Mindfulness: Sustaining Neoliberalism or Resisting It?
- polsodepthindu
- Apr 13
- 5 min read
That emotions can be anything other than personal, they are rooted in structures that lay outside the realm of the self, they can be manufactured by, and manoeuvered for, political ends, has far-reaching implications on how we understand ourselves in relation to the social, political, economic and cultural space that we inhabit and how we navigate that space. A plethora of questions come rushing to the mind with this realisation: Can pain be commodified? Why is the grief of certain bodies more important than that of others? Who gets to decide what actions and behaviours induce shame? How can certain emotions succour injustices? It's the last question that aroused my curiosity the most and subsequently forms the subject of this endeavour.
Mindfulness is practically everywhere these days: in self-help books being sold on the pavement, doling out mantras on how to be aware of one's actions and feelings; in the Instagram stories on our mobile screens, where influencers showcase techniques to lead sustainable lifestyles; and now even in the corporate world, with CEOs buying their employees subscriptions to applications that guide them in increasing their productivity. To put it simply, mindfulness equates to a state of mind where the sole focus is on the present moment and one acknowledges and accepts one's feelings and thoughts. Based on Buddhist ethics, this state is achieved through meditative practices like yoga, wherein we calm our bodily sensations, rule out from our consciousness ideas/thoughts which can cause stress and be conversant with things that trouble us, make us chortle and elicit fury, while simultaneously disallowing them from affecting the placidity that has set in.
But what explains this sudden proliferation of interest—of state & private entities alike—in meditation and mindfulness? What is it that has had all of us in a frenzied search for tranquility and solace? The answer lies in the structures of global capitalism and neoliberalism, a blend of classical liberal political economy and social conservatism, characterised by a belief in unrestrained market fundamentalism, rollback of state welfare mechanisms, and increased role of private enterprises. The functioning of neoliberalism creates uncertainty, anxiety, and insecurity, given its emphasis on flexible terms of employment and decreased public spending; it exposes people to the vagaries of market capitalism, inducing mental health issues such as stress. It's this exploitative system that, certain scholars argue, mindfulness and meditation uphold.
Mindfulness facilitates the twin processes of subjectivation–an identity-forming process by which the subject is constituted–and responsibilization–holding subjects responsible for their fates, both of which form the bedrock of the neoliberal paradigm. Practices like mindfulness individualises and psychologises suffering: it's the individual who is responsible for his/her/their condition and not the larger neoliberal framework they're a part of. Just like the market, individuals are also expected to be self-regulating: given that individuals bear the sole responsibility for their well-being, productivity, and ability to thrive, they are forced to self-optimise as much as possible. Mindfulness thus becomes a very effective neoliberal tool: it engenders the reflexive subjectivity (self-conscious inquiry into one's feelings and how they influence one's actions) and resilience (the ability to remain unaffected by the capitalism-induced uncertainty) the neoliberal project thrives on.
While self-governance isn't undesirable in itself, an overemphasis on self-regulation deflects attention from the larger structural, political, and economic inequalities that might need redressal. Individualising and psychologising suffering do nothing to resolve the problems of inequalities or political exclusion that lead to experiencing the negative feelings in the first place. In fact, scholars have argued that practices of yoga and meditation induce passive resignation to an unjust status quo, by insisting on non-reaction. A preoccupation with self-care, something that is in vogue today, through self-discipline and self-improvement is overtly inward-looking and individualised, discouraging probing into causes of collective suffering. Therefore, it comes as no surprise that as nation-states cede space to corporations, avenues of self-governance rise exponentially. Corporations now have ‘stress management’ programs where the worker is trained to navigate the risk central to market competition, and ‘capacity building’ programs where techniques of maximising profit, both emotional and material, are taught.
Image credits : Bay Area CBT Centre
Such a formulation of mindfulness raises a number of questions: Has the individual got no agency? Does conflating mindfulness and neoliberalism not amount to virtually accepting that the latter has achieved its goal, that of dehumanising and subsequent commodification? Does that not mean subjectivation has been a totalising phenomenon? Scholars following this line of reasoning argue that neoliberalism is rarely a totalising phenomenon: its spread has been uneven, and a wide gap exists between neoliberal policies and their actual implementation. While a strong political, cultural, and economic force to reckon with, neoliberalism articulates and intersects with other politico-cultural identities and collectivities to create localised manifestations which, at times, can be radically different from their origin.
In an interesting study revolving around the National Health Service–the state-operated healthcare service in the UK–Trnka and Trundle suggest that despite discourses of 'patient empowerment,’ that is, encouraging patients to make decisions for themselves in a way that promotes their well-being, individual decision-making continues to be embedded in the broader social network of which they are part. Social relations, they argue, incorporate multiple meanings of responsibility: from self-regulation and self-care to interpersonal responsibility and obligations. These myriad understandings and enactments of responsibility can't be captured by neoliberalism, no matter how much its forces might like it to be otherwise. An excessively neoliberal reading of responsibilization fails to consider the central role the process plays in various other anthropological projects and the limits of neoliberalism. Departing from this standpoint allows us to engage with practices of people who recognise structural causes of inequalities and simultaneously use reflexive subjectivity to improve their well-being.
From our discussion above we can infer two points: narratives of self-care can become handmaiden, and even justifications for asymmetrical power relations, and self-care can also be emancipatory, especially when consciously chosen. An overemphasis on the former undermines our ability to contest and resist by treating neoliberalism as a fait accompli and not something that can be dismantled. Recent inquiry has shown how self-care, especially when done in the right manner, can help build political consciousness and sustain activism. Self-care thus is very conducive to co-optation by an unjust status quo, but it has the potential to remain vigilant towards such misappropriation. As Foucault notes, ''technologies of the self'' can easily be absorbed or appropriated by power relations, but they may also encourage critical reflection and political change.
REFERENCES
Cook, J; (2016) Mindful in Westminster: The politics of meditation and the limits of neoliberal critique. HAU: Journal of Ethnographic Theory
Godrej, F. (2022). Yoga, Meditation, and Neoliberal Penality: Compliance or Resistance? Political Research Quarterly
ABOUT WRITER
Pratham Gupta, a 3rd year student of political science department.
Comments