Watching the unfolding horror in Gaza I am reminded of my commitment to a form of academic practice that places ethics at its core. But, apart from rhetorical claims to the moral high ground how might such an ethics inform academic practice; how might it guide a thoughtful and honest response to events such as those in Gaza as well as the ‘everydayness’ of teaching, research, and administration?
To explore this I want to look at the 5 MINDFULNESS TRAININGS offered by the venerable Thich Nhat Hanh. Thich Nhat Hanh and the trainings are a good place to start for a number of reasons. Thich Nhat Hanh is one of the key instigators of what has become known as Engaged Buddhism, that orientation within reformed Buddhism that seeks to engage directly with issues of poverty, equality, and justice as a means of practicing the teachings of the Buddha. This orientation grew out of his immediate experience of war in Vietnam. His efforts to engage in ethical practices applying Buddhist teachings led him and many other Vietnamese Buddhists to support villagers to rebuild their homes, to provide health and education in the midst of suffering, and to campaign for peace. It was on the basis of this that Martin Luther King Jr nominated Thich Nhat Hahn for the Nobel Peace Prize.
Thich Nhat Hanh has gone on to become one of the most influential Buddhist leaders in the world. As part of his ethic of engaged Buddhism he has sought to establish sets of principles that can guide people in their everyday lives – the 5 MINDFULNESS TRAININGS. These are based on the original 5 Precepts established in Buddhist tradition:
- Not killing
- Not stealing
- Not misusing sex
- Not lying
- Not abusing intoxicants
While similar to the rules and commandments found in other religions, in Buddhism there is no ‘god’ to provide authority for such rules. Instead they are seen as rational guides for improving the human condition. These precepts have been reformulated as:
Reverence For Life
Loving Speech and Deep Listening
Nourishment and Healing
Over the following weeks I will focus on each of these ‘trainings’ in order to elaborate an ethic of academic practice.
Reverence For Life
Aware of the suffering caused by the destruction of life, I am committed to cultivating the insight of interbeing and compassion and learning ways to protect the lives of people, animals, plants, and minerals. I am determined not to kill, not to let others kill, and not to support any act of killing in the world, in my thinking, or in my way of life. Seeing that harmful actions arise from anger, fear, greed, and intolerance, which in turn come from dualistic and discriminative thinking, I will cultivate openness, non-discrimination, and non-attachment to views in order to transform violence, fanaticism, and dogmatism in myself and in the world.
As I write Israel is unleashing its amazing arsenal of death upon one of the poorest people in the world. This is not a war between competing combatant states. This is an asymmetrical war of destruction. Borrowing from the Old Testament, a text that the Jews, Muslims, and Christians of the region regard as sacred, Israel is Goliath and Gaza is David. In this story David is unlikely to win.
The other night I was talking with an Italian Jewish friend about this horror. While unambiguously seeing himself on the side of peace and against this current onslaught, he remarked that he had come to the opinion that Israel’s heightened ‘security’ measures over the years that had effectively made Gaza an open air prison, had created necessary calm in Israel. I could have asked him what he thought this meant for the population of Gaza. Instead, I asked him what this was doing to young Israelis, particularly Jewish Israelis. I asked him what this creation of Israel as a security state was doing to those young people who had to serve in the military. We explored the psychological and moral impact of serving in the Israel Defence Force (IDF), of what this did to young minds and souls as they had to search old women at check points, go through children’s clothes, break down doors on frightened families, shoot young boys throwing stones. We explored how fear could so easily be transformed into hate, into constructing the people of Gaza into non-humans. We explored how Israel, and Jewish Israelis, seemed blind to how they, like the Christians before them, were creating new GHETTOS.
The constant heightening of security measures creates prisons for both Palestinian and Israeli. But this prison, whose walls are constructed by high calibre weapons as much as they are by concrete and wire, is aided by scientists of many kinds. There are those involved in the development of spy technology that enable the IDF to use pinpoint accuracy (so it is said) to target particular individuals and buildings. There are scientists who are involved in the development of weapons as well as those involved in the psychological training of soldiers, and torturers; as well as those who advise on the use of psychological warfare against the civilian population of Gaza, or ‘persuading’ the Israeli population of the correctness of these actions through the controlled use of the media.
All of these ‘scientists’ were educated in universities. What was the moral content of their university education? How is it that universities can produce individuals who are apparently so lost to basic human empathy and compassion? What is it about the pursuit of knowledge that splits a person from their heart such that they see only the spirit of the technology and the beauty of the algorithm?
And how is it that universities accept funding from arms manufacturers fully aware of the human and ecological destruction they unleash on the world? Is this why there is almost universal silence from universities despite the death toll of Gaza’s civilian population? Have they, that is the leading academics and administrators, literally sold their souls to the devil?
Israel’s IRON DOME defence system, heavily subsidised by the USA, is only possible by the complicity of universities and their scientists.
What ethical choices are these academics making?
But we face other ethical choices in these times. It is all too easy to CHOOSE one side against the other. But the challenge posed by the commitment to COMPASSION is that seeing one side as lesser than the other simply perpetuates this process of dualism, of distinction. This is not to promote some kind of dispassionate approach. But we must always seek the path of peace whilst also speaking out against injustice where we see it, regardless of personal security.
I am appalled by what Israel is doing to the Palestinian’s. But I also feel such pain at what is happening to those young Israelis in the IDF, to the loss of humanity they suffer each time they construe another human not as a human like them, but as ‘enemy’, as being less than human. Each act like this dehumanises them, alters their psychology and moral framework. I hear the pain of Palestinians as they confront the loss of loved ones, wishing harm upon all Israelis or Jews. But the death of any Israeli will never heal the wound of losing a child in such circumstances.
As academics we need to be attentive to the moral content of our teaching, and we should be mindful of the ethical modelling that accompanies our practice.
My friend and I finished the evening not in total agreement, but in renewing a commitment to ethical practice and the search for peace.