1. Current Concern in Thailand
Combatting consumerism
"Poverty throughout the world is not a technical,
economic or political problem, but a moral crisis."
By: Sulak Sivaraksa, director of the Santi Pracha Dhamma Institute of Thailand
The definition of development is based on the underlying worldview of the person doing the defining. As we know, in today's world it is the giant, transnational companies who set the standards. What is the underlying worldview of the men who are in charge of defining the vision for these companies? Firstly, they want to maximise their profits. The level of success of a particular project or company is measured in dollars and assets, not in any way concerned with happiness, fulfillment, sustainability, or social benefit.
The economics of the rational worldview emphasises global over local; the market controls society not the other way around. Societies matter insofar as L they participate in the global economy. Their net worth or production capacity measures individuals.
As human beings we are all just a small cog in the big machine of the economy, our wants and needs matter not except as they help to perpetuate the economy; as consumers whose wants and needs are dictated to us by the machine.
What kind of culture does this worldview and its economic policies prescribe? One in which we all dress alike, eat the same food, listen to the same music, etc. This kind of cultural approach is called the consumer monoculture. It is designed specifically to maximise the profit of transnational companies and to discourage local initiatives.
As a side effect it tends also to destroy native crafts, dress and specialties. Because mass-produced goods are so cheap they have an even greater appeal to poor people.
If you can buy a plastic bag for one baht, who is going to spend hours weaving a basket, and who can pay the equivalent wages to a basket-maker who might spend days to produce one item?Agriculture is affected as well. Since the driving force of the economy is money, farmers are compelled to plant cash crops.
This is ecologically destructive and also very disruptive to the local economies, which are geared towards sustainability and self-sufficiency.
Another cultural value, which is part of the "modern" system, is the tendency to measure one's own culture against western values. If the village has a satellite TV, everyone will be proud and if your neighbour has a car so too must you.
This can lead to an identity crisis for indigenous cultures; they often have to fight to maintain pride in their local culture especially among the young.
FALSE DEMOCRACY
The free market is linked with a formal democracy. The era when the Americans saw the totalitarian regimes as trustworthy partners has gone. The system of a formal democracy within which, in theory, all citizens are equal, is more stable. Look at the Philippines where Aquino, and after her Ramos, in the name of democracy succeeded in keeping intact the most unjust society in Asia. This system is being legitimised by elections, manipulated by money and power. Citizens aren't equal because property is never brought up for discussion.
On the contrary, this false democracy creates a radical inequality.
In Siam this inequality is poignantly visible. Sixty percent of the population lives in poverty. Siam is among the top five countries with the greatest contrast between rich and poor.
By changing from subsistence farming to large-scale export production, hunger and poverty developed in the provinces. In the end the farmers, who were only allowed to plant rice for export, suddenly found themselves buying food.
The United States handles the free market very pragmatically. The US government gives enormous subsidies to their farmers and spends a lot of money on irrigation projects that are necessary to make it possible to grow rice.
In Siam the farmers don't get anything at all.
This free market is in fact not free at all. It maintains the dominant position of the West. The US ministry of agriculture says that American agriculture needs the Asian market to survive, that exports have to grow from 40 to 60 percent.
With this they will drive away Siam's farmers from their land. This is a tragedy in a country without a social safety net. Eventually, they end up in the slums of Bangkok.
In today's world, development has become a measure of how closely a culture or society conforms to the western idea of progress. Often this measurement is made only by numbers-GDP, trade deficit, tons of shipping, megawatts of electricity, etc. There is no reference to people. Thus, we should seek to define development from a holistic point of view. Of course we must include certain aspects of modernity such as clean water, decent health care and a practical infrastructure, which are a benefit to everybody.
There are definitively enough resources and production capacity in the world right at this minute to feed and clothe every person on the planet, to provide clean water and a fair amount of electricity. Yet this is obviously not happening. Why?
A MORAL CRISIS
We must not be fooled by the over-rational approach of the West that poverty and crisis in the world is a technical, economic or political problem, when it is not. It is in fact a moral crisis.
When you see the world as a machine, as does the western, rationalist worldview, it is not alive. You see humanity as separate and above the environment, as if we live in a separate sphere and what we do to the environment won't have any effect on human society. All of this is false.
So what exactly is the "good life"? If this were an easy question to answer, the job of activists would be much easier.
If we look to the dharma for answers we see that in fact the idea of the "good life" itself is playing on our primordial ignorance of the nature of the world. We can't have a good life that is in any way exploiting others. Partly because the karma of doing so is corrosive for our soul, and partly because we are all interconnected. We share in everyone else's suffering.
If we claim that our actions don't affect every other being then we are in a sense cutting ourselves off from the one source of hope-that we are all in this together. We have a shared struggle, to reduce the passion, aggression and ignorance in ourselves and in the world around us. This is hopeful because it means we need to cooperate and help each other. If we deny that our lifestyle has a profound effect on others we are implying that we are cut off, cut off from help, from hope and from the dhamma. What a sad state.
No matter how rich you are, denying reality pushes one further into delusion and depression, dissatisfaction. It is because we all have the Buddha nature inside of ourselves and when we deny what we know in our heart to be true it causes an internal struggle. The Quakers also teach that we should express loving kindness to our brothers and sisters because everyone has the grace of God in him or her.
So as you can see, the worldview, the underlying values of an economic system, tend to promote structures that keep the wealth in the hands of the few, and justifies the inequality in the use and distribution of natural resources.
ALTERNATIVE LIFESTYLES
Now perhaps we should discuss what an alternative model looks like. What values is it founded on, what ideas are underlying it and what kind of lifestyle does it promote?We are collaborating on a project with the Lebret Centre in Paris to raise awareness of the negative impact the consumer lifestyle has had on Siam. We plan to educate people about alternative lifestyles which are spiritually based.
If we empower people spiritually, they can build strong cooperative communities. If these communities have a strong spiritual foundation and they practice contentment and generosity they will naturally be self-reliant, using locally made products and helping each other.
This is another aspect of empowering people to live alternative lifestyles and escape the overpowering influence of consumer culture. We need to decentralise, honour the native wisdom in every culture, every region and even in individual villages.
The scale of communities should be small and know that small is beautiful. They can then network their communities together, sharing knowledge, skills and materials but in a way such that they meet on equal footing.
This leads to cooperation, not exploitation as in
the centralised model. Mahatma Gandhi dreamed of
village republics linked together by cooperation and
compassion:
"In this structure composed of innumerable villages there will be ever widening, never ascending circles. Life will not be a pyramid with the apex sustained by the bottom. It will be an oceanic circle whose centre will be the individual always ready to perish for the village, the village ready to perish for the circle of villages until at last the whole becomes one life composed of individuals, never aggressive in their arrogance, but ever humble, sharing the majesty of the oceanic circle of which they are an integral part."
*Sulak Sivaraksa is the director of the Santi Pracha Dhamma Institute. This article is adapted from the speech he delivered at a seminar in Chiang Mai on April 29,1999
Address: 117 Fuangnakhon Rd
Opposite Wat Rajabopit
10200 Bangkok
Thailand
tel: +66 (2) 223 4915
fax: +66 (2) 225 9540
email: atc@bkk.a-net.net.th
Copyright The Bangkok Post Publishing Public Co., Ltd. 1999