American Society in the Buddhist Mirror

Reviewed by James V. Spickard

Sociology of Religion
Vol.55 No.3 (Fall 1994)
pp.368-369

COPYRIGHT Association for the Sociology of Religion 1994

            This little book is both less and more than it seems. Though one 
            might think so from its title, it is not an analysis of American 
            society from a Buddhist point of view. Indeed, it contains little 
            about Buddhism per se, much less what Buddhists might think about 
            America. Tamney knows that Buddhism does not have opinions about 
            such things. The book's task, rather, is to examine Americans' 
            reception of Buddhism as a sign of the changing face of our culture. 
            Buddhism is a window through which many Americans have looked, 
            hoping to get a new view of the world. Instead, the author argues, 
            they see themselves. Though deceptively simple, the book contains 
            many insights and is well worth reading. 
            The book is divided into two parts. The first chronicles Americans' 
            personal interest in Buddhism, from the mid-nineteenth century 
            Transcendentalists to today's New Agers. As the author shows, 
            Buddhism's appeal changed from generation to generation. The 
            earliest serious interest, by Emerson and Olcott, grew out of a 
            two-fold rebellion against Puritanism. Emerson rejected its moral 
            strictness, Olcott its superstitious dogmatism. Each looked to 
            Buddhism for support and found what he sought, though Tamney doubts 
            either encountered real Buddhism at all. 
            Early twentieth-century interest grew out of an anti-modernism that 
            turned to the Far East as a refuge. Though other authors have 
            identified modernity's stresses as stemming from our emphasis on 
            work, reason, and profit, Tamney sees the key issue as our need to 
            construct a self. Faustian, natural, ethical, or stylish, the modern 
            self is built, not given. Those who wished to escape this chore were 
            drawn to a religion that deemphasizes the self. In return, they 
            emphasized this aspect of Buddhism, playing down other parts. 
            The Beat and Hippie generations were a bit different. Struck by the 
            emptiness of modern life, they responded to Buddhist meditation, 
            which promised a higher truth, and to Buddhist community, which 
            relieved loneliness. Kerouac, Pirsig, and those who read them sought 
            the deeper connection with the universe, the unity of the spiritual 
            and the empirical they saw in Buddhism. Later seekers have focused 
            on Buddhism as a source of self-control, or direct religious 
            experience, and of spiritual or physical healing. In all this, their 
            seeking says more about the culture they wish to change than it does 
            about the Buddhism they seek. 
            Though most of the material in this first section is gleaned from 
            secondary sources, Tamney keeps his critical eye and provides some 
            interesting insights. His discussion of the modern need for 
            self-construction is particularly worthy, as it includes much 
            material that sociologists usually do not consider. This, plus the 
            tremendous ground covered, make the section quite fruitful reading. 
            It is a fast overflight, however, most readers will want more. 
            The second part of the book records interest in Buddhism on the part 
            of American philosophers, humanistic and transpersonal 
            psychologists, theologians, and other intellectuals seeking 
            solutions for modernity's problems. Tamney argues that like lay 
            interest in Buddhism, this professional interest says more about 
            these problems than it does about Buddhism itself. Here he goes into 
            more detail, arguing, for example, that the western tradition of 
            agapic love is incompatible with Buddhist detachment, even though 
            some modern thinkers have tried to equate the two. But why, he asks, 
            do people want to make this equation? What does it tell us about our 
            own culture, that we seek its salvation in another? "Is Western 
            Civilization in the process of evolving to a new form or of 
            self-destructing?" Tamney asks, but provides only the sketch of an 
            answer to these worthy questions. 
            This, of course, is the problem with the book. It would be too much 
            to ask anyone to diagnose fully the state of American society 
            reflected in the Buddhist mirror. In this volume, we learn a lot 
            about Anglo-America's reception of Buddhism and about the kinds of 
            issues with which a cultural sociology of modem life must deal. 
            Tamney opens up resources and topics that others have not touched. 
            But it all happens too fast -- never shoddily, but by no means 
            intensively enough to be satisfying. Tamney has rightly chosen to 
            cover much ground; as a consequence, many depths remain unplumbed. 
            Perhaps this is simply to say that the book is very Buddhist. Rather 
            than giving us dogmatic answers, it raises issues and awareness, 
            inviting us to explore. We should accept the invitation. 
            James V. Spickard University of Redlands