing. His eyes were wide as he told me about them and he looked remarkably genuine. Many people told me that they were solid cookies, but none sparked the same endearing honesty that I felt radiating from him. It was childlike. That, paired with the fact that he had a typically pleasant Greek face, sparked a immense feeling of joy in me.

I spoke with him after class and realized that he had been living off of chicken nuggets for the past few months since coming to university, so that explained why even my mediocre cookies inspired him so much, but that's beside the point. As I spoke to him, I felt a huge degree of genuine happiness come from within him. It felt so good to walk with someone so happy. We spoke and got on really well, and fairly quickly I was deeply taken by him. Before you get the wrong idea: no, not at all romantically. It's a feeling that I can't even explain. I felt a culmination of many different types of love and admiration for him. I wished all good things to come his way. I can't explain it in words.