The Problem of Ontological Insecurity. What Can We Learn from Sociology Today? Some Zen Buddhist Inspirations

• Authors: Krzysztof T. Konecki

Title variants

Problem ontologicznej niepewności. Czego możemy się nauczyć od socjologii dzisiaj? Inspiracje buddyzmem zen

• Languages of publication: EN

Abstracts

EN

Can we learn about the art of living from sociology? Sociology teaches us that we are the part of a broader group called society. We are taught that society should be first described in order to be understood and/or explained, and that the cognitive function is the most important part in understanding the role sociology should play in a democratic and modern society. Is this understanding (cognition) enough? What more can we get to better our quality of life and live a wholesome life from studying sociology or society using a sociological perspective? Is sociology a tool for the art of living or is it just a play of the “sophisticated”? In this paper, we analyze the sociology from the philosophy of Zen Buddhism to show the connection between the work of mind and the sociological concepts that are used to analyze “society.” Moreover, we analyze the approaches of George H. Mead, Robert Merton, and especially and separately Anthony Giddens that created, very important for our considerations, the concept of “ontological security.” We also reconstruct the structural conditions of the art of living and happiness, analyzing the concept of greedy institutions by Lewis Coser. We analytically connect the structural conditions of work in contemporary greedy institutions (working on projects) with the loss of ontological security. We analyze the displacement of the meaning of work, career, autonomy, time structure, identity, privacy and happiness, and finally the sociology. We try to use a Buddhist inspiration to analyze issues of suffering and, associated with it, so called ontological insecurity and the welfare of the individual and/or society.

PL

Czy możemy nauczyć się sztuki życia z socjologii? Socjologia uczy nas, że jesteśmy częścią szerszej grupy zwanej społeczeństwem. Nauczono nas, że społeczeństwo powinno być najpierw opisane, aby mogło być zrozumiane i/lub wyjaśnione, a funkcja poznawcza jest najważniejszą częścią zrozumienia roli, jaką powinna odgrywać socjologia w demokratycznym i nowoczesnym społeczeństwie. Czy to zrozumienie (poznanie) jest wystarczające? Co jeszcze może możemy uzyskać od socjologii, by ulepszyć jakość naszego życia? Czy socjologia jest narzędziem sztuki życia, czy jest grą „wyrafinowanych” naukowców? W niniejszym artykule analizujemy socjologię z punktu widzenia filozofii buddyzmu zen, aby pokazać związek pomiędzy pracą umysłu a koncepcjami socjologicznymi, które są używane do analizy „społeczeństwa”. Ponadto analizujemy podejścia George’a H. Meada, Roberta Mertona, a zwłaszcza i osobno Anthony’ego Giddensa, który stworzył bardzo ważne dla naszych rozważań pojęcie „bezpieczeństwa ontologicznego”. Odtworzymy również strukturalne warunki sztuki życia i szczęścia, analizując koncepcję tak zwanych chciwych instytucji Lewisa Cosera. Analitycznie połączymy strukturalne warunki pracy we współczesnych chciwych instytucjach (szczególnie tych pracujących nad projektami) z utratą bezpieczeństwa ontologicznego. Analizujemy przesunięcie znaczenia pracy, kariery, autonomii, struktury czasu, tożsamości, prywatności i szczęścia, i wreszcie socjologii. Staramy się używać inspiracji buddyjskich do analizowania problemów cierpienia i związanych z nimi: ontologicznej niepewności oraz dobrostanu jednostki i/lub społeczeństwa.

Keywords

EN

art of living; Zen Buddhism; sociology; ontological insecurity; mind; self; meditation; suffering; greedy institutions

PL

sztuka życia; buddyzm zen; socjologia; niepewność ontologiczna; umysł; jaźń; medytacja; cierpienie; chciwe instytucje; sztuka życia; buddyzm zen; socjologia; niepewność ontologiczna; umysł; jaźń; medytacja; cierpienie; chciwe instytucje

• Publisher: Uniwersytet Łódzki. Wydawnictwo Uniwersytetu Łódzkiego
• Journal: Przegląd Socjologii Jakościowej
• Year: 2018
• Volume: 14
• Issue: 2
• Pages: 50-83

Dates

published

2018-08-28

Contributors

author

Krzysztof T. Konecki

• University of Lodz

References

• Ames, Van Meter. 1973. “No Separate Self.” Pp. 43-58 in The Philosophy of George Herbert Mead, edited by Walter Robert Corti, ed. Winerthur: Amriswiler Bucherei.
• Bauman, Zygmunt. 2001. The Individualized Society. Cambridge: Polity Press.
• Bauman, Zygmunt. 2000. Liquid modernity. Cambridge: Polity Press.
• Beck, Ulrich. 1992. Risk Society: Towards a New Modernity. New Delhi: Sage.
• Bentz, Valerie M. and Jeremy J. Shapiro. 1998. Mindful Inquiry in Social Research. London: Sage.
• Berger, Peter and Thomas Luckmann. 1991. The Social Construction of Reality. A Treatise in the Sociology of Knowledge. Harmondsworth: Penquin Books.
• Blumer, Herbert. 1969. Symbolic Interactionism. Perspective and Method. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
• Blumer, Herbert. 2004. George Herbert Mead and Human Conduct. Walnut Creek: Altamira Press.
• Charon, Joel M. 1998. Symbolic Interactionism. An Introduction, An Interpretation, An Integration. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.
• Chuang, Rueyling and Guo-Ming Chen. 2003. “Buddhist Perspectives and Human Communication.” Intercultural Communication Studies 12(4):65-80.
• Churchard, Clair. 2009. “Google HR algorithm identifies unhappy workers.” Retrieved June 28, 2014 http://www.cipd.co.uk/pm/peoplemanagement/b/weblog/archive/2013/01/29/google-hr-algorithm-identifies-unhappy-workers-2009-05.aspx.
• Coser, Lewis A. 1972. “The Alien as a Servant of Power: Court Jews and Christian Renegades.” American Sociological Review 37:574-581.
• Coser, Lewis A. 1973. “The Militant Collective: Jesuits and Leninists.” Social Research: An International Quarterly 40(1):110-128.
• Coser, Lewis. 1974. Greedy Institutions: Patterns of Undivided Commitment. New York: The Free Press.
• Csikszentmihalyi, Mihaly. 2008. Flow. The Psychology of Optimal Experience. New York: Harper Perennial.
• Egger de Campo, Marianne. 2013. “Contemporary Greedy Institutions: An Essay on Lewis Coser’s Concept in the Era of the ‘Hive Mind.’” Czech Sociological Review 49(6):969-987.
• Elcioglu, Emine Fidan. 2010. “Producing Precarity: The Temporary Staffing Agency in the Labor Market.” Qualitative Sociology 33:117-136.
• Ellis, Carolyn. 1993. “‘There are survivors’: Telling a story of a sudden death.” The Sociological Quarterly 34(4):711-730.
• Ellis, Carolyn. 1995. Final negotiations: A story of love, loss, and chronic illness. Philadelphia: Temple University Press.
• Ellis, Carolyn. 2002. “Shattered lives: Making sense of September 11th and its aftermath.” Journal of Contemporary Ethnography 31(4):375-410.
• Epitectus. 2012. The Handbook of Epitectus. Start Publishing LLC (ebook, Kindle Edition).
• Foucault, Michel. 2003. Society must be defended: lectures at the Collège de France 1975-1976. New York: Picador.
• Garfinkel, Harold. 1967. Studies in Ethnomethodology. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
• Giddens, Anthony. 1984. The Constitution of Society. Outline of theory of Structuration. Cambridge: Polity Press.
• Giddens, Anthony. 1990. The Consequences of Modernity. Cambridge: Polity Press.
• Giddens, Anthony. 1991. Modernity and Self Identity: self and socjety in the late modern age. Cambridge: Polity Press.
• Goffman, Erving. 1961. Asylums: Essay on the Social Situation of Mental Patients and Other Inmates. Harmondsworth: Penguin.
• Goffman, Erving. 1967. Interaction Ritual: Essays on Face to Face Behaviour. New York: Doubleday.
• Google. 2009. “Life at the Googleplex.” YouTube video, 3:27. Retrieved September 26, 2011 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eFeLKXbnxxg&feature=youtu.be.
• Google. 2011. “Mountain View Googleween: Home Video Contest Entry.” YouTube video, 3:00. Retrieved September 26, 2011 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wfKZC94nsxk&feature=youtu.be.
• Hiscock, Rosemary et al. 2001. “Ontological security and psychosocial benefits from the home: qualitative evidence on issues of tenure.” Housing, Theory and Society 18(1-2):50-66.
• Hochschild, Arlie Russell. 1983. The Managed Heart: Commercialization of Human Feeling. Berkeley: University of California Press.
• Hochschild, Arlie Russell. 1997. The Time Bind: When Work Becomes Home and Home Becomes Work. New York: Metropolitan Books.
• Jacobsen, Michael Hviid. 2014. “Sociology and happiness: An interview with Zygmunt Bauman.” The Journal of Happiness & Well-Being 2(1):207-2015.
• Key, Andre E. 2012. What’s My Name? An Autoethnography Of The Problem Of Moral Evil And Ethnic Suffering In Black… Pro-Quest, UMI Dissertation Publishing.
• Konecki, Krzysztof T. 2005. Ludzie i ich zwierzęta. Interakcjonistyczno-symboliczna analiza społecznego świata właścicieli zwierząt domowych. Warsaw: Scholar.
• Konecki, Krzysztof T. 2010. “Procesy tożsamościowe a dialogiczność jaźni – problem anamnezie.”Pp. 331-339 in Procesy Tożsamościowe. Symboliczno - interakcyjny wymiar konstruowania ładu i nieładu społecznego, edited by Krzysztof T. Konecki and Anna Kacperczyk. Lodz: Wydawnictwo Uniwersytetu Łódzkiego.
• Lewis, Helen B. 1971. Shame and guilt in neurosis. New York: International University Press.
• Loy, David. 2003). A Great Awakanings. A Buddists Social Theory. Sommerville: Wisdom Publication.
• Loy, David. 2008. Money, Sex, War, Karma. Notes for a Buddhist Revolution. Somerville: Wisdom Publications.
• Luhmann, Niklas. 2002. Das Erziehungssystem der Gesellschaft. Frankfurt a.M.: Suhrkamp.
• Manis, Jerome and Bernard Meltzer. 1978. Symbolic Interaction. Rader in Social Psychology. Boston: Allyn and Bacon.
• Mauss, Iris B. et al. 2011. “Can seeking happiness make people unhappy? Paradoxical effects of valuing happiness.” Emotion 11(4):807-815.
• Mead, Georg H. 1934. Mind Self and Society from the Standpoint of a Social Behaviorist. Chicago: University of Chicago.
• Merton, Robert. 1968. Social Theory and Social Structure. New York: The Free Press.
• Nhat, Hanh Thich. 1976. The Miracle of Mindfulness: An Introduction to the Practice of Meditation. Boston: Beacon Press.
• Nhat, Hanh Thich. 1999. The Heart of the Buddha’s Teaching. London: Rider.
• Nhat, Hanh Thich. 2006. Understanding Our Mind. Berkeley: Parallax Press.
• Nhat, Hanh Thich. 2012. Awakening of the Heart. Essential Buddhist Sutras and Commentaries. Berkeley: Unified Buddhist Church.
• Nyström, Per. 2007. “La interdisciplinariedad y la transdisciplinariedad en la organización del conocimiento científico: Interdisciplinarity and transdisciplinarity in the organization of scientific knowledge.” Pp. 123-132 in Actas del VIII Congreso ISKO - España, León, April 18-20, 2007 Retrieved April 13, 2013 http://dialnet.unirioja.es/descarga/articulo/2532824.pdf.
• Puddephatt, Antony J. 2008. “Incorporating Ritual Into Greedy Institution Theory: The Case of Devotion in Amateur Chess.” The Sociological Quarterly 49:155-180.
• Rehoric David A. and Valerie Malhotra Bentz, eds. 2008. Transformative Phenomenology. Changing Ourselves, Lifeworlds, and Professional Practice. Lanham: Lexington Books.
• Retzinger, Suzanne and Thomas Scheff. 2000. “Emotion, alienation, and narratives: resolving intractable conflict.” Mediation Quarterly 18(1): 71-85.
• Robertson, Donald. 2010. The Philosophy of Cognitive-Behavioral Therapy: Stoicism as Rational and Cognitive Psychotherapy. London: Karnac.
• Sahn, Seung. 1976. Dropping Ashes on the Buddha. New York: Grove Press.
• Scheff, Thomas J. 1990. Microsociology. Discourse, emotion, and social structure. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
• Scheff, Thomas, J. 2000. Shame and the social bond, and human reality. New York: Cambridge University Press.
• Scheff, Thomas and Suzanne Retzinger. 1997 “Shame, Anger and the Social Bond: A Theory of Sexual Offenders and Treatment.” Electronic Journal of Sociology 1, September. Retrieved September 09. 2006 http://www.sociology.org/content/vol003.001/sheff.html?PHPSESSID=c9f51dc378f1da0b-2c543eb69f623250.
• Shear, Jonathan and Ron Jevning. 2002. “Pure consciousness: Scientific Explorations of Meditation Techniques.” Pp. 189-210 in The View From Within. First-Person Approaches To The Study Of Consciousness, edited by Francisco Varela and Jonathan Shear. Thorverton: Imprint Academic.
• Shih, Johanna. 2004. “Project Time in Silicon Valley.” Qualitative Sociology 27(2)223-245.
• Shott, Susan. 1979. “Emotion and Social Life: A Symbolic Interactionist Analysis.” American Journal of Sociology 84:1317-1334.
• Simmel, Georg. 1955. Conflict and the web of group affiliations. New York: The Free Press.
• Stankiewicz, Piotr. 2012. “Stoicyzm i buddyzm zen. Sześć podobieństw i sześć różnic.” Edukacja Filozoficzna 54:135-148.
• Stebbins, Robert A. 2009. Personal Decisions in the Public Square: Beyond Problem Solving into a Positive Sociology. New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction.
• Strauss, Anselm L. 1984. “Social Worlds and Their Segmentation Processes.” Studies in Symbolic Interaction 5:123-139.
• Suzuki, Daisetz T. 1964. Introduction to Zen Buddhism. New York: Grove Press.
• Suzuki, Daisetz T. 1994. The Zen Koans as a Means of Attaining Enlightenment. Vermont, Tokyo: Charles E. Tuttle Co. Inc. of Rutland.
• Tepperman, Lorne and James Curtis. 2006. Principles of Sociology: Canadian Perspectives. Toronto: Oxford University Press.
• Thomas William I. and Dorothy S. Thomas. 1928. The child in America: Behavior problems and programs. New York: Knopf.
• Varela Francisco J., Evan Thompson, and Eleanor Rosch. 1993. The Embodied Mind. Cambridge: MIT Press.
• Ura, Karma et al. 2012. A Short Guide to Gross National Happiness Index. Timphu: The Centre for Bhutan Studies.
• Wilkinson, Iain. 2005. Suffering: A Sociological Introduction. Cambridge: Polity.

Identifiers

DOI

10.18778/1733-8069.14.2.03