NEWS: Brad Warner's Hardcore Zen: Imus and Responsibility

CULTURE: Brad Warner's Hardcore Zen: Imus and Responsibility

Before I begin I want to do a brief eulogy for Kurt Vonnegut Jr. I was gonna do a long one, but there have been too many already. So I’ll just say that his book Cat’s Cradle was one of my own stepping-stones towards Buddhism. Those of you who’ve read it — and if you haven’t, you should — will recall the fictional religion of Bokononism that appears in the novel. Bokononism starts off from the promise Bokonon makes to his followers that, “All the true things I’m about to tell you are out and out lies.”

Unlike other religious leaders, Vonnegut’s character Bokonon didn’t expect his followers to have faith that the impossible things written in his book actually did happen or that he had any kind of special knowledge they did not possess. This is very much like the Buddhist attitude. It does not attach any importance to believing in the literal truth of its scriptures nor are its teachers held up as examples of divinely inspired beings. I first encountered the idea that something could be true without being literally factual in Vonnegut’s books. When I found that Buddhism had the same attitude I was pretty much sold.

ANYWAY, today I wanted to write about another topic that’s been written about way too much lately — Don Imus’ comments about the Rutger’s women’s basketball team. Actually I couldn’t give two shits about Imus and his comments. I haven’t listened to him since Seventh grade. But what’s happening to him is a little like what’s been happening to me. Although I’m not calling anyone a nappy headed ho. I lived in Africa at just the time my…. um… manhood was beginning to awaken, so the fine women on that team are my idea of smokin’ hot. Nor am I getting suspended or anything for the stuff I say. But, a bit like Imus, I am encountering the idea that, as a public figure (who me?) my audience — at least some of them anyway — get hoppin’ mad when I say stuff they don’t approve of.

Mostly this comes from disgruntled wanna-be Buddhists who think I should write more like their idea of what Buddhist teachers are supposed to write like. I usually just tell people like that to quit reading me and go read stuff by guys who write the way they think Buddhist teachers ought to. There’s plenty of namby-pamby crap out there. But after the Imus thing happened I started thinking about why it is that we demand that writers and public figures should write and speak in certain approved ways.

When you really look into it writing is a fairly new thing. Yeah, it’s been around for something like five or six thousand years. But human beings have been around for something like 130,000 years. That means that for about 125,000 of those years nobody anywhere ever wrote anything down. Just because we only know 5000 years of our collective history doesn’t mean we’re not carrying the other 125,000 years — and perhaps far, far more — with us, mostly buried in the deep recesses of our brains where conscious thought never dares venture.

When writing first emerged only very, very important things were committed to paper and stone. Tellingly, the very earliest forms of writing were receipts. But after that people started wanting to write down the very most important philosophical and scientific stuff they thought of. Sometimes they pretended that stuff was told to them by God. Maybe they really believed it was. They were cavemen after all.

When you think about it, writing must have seemed like a really mind blowing thing when it first got started. Just by making abstract marks on a rock or a leaf or whatever, two or more people who understood the system could read each other’s minds. The fact that not many people could do this made the ones who could seem almost divine. Literature of any kind must have seemed sacred. Some of us still revere those oldest books as something magical.

But the magic of those ancient books really wasn’t anything supernatural. It was due to the fact that the written word was so incredibly precious that the folks who wrote stuff did so very, very carefully. They were, in a sense, practicing a very extreme form of what we now call journalistic responsibility. Writers weren’t just expressing themselves. They were expressing the core ideas of their communities. As literacy increased and more books were produced by more people the air of sacredness accorded literature as a whole and the necessity of community restraints upon it gradually wore off. Though even now there are places where you can still get killed for writing something your community objects to. When film, TV and radio appeared there again was a sense that these forms of communication were too powerful to be left unsupervised by the community at large. So we had the Hays Commission censors, the FCC, the MPAA and all the rest. The airwaves are still considered to be public spaces. And so when Don Imus or whoever says something people don’t like on what they consider “their” airwaves, the shit hits the fan.

But as we all know, the whole idea of any sort of community restraints on what people say has gone right out the window in the age of the Internet. Nothing is sacred here at all. But this doesn’t mean we don’t still hold illusions that it ought to be. 125,000 years of thinking in a particular way about things doesn’t just vanish in a decade or so.

The thing about people telling Imus that he shouldn’t say “nappy headed” or telling me I oughtn’t to say certain things in the context of a piece of Buddhist writing seems to turn on the idea that public figures have a duty to be responsible about what they say lest they influence others. There seems to be some kind of vague fear that if Imus says “nappy headed hos” or I say something somebody out there regards as improper, then somebody out there may think racism or whatever is OK, and that person will get his buddies together and lynch someone. Or something like that. It’s hard to say exactly what the fear is.

But if there’s one thing I’ve learned from writing and speaking it’s that there is not a single thing you can say that cannot be misinterpreted. Charles Manson thought the message of the Beatles’ White Album was to start a race war. Should the Beatles have refrained from recording Obla-di Obla-da just because some nutcase might take it the wrong way? Furthermore, there are always people out there who want to argue or criticize or complain about what you say no matter what it is. All you can do as a writer or speaker or artist is to avoid deliberately attempting to fan people’s anger and hatred and avoid deliberately trying to incite violence.

In some sense, though, I can understand why people make these demands on public figures. I agree that public figures have a special obligation to be responsible. But here’s the thing. We live in a time when anyone can say anything they please and potentially reach a massive audience. Anyone can be a public figure. Everyone with an Internet connection is potentially a celebrity. As a species, human beings can no longer afford to allow the defense that because an influential person says it’s OK, then we can do whatever he says — or whatever we think he said — without being in any way responsible for that action. We have to stop accepting that lame-ass excuse from anyone anywhere under any circumstances — even from ourselves. We should have been convinced of that after World War II, but not enough of us have learned the lesson yet.

The single most vital thing that needs to happen to insure our survival as a species is for each of us to learn to take responsibility for ourselves. Yet the ability to be responsible is still seriously lacking. Can you believe there are people out there in Internetland who even want me to take responsibility for them?

I won’t. I couldn’t even if I wanted to. No matter what Imus says or what I say, you alone are responsible for how you react to it. And as the collective noise of humanity grows louder by the minute there’s gonna be plenty more to react to in the future. If we cannot learn to accept responsibility for what we do no matter what we hear from the media we’re in a whole big mess of trouble.

Brad Warner is the author of Hardcore Zen and the forthcoming Sit Down and Shut Up!. He maintains a blog about Buddhist stuff. If you're in Southern California and you want to try some Zazen for yourself, he has a group that meets every Saturday in Santa Monica.

Of course you are perfectly right that people need to accept responsibility for themselves and their own actions, and anything someone says may be misinterpreted, etc. But at the same time, doesn't being a public figure, and knowing that your words reach a larger audience, entail a certain kind of responsibility as well? I mean, when you choose to make your voice heard in the public sphere, you are knowingly allowing your words to reach a larger audience, and thus, to have greater impact then they otherwise would. While others are of course the ones responsible for their own reactions, when you speak out, you're contributing something to a larger discourse. This point was made rather nicely in the NYTimes article about the issue:

" In a memo sent to CBS employees announcing Mr. Imus's dismissal, Mr.
Moonves said: "This is about a lot more than Imus. As has been widely
pointed out, Imus has been visited by presidents, senators, important
authors and journalists from across the political spectrum. He has
flourished in a culture that permits a certain level of objectionable
expression that hurts and demeans a wide range of people. In taking
him off the air, I believe we take an important and necessary step not
just in solving a unique problem, but in changing that culture, which
extends far beyond the walls of our company." "


What Don Imus was contributing, in my opinion, was racism, sexism, xenophobia, and a general lack of respect for other human beings. Should he be allowed to do that? Hey, if there's a radio station out there that wants to pay him to do that, fine. But as it turns out, MSNBC doesn't want to pay him to do that. Is it because they are a corporation who firmly believes in equality? No, it's more likely that it's because public outcry is going to make them look bad if they don't. But that's how the free market works. Did Imus have a moral responsbility not to spread his hateful bile? As it turns out, the public sphere isn't really driven by morality, unless morality is backing people's financial decisions. All the same, he should accept responsibility for his words, just as his listeners should accept the responsibility for their actions, and not turn the blame purely on him if they've committed atrocious deeds as a result of having been influenced by his repulsive worldview. They chose to listen to it. They chose to do, think, say, what they did. At the same time, he chose to promote a view of the world that is degrading to others.

are you actually suggesting that people take responsibility for their actions and accept the consequences of those action? that's just crazy talk!

Imus said a few years ago that his goal in life was to get people to say the one thing that would ruin their lives. So the karma caught up to him. Personal responsibility or not, there it is - you can run, but you can't hide. Of course, having your life "ruined" is often a precursor to some intense dharma study, so maybe Imus is better off now that his world has exploded.

I find your characterization of Buddhists who don't agree with you as "namby-pamby" a little strange. Can't you just shrug your shoulders and accept that not everybody sees things the same way you do, and that your way of practicing isn't right for everyone? You say a lot of things above that are right on - words don't have any inherent nature of meaning to another person what you want them to mean - but this particular remark leaves me confused.

I fully support everyone's right to call people what ever they like. I am an African American so you have to listen to me.

PS - I likes nappy headed hoes

HAHAHA. I was going to make an intelligent comment (well, I delude myself that I was) - and then I saw the last comment! I mean, Christ on a cracker, what can I say after that???

Maybe I'm old fashioned, but I still believe in the whole Freedom Of Speech thing. That's all speech, not just the stuff I agree with. Now if MSNBC or whoever decides to drop Imus because of what he said, that's their business because it's their radio station, tv station, equipment, whatever. But all of the people out there who want him to be punished or prosecuted for what he said, they can go violate themselves with a big splintery stick.

Not following the logic here. Your conclusion doesn't follow from your observations.

Don Imus lost his job in the same way a guy who keeps making racist jokes might be asked to leave a party - he pissed off too many people. He was being held responsible for his own words, not being held responsible for the actions of others.

CBS and MSNBC were acting like the host of that party who realized that if you invited the guy who is pissing people off, then you are in part responsible for him and should use the power to ask him to leave.

Again, not about blaming others for your own actions, but actually taking responsibility for your own.

What your argument DOES apply to is all those bullshit commentators who tried to defend Imus by saying "what about rap"? In which case they were trying to blame the behavior of a 60 something white guy with a national radio program and friends in Congress on someone who makes music. Yeah.

THAT is like blaming the Beatles for Charles Manson. Which is sort of a specious comparison, because the only people who blamed the Beatles were those who thought all rock is satanic.

As you say, "All you can do as a writer or speaker or artist is to avoid deliberately attempting to fan people's anger and hatred and avoid deliberately trying to incite violence." Well, that's what Imus did and he paid the price, after years of getting money and power with that stuff.

Just like karma, free speech and "personal responsibility" stuff goes around ways. Freedom of speech doesn't mean freedom from consequences. "Personal responsibility" means if you take the risk of saying something which might piss people off, being prepared for the consequences.

Talk in public, the public is going to respond. If the public responds by saying "take that guy off the air" and someone listens, tough shit.

Intentionally or not, you are arguing for karmic exemptions for public figures - mostly the wealthy, powerful and/or popular. It also reminds me a bit of "how dare people respond to something I say in public?" Which strikes me as a bit strange, and thin skinned, for a Buddhist.

"The airwaves are still considered to be public spaces. And so when Don Imus or whoever says something people don't like on what they consider "their" airwaves, the shit hits the fan."

Broadcast communication needs well regulated frequencies to function - it can't function without it. This is done by the government using our tax dollars, a service broadcasters do not pay for. TV and radio rely on ad revenue, i.e. getting people to watch and listen. So yeah, they are "our" airwaves directly and indirectly, for better and worse. Viewers are not obligated to support anything and they are free to respond negatively.

Question their judgment, call them censorious or stupid, but that's the way human interaction works.

I agree whole hartedly. People need to learn to deal with the consequences of thier action intead of continually shifting blame. Not just on an individual level but also on a society level. Unfortunately Human beings are by our very nature herd animals. In a species such as ours you will always have individuals (usually large numbers of them...) who live their entire lives on the principal of "follow the leader". Sheep basically. Many of these people will listen to the words of ANY public figure and essentially begin to mimic their behavior. This is where it becomes dangerous. Especially when the public speaker is a racist twat like this Imus guy (I'm from Europe... I've honestly never head of him before).

Any and every person who has a public voice (which in this information age mean EVERYONE!) needs to understand that what they say may have consequences far beyond what they intend. You have a responsibility to everyone who hears your voice. One that goes beyond common courtesy.

Buisness is for MSNBC the key thing here. If you have someone speaking on your public network who is offending a large part of your audience, it makes good buisness sense to fire him.

Freedom of Speach is a far more sensative topic. Every society face one challenge above all others: how to ballance freedom with security. In this case the security that you can live in a society and be accepted by it, without having to suffer racist prejudices and insults, versus the right for any person to say anything they like.

Here in The Netherlands the law specifies that freedom of speach does exist but with a single limitation: You can not publicly express any oppinion that is delibrately insulting to any race, religion, lifestyle, or sexual orientation or voice approval of such oppinions or activities. (this is a very rough translation... i hope it's clear). This is punnishable by up to a year in prison.

Though i hate to see limitations put on freedom, i also understand the necessity of such a limitation. This law is another thing with which i agree whole hartedly.

I am very impressed that while Don Imus can use the first ammendment to say whatever he wants, our social atmosphere judged it inappropriate and unacceptable.

I suspect that freedom and responsibility can never really exist together in an absolute sense. You could only be completely free if you were some sort of god who could withstand any consequence that your actions might generate.

You can ask a public figure to attempt to anticipate an audience's reaction to a particular statement, but there are limitations to how far that can go given the variations in human minds. Imus' reference to nappy-headed hos is rather a mild manifestation of racism in the overall scheme of things, bordering on meaningless; but he picked the wrong time and place for it. In my younger days I would have been more upset about an occurence like this, insofar as I tend to despise the bourgeois thought pattern "I'm for freedom of speech so long as you don't say anything hurtful to anyone" but being old and cynical I'm past giving a rat's ass about Imus or those folks who went ballistic about his fairly unremarkable and stupid comment.

I feel that it is more important that there be no restrictions placed on the playing field of ideas than that there should be official protection of public sensibilities. I think that if hate exits, it should not be silenced, but heard, so that it can be confronted and addressed, and ideally overcome, rather than merely being swept under the carpet. Censorship can come from the state or from corporate venues of information, and as the latter are driven by profits derived from public approval of their content, it is unavoidable that censorship based on corporate understanding of public sensibility will result.

The extent to which the public will accept sensorship based on the notion that freedom of speech is only acceptable so long as nothing harmful about anyone ever is said is the extent to which the public does not have the rights that it is officially supposed to have. This deep unremarkableness of the sea of average human minds is pretty vexing as a context in which minds with some fire must strive to express themselves. Imus' comment and the furor that resulted from it don't speak eloquently about racism and the forces arrayed against it so much as they illustrate how profoundly unremarkable are the minds that cultures create and are created by.

A friend of mine asked me to contribute his comment to this thread:

A Wanna-be Buddhist Responds to Brad's Teachings

softdoq, well said.