Am Soc (2012) 43:203–222

DOI 10.1007/s12108-012-9155-4

Toward a Buddhist Sociology: Theories, Methods,

and Possibilities

Janine Schipper

Published online: 24 May 2012

# Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2012

Abstract This article explores potential links between Buddhism and sociology,
highlighting the many commonalities between sociology and Buddhism, with an
emphasis on ways that Buddhist thought and practice may contribute to the field of
sociology. What could Buddhism offer to our understanding of social institutions,
social problems, and to the dynamics and possibilities for social change? The Four
Noble Truths, central to Buddhist teachings, are explored in reference to their
sociological theory applications. Finally, mindfulness practices that are endemic to
Buddhism are explored as tools for sociologists to consider as they work reflexively,
develop sociological insights, and pursue social justice.

Keywords Buddhist Sociology . Sociological theory . Qualitative methods .

Social justice . Social change

Do not believe in anything simply because you have heard it.

Do not believe in traditions because they have been handed down for many
generations.
Do not believe in anything because it is spoken and rumored by many.
Do not believe in anything simply because it is found written in your religious
books.
Do not believe in anything merely on the authority of your teachers and elders.
But after observation and analysis, when you find that anything agrees with
reason, and is conducive to the good and benefit of one and all,
Then accept it and live to it.*
The above quote seems to synopsize lessons taught on the first day of introduc-
tory sociology classes: Don’t believe; rather, observe and analyze. Don’t accept com-
monsense ideas—passed down from our families, teachers, traditions, and institutions—

*
Kalama Sutta, AN 3:65; I:188–93.
J. Schipper (*)
Department of Sociology and Social Work, Northern Arizona University,
PO Box 15300 Flagstaff, AZ 86011, USA
e-mail: Janine.Schipper@nau.edu
204 Am Soc (2012) 43:203–222

as reality, rather, study the patterns that emerge from the social world through careful
observation and analysis. This is the essence of critical thinking and the basis for what
we come to learn and teach as sociologists. The final phrase, “When you find that
anything agrees with reason, and is conducive to the good and benefit of one and all,
then accept it and live to it,” could be perceived as a call to live our truths. As
sociologists, we do not simply observe social reality around us, but come to recognize
that we are social actors living within and amid this reality.
It may be surprising to know that some version of the above quote was not uttered
during modern times but about 2,500 years ago, toward the end of the Vedic
civilization in Northern India. Gautama Buddha shared this advice with the Kalamas
who asked him, of the many wandering holy men and ascetics who passed through
their village, in who should they believe? Throughout his 45 years of teaching about
liberation from suffering, the Buddha emphasized the importance of obtaining direct
experience and carefully observing reality over the adoption of beliefs. Yet while
seeming similar to enlightenment philosophies of reason, the Buddha viewed reason
as one state of mind, and as with all states of mind, subject to careful observation.
What makes Buddhism different from enlightenment philosophies and the disciplines
that arose out of the Age of Reason1, such as sociology, is its emphasis on liberation
from such mind-states—on awakening from the illusions, including those produced
by the rational mind, that bind us in ever-increasing cycles of suffering. While
sociologists also emphasize awakening from illusions as in Comte’s positive science
that overcomes superstitions, Marxism’s recognition of false consciousness, and the
postmodern emphasis on deconstructing modernity and its master narratives,
Buddhism may challenge sociologists to awaken to yet a broader range of illusions—
illusions that we may not identify via the rational critical thinking mind alone.
This paper examines connections between Buddhism and Sociology. Specifically,
exploration into The Four Noble Truths, the essence of Buddhist teachings, reveals
many salient connections between Buddhist thought and practice and sociology.
Aside from being in accord with what sociologists have generally been doing, insight
into The Four Noble Truths has much to offer sociological thought and research
practices. Furthermore, the fourth Noble Truth outlines an eightfold path to liberation
from suffering. One of the eight paths toward liberation will be examined here: right
mindfulness. Mindfulness practices will be described as a set of practices that can
reveal new approaches to reflexivity in social research, sociological insight, and novel
ways of approaching social change and social justice.
In 1979, sociologist Inge Bell wrote a short essay, “Buddhist Sociology: Some
Thoughts on the Convergence of Sociology and the Eastern Paths of Liberation,”
which was published in McNall’s Theoretical Perspectives in Sociology. This may
have been the first time that anyone had written about “Buddhist Sociology”.
Subsequently, a smattering of other sociologists and social theorists have explored

1
This sounds similar to phenomenology with its emphasis on the study of conscious experience and also
echoes Kantian thought that certain principles exist at which we can arrive through reason. Yet the
Buddha’s focus on direct experience emphasized a type of embodied knowing that phenomenology does
not address—that it is through mindfulness practices that engage the body, emotions, and mind, that truth
can be known and liberation from suffering realized. Further, Buddhism perceives emotions, thoughts, and
bodily sensations as one integrated whole. Reason is a faculty of mind to be put to use (so as not to uncritically
accept beliefs), but is not an end in itself. Reason is simply one state of mind subject to careful observation.
Am Soc (2012) 43:203–222 205

connections between various Buddhist philosophies and practices with sociology.

Bell (1979, 2004), Preston (1988), Wilson (1984), and McGrane (1993a, 1993b,
1994) have posited ways that Buddhist practice and understanding act to de-socialize
the practitioner. Moore (1995) has argued that such practices do not de-socialize, but
rather re-socialize individuals to obtain a “dereifying perspective”. Still other theo-
rists, notably Loy (2003) and Park (2008), have examined links between Buddhism
and social theory. However, few have taken up Bell’s initial vision for assembling a
Buddhist Sociology. This article attempts to continue where Bell left off by offering
potential links between Buddhism and sociology with an emphasis on ways that
Buddhist thought and practice may contribute to the field of sociology. Of important
note, sociology also has much to offer to Buddhist approaches, particularly through its
emphasis on seeking change within unjust systems of power; however, the focus of this
article is on what Buddhism may contribute to qualitative approaches to sociology.
Sociologists like Piririm A. Sorokin have found salient connections between
sociology and Buddhist philosophy and practice. Sorokin (1964) posited the need
for a new integral order to overcome human destruction in a more thorough inter-
penetration of East and West sociocultural values. The hope for humanity, according
to Sorokin, is for the Eastern traditions like Buddhism to offer their “great ethical
systems, … extraordinary insights into the highest and therefore deepest states of
‘self’” and the wisdom to distinguish true knowledge from appearances (1964:75–76);
these could be reinforced by Western technology and science.
Other sociologists, like George Herbert Mead, identified the Buddha as an example
of a moral prophet “who express(es) the highest in human creativity” (Gunter 1990:70).
For Mead it was not enough to maintain a moral ideal, but necessary to possess the
means for realizing such ideals. Similarly, Buddhism parallels the pragmatic philos-
ophies of Mead and Charles H. Cooley, in its emphasis on linking theory and practice.
Some, like C. Wright Mills, have aspired to be engaged sociologists—sociologists
that write and speak beyond the narrow disciplinary confines of a professionalized field.
Mills’s concerns that sociology would evolve into a professional, rank-based discipline,
that loses its humanity and becomes insulated and less reflexive, has been echoed by the
concerns of humanist and public sociologists (Bingham 2007; Burawoy 2009). This
article explores how the reflexivity and cultivation of compassion fostered by mind-
fulness practices could augment engaged, humanistic sociology.
In this article, connections between Buddhism and sociology draw largely from
Buddhism as it is currently taught and practiced in the United States.2 More

2
The Complexity of the Buddhist Canon
The Buddhist Canon is extensive and complex. It is believed that the Buddha’s 45 years of teachings
were memorized during his lifetime and consistently rehearsed upon his death by a cohesive group of his
students. For several 100 years, generations continued to pass down the oral teachings of the Buddha until
they were recorded in Pali (a regional language in India) during the Fourth Buddhist Council in Sri Lanka in
29 B.C., approximately 450 years after the historical Buddha’s death. By the first century B.C., there
existed approximately 18 schools of Buddhist thought. As Buddhist teachings began to spread to various
parts of India, Asia, and ultimately the world, different translations from Sanskrit (the religious and classical
literary language of India) and Pali Buddhist texts have added further complexity to the teachings. Today,
three main schools of Buddhism—Theravada (based on Pali Canon and commentaries), Mahayana (such as
Zen, based on commentaries focused on freedom from suffering for all beings), and Vajrayana Buddhism
(Tibetan Buddhism)—comprise the majority of Buddhist schools throughout the world. Together, we may
consider as the Buddhist Canon this vast body of teachings and extensive assemblage of commentaries.
206 Am Soc (2012) 43:203–222

specifically, this article draws on an approach to Buddhism called Vipassana, roughly

translated as “insight meditation”.3 The connections explored here are based on the
author’s daily vipassana meditation practice, listening to dharma talks (public dis-
courses on Buddhism), attending one- to five-day vipassana retreats, reading and
contemplating translations of the Buddha’s discourses from the Pali Canon, and
reading a range of other American Buddhist literature. Concern may arise about the
transportation of ideas from one culture to another. I wish to emphasize that this
article specifically focuses on American Buddhist teachings. Buddhism is a fluid set
of teachings and practices that have been embraced throughout the world for over
2000 years. Thus, Buddhism has experienced numerous iterations based upon the
cultural influences of the groups that have embraced it.
One might wonder why other religions or spiritual pathways are not included here.
The reason for the focus on Buddhism is that, while it can and has been turned into an
organized religion, built into the very foundations of Buddhism is a radical decon-
struction of beliefs and a “radical reflexivity” that recognizes that even its own
doctrines “are conventionally sustained illusions” (Moore 1995).
Finally, Buddhist Sociology is simply one more model for exploring and under-
standing our social world. This exploration into some of the possibilities of Buddhist
Sociology is not intended to be prescriptive, but rather, is intended to highlight how
Buddhist Sociology may contribute to the field, with a focus on tools that sociologists
and social change activists may consider as they engage in social research or social
activism. My hope is that by the end of this article, sociologists will not only be
intrigued by the connections between Buddhism and Sociology, but also become
interested in exploring such connections further.

The Four Noble Truths: A Buddhist Understanding of Social Problems

and Social Change

Fundamental to Buddhist teachings are the Four Noble Truths. It is said that
Siddhartha Gautama realized these four truths as he became enlightened (and was soon
after recognized as the Buddha, which means “awakened one”):
1. There is suffering (dukkha).
2. There is a cause of suffering.
3. Suffering can cease.
4. There is a path that leads to the cessation of suffering (Eightfold Noble Path).
The emphasis in sociology on inequalities, social problems, and social justice
highlight this first noble truth: “there is suffering”. The major sociological traditions
have focused on the reality of human suffering, underscoring this connection with the
First Noble Truth. Modern sociology arose out of the excesses and brutality of

3
Vipassana, based on the ancient Pali teachings of the Theravada school, came to the United States by way
of Sri Lanka and the Thai Forest traditions of Northern Thailand. After studying with Vipassana masters in
Asia in the early 1970s, American students—including Joseph Goldstein, Jack Kornfield, and Sharon
Salzberg—established the Insight Meditation Society, a meditation center near Barre, Massachusetts. Since
then, from many other meditation centers established in the United States—most notably Spirit Rock,
located in Marin County, California—powerful collections of teachings, called dharma talks have emerged.
Am Soc (2012) 43:203–222 207

industrialization. Karl Marx highlighted the suffering that arose from the consolida-
tion of power in capitalist systems. Max Weber exposed the dysfunctions of rational
bureaucracies designed for societal progress. Emile Durkheim observed that modern
industrial societies had less moral cohesion than earlier societies, leading to deep
collective suffering as expressed in higher suicide rates. It would be difficult to find
an area of sociology from sociology of race, gender, class and sexuality to structural
functionalist theory, conflict theory, poststructural theory, Progressive Era sociology,
world systems sociology, environmental sociology, and so forth that does not take
“suffering” as its central concern.4
To Buddhists, recognition of suffering is key to unlocking the possibilities for
alleviating it. If we do not recognize suffering, we cannot release ourselves nor our
society from suffering. Rather, we continue within cycles of samsara, the Sanskrit
word for the overt and subtle ways that we reproduce suffering in our day-to-day
lives. Similarly, college students in Introductory Sociology classes in the United
States are often overwhelmed as they come to realize the extent of suffering that
exists in the world. For some, this recognition of suffering leads to a lifelong quest for
answers. For others, a glimpse into the extent of suffering also leads to a sense of
disillusionment and disempowerment. While Buddhism emphasizes “liberation”
from suffering, sociology does not offer an approach for dealing with such disillu-
sionment, although many assume that the way out of disillusionment is through
recognizing the possibilities for social change (Roberts and Hite 2000; Sztompka
1993; Weinstein 2010).
Sociologist Jodi O’Brien explores a path out of disillusionment through what she
calls mindful reconstruction. O’Brien (2006) addresses how the postmodern method
of deconstruction exposes how privileged perspectives, and not a natural order,
produce social injustice; however, she emphasizes that deconstruction alone can lead
to cynicism and loss of meaning if unaccompanied by mindful (re)construction
(2006:513–515). Generally, mindful reconstruction consists of embracing our “em-
bryonic” and “creative” potential while simultaneously accepting the responsibilities
that accompany this recognition and the flux that marks social meanings. This both
reflects Buddhist approaches and departs from them. The Buddha maintained that
while constructions or reconstructions are necessary in order to live in the world and
take care of the day-to-day business of living, a deeper deconstruction ultimately
liberates us from suffering. Here, correlations to social construction theory seem
obvious. While social construction theory offers many conceptual frameworks for

4
More examples of how different schools of sociology take suffering as their central concern: W. E. B. Du
Bois’s focus on the “race idea,” “color line,” and “veil” highlighted the afflicted state of race relations in the
United States. The recognition of suffering based on oppressive systems of power permeates the work of
sociologists of race and ethnic studies (e.g. bell hooks, Patricia Hill Collins) feminist scholars and activists
(e.g. Betty Friedan, Sojourner Truth), and queer theorists (e.g. Michael Warner, Adrienne Rich). Structural
functional theorists (e.g. Talcott Parsons, Robert K. Merton), critical sociologists (e.g. Max Horkheimer,
Theodor Adorno), and Poststructuralists (Michel Foucault, Pierre Bourdeiu) have theorized on the inequi-
ties and violence that appear built into the very fabric of modern social systems. Progressive Era
sociologists (e.g. Jane Addams, Edward Ross) focused their attention and activism on alleviating poverty.
Going beyond mere academic considerations of poverty, Addams and the women of Hull House in
conjunction with the applied sociologists of the Chicago School created community programs and engaged
in efforts to directly ameliorate the suffering created by homelessness, poverty, inequity in labor laws, and
so forth.
208 Am Soc (2012) 43:203–222

understanding how humans produce knowledge and construct a sense of reality

(Berger and Luckmann 1967; Searle 1995), Buddhism emphasizes the importance
of obtaining a direct-embodied knowing. As Pagis (2010) points out, Buddhism
emphasizes moving from conceptual knowledge to embodied knowledge: “Even
though meditators are familiar with the Buddhist tenets, they regard these tenets as
concepts understood on the intellectual level. In order for the concepts to become part
of the phenomenological reality of vipassana practitioners, they need to be experienced”
(2010:486).
In Buddhist thought, the embodiment of knowledge and the capacity to see
through our own constructed illusions and into reality requires practices in mindful-
ness. In contrast to sociological approaches to understanding social problems, Bud-
dhist mindfulness practices call for the practitioner to explore and examine suffering
as directly experienced. This is not a call to indulge in self-mortification or to use
suffering as a means for obtaining transformative states of consciousness. The
purpose of focusing on suffering is to explore its nature and understand how suffering
manifests within one’s own experience prior to or in conjunction with (as in Engaged
Buddhism) attempts to “fix” external things. Through direct and embodied under-
standing, the nature of suffering and insight into possibilities for liberation from
suffering becomes possible.
This understanding and insight leads into the second noble truth: there are causes
of suffering. The Buddhist notion of “cause” is quite different than the Western
sociological approach to causality (Bernert 1983) and, as highlighted in the closing
section of this article, could open up new avenues for thinking differently about
causality. A more appropriate (although uncommon) way of translating the second
noble truth is that there are conditions that co-arise with suffering. The main condition
that arises with suffering is the condition of attachment—clinging to or desiring a
particular experience, perception, or idea, attaching to familiarity, fear of change, and
so forth. Buddhist writings make a distinction between pain and suffering. Pain is a
direct experience while suffering includes all the ideas that we attach to the original
painful experience. Buddhism maintains that suffering ceases when we focus atten-
tion on our direct experience but without an attachment to ideas around the experi-
ence. For example, physical pain, when directly perceived, may be experienced as a
series of changing and passing sensations. Through directly experiencing and ac-
knowledging this pain, we may avoid additional suffering and feel less subject to it.
The Buddha’s metaphor of the second arrow (Sallatha Sutta SN36.6) helps us to
understand this further. In this teaching, the Buddha shared that arrows of physical or
emotional pain strike everyone. Yet, beyond experiencing the pain, most of us stab
ourselves with second arrows—we formulate ideas about the pain that create a second
level of pain, or suffering. Through worrying, grieving, judging our pain and antic-
ipating future pain, we suffer. Furthermore, we seek escape from pain in the form of
sensual pleasures yet remain unaware of the additional dangers inherent in such
escapes.
In contrast, those who look within and stay aware of their experience while being
touched by painful feelings, those who do not resist the pain or seek to distract
themselves with sensual happiness, do not inflict the second arrow of suffering. As
Jones (2011), secretary of the UK Network of Engaged Buddhists, explains, in the
“quick fix” society as soon as we experience any form of discomfort, we usually can
Am Soc (2012) 43:203–222 209

“reach for some external fix to remove or alleviate the affliction” and yet the quick-fix
society is broken (Ritzer 2010a). Our myriad escape hatches have not healed us of the
many ways that we create additional suffering within our social institutions and
cultural practices. The Buddha called neither for escape nor for quick fixes, but for
direct observation of the pain as it unfolds. From this we become detached from pain
and recognize that the pain we experience is not who we are—we are the one who is
aware of the pain. Detachment from pain does not deny that there is pain, but rather
diminishes the power of the pain over the individual. Similarly, whether we study
social problems or oppression, pain cannot be denied. However, if pain and suffering
are empowered, in Buddhist terms, if we identify with the suffering, then our ability
to overcome injustice can atrophy. Likewise, social justice advocates and movements
have always moved away from viewing those subject to social injustices as “victims”
and encouraged a transcendence of victimization (Taylor and Whittier 1999; Zola
2003). Additionally, as Jones (2011) highlights, it is useful to pay special attention to
the metaphor of the second arrow in order to understand some of the conditions
behind the ways that human beings set themselves up against each other. The first
arrow may be considered our mortal vulnerability as human beings while the second
arrow is our tendency to band together “by race and gender and as clans, nation states,
social classes, ideological movements, political parties, and a host of other groupings.
This sense of belongingness identity has been boosted by strongly differentiating
between us and them, and by projecting the ‘Three Fires’ of rage, greed and fear-
driven ignorance upon alien groups” (Jones 2011).
Sociologists may also consider their potential to inflict additional suffering with
second arrows. They may point to the suffering in the world with clarity and precision
while avoiding entering into the dualistic “we” versus “them” mentality that, in
Buddhist terms, keeps the wheels of samsara turning. Refraining from shooting that
second arrow requires that we acknowledge the human dignity that all beings require,
even those who harm others. A Buddhist Sociology asks us to consider, acknowledge,
and refrain from dehumanizing, for example, corporate giants that perpetuate greed
and violence or political manipulators who spread fear to consolidate power. While,
as sociologists we tend to focus on the institutional and cultural systems that
perpetuate violence and inequality, Buddhist approaches remind us to take special
care not to demonize individuals who are caught up in such systems. This does
not legitimize actions of violence or the hurting of others, but it also does not
separate “them” from “us.” As Vietnamese monk and peace activist Nhat Hanh (1996)
writes,
I am the twelve-year-old girl,
refugee on a small boat,
who throws herself into the ocean
after being raped by a sea pirate.
And I am the pirate,
My heart not yet capable
Of seeing and loving (p. 105)
While it may be easy to sympathize with the young girl who was raped and then
killed herself in despair, Nhat Hanh found that after reflection and meditation, he
could also relate to the rapist. “I realized that if I had been born in his village and had
210 Am Soc (2012) 43:203–222

lived a similar life—economic, educational and so on—it is likely that I would be that
sea pirate. So it is not easy to take sides” (1996:104).
Buddhism teaches that it is only through opening our hearts and breaking down
these artificial constructions that we may cease shooting second arrows. Is there a
place in sociology for this type of exploration? I believe so, particularly if we are
committed to not only documenting the suffering that exists in our communities and
around the world, but also committed to alleviating that suffering.
Finally, activists working for peace and social justice may become aware of their
own potential to inflict the second arrow. The activist’s first arrow may be the
recognition of the pain and suffering generated by inhumane acts and unjust systems
of power, while the activist’s second arrow may be to meet violence with rage and
social indignation. Nhat Hanh (1992) critiqued the American peace movement during
the Vietnam War for its activists’ lack of peace. He encouraged peace activists to
uncover their own wellsprings of inner peace and refrain from inflicting second
arrows that ultimately undermine their deeper goals. Further, activists’ search for
mutual support can lead to other second arrows in the forms of dogma, ideology, and
their many variants “which breeds a uniformity of outlook and erodes individual
judgment” (Jones 2011). Thus, Jones (2011) explains, “It requires a trained emotional
sensitivity to detect and avoid these often quite subtle evasions and to sustain an
authentic spirit of inquiry and independence.” Such a spirit of inquiry and indepen-
dence from socio-cultural biases are also core values in sociology (Ritzer 2010b). As
we will see, Buddhist mindfulness practices may add to sociologists’ approaches to
detecting and avoiding such “subtle evasions”. In Buddhist philosophy such an
authentic spirit of inquiry and independence leads to the third noble truth: Suffering
can cease. We need not inflict the second arrow.
The Third Noble Truth maintains that suffering can cease and true happiness is
possible. Through an authentic spirit of inquiry we begin to see how our minds create
second arrows. As we learn to drop our attachments (the second arrows) and open our
hearts, we become calm and free. In this freedom more time and energy becomes
available for us to help others. Thus, the Third Noble Truth calls us to investigate how
our attachments play out individually and culturally. How do we investigate this?
Buddhist practices are threefold: sila (Pali for morality and good conduct), panna
(Pali for wisdom), and citta (Pali for mind). In the West, we tend to focus on citta and
a range of mindfulness practices; however, Eastern traditional practices have typically
valued all three of these dimensions.
The Third Noble Truth challenges each sociologist to consider: How accu-
rately do I see social reality? How do my own attachments to ideas, beliefs, and a
sense of “reality” shape my perceptions and sociological insights? What would I “see” if
these attachments dropped away? Sociologists take up these questions to some extent in
their reflexive approaches to social research, however, as explored in the next section,
Buddhist approaches may challenge us to further develop these approaches. The
Third Noble Truth ultimately maintains that through careful focus on our direct
experience we can be free from suffering and help alleviate suffering in others
and in our communities. This is perhaps the most unspoken and underlying
intention behind the work of many sociologists who are driven to ease our
collective malaise and to contribute something positive to our communities and to
the world.
Am Soc (2012) 43:203–222 211

The Fourth Noble Truth is the Noble Eightfold Path to the cessation of
suffering. These are not steps, but rather ways of being in the world. As each
of these paths can be further grouped into one of the three Buddhist practices—
morality, wisdom, and mind—the eightfold path together defines a holistic
approach to living a liberated life. Each of the eight paths has been translated
as “right” from the word samyañc (in Sanskrit) or sammā (in Pali). Thus, the Noble
Eightfold Path consists of: right understanding, right intention, right speech, right
action, right livelihood, right effort, right mindfulness, and right concentration. Yet it
might be more accurate to replace the conventional translation from “right,” which
sounds moralistic, to something like “wise” or “ideal.” The Buddha’s notion of “ideal
understanding,” “ideal intention,” and so forth is much like Max Weber’s “ideal
types”. Rather than emphasizing a moral approach to “right livelihood” for example,
the ideal type of “livelihood” is a composite of approaches to living that have resulted
in the support of a good life and the avoidance of inflicting harm on others. The next
section explores how one of these paths, right or ideal mindfulness, might enrich
sociology.

Practices of Mindfulness as Sociological Methodology

Mindfulness can be understood as “the ability to be fully aware in the moment”

(Moffitt 2008:40). As we place our attention on the present moment, we notice a rich
array of phenomena arising from moment to moment—sensations of the body,
thoughts in the mind, and emotions arising within and linking body and mind.
Through mindfulness practices, we notice all of the senses. We can hear birds, feel
various parts of our body, notice people around the room, and so forth. When we are
unaware or unmindful, all of the senses become less vivid and we primarily experi-
ence mental phenomena. As dharma teacher Heather Martin (2010) explains, “We
miss a whole range of our life when we’re off in our head.” However powerful the
mental phenomena are, they offer a narrow experience. Mindfulness practice, the
practice of Coming to Our Senses (2006), as Jon Kabat-Zinn’s book title indicates, is
like switching to Technicolor after having watched a television show in black and
white. When mindful we feel the vividness and immediacy of life and its ever-
changing flow. Finally, mindfulness practice includes not only noticing various
sensations, thoughts, and emotions, but also noticing how we relate with whatever
experience we are having in the moment (Shankman 2010). There are numerous
approaches to practicing mindfulness (see Center for Contemplative Mind in Society—
Tree of Contemplative Practices) but the common thread in all of these approaches is the
activity of awareness of the present moment.
Mead and Cooley favored an introspective approach to social research— the
observation of inner thoughts. Of introspection Cooley wrote that a “natural way to
solve a moral question, when immediate action is not required, is to let it lie in the
mind, turning it over from time to time as attention is directed to it” (Cooley
1902:331). Mindfulness practices include observing thoughts also and, similar to
Cooley, being mindful of inner thoughts is considered to yield insight into a range of
conditions from solving problems to understanding complex phenomena. Cooley also
developed an approach to fieldwork that involved “sympathetic introspection”. By
212 Am Soc (2012) 43:203–222

using sympathetic introspection researchers seek to understand how others think

and feel by looking within their own experiences and finding resonance with
the other’s experience. Cooley wrote that sympathetic introspection is “the under-
standing of another’s consciousness by the aid of your own” (Cooley 1998:119)
whereby one puts oneself into intimate contact with others in order to awaken
understanding.
Mead (1932) also valued introspection, noting in The Philosophy of the Present
that inward reflection gave one access to the only reality that there is: the present
moment. Similar to Buddhism, Mead recognized the present moment as the gateway
to freedom—a freedom whereby “The organism enters entirely into the act as a
whole…. The action is the action of the organism and not of the separate parts. We
cannot gather ourselves together when we do not feel free, and this happens fre-
quently. But in freedom the personality as a whole passes into the act.” (Mead
1932:663).
Cooley and Mead’s theories on introspection resemble some Buddhist approaches
to understanding reality, the present moment, and freedom, and yet Buddhist mind-
fulness practices attend not only to cognitive reflections on the present moment, but
also offer practices, pathways into experiencing the present moment. While some
sociologists like Cooley and Mead have theorized on the value of present moment
awareness and introspection, such theories lack the practical experiential tools provided
by mindfulness practices. What would introspection and an interest in the power of
present moment awareness look like if augmented by mindfulness practices—practices
that do not use the rational mind to introspect or reflect upon a given social problem, but
rather practices that focus on observing the mind (composed of thoughts, feelings,
sensations, consciousness) itself? What else might mindfulness practices offer to
qualitative sociology?

1. Reflexivity. The rich sociological practice of reflecting back upon ourselves as

researchers and acknowledging that our socialization process influences how we
perceive the social world has been fundamental to doing social research. In 1928
sociologist William Thomas highlighted the powerful effects of socialization on
the manner in which we construct our sense of reality. The Thomas Theorem
(1928) states, “the situations that men define as true, become true for them.”
Anthony Giddens (1984) has posited that we live in an age of “reflexive
modernity” whereby the society has increasingly reflected back upon itself, with
sociology acting as the primary medium for societal self-analysis. Bourdieu and
Wacquant (1992) maintain that social scientists must release themselves from
their inherent biases in order to effectively and objectively study the social world.
To do this, Bourdieu recommends taking a potential bias, such as scholastic
prejudice, and applying it to how we perceive our students. In general, sociolo-
gists have taken key social factors by which we construct our identity such as
race, class, gender, and sexuality, and as with Bourdieu, examined how specific
constructions may influence our research and teaching.
The general assumption has been that if we identify lenses through which we
come to understand ourselves, we may release ourselves from their subconscious
influences and thus, see social phenomena more clearly. Essentially, we make
conscious that which has been subconscious and in doing so, free ourselves from
Am Soc (2012) 43:203–222 213

the weight of its influence. Mindfulness practices suggest another approach to

addressing the way in which our biases influence our research and teaching
practices. Rather than first identifying potential biases, mindfulness practices
offer an open-ended approach so that we may directly see how we have been
socialized and also how we may “desocialize” (Bell 1979, 2004; McGrane
1993a, 1993b, 1994; Preston 1988; Wilson 1984).
What type of sociological questions and insights might emerge from such a
practice? From my own experiences of practicing mindfulness while studying
suburban sprawl in the Southwest (Schipper 2008), I found that it was only when
I sat in meditation beneath a large sycamore tree that I began to call into question
many assumptions about land and self that otherwise evaded my conscious
attention. After meditation practice, I identified assumptions that I had previously
maintained such as “land is separate from me”. Understanding unfolded in new
ways as I began to consider the consequences of clearing the land for profit. I
concluded that, “If we comprehend and embrace the reality that all is in flux, ever
changing, richly dynamic, and interconnected, we will seek new ways of living—
ways that respect the land and ourselves as ever-evolving, inherently mysterious
creations” (Schipper 2008:117). Had I limited my reflexivity to traditional
sociological questions of ethnicity, gender, sexual orientation, and so forth, I do
not think I would have realized that much of the reason that we create sprawl is
that we view ourselves as independent and separate from land and also maintain a
type of hubris that we “understand” the land. Mindfulness practices in nature
raised a different set of questions and assumptions upon which to reflect, leading
to new understandings and insights. In sum, the combination of sociological
approaches to reflexivity with an open-ended mindfulness approach may offer
methods for recognizing multiple forces of socialization, many of which sociol-
ogists have not traditionally identified, ultimately releasing ourselves from some
of their biasing effects.
2. Sociological Insight. Mindfulness teachings suggest that as we step directly into
our experiences—not merely write about or research human experience, but
directly experience our problems at the level of the individual and the collec-
tive—we begin to know our experiences intimately through all of our senses.
Such practices challenge sociologists to explore insights that emerge directly
from our experiences of social problems. Rothberg (1998) offers examples of
Engaged Buddhists who respond to the needs of their communities and the world
by just this type of activity. Bernard Tetsugen Glassman Roshi staged a “street
retreat” for 5 days in Manhattan—ten participants lived on the street, did not
change clothing, and only had their social security cards and a few dollars on
them in case they were arrested. For those days, participants shared in the lives of
the homeless around them, panhandled, experienced dehydration, and got a
preliminary understanding of homeless life. They also practiced zazen (sitting
meditation) twice daily and explored some of the mind-states of homelessness
including desire, fear, and low self-image. Rothberg concludes, “To some extent,
they then know from the ‘inside’ what it is to be homeless and have transformed
their relationship to the homeless” (p. 267).
While this approach may appear similar to the type of immersion experience
traditionally found in anthropological and sociological ethnographic studies, it
214 Am Soc (2012) 43:203–222

also contains a distinctly different element: the practice of meditating and

reflecting on the internal experience as it unfolds. Consequently, getting to know
homelessness, poverty, racism, and a myriad of other social problems from
within may provide new and rich insights as we seek ways to mitigate these
problems. Of course, there is a sociological tradition of going incognito into a
social scene and experiencing the system from within as in, for example,
Ehrenreich’s (2002) entry into low-wage America. This experiential research
offers insight into what Merton (1936) has called the many latent and manifest
dysfunctions of our social systems. Yet, beyond observing social systems, what
sociological insights might emerge as we explore our own inner states through
mindfulness practices while doing social research?
Sociologists McGrane and Gunderson (2010) experiment with this through
their work with students in their media studies classes. Students engage in a
series of experiments that encourage them to see directly into their own social
constructions and illusions. While infusing mindfulness practices with the activ-
ity of watching commercial television, students form not only powerful critiques
of television, but also develop insights into how commercial television shapes
their ideas and condition their behaviors. One experiment involved watching a
television set for 15 min while it is turned off. Students reported frustration,
anxiety, and anger with this assignment, yet as they watch, their emotions unfold
(mindfulness practices involve watching thoughts, feelings, and sensations un-
fold within), and powerful insights follow. Students report that prior to doing this
assignment they did not realize that they relate to the television as to a friend or
companion, for when the “friend” wasn’t doing anything, they felt a sense of
loneliness. One student saw her own physical reflection in the television set and
was compelled to ask herself how much of what she sees is her “real” self, thus
plunging her into a deeper exploration of how humans become conditioned as
individual “selves”. McGrane and Gunderson (2010) conclude that Buddhist
Sociology and mindfulness approaches to studying self and society are “not so
much about criticizing institutions… but about awakening from illusions. Only
after that awakening can real, effective, and genuine institutional criticism take
place and only then can social movements and social activism issue in skillful
and effective social change” (p. 67).
If mindfulness practices help us to not only form powerful critiques of social
institutions and cultural practices, but also help us uncover many of the subtle
illusions that shape our lives, might we consider such practices as extensions of
the sociological imagination? Mills (1959/2000) brought attention to the ways in
which sociological exploration elucidates the connections between individual
experiences, actions, and behaviors and large-scale social forces—recognizing
that our individual troubles are connected to larger social issues. Practices in
mindfulness could extend this vision. Through careful observation of our senses,
feelings, perceptions, thoughts, and consciousness while engaged in social prac-
tices (from watching television, to consuming food, to engaging in social protest,
and so forth) we may gain insight into not only how our individual lives are
connected to larger social forces, but also into how we may break down the
illusions and social conditioning that creates, reinforces, and maintains systems
of social inequality and injustice.
Am Soc (2012) 43:203–222 215

3. Social Justice. Randall Collins identifies sociology’s two core commitments as:
1. Using the sociological eye to see things as they as they are;
2. Using the sociological insights that come from seeing in this way to support
positive social change (Korgen and White 2007).
As discussed, sociologists can benefit from mindfulness practices to enhance the
first commitment: to see things as they are. Through mindfulness practices, the
practitioner becomes trained at recognizing the patterns of mind and thought struc-
tures that shape our sense of reality. Cultural and social structures, political ideology,
and other habits of mind are all observed, called into question, and deconstructed.
This section looks at the second commitment, asking: How might Buddhist teachings
and practices support efforts toward positive social change?
Thich Nhat Hanh first introduced the term “Engaged Buddhism” in 1967 to
highlight the elements of Buddhism that not only support the development of
mindfulness in everyday life, but also support the development and use of compas-
sion, nonviolence, and wisdom to address social problems. While it is beyond the
scope of this article to examine Engaged Buddhism5 at length (see Kotler 1996;
Queen 2000; Queen and King 1996), the basic tenets of Engaged Buddhism recog-
nize the ways that Buddhism cultivates of sense of responsibility and care for the
world. “Buddhism is the strongest form of humanism we have,” Nhat Hanh (2009)
explains. “It came to life so we could learn to live with responsibility, compassion,
and loving-kindness” (2009:71).
To awaken and heal, to return to a sense of harmony with the earth, each other, and
ourselves, Nhat Hanh calls on the development of a global ethic as outlined by the
Buddha vowing, among other things, to practice mindfulness in order to “cherish all
life on Earth and not support any acts of killing” and to “practice generosity and not
support social injustice and oppression” (2009:73). Mindfulness practices may seem
removed from the world of social injustice, but has been and can be understood as a
means for constructing a world that is anchored in a global ethic. The rest of this
section briefly explores the two above “Mindfulness Trainings” and highlights their
implications for sociological considerations of social change and social justice.

We Vow to Cherish All Life on Earth and Not Support Any Acts of Killing

This first mindfulness training begins with a vow of nonviolence anchored in

cherishing all life on Earth. Badiner (1996) writes that mindfulness “practice prepares
us to glimpse the preciousness and immediacy of life so we can experience ourselves

5
Involved in political action throughout the world, Engaged Buddhists in 2011 participated in such actions
as: “Occupy the Present Moment”—standing in solidarity with the Occupy protests throughout the United
States and Canada and highlighting the importance of interconnection, ending suffering by challenging
systems of inequality, use of nonviolent tactics including bearing witness and compassionate presence to be
the change they wish to see, standing in solidarity with all beings (Buddhist Peace Fellowship 2011). Other
activities by engaged Buddhists in 2011 include (but are not limited to) prison hunger strikes against torture
and violence in prisons; Sacred Sites Peace Walk for a Nuclear Free World (San Luis Obispo, CA);
Universal Peace March (Jaipur, India); Worldwide Walk of Compassion to Feed the Hungry (main event in
New York City); September 11: Hands Across the Golden Gate Bridge, peace demonstration; Bearing
Witness Retreat in Rwanda (See the Jizo Chronicles for a comprehensive listing of engaged Buddhist
activities).
216 Am Soc (2012) 43:203–222

and nature as one—operationally” (p. 139). Meditation is considered the primary tool
for raising environmental consciousness and as we experience ourselves and nature as
inter-related we make different choices for how to live on and with the Earth. While
there have been some efforts to study environmental consciousness sociologically
(Devall 1982; Krause 1993; Rannikko 1996; Schlegelmilch et al. 1996), these studies
have been largely limited to the behavior, ideas, and values of various groups. A
Buddhist Sociology might challenge our very understanding of “environmental
consciousness” itself, leading to new and interesting ways of exploring and under-
standing our human relationships with the natural world.
As we reflect on our own relationships with the natural world, a host of sociological
questions may arise. Might teachers of environmental sociology consider integrating
mindfulness practices and other contemplative practices into their classrooms? Over the
past 12 years, students in my Environment and Society class have been engaging in this
brief contemplative exercise:
Go outside. Sit on the land. Close your eyes. Take several deep breaths. Open
your eyes. Write down what you see and what you experienced on the land. Do
you feel connected, disconnected, part of the land, separate from the land?
Describe your experience.
About 30 % of students express gratitude (unsolicited) for the assignment, feeling
that a few moments of quiet time with nature initiates changes in the way they relate
to the natural world. They also raise such questions as:
& Why don’t I feel a sense of connection with this land? What social factors have
led to this sense of alienation?
& Why do I connect with this dog, but not with that ant or blade of grass? What
influences my perceptions of what is worthy or not worthy of my attention?
& Why have I felt unaffected by killing flies in the past, but after sitting still in my
backyard, I feel I would never kill a fly again?
As students take only a few moments to contemplate their direct experiences with
their environment, they are flooded with many personal questions and they quickly
make the connection between the personal and the societal, raising a host of socio-
logical questions: What might mindfulness of the nature that lives within awaken
within sociologists? What kinds of sociological questions may arise through our own
experiences with the natural world? How may our questions shift as we include
mindfulness in and contemplation of nature as essential to how we study ecological
consciousness and our human relationships with the natural world?

We Pledge to Practice Generosity and Not Support Social Injustice and Oppression

A Buddhist Sociology approach to social justice would acknowledge that our indi-
vidual actions and awakenings are not isolated from the larger social systems that we
study. This recognizes that our lives are intimately connected with larger social
systems. We are not simply objective scientists observing and critiquing social
systems, but subjective participants of the very systems we critique. Returning to
Giddens’s “reflexivity of the self,” Giddens (1991) observed, “The self is not a
passive entity, determined by external influences; in forging their self-identities, no
Am Soc (2012) 43:203–222 217

matter how local their specific contexts of action, individuals contribute to and
directly promote social action, individuals contribute to and directly promote social
influences that are global in their consequences and implications” (p. 2). The impli-
cation of this is that as we identify the multiplicity of ways in which we have been
socially conditioned and make different choices, we influence the very structures that
infuse our lives.
Coming from an Engaged Buddhist perspective, Nhat Hanh similarly maintains
that we carry society within us. We are not separate from it. In Being Peace (2008), he
says, “You bring society with you” (p. 56). Further, the Buddhist emphasis on
awareness and finding peace within has powerful implications for groups and com-
munities if we are to recognize how agents carry social structures within. In The Sun
My Heart, Nhat Hanh (2010) states, “Under the influence of awareness, you become
more attentive, understanding, and loving, and your presence not only nourishes you
and makes you lovelier, it enhances them as well. Our entire society can be changed
by one person’s peaceful presence” (p. 38).
From a Buddhist Sociology approach, pursuing social justice implies first identi-
fying and understanding how social injustice and oppression live within ourselves. As
sociologists we tend to look at external factors as the roots of injustices and oppres-
sion, but what might we learn about the roots of injustice and oppression if we were
to study how they exist and flourish within ourselves?6

Closing Thoughts

Sociology emerged from the recognition of widespread suffering in industrial soci-

eties. That a concern for suffering is endemic to what sociologists theorize, research,
and teach makes for evident connections to Buddhist philosophy and practice.
What might Buddhist Sociology offer to the field? In this article, I have focused on
one of the central Buddhist teachings—the Four Noble Truths. I have highlighted
right mindfulness as a tool for sociologists to consider as they work reflexively,
develop sociological insights, and pursue social justice. To summarize: Sociologists
who practice mindfulness may help themselves and their students to inflict fewer
second arrows. Mindfulness practices also bring us in touch with the reality of this
moment, as it unfolds. Sociologists who engage in mindfulness practices while in the
field can attend to the truth of what unfolds before them and gain further clarity into
how their own assumptions and constructions may cloud their perceptions. Further-
more, mindfulness practices may help us to understand social problems in novel ways
and develop sociological insights as we directly experience these problems within our
own minds and bodies. Finally, mindfulness practices challenge us to approach social
justice issues by looking within for insights into some of the roots of these problems.
Many other areas of Buddhist thought could also be considered. For example, the
central principles of Theravada Buddhism: dissatisfaction, impermanence, and non-
6
Social theorists like Marcuse (1987) and Fromm (1994) have observed the way in which repressed fears
influence culture and social institutions. Yet Western social thinkers tend to identify the problem first (e.g.
repression, fear) and then observe how it plays itself out in the society. A Buddhist Sociology suggests a
more open-ended approach by, as with reflexivity, making direct observations of the mind itself and
observing the relationship between internal mind structures and external social structures.
218 Am Soc (2012) 43:203–222

self suggest a host of new epistemological considerations. Buddhism’s identification

of greed, hatred, and delusion (as the core roots of our individual and collective
suffering) offer new metaphors and new approaches to understanding and exploring
social problems. The three approaches to the development of wisdom—study, reflec-
tion, and meditation—suggest a refinement of our approaches to learning, study being
the first of several ways to generate knowledge and understanding. These are only a
few examples. The Buddhist literature is rich with conceptual and practical tools that
may have something to offer sociology.
One of the most powerful concepts in Buddhist thought, “dependent origination”
(also known as dependent co-arising or independent arising), has the capacity to
challenge our approaches to causality. While sociologists are adept at looking at
multiple causes, contingencies, and nuances underlying social issues and problems,
dependent origination challenges Western notions of causality. Whereas, Western
notions of causality focus on a single prime cause to which all can be traced back
(thus, a linear notion of causality), dependent origination holds that conditions co-arise
together and that when one of the co-arising conditions ceases, the other conditions that
arose with it also cease. Since the Buddha’s focus was on the causes of suffering, the end
of suffering is perceived as those conditions that arise with suffering, namely greed,
hatred, and delusion or in one word: ignorance. The key to ceasing suffering involves
ceasing ignorance and this begins with observing and quieting the mind—thus, the
emphasis on mindfulness practices.
How could courses such as introductory sociology, theory, and methods benefit
from Buddhist Sociology? Introductory students could engage in mindfulness prac-
tices to begin a process of “de-socialization,” unraveling illusions and observing how
they construct a sense of reality. Direct observation of how our minds create patterns
and construct reality could augment theory, for students can see for themselves how
their minds grab onto, construct, and maintain illusions. Mindfulness practices could
be introduced as a method practiced prior to and while doing fieldwork to enhance
approaches to reflexivity and the development of sociological insight.
I teach mindfulness meditation in upper division and graduate level Environmental
Sociology classes. After examining the mastery-over-nature paradigm that dominates
Western approaches to the natural world, Environmental Sociology students explore
alternative paradigms and approaches toward healing our relationship with the natural
world, or what I call the human-nature split. We engage in mindfulness meditation to
examine how nature is not something “out there” and objective, to be used/abused for our
benefit, but also within us. Meditation blurs the boundaries between what is inside and
what is outside and offers us an integrative approach to exploring ourselves as nature.
Through direct experiences of non-duality the perceived human-nature split dissolves.
From here, new insights and new possibilities for social change become apparent.
If Buddhist Sociology is to be embraced, it must also become a focus for some
dissertations, conference papers, and journal publications. Graduate students may
spin off of faculty research projects that take a Buddhist Sociology approach. My next
research project involves offering mindfulness classes to social activists and doing
ethnographic research to see how social activists might benefit from such contem-
plative practices. Many graduate students are eager to engage in this research and
learn how to use mindfulness to strengthen their reflexivity and development of
sociological insight. It will be important for such research to be shared in conferences
Am Soc (2012) 43:203–222 219

and journals and for the ideas to reach a broad sociological audience, and be debated,
questioned, and explored collectively.
The moment is ripe for Buddhist Sociology to emerge more fully since Inge Bell
introduced it in 1979. Growing interest in Eastern approaches to learning, problem
solving, conflict, and social justice continues as evidenced by the increasing number
of conferences in contemplative studies7, number of academic programs highlighting
Eastern ways of knowing8, development of academic programs such as Buddhist
Psychology and Buddhist Economics9, and the growth in popularity in the West of
socially engaged Buddhism as a vehicle for addressing social justice issues (Queen
and King 1996). The challenge for Buddhist Sociology is this: What could Buddhism
offer to our understanding of other social institutions, social problems, and to the
dynamics and possibilities for social change?
There are myriad possibilities and questions to explore as we look at connections
between Buddhism and sociology. For now, I wish to raise a few questions that I
believe practices in mindfulness brings up for the field:
1. How would sociologists incorporate mindfulness practices into their research,
writing, and teaching?
2. What types of mindfulness practices make sense for sociology?
3. How could mindfulness practices be sociologically studied?
4. How could we know if mindfulness practices enhanced our sociological
understanding?
7
For example, The Center for Contemplative Mind in Society lists the following events, to take place in the
United States, for educators and professionals: Meditation Retreat for Law Professionals, Cultivating the
Executive Mind: Is Mindfulness the Key to 21st Century Economic Survival?; Creating a Mindful Society,
Mindfulness in Education: A foundation for teaching and learning; Writing and the Contemplative Mind
Conference, Annual Association for Contemplative Mind in Higher Education Conference; Contemplative
Retreat for Educators; International Symposia for Contemplative Studies.
8
For example: The Association for Mindfulness in Education, The Brown University Contemplative
Studies Initiative, Education as Transformation, The Center for Contemplative Mind in Society, The
Metro-Area Research Group on Meditation and Awareness (MARGAM), Mindfulness in Education
Network, Minding Your Life, Mind & Life Institute, Naropa University, Teaching to Connect the Heart
and Mind, U. of Michigan Program in Creativity and Consciousness Studies.
9
Applying Buddhist principles to a Western academic discipline is not new. Here, I convey just two
examples. In 1948, Carl Jung recognized psychotherapeutic goals as similar to satori, the enlightenment
experience of Zen practitioners. In 1957 psychoanalysts and Zen practitioners participated in a workshop,
“Zen Buddhism and Psychoanalysis,” in Cuernavaca, Mexico. At this workshop, Fromm et al. (1960) noted
that the majority of psychoanalytic patients of the twentieth century suffered from an “inner deadness”; he
highlighted Zen as a practice that could “throw new light on the nature of insight” and help overcome “false
intellectualizations” based on the “subject-object split”. Buddhist Psychology became popularized through
the writings of Watts (1961), Kornfield (1993), and Nhat Hanh (1998). Epstein (1995, 1998) wrote deftly
and accessibly by relating Buddhist perspectives to psychotherapeutic practice. Academic social psychol-
ogist Langer (1989) conducted an array of experiments that revealed a missing mindfulness in everyday
life. Three United States clinical practices have integrated Buddhist approaches: Mindfulness Based Stress
Reduction (Jon Kabat-Zinn), Dialectical Behavioral Therapy (Marsha Linehan), and Cognitive Restructur-
ing. Additionally, Naropa University, founded in 1975 in Boulder, Colorado, and credited as the first
Buddhist-inspired university, offers degrees in contemplative psychology and other contemplative arts.
Buddhist Economics, a term coined by E. F. Schumacher in 1955, applies Buddhist principles to
economic theory. The main premise of Buddhist Economics is that work and lifestyle should support
human development while minimizing environmental impacts. These ideas, articulated in Schumacher’s
(1973, 1999) now classic, Small is Beautiful, and adopted by the Bhutan government in order to measure
“Gross National Happiness,” establishes a metric for the quality of life that is not included in traditional
economic indicators.
220 Am Soc (2012) 43:203–222

These questions don’t feel like hindrances to me, but rather excite my imagination.
Could mindfulness practices evoke new sociological theories and new methodolo-
gies? It is my hope that others will continue to apply Buddhist thought and practice to
sociology; uncover a rich body of interconnected writings; explore sociological
theory, methods, and teachings; and conceive unique ways to study sociology, social
problems, and social change.

Acknowledgments I wish to thank Dr. Maury Stein and Dr. Charlie Fisher for first introducing me to
mindfulness practices during an undergraduate class at Brandeis University in 1990. Thank you also to
Brandeis professor Peter Conrad for helping me to find the right home for these ideas. Dr. Karla Hackstaff’s
encouragement and interest in Buddhist Sociology provided necessary encouragement as I began the
process of getting over 20 years of ideas into writing. Many thanks to Larry Nichols for his extensive
feedback to help strengthen the paper. I feel indebted to Northern Arizona University’s Department of
Sociology and Social Work for providing an environment of support and openness as I pursued these non-
traditional sociological themes. Finally, several read and commented on this manuscript, helping me to fine
tune it. Thanks go to Eliot Schipper, Eve Paludan, Shawn Bingham, and Ben Brucato.

References

Badiner, A. H. (1996). Engaged buddhist reader (pp. 135–139). Berkeley: Parallax Press.
Bell, I. (1979). Buddhist sociology: Some thoughts on the convergence of sociology and the Eastern paths
of liberation. In G. Scott & S. G. McNall (Eds.), Theoretical perspectives in sociology (pp. 53–68).
New York: St. Martin’s.
Bell, I. (2004). This book is not required: an emotional survival manual for students. Thousand Oaks: Pine
Forge Press.
Berger, P. L., & Luckmann, T. T. (1967). The social construction of reality: a treatise in the sociology of
knowledge. Garden City: Anchor.
Bernert, C. (1983). The career of causal analysis in American sociology. The British Journal of Sociology,
34(2), 230–254.
Bingham, S. C. (2007). Thoreau and the sociological imagination: The wilds of society. Lanham: Rowman
& Littlefield.
Bourdieu, P., & Wacquant, L. J. D. (1992). P. 19 in an invitation to reflexive sociology. Chicago and
London: University of Chicago Press.
Buddhist Peace Fellowship. (2011). Occupying the present moment. http://bpf.org/occupying-the-present-
moment; retrieved November 15, 2011.
Burawoy, M. (2009). The public sociology wars. In V. Jeffries (Ed.), Handbook of public sociology.
Lanham: Rowman & Littlefield.
Cooley, C. H. (1902). Human nature and the social order. New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons.
Cooley, C. H. (1998). On self and social organization. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
Devall, B. (1982). Ecological consciousness and ecological resisting: guidelines for comprehension and
research. Humboldt Journal of Social Relations, 9(2), 177–196.
Ehrenreich, B. (2002). Nickel and dimed: on (not) getting by in America. New York: Holt Paperbacks.
Epstein, M. (1995). Thoughts without a thinker: psychotherapy from a buddhist perspective. New York:
Basic Books.
Epstein, M. (1998). Going to pieces without falling apart: a buddhist perspective on wholeness. New York:
Broadway Books.
Fromm, E. (1994). Escape from freedom. New York: Holt Paperbacks.
Fromm, E., Suzuki, D. T., & De Martino, R. (1960). Zen Buddhism and psychoanalysis. New York: Harper
& Row.
Giddens, A. (1984). The constitution of society: outline of the theory of structuration. Cambridge: Polity
Press.
Giddens, A. (1991). Modernity and self-identity: self and society in the late modern age. Stanford: Stanford
University Press.
Am Soc (2012) 43:203–222 221

Gunter, P. A. Y. (1990). Creativity in George Herbert mead. Lanham: University Press of America, Inc.
Heather, M. (2010). Why we need mindfulness. Spirit Rock. (Retrieved from Dharmaseed.com.), March 1
Jones, K. (2011). The second arrow—a parable for helpers and activists. UK Network of Engaged
Buddhists (Retrieved on February 4, 2011; http://www.engagedbuddhists.org.uk/?page_id0549).
Jung, C. G. [1948] (1994). Foreword. In D. T. Suzuki (Ed.), An introduction to Zen Buddhism (Pp. 9–30).
New York: Grove Press.
Kabat-Zinn, J. (2006). Coming to our senses: healing ourselves and the world through mindfulness. New
York: Hyperion.
Kalama Sutta, AN 3:65; I:188–93. See The Buddha and Critical Thinking. http://www.csudh.edu/oliver/
smt310-handouts/buddha/buddha.htm; retrieved September 16, 2011.
Korgen, K. O., & White, J. M. (2007). The engaged sociologist: connecting the classroom to the
community. Thousand Oaks: Pine Forge Press.
Kornfield, J. (1993). A path with heart: a guide through the perils and promises of spiritual life. New York:
Bantam Books.
Kotler, A. (Ed.). (1996). Engaged buddhist reader. Berkeley: Parallax Press.
Krause, D. (1993). Environmental consciousness: an empirical study. Environment and Behavior, 25(1),
126–142.
Langer, E. J. (1989). Mindfulness and mindlessness. In J. O’Brien & P. Kollock (Eds.), The production of
reality: essays and readings on social interaction (3rd ed., pp. 153–157). Thousand Oaks: Pine Forge
Press.
Loy, D. R. (2003). The great awakening: a buddhist social theory. Boston: Wisdom Publications.
Marcuse, H. (1987). Eros and civilization. New York: Routledge.
McGrane, B. (1993a). Zen sociology: don’t just do something, stand there! Teaching Sociology, 21(1), 79–
84.
McGrane, B. (1993b). Zen sociology: the un-TV experiment. Teaching Sociology, 21(1), 85–89.
McGrane, B. (1994). The un-TV and the 10 mph car: experiments in personal freedom and everyday life.
Fort Bragg: Small Press.
McGrane, B., & Gunderson, J. (2010). Watching TV is not required. New York: Routledge.
Mead, G. H. (1932). The philosophy of the act. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
Merton, R. K. (1936). The unanticipated consequences of purposive social action. American Sociological
Review, 1(6), 894–904.
Mills, C. W. (1959/2000). The sociological imagination. New York: Oxford University Press.
Moffitt, P. (2008). Mindfulness and compassion: Tools for transforming suffering into joy. In M. McLeod &
S. Sun (Eds.), The best buddhist writing, 2009 (pp. 39–51). Boston: Shambhala.
Moore, R. J. (1995). Dereification in zen buddhism. The Sociological Quarterly, 36(4), 699–723.
Nhat Hanh, T. (1967). Vietnam: lotus in a sea of fire. New York: Hill and Wang.
Nhat Hanh, T. (1992). Peace is every step. New York: Bantam.
Nhat Hanh, T. (1996). Please call me by my true names. In A. Kotler (Ed.), Engaged Buddhist reader (pp.
104–110). Berkeley: Parallax Press.
Nhat Hanh, T. (1998). Mindfulness and psychotherapy (audio). Louisville: Sounds True.
Nhat Hanh, T. (2008). Being peace (p. 56). [S.I.]: Read HowYouWant (large print).
Nhat Hanh, T. (2009). The world we have. In M. McLeod & S. Sun (Eds.), The best buddhist writing
(pp. 69–75). Boston: Shambhala.
Nhat Hanh, T. (2010). The sun my heart (p. 38). Berkeley: Parallax Press.
O’Brien, J. A. (2006). Epilogue. In J. O’Brien (Ed.), The production of reality: essays and readings on
social interaction (4th ed., pp. 511–518). Thousand Oaks: Pine Forge Press.
Pagis, M. (2010). From abstract concepts to experiential knowledge: embodying enlightenment in a
meditation center. Qualitative Sociology, 33(4), 469–489.
Park, J. Y. (2008). Buddhism and postmodernity: zen, huayan, and the possibility of buddhist postmodern
ethics. New York: Lexington Books.
Preston, D. L. (1988). The social organization of Zen practices: constructing transcultural reality.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Queen, C. S. (Ed.). (2000). Engaged buddhism in the west. Boston: Wisdom Publications.
Queen, C. S., & King, S. B. (Eds.). (1996). Engaged buddhism: buddhist liberation movements in Asia.
Albany: State University of New York Press.
Rannikko, P. (1996). Local environmental conflicts and the change in environmental consciousness. Acta
Sociologica, 39(1), 57–72.
Ritzer, G. (2010a). The McDonaldization of society 6. Thousand Oaks: Pine Forge Press.
Ritzer, G. (2010b). Sociological theory. New York: McGraw-Hill Humanities/Social Sciences/Languages.
222 Am Soc (2012) 43:203–222

Roberts, J. T., & Hite, A. (Eds.). (2000). From modernization to globalization: perspectives on develop-
ment and social change. Oxford: Blackwell Readers in Sociology.
Rothberg, D. (1998). Responding to the cries of the world: Socially engaged buddhism in North America.
In C. S. Prebish & K. K. Tanaka (Eds.), The faces of buddhism in America (pp. 266–286). Berkeley:
University of California Press.
Sallatha Sutta SN36.6. The arrow (SN36.6). translated from the Pali by Thanissaro Bhikkhu. Access to
Insight, June 30, 2010. http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn36/sn36.006.than.html (retrieved
February 9, 2011).
Schipper, J. (2008). Disappearing desert: the growth of phoenix and the culture of sprawl. Norman:
University of Oklahoma Press.
Schlegelmilch, B. B., Bohlen, G. M., & Diamantopoulos, A. (1996). The link between green purchasing
decisions and measures of environmental consciousness. European Journal of Marketing, 30(5), 35–55.
Schumacher, E. F. ([1973] 1999). Small is beautiful: economics as if people mattered. Point Roberts, WA:
Hartley and Marks Publishers Inc.
Searle, J. R. (1995). Construction of social reality. New York: Free Press.
Shankman, R. (2010). Mindfulness of the body as the doorway into the four foundations of mindfulness.
January 29, 2010, IMSRC. Found at Dharmaseed.com.
Sorokin, P. A. (1964). The basic trends of our times. New Haven: College and University Press.
Sztompka, P. (1993). The sociology of social change. Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell.
Taylor, V., & Whittier, N. E. (1999). Collective identity in social movement communities: Lesbian feminist
mobilization. In J. Freeman & V. Johnson (Eds.), Waves of protest: social movements since the sixties.
Lanham: Rowman & Littlefield.
Thomas, W. I., & Thomas, D. S. (1928). The child in America: behavior problems and programs. New
York: Knopf.
Watts, A. W. (1961). Psychotherapy east and west. New York: Random House.
Weinstein, J. (2010). Social change. Lanham: Rowman & Littlefield.
Wilson, S. R. (1984). Becoming a yogi: resocialization and deconditioning as conversion processes.
Sociological Analysis, 45(4), 301–314.
Zola, I. (2003). Missing pieces: a chronicle of living with a disability. Philadelphia: Temple University
Press.