Transformative mindfulness: the role of mind-body practices in community-based activism

Introduction

In this article, we outline and discuss the practice of mindfulness, broadly conceived, within activist social and environmental movements. The theme of this article emerged from conversations between two research projects. While neither was initially interested in asking questions of the (micro)politics of mindfulness – one focused on community-based environmentalism, the other, alternative economic practices – mindfulness emerged as an unsought generative theme in both projects. The first project we use as inspiration for our argument, studied the emergence of an urban Transition initiative over a 3-year period in the United Kingdom. We were struck by a stark disjuncture between the significance of Inner Transition for the Transition movement and its (lack of) acknowledgement in Transition scholarship. The second project explored eco-social enterprises in an urban context in Germany. Although mindfulness played a minor role, it prominently emerged in unexpected situations. Both aspects – the relative underestimation and unexpected emergence of mind-body practices – prompted us to engage in a more profound reflection on this co-occurrence of eco-social activism and mindfulness.

Mindfulness is ambiguous and slippery. ¹ Here, we follow the use of ‘mindfulness’ as commonly used to describe a range of ‘mind-body practices’ such as meditation and yoga. ² While we dig into mindfulness’ emergence from Buddhist traditions below, we are not blind to the ‘complex intellectual exchange between Asia and the West’ ³ that informs and spawns many of these practices as well as the neoliberal co-optation of mindfulness through corporations, governments and even the military. ⁴ Recent geographical work has drawn attention to mind-body practices, including mindfulness as variously: an attitude; a part of Buddhist lineage; a secular form of meditation; or a neoliberal technique engendering individual, personal resilience. ⁵ Much of this work challenges a detached and autonomous self, admitting new forms of affect and an awareness of co-being. ⁶ Others highlight mindfulness as technology of the self which engenders more resilient subjects for the work of social change. ⁷ In the context of neoliberalism, however, mindfulness can slide into self-enhancement and responsibilisation of subjects and communities. ⁸ As geography increasingly discusses mindfulness, we attempt to push this literature to engage with the question why mindfulness might co-occur with social and environmental activism.

On the surface, social and environmental activists, committed to change in the ‘real world’, outward facing and public, jar with practices of ‘mindfulness’: individual and personal actions –‘private’. This article attempts to show that what may appear to be divergent, outwards, or inwards, orientation may in fact correlate for good reasons. Feminist scholarship has made a sophisticated case to acknowledge the role of the body – and body awareness – for resistance and societal change. ⁹ Challenging the separation of private and public and (re)defining what counts as political, feminist and other critical geographers highlight the nexus of collectivity, politics and space. ¹⁰ Particularly influential is the rethinking of collectivity by feminist political geographer Gibson-Graham, who, in turn, grounds her concept in the post-foundational thought of Nancy.

Less prominent are the Buddhist moorings of mindfulness and the (Westernised) Buddhist-inspired theoretical resources brought into activism through writers such Charles Eisenstein, Ticht Nhat Hahn, Joanna Macy, and Ken Wilber. In this article, we propose that the correlation of activism and mindfulness provides an opportunity for geography to engage with these intellectual traditions and take them seriously for a deeper theorising of togetherness, politics, and space.

To do so, the article intertwines two related lines of argumentation. On the one side, it argues that the political implications of activist practices such as mindfulness are not only important and overlooked, but are also profoundly geographical. Centrally, we propose that these practices are political because they accompany a spatiality. Mindfulness thus offers a perspective on the ways in which togetherness, politics and space can be rethought. On the other side, we consider how the philosophical foundation of mindfulness itself speaks to scholarship on societal change. Tracing the broadly Buddhist background of mindfulness practices – an aspect that is often deliberately dispensed with when mindfulness is appropriated for neoliberal end ¹¹ – helps to bridge the false division between inward/outward transformation. ¹² This article argues that both political and spiritual activism, as observed in the two case studies, are integral parts of social change. A transformative mindfulness integrates mind-body practices with a political agenda that challenges current societal trajectories of injustice and unsustainability.

To develop the article’s argument and further theorise the correlation of mindfulness and activism, ‘Mindfulness in community movements’, next, fleshes out the empirical stories from which our curiosity emerges, while section ‘Generative themes’ details generative themes that come from this research. ‘The Buddhist roots of mindfulness’, then, takes these empirical impulses and considers the broadly Buddhist roots of mindfulness. Subsequently, ‘constructed oneness’, drills down into theoretical considerations of the spatial politics of human togetherness. It investigates the theoretical underpinnings of canonical geographical work on community activism, namely Gibson-Graham and their theoretical grounding in Nancy. Together, the empirical and conceptual deliberations prepare a more profound reflection on transformative mindfulness in the section ‘The spatial politics of interbeing-in-common’. Developing the theme of integral transformation, this penultimate section discusses what a ‘Buddhist politics’ might look like. We link Nancy’s concept of being-in-common to the notion of interbeing from Thich Nhat Hanh, arguing that both social activism and mindfulness are parts of a transformative politics, albeit in different ways. Finally, we conclude that the co-occurrence of mind-body practices with social and environmental change activism is not coincidental and affirm a politics that integrates both.

Mindfulness in community movements

Transition Town initiatives and eco-social enterprises constitute different community-led responses to social and ecological crises. Transition is a model of community-based environmentalism founded by Rob Hopkins in 2006. Participants of Transition initiatives engage in a broad range of activities aimed at increasing self-sufficiency and resilience – including (permaculture) community gardens, energy reduction and renewables, strengthening of neighbourly relations and awareness-raising. From its conception onwards, Transition included ideas, individuals and groups that focus on the role of inner states and emotions alongside its more practical engagement.

Eco-social enterprises share Transition’s pressure to act in face of social and ecological injustices. While generally remaining closely tied to (local) groups, eco-social enterprises take a more institutional and market-oriented approach to transformation. Distancing from the profit-orientation of the formal market economy, however, they hover between monetised relations, ecological and social purposes, local ownership and democratic governance. Despite discrepancies in their general orientation, Transition and eco-social enterprises do converge in specific contexts – say, the latter as member of the Transition Network or more informally through individuals that engage in either group.

In their first decade, Transition has exploded onto the scene of both community-based environmentalism and also the surrounding academic literature. Within this bulwark of evidence – including evidence of their impact on local currencies, renewable energy schemes, community empowerment or post-political distraction from systemic action ¹³ – a comparatively overlooked aspect of Transition are what were initially called their Heart and Soul groups. Now called Inner Transition, the first half of the evidence here comes from these groups.

‘Heart and Soul’ groups emerged from the first Transition Town in Totnes in 2006. However successful Transition might be – and it has probably been much more successful than imagined at the time – Transition saw that ‘success’ would come through paying attention to ‘the inner life of the people and groups making it happen, with attention paid to group health, dynamics, and resilience’ not only solar panels, carrots and planning for energy descent as founder Hopkins put it (see https://transitionnetwork.org/news-and-blog/6-inner-transition-innovations-that-changed-my-life/ – accessed 25 September 2019).

The first public case for the interior aspects to Transition were made in The Heart and Soul of Transition – Creating a Low Carbon Future with Psychological and Spiritual Awareness. ¹⁴ Inner Transition’s values are integral to Transition. Transition having institutionalised many of Inner Transition’s habits and practices, for example, the guide to a Transition meeting now encourages three keepers: of time; of record; and of heart – of the group’s energy levels, or underlying tensions. Inner Transition groups tend to be favoured by those who already have experience of some form of faith-based practice, whether religious or not. Volunteers often have experience of Quaker practice with their long tradition of combining meditative practices and activism. Academics like Gorringe argue that Transition, unlike our eco-social enterprise example below, attracts people already practicing ‘mindfulness’. ¹⁵ The comparative research lacuna on Transition, which overlooks the centrality of their mind-body practices, reflects geographic work on social movements as a whole, often overlooking interior aspects to social action.

A constant background thread in the early establishment of Inner Transition’s practices were the writings of Joanna Macy: Buddhist scholar and environmental activist. Her book of practical exercises Coming Back to Life ¹⁶ and more ontological statements like World as Lover World as Self ¹⁷ are not only an inspiration for Inner Transition as a whole, but also a central and provocative text for the actors in this research project. In total, 17 interviews lasting between 1 and 2.5 hours with active participants in this group touched on these themes. While we refer to these interviews below, it is again worth noting that the interviews were part of ethnographic research within the wider Transition group.

Mindfulness, however, also surfaces beyond community-based groupings where spiritual awareness is an understandable, albeit underexplored, aspect. The second empirical basis for our insights comes from the investigation of eco-social enterprises based in Stuttgart (Germany). These organisations focus on technology and local production including engineering bureaus, high-tech start-ups and operators of co-working and shared production spaces. Characterised by a pragmatic approach to social and environmental activism, these organisations combine market engagement with alternative modes of economic organisation. ¹⁸ Many of their activities revolve around sustainability-related technologies and technology supported self-sufficiency. While all organisations share more-than-profit objectives, the degree to which they seek to transform social and economic institutions varies.

Striking, here, is not a broad engagement with mindfulness – as in the case of Transition – but a peripatetic albeit deep appearance of mindfulness in the organisations’ everyday conduct or their narratives of transformation. During a 26-month-long engagement with eco-social enterprises based on an ethnographic research methodology, mindfulness cropped up repeatedly despite not being a focus of the study.

Mindfulness in organisations is not unheard of. A number of authors point towards the (mis)use of ‘mindfulness’ as governmental devices. Buckingham, for instance, outlines how ‘neo-liberal organizations, including universities, are increasingly turning to techniques drawn from spiritual practices such as yoga . . . ostensibly to enable staff to manage high stress levels’. ¹⁹ ‘These techniques (such as ‘mindfulness’) offered out of their original context, and eviscerated of any spiritual content, represent . . . a lack of integrity’. ²⁰ Purser and Loy refer to this appropriation as ‘McMindfulness’. ²¹

While we do not rule out forms of neoliberal appropriation, we do identify mindfulness co-occurring with radical critiques of growth- and efficiency-based (economic) practice, as we detail below in section ‘Integral’. Some of the eco-social enterprises discussed here position themselves against an instrumental use of mindfulness and reflect on the role of mind-body practices – in particular, meditation – for societal change. Although pursuing quite different strategies from Transition – community-based activism versus a selective market engagement – there is a significant congruence in the simultaneous orientation towards inner and outer change. Across both studies, we explore these common themes next.

Generative themes

There were three themes to emerge from comparing both projects. (1) That interior/mind-body practices were useful for the group and their activist aims – that is, that they served as an inwards-orientated source of sustenance, they enabled continued activism and lessened the risk of burn-out or sell-out. (2) That interior/mind-body practices are more effective – that they more deeply embed, or ensure a longer lasting change in practices they sought to shift. This was a similar justificatory or instrumental reasoning to Theme 1, but was instead outwards-orientated. (3) That interior/mind-body practices are integral to change-the-world activism – that the shift participants wished to see accompanied and also implied shifts on distinct registers. That is, their activism called for not only a public change of behaviour, or a change in beliefs and subjectivity, but to challenge the idea of the individual self – one of the central tenets of modernity, and also capitalism.

The Buddhist roots of mindfulness

While an instrumental use of mindfulness – be it more or less authentic – echoes an inward/outward or interior/exterior distinction, integral aspects to mindfulness practice move beyond it. Lobel brings together ‘personal and social-ecological transformations’ ³³ arguing that

Instead of viewing spiritual practice as exclusively located in the ‘inner’, we need to discover the ways in which [interior] practices are always socially embedded. If properly conceived and engaged in this way, to practice a contemplative exercise could itself be a revolutionary act, helping to overcome the division between inner and outer, and clarifying how social influences are significant factors in spiritual training. ³⁴

In this vein, we have noted in our research this two-pronged orientation (we prefer centripetal and centrifugal) is not always an internal division within the group or movement, but can be inculcated within a single person. Rather, we wish to note the co-occurrence of both perspectives (outwards orientation and inner transition). This awareness then leads us to question the perspectives (worldviews or analytical theories) that see meditation and activism as two distinctly orientated practices. A path that leads us to turn to the broadly Buddhist roots of mindfulness.

Before exploring mindfulness’ Buddhist roots, however, we acknowledge that it is highly misleading to speak of a single Buddhism. Some lineages in Buddhist thought and practice have been more influential than others in the development and spread of techniques that are subsumed under the label of mindfulness. ³⁵ Furthermore, mindfulness underwent a long process of (modern, primarily Western) adaption that led to an ambiguous relationship with Buddhist teachings. ³⁶ With these important caveats, this section investigates the non-dualism that cuts through many Buddhist teachings. Wary not to oversimplify the complexities of Buddhism’s diverse teachings, dogmas and institutions, we dig into the Buddhist concepts of suffering (dukkha), impermanence (annica) and nonself (annata) – well aware that this is a selective portrayal of a vast body of thought and practice.

The four noble truths are Buddha’s first teachings and the ‘substance of what the Buddha knew as he became enlightened’. ³⁷ The first and second truths are concerned with the nature and origins of dukkha (suffering), while the third and fourth truths revolve around the cessation of dukkha. Suffering (dukkha) – according to Buddhist teachings – emanates from craving or desire (tanha): ‘a thirst which can never be fully satisfied or quenched but which, tragically, we, nonetheless, feel compelled to keep trying to satisfy’. ³⁸ Buddhist teachings distinguish between three domains of dukkha. Dukkha-dukkha refers to ‘‘ordinary’ obvious suffering’ – physical, emotional and mental pains. ³⁹ The second domain of suffering – viparinama-dukkha – is the suffering that emanates from the knowledge that nothing lasts forever (in particular, the awareness of the own death). This links to annica – the impermanence of everything in existence. Third, sankhara-dukkha, is the suffering ‘from conditioned states’. ⁴⁰ The last notion of suffering is linked to anatta – the claim that there is no permanent, underlying substance of subjects, or, in other words, no real ontological self. Sankhara-dukkha, therefore is the suffering that comes from repressing the ‘suspicion that I am not real’. ⁴¹

For Buddhism, the ego is not a self-existing consciousness but a fragile sense of self that suspects and dreads its own no-thing-ness. This third type of dukkha motivates our conditioned consciousness to try to ground itself – that is to make myself real. ⁴²

‘Right mindfulness’ – a notion that is difficult to grasp as we acknowledge above – is part of the so called Eightfold Noble Path that is concerned with ‘complete and final cessation of dukkha, in other words, . . . nirvana’. ⁴³ Simply put, mindfulness translates a non-dual ontology into practice and allows its practitioners to engage in non-conceptual awareness. When taking Buddhism’s concepts of dukkha, annica, anatta and nirvana seriously, mindfulness (practice) is key in the cessation of suffering. ⁴⁴ It might be argued, then, that mindfulness is synergistic, and not antagonistic, to social and environmental activism, core and not peripheral – as the findings on mindfulness as integral part of activism in section ‘Integral’ suggest.

Keeping in mind the various ways in which mindfulness is instrumentalised – for purposes aligned with those of emancipatory activism or going against them – it is important to see mindfulness practices as techniques that can both challenge and support individualist values. ⁴⁵ Against this background, Rowe argues that mindfulness is ‘central to systemic change but only when embedded in political projects that direct themselves toward this systemic change’. ⁴⁶ ‘Engaged Buddhism’ is arguably one of the best-known attempts to explicitly combine activism and Buddhism and provides an entry point to drill deeper into the interface between mindfulness and politics. ‘Engaged Buddhism is Buddhism in daily life, in society, and not just in a retreat center’. ⁴⁷ As a form of ‘justice activism influenced by Buddhism’, ⁴⁸ it integrates meditative practices with social movements. Engaged Buddhism draws on the notion of Tiep Hien – interbeing. ⁴⁹ Tiep Hien – translated as ‘to be mutual’ ⁵⁰ – is important in understanding the (spatial) relation of mindfulness and politics.

Tiep means ‘to be in touch’ with oneself as well as the Buddhas (the enlightened), and thus implies a continuation of the enlightened course of understanding and compassion. Hien refers to ‘the present time’, and the ‘realization’ of compassion – which according to Buddhist teachings can only be achieved through presence or non-dual mindfulness. ⁵¹ Tiep Hien is simultaneously the insight into dukkha as well as its transcendence. In overcoming the constructed duality between self and world, com-passion – literally, suffering with – is realised ‘because we are not separate from them’. ⁵² Mindfulness, in particular sitting meditation, is key in the development of compassion. ⁵³ There are close links to the poetry of Gary Snyder and the transpersonal ecology of deep ecology literature – ‘the realization [practicing] of a sense of self that extends beyond [. . .] any narrowly delimited biography of egoic sense of self’. ⁵⁴ Rather than grounding the self, a quest for which mindfulness practices are often (mis)appropriated, interbeing dispenses with the notion of self as separated from an other – in line with Buddhism’s non-duality. Still, it remains to be determined in how far interbeing and Engaged Buddhism are political – or whether they can be part of a politics at all. Therefore, the next section will spend some time carefully developing a notion of politics through the spatial implications of a post-foundationalist ontology of togetherness.

‘Constructed oneness’

Arguably, the key recent way-marker in geographical theorising of community initiatives and grassroots activism is Gibson-Graham’s notion of ‘community economy’. ⁵⁵ In turn, Gibson-Graham theoretically base community economy on thinkers such as Nancy who argue for a post-foundationalist ontology of community: that community is not a ‘given’ entity akin to a neighbourhood, or natural unit of human togetherness based on essential qualities, but rather appears through use – whether discursive, policy or practice. It is worth tracing this theoretical trajectory as the way(s) in which post-foundational thinkers such as Nancy are spatialised and brought from philosophy into social science by figures like Gibson-Graham is consequential. By going to source, we see the theoretical depth explicitly argued by Nancy as being-in-common – explained below – can be helpful in comprehending what is going on in community economy-type movements when mindfulness practices and change-the-world activism coincides.

Gibson-Graham begin their theorising of community economy with a quote from Nancy that simply and profoundly begins ‘we come together (in)to the world’. ⁵⁶ For Nancy, one is, only when together with another. Building on insights from the early Heidegger, Nancy questions traditional analysis of being (or becoming), which presupposes a self(hood). Building on this foundation (whether consciously or not), Western thought then delves into domains such as ethics, ontology, or epistemology from the presumed departure point of the singular self. ⁵⁷ For Nancy, this has the cart before the horse. Nancy does not reject the notion of self(hood). Individuals exist, but they have been constructed: produced by social, economic and even spatial patterns. ⁵⁸ What is primary, what provides the framework conditions allowing the idea of self to emerge, is a community Nancy names as being-in-common. ⁵⁹ Being-in-common highlights the already existing togetherness one has with others.

Community, however, is often presented, theorised or reified – for example, in the rather loose application of community in policy and activist circles – as common being; togetherness based on a common substance and thus a wholly different beast. ⁶⁰ Gibson-Graham call this community – in a phrase we cannot find in Nancy himself – ‘constructed oneness’. ⁶¹ That means the coming together of pre- or independently formed individuals. While the self is foundational for Western thought, post-foundational perspectives insists that the singular self is a fallacy. One of Nancy’s contributions here is to identify a singular community as a fallacy. An already existing togetherness is a condition of being, and being-in-common underlies any (necessarily constructed) notion of selfhood, or oneness, that is produced and brought into being. Nancy scrapes away at subjectivity – beyond the notion of a person as a singular self and a one – towards the way(s) in which one already is together with others.

For us, this offers an understanding of why mindfulness practices can be found to co-occur with change-the-world-activism. Nancy’s fundament of existence – that we are already in common with others, because ‘to be’ relies on an exposure to, and some sort of relationship with, others – surely accompanies political implications. Many authors such as Barnett draw attention to the intimate connection between Nancy’s political thoughts and his ontology of togetherness: ‘The question of the “in-common” is central to Nancy’s own elaboration of the political’. ⁶² Many of Nancy’s recent interlocutors see politics and community inextricably linked in Nancy’s work. Most boldly, Marchant ⁶³ sees ‘Nancy’s theory (or questioning) of community as intrinsically a theory (or questioning) of the political’. ⁶⁴ For Critchley, ‘Nancy is after a post-foundationalist conception of intersubjectivity that will provide a non-essentialist ‘basis’ for a critical ethics and politics’. ⁶⁵ Dikeç concludes that ‘The ontological primacy Nancy accords to an existential sharing of and through space – ‘being with’ rather than ‘being’ – suggests an opening and undermines attempts to ground community in a substantial identity or a given space’. ⁶⁶ That is, community is inherently spatial, and subsequently, as space is political – as Lefebvre and others have repeatedly pointed out – community must then be political.

Dikeç, however, is at pains to not elide politics and community and is rightly cautious of building a politics directly on top of an ontology (or foundation) of community. Dikeç does, however, trace connections between Nancy’s ontology and his rethinking of community. For Dikeç, Nancy’s ‘ontology of the common is not immediately political’. ⁶⁷ Community is only political because of its spatial implications. While stopping short of saying that being-in-common is political, Nancy himself clearly states what is not political: common being – a settled, static, ‘given’ form of togetherness. Rather common being is quite apolitical or anti-political. Common being requires a shutting down of the political. When we conceive of togetherness only as a collection of people who share some characteristic, we totalise that community and ignore its inherent capaciousness. Being-in-common, by contrast, insists that others remain other – despite one’s connection to and reliance on those others – to the extent that without those others one would not be. Without any ipso facto ‘community is political’ statement, we argue community and politics are imbricated through spatiality.

For our purposes here, the reconceiving of community/togetherness as being-in-common, away from common being, is associated with a politics. This, broadly, is a progressive interpretation of the politics of Heidegger’s mitsein, ⁶⁸ ‘along left Heideggerian lines’. ⁶⁹ Barnett varies between the terms ‘Left-Heideggerian thought’, ⁷⁰ and a broader ‘Left ontology’ ⁷¹ : where reconceiving togetherness, space and ontology accompanies a progressive politics. Given Nancy’s understanding of togetherness and politics then, it starts to make sense why interior meditative practices foregrounding co-presence are reported alongside political activism. Nancy’s theoretical argument flows from the primacy that to be is to be with, that one is already with and related to (and towards) others, before one can reflect on oneself as an individual. Thinking and practicing relations within and between self and others differently then, has spatial and political consequences.

The spatial politics of interbeing-in-common

Critiques of the separated individual lie at the root of both strands of spiritual and post-foundationalist thought this article introduced. Being-in-common – highlighting the already existing togetherness one has with others – evokes a close proximity to Engaged Buddhism’s notion of interbeing: ‘I am therefore you are. You are, therefore I am. That is the meaning of the word interbeing. We interare’. ⁷² Buddhist-inspired and post-foundational theories both reject stable existences such as the individual self or a reified form of community. Loy goes on to argue that this is a fundamental convergence of postmodernism (within which we locate post-foundationalism) and Buddhist thought:

For Buddhism there are no self-existing things, since everything including you and me, interpenetrates (interpermeates) everything else, arising and passing away according to causes and conditions. This interconnectedness – not just an intellectual insight but an experience – was an essential aspect of the Buddha’s awakening, and it is congruent with the essential postmodern realization. ⁷³

Being-in-common and interbeing both radically question separated and essential being as such. Stanley, however, alludes to a crucial divergence in observing that interbeing is ‘not the same as saying “everything is connected” or “interconnected” because the word “interconnected” rests upon a “spatial image suggesting a relationship between two or more [distinct] things”’. ⁷⁴ Stanley’s observation sets us on track to carve out the differences between Nancy’s and Hanh’s notions.

For Nancy, things come into existence only through their co-presence: ‘with’ is the spring of their becoming. A plural singularity of being. Interbeing, in contrast, does not permit for plurality in an ontological sense. Buddhist teachings are wary of the separation of self and world – every spacing is a construction of the ego and if not perceived as such leads to (social) dukkha. One might say that for Nancy, spacing and form are co-constitutive, while interbeing rests on a formless spaciousness. The spatiality of community is political in that being-in-common acknowledges difference and plurality. Totalising community as common being in removing any difference within, however, shuts down the political. Does it follow then that interbeing is apolitical?

Mindfulness, as non-judgemental or non-conceptual awareness appears to be fundamentally incompatible with a politics. The spacing of being(s) that makes them others – difference – is a crucial aspect of politics ⁷⁵ and a point of divergence between the two theoretical strands. If every separation is an illusion, difference, plurality, judgement and, hence, politics become impossible. This makes a politics based on mindfulness appear oxymoronic. Yet, being in the world is always accompanied by a politics. Some individuals occupy privileged subject positions, while others are marginalised socially and/or materially. We disagree with each other. By assuming and experiencing the oneness of interbeing while ignorant of the complex social relations one is embedded in, mindfulness can become a post-political tool. ⁷⁶ This is also why there is a stark difference between mindfulness as part of a Western lifestyle and as part of an ascetic, or better, resource-poor monastic lifestyle. Against this background, Rowe’s claim for the need to embed mindfulness in social movements to generate lasting systemic change emerges as central tenet of a transformative mindfulness.

It would be short-sighted, however, to dismiss interbeing as irrelevant for a transformative politics. Unlike the post-political tendencies in reifying community as common being, interbeing does not subsume difference under a singular form or an essence. It does not level difference as much as it works on a different register altogether that eludes the level of conceptual thought. Challenging the separateness of the practitioner’s self, mindfulness opens towards the formless spatiality of interbeing which transcends the duality of self and world. Instead of comparing being-in-common and interbeing, then, both notions should be seen as referring to different moments of a transformative mindfulness.

Politics requires (conceptual) pluralism to allow for value judgements and (antagonistic) difference. Considering the severity and immediacy of environmental crises and social injustices, a politics is needed that takes a stand against exploitation and extinction. Being-in-common accords ontological primacy to co-existence, repoliticising togetherness. Mindfulness supports the cultivation of such a post-individualistic ethics which aims foremost at alleviating ‘‘ordinary’ obvious suffering’ [dukkha-dukkha]. ⁷⁷ However, when taking seriously the Buddhist teachings as expressed through the notion of interbeing, politics in a conventional sense is insufficient in tackling the root causes of dukkha. Viparinama-dukkha and sankhara-dukkha ‘feed endless fuel’ ⁷⁸ to social relations of dominion. Practices of non-dual mindfulness, in this perspective, are a key part in the transformation of institutionalised greed, ill will and ignorance and thus might provide a path to end social dukkha. ⁷⁹ Thinking the role of mind-body practices in community activism simultaneously through the notions of being-in-common and interbeing lays bare a mindful politics that operates in the (conceptual) space of form while pointing towards the formless spaciousness beyond. Interbeing-in-common can be a step to theorise the variegated politics of mindfulness and grasp the complex geographies a profound transformation would entail – taking seriously both traditions this article has introduced.

Conclusion

Recent geographic work has contributed to understanding ‘how everyday spaces . . . can be transformed through specific practices such as prayer and meditation that contribute to personal spirituality’. ⁸⁰ Here, we argue that mind-body practices, specifically those self-described as mindfulness, can offer an instrumental and integral way activists can further their activist aims. Instrumentally, this is through steeling the personal self to be more resilient in the face of the challenges their activism faces. Integrally, the non-dual and prefigurative character of these practices coheres with their activism, despite ostensible differences in orientation.

In the article, we differentiate between instrumental and integral uses of mindfulness practices. While neither are wholly negative nor positive, we would place the critical geographic work ⁸¹ on the enrolment of mindfulness as a neoliberal(ised) technique as instrumental. While this critical work is important and necessary, we would also like to see more research done on the ways in which spiritual practices such as mindfulness can be adopted in an integral manner, and used to further the prefigurative aims of social and environmental movements for change.

Here, we have tried to outline some potential theoretical connections integrally taking account of mindfulness might have for any theory of change. We see the non-dual heritage of both mindfulness and post-foundationalist theories of togetherness neatly dovetailing. Connections can also be found empirically, for instance, in the circuitous route of Buddhist-inspired influences on the environmentalist movement, through, for instance, Gary Snyder or Joanna Macy. ⁸² However, we also note important points of divergence, surrounding their conceptualisation of space, politics, and togetherness. Being-in-common (undergirding geographical understandings of socio-environmental movements for change) asserts that the ‘with’ of being-with ‘is not simply an addition’ but rather that which ‘constitutes Being’ ⁸³ – plurality. ⁸⁴ Interbeing (undergirding mindfulness), by contrast, indicates that every separation, and plurality itself, is an illusion and thus calling forth an ambiguous relation with (transformative) politics. Accordingly, the activists and eco-social organisations in our research differently engage in a politics of negotiating the coordinates of co-existence – using mindfulness rather instrumentally to make these interventions more effective and challenging the separateness of being(s) itself. Carving out the distinct spatialities of these relations, this article sheds light on the complex but by no means coincidental co-occurrence of mindfulness and activism.

While this article shows that there are good political and ontological reasons why mindfulness and community-based activism co-appear, we cannot go further and say this correlation can be put down to any causal factor. We end the article then with a call for greater appreciation of, and studies into, the role spiritual practices such as mindfulness play within social movements. Not just to note and describe these, but to analyse the spatial, political, and collective implications of spiritual practices.