Monastic Separateness & Engagement (part 2): Assumptions

[This series of posts, “The Elements of Monasticism” asks the question, what exactly is monasticism? “Separateness & Engagement” will unfold in a series of 4 posts (links: 1, 2, 3, 4).]

The conflation I mentioned in part 1 represents one of a number of assumptions of how monastics exist in society. I will now attempt to summarize some other assumptions I’ve encountered in myself and others. While I’m sure that all of these are true for somemonk somewhere, they are all impoverished views based on romanticized images of what the monastic life is about. For each assumption, I offer another way to think about the issue.

Some assumptions about monastics in society:

Isolation = disengaged

Assumption: Intuitively, you can’t impact the world when you’re by yourself. The only way to impact the world is to be vocal (and loud), to be a conscious consumer or an entrepreneur, to be producing, to be creative, to be social.

Counter: The isolation that most monks spend at least some portion of their lives in renders them even more capable of making bold, positive impacts in their communities and the larger world. The depth of practice afforded by solitude makes indirect (and subtly direct) impacts on the world.

Monastic = isolated

Assumption: Monastic means hermit for life, right?

Counter: Hermiticism is just one form of monastic living. Few monks are 100% hermit. Most monks move in and out of periods of solitude and silence throughout their lives.

Monastic = disengaged.

Assumption: It’s a truism that monks are disengaged from public life. If you’re engaged with public life, you can’t truly be a monk. The monastic venture is defined not by balancing activity and stillness, but by stillness or purity alone, and the extent to which monastics are called to activism is the extent to which society is fucked up.

Counter: Monastic can equal more engaged. Monastics, through contemplation, engage reality as it is. “The true meaning of spiritual is real,” says Emerson. They are the ones who have the hardest time ignoring the real plight of the impoverished, the destruction of the ecosystem, and collapse of systems of finance and governance.

Engaged monastics are an aberration.

Assumption: The monks who have chosen to engage public life (Thomas Merton, Mother Teresa, Thich Nhat Hanh, monk-activists in Burma and Cambodia, Dada Maheshvarananda, Wayne Teasdale, Bede Griffiths, Martin Luther, Hildegard of Bingen, Catherine of Siena, Julian of Norwich, and innumerable other monastics making extraordinary impacts in a variety of ways) do so as exception to the Rule that binds them, often in response to overwhelming social pressures.

Counter: The examples above are among the most charismatic, outspoken or historically famous “engaged” monastics. It is true, these do not represent the majority of monastics, who work in ever subtler and more invisible ways, through small acts of unseen but not unfelt kindness and large yet unpublicized acts of self-sacrifice, passion and conviction. Famous monastics are an aberration, I would argue, but engaged monastics are much more common than they would have us know.

Engaged monks just want to proselytize.

Assumption: Monk activists are really just looking for a platform to spread their chosen faith, often by preaching to the most vulnerable members of society. Monk activism is a form of missionary work (cf. Mother Theresa).

Counter: Evangelism happens, I’m sure, but monastics also act out of the same impulses that drive the rest of us to engage the world: compassion, urgency, and a desire for wholeness.

Monastic activism rejects social liberalism.

Assumption: Monastics only engage the world in a way that reinforces or sanctifies poverty and rejects things like contraception and abortion.

Counter: The Poverty that monastics vow doesn’t have to be the systemic poverty that religion reinforces (according to Marxism, though not according to one study). In Catholicism, feminism does seem to be the exception. There are examples: Hildegard, Teresa of Avila, Sister Margaret McBride, Sister Joan Chittister, (and theologian Mary Daly, though not a nun). Now that the pope has stated that contraception is a lesser sin than knowingly spreading HIV, perhaps there’s more wiggle room for the monastic world to educate and empower women.

Social engagement for monastics = feed-the-pooractivism (≠business, art, politics, technology, scientific discourse, the market, philosophy, or activisms that involve these)

Assumption: The only way for monks to be engaged publicly is through a traditional feed-the-poor/care-for-the-sick kind of activism. Anything else tarnishes a monk’s purity (and since being a monk is defined by purity, destroys one’s true identity as a monk). Politics, academia, the art world, technology, scientific discourse and (most of all) the market are inappropriate venues for monastic public activity. In addition to those engaged monks listed above, you’ll have to disregard the scientific likes of “Doctor of Wonders” Roger Bacon, William of Ockham, Gregor Mendel, etc. And disregard the Lasermonks. Disregard Sister Susan Mika, a shareholder activist.

Counter: Monastics are the world’s oldest social entrepreneurs.  Monasteries were the first For-Benefit corporations. Monasticism was the birthplace of scientific method. Literally and figuratively, the monk and the artist are one.

These are just a few of the simplistic assumptions I and others have made regarding monasticism along a certain line of inquiry. There are, of course, the wide range of myths and images about monastic life, monastic history, the relationships of monasteries and organized religions, etc. But these are for another day.

In the next post in this series, I’ll look at the role of monasticism, broadly speaking, as an institution in civil society, the market, and the wider world.

[This series of posts, “The Elements of Monasticism” asks the question, what exactly is monasticism? “Separateness & Engagement” will unfold in a series of 4 posts (links: 1, 2, 3, 4).]

The conflation I mentioned in part 1 represents one of a number of assumptions of how monastics exist in society. I will now attempt to summarize some other assumptions I’ve encountered in myself and others. While I’m sure that all of these are true for somemonk somewhere, they are all impoverished views based on romanticized images of what the monastic life is about. For each assumption, I offer another way to think about the issue.

Some assumptions about monastics in society:

Isolation = disengaged

Assumption: Intuitively, you can’t impact the world when you’re by yourself. The only way to impact the world is to be vocal (and loud), to be a conscious consumer or an entrepreneur, to be producing, to be creative, to be social.

Counter: The isolation that most monks spend at least some portion of their lives in renders them even more capable of making bold, positive impacts in their communities and the larger world. The depth of practice afforded by solitude makes indirect (and subtly direct) impacts on the world.

Monastic = isolated

Assumption: Monastic means hermit for life, right?

Counter: Hermiticism is just one form of monastic living. Few monks are 100% hermit. Most monks move in and out of periods of solitude and silence throughout their lives.

Monastic = disengaged.

Assumption: It’s a truism that monks are disengaged from public life. If you’re engaged with public life, you can’t truly be a monk. The monastic venture is defined not by balancing activity and stillness, but by stillness or purity alone, and the extent to which monastics are called to activism is the extent to which society is fucked up.

Counter: Monastic can equal more engaged. Monastics, through contemplation, engage reality as it is. “The true meaning of spiritual is real,” says Emerson. They are the ones who have the hardest time ignoring the real plight of the impoverished, the destruction of the ecosystem, and collapse of systems of finance and governance.

Engaged monastics are an aberration.

Assumption: The monks who have chosen to engage public life (Thomas Merton, Mother Teresa, Thich Nhat Hanh, monk-activists in Burma and Cambodia, Dada Maheshvarananda, Wayne Teasdale, Bede Griffiths, Martin Luther, Hildegard of Bingen, Catherine of Siena, Julian of Norwich, and innumerable other monastics making extraordinary impacts in a variety of ways) do so as exception to the Rule that binds them, often in response to overwhelming social pressures.

Counter: The examples above are among the most charismatic, outspoken or historically famous “engaged” monastics. It is true, these do not represent the majority of monastics, who work in ever subtler and more invisible ways, through small acts of unseen but not unfelt kindness and large yet unpublicized acts of self-sacrifice, passion and conviction. Famous monastics are an aberration, I would argue, but engaged monastics are much more common than they would have us know.

Engaged monks just want to proselytize.

Assumption: Monk activists are really just looking for a platform to spread their chosen faith, often by preaching to the most vulnerable members of society. Monk activism is a form of missionary work (cf. Mother Theresa).

Counter: Evangelism happens, I’m sure, but monastics also act out of the same impulses that drive the rest of us to engage the world: compassion, urgency, and a desire for wholeness.

Monastic activism rejects social liberalism.

Assumption: Monastics only engage the world in a way that reinforces or sanctifies poverty and rejects things like contraception and abortion.

Counter: The Poverty that monastics vow doesn’t have to be the systemic poverty that religion reinforces (according to Marxism, though not according to one study). In Catholicism, feminism does seem to be the exception. There are examples: Hildegard, Teresa of Avila, Sister Margaret McBride, Sister Joan Chittister, (and theologian Mary Daly, though not a nun). Now that the pope has stated that contraception is a lesser sin than knowingly spreading HIV, perhaps there’s more wiggle room for the monastic world to educate and empower women.

Social engagement for monastics = feed-the-pooractivism (≠business, art, politics, technology, scientific discourse, the market, philosophy, or activisms that involve these)

Assumption: The only way for monks to be engaged publicly is through a traditional feed-the-poor/care-for-the-sick kind of activism. Anything else tarnishes a monk’s purity (and since being a monk is defined by purity, destroys one’s true identity as a monk). Politics, academia, the art world, technology, scientific discourse and (most of all) the market are inappropriate venues for monastic public activity. In addition to those engaged monks listed above, you’ll have to disregard the scientific likes of “Doctor of Wonders” Roger Bacon, William of Ockham, Gregor Mendel, etc. And disregard the Lasermonks. Disregard Sister Susan Mika, a shareholder activist.

Counter: Monastics are the world’s oldest social entrepreneurs.  Monasteries were the first For-Benefit corporations. Monasticism was the birthplace of scientific method. Literally and figuratively, the monk and the artist are one.

These are just a few of the simplistic assumptions I and others have made regarding monasticism along a certain line of inquiry. There are, of course, the wide range of myths and images about monastic life, monastic history, the relationships of monasteries and organized religions, etc. But these are for another day.

In the next post in this series, I’ll look at the role of monasticism, broadly speaking, as an institution in civil society, the market, and the wider world.