Below is an excerpt from my forthcoming book…
© Mahabodhi Burton
10 minute read
Diving into the Preface of ‘The Buddhas and Global Governance,’ this excerpt digs into the intricate dynamics of compassion and its adversaries. Building upon the narrative of ‘ The Twitter Files,’ it navigates through the suspension of Jordan Peterson from Twitter, shedding light on the complexities surrounding bringing the right amount of compassion to transgender issues. Join me as I embark on a journey towards understanding the nuances of compassion and where the Middle Way lies.
The ‘banning’ of Jordan Peterson from Twitter
The ‘great sin,’ however, on ‘Old Twitter’ was to comment on a transgender issue: as Jordan Peterson found to his cost when he was suspended[1] from Twitter in July 2022 for allegedly violating their rules against hateful conduct. Mikhaila Peterson said her father would be off the platform until he deleted the tweet. Conservative commentator David Rubin commented on the incident,
“The insanity continues at Twitter. @jordanbpeterson has been suspended for this tweet about Ellen Page. He just told me he will ‘never’ delete the tweet. Paging @elonmusk.”’ [2]
only to be suspended himself, at which,
‘Rubin and Mikhaila called on Tesla CEO Elon Musk – who recently bid $44 billion to take the platform over in efforts to promote free speech.’[3]
Musk eventually took over Twitter in October 2022.
‘The crime’
Peterson had claimed in a tweet on 24 June 2022 that ‘The Umbrella Academy’ star Elliot Page, who formerly went by the name of Ellen, and who had announced his transition in December 2020, had his ‘breast removed by a criminal Physician.’[4] Peterson had said ‘her’ instead of ‘his,’ tweeting,
‘Remember when pride was a sin? And Ellen Page just had her breasts removed by a criminal physician.’[5] (Emphasis added)
Peterson explains his thinking behind the tweet:
‘Page is a star, and she advertised her transformation and made the claim that this is revolutionized her life and then she displayed her new body in a public forum and got 1.7 Instagram likes for it, and probably enticed, let’s say, one young girl who is confused into becoming sterile, which is one too many for me.’[6]
Peterson’s tweet, along with other controversial tweets and statements in interviews, led the Ontario College of Psychologists to order him to undertake a social media coaching program; he appealed the decision, and lost:[7]
‘Dr. Peterson is subject to regulation by the College of Psychologists of Ontario, which received complaints about Dr. Peterson’s public statements. Following an investigation into those of Dr. Peterson’s statements alleged to be “transphobic, sexist, [and] racist,” the College’s Inquiries, Complaints and Reports Committee (ICRC) ordered Dr. Peterson to complete a specified continuing education or remedial program regarding professionalism in public statements.
‘Dr. Peterson sought judicial review of this decision. The Divisional Court denied his application, finding that the ICRC’s decision was reasonable and proportionately balanced the College’s statutory mandate, including the protection of the public interest, with Dr. Peterson’s Charter right to freedom of expression. Dr. Peterson’s lawyers have publicly stated his intention to file for leave to appeal the decision to the Ontario Court of Appeal.’[8]
Peterson responded passionately to the court’s judgement, tweeting:
‘So the Ontario Court of Appeal ruled that @CPOntario can pursue their prosecution. If you think that you have a right to free speech in Canada, you’re delusional. I will make every aspect of this public, and we will see what happens when utter transparency is the rule. Bring it on.’[9]
Such a judgement, Peterson claims, has a chilling effect on all professional classes: who now must think twice before airing their opinions in public.
Understanding Transgender activists
In a Foundation for Economic Education article,[10] Patrick Carroll says, ‘It’s easy to vilify trans-activists, but if we want to dissuade them from cancelling people, it’s important to understand where they’re coming from.’[11] The most likely objection Twitter had to the Tweets in question is that Peterson and Rubin both referred to now-Elliott Page using the person’s former name: Peterson says:
“I committed the fatal crime of what has come to be known in the appalling censorial terminology of the insane activists as ‘deadnaming,’” said[12] Peterson, “which is the act of referring to someone who has ‘transitioned’—another hated piece of jargon and slogan—by the name, and by the inference, the gender, really the sex, that everyone knew them by previously.”
‘This, it seems, is the crux of the issue.
‘According to many trans-activists, deadnaming can be incredibly hurtful to people who have transitioned. It reminds them of the person they used to be, the identity from which they’ve escaped, and even that simple reminder can take a huge psychological toll. [13]
A demand, not a request
Carroll says that ‘if trans-activists were merely pointing this out and encouraging people to be respectful, there would likely be little problem;’[14] just as when we might cease to use a nickname because it makes our friend uncomfortable or raise a sensitive topic when they indicate clearly that they don’t want to talk about it.
‘The problem, of course, is that many trans-activists don’t stop there. Instead of a respectful request, the exhortation to abide by the ever-evolving political correctness rules comes as a demand, and there are steep consequences, such as cancelling, for those who don’t comply.’[15]
Compassion and Cancel Culture
Carroll proposes that the motivation of the activists is compassion: he alludes to a mother bear lashing out at an aggressor to protect her cubs; he says: this kind of compassion often isn’t a bad thing; people in positions of power do cause harm; and there are circumstances where it’s entirely appropriate to call out bullies and defend victims: compassion has its place.
‘The problem is, compassion can be taken too far. Cancelling people over names and pronouns is a clear example;’[16] and cites others.
The people who promote these things often mean well: but, to the extent that their obsession with compassion is misguided, ‘they often end up causing far more problems than they solve.’[17]
A Middle Way in Compassion
Carroll thinks that the path to peace in the Culture War lies in a middle way between the extremes of too much and too little compassion:
‘we shouldn’t have so much compassion that we cancel and attack everyone who is deemed a perpetrator. For one, that approach will likely backfire, because it’s only a matter of time before we are all labelled perpetrators.’[18]
Also,
‘cancelling people is antithetical to a genuine tolerance of diverse viewpoints.’[19]
He says that the LGBTQ activists, of all people, should appreciate the value of such tolerance: it was the very tolerance of diversity–along with a culture of free speech–that allowed them to get their ideas into mainstream culture in the first place.
‘It would be incredibly hypocritical for them, having championed free speech as a means of advancing their cause, to suddenly turn their backs on it now that their detractors also have something to say.’[20]
Equally it would be wrong to neglect compassion and act as if deadnaming didn’t matter.
With free speech comes responsibility
Carroll cites John F. Kennedy, who said,
‘The protection of our rights can endure no longer than the performance of our responsibilities,’
which for Carroll implies that the right to free speech comes with the responsibility to speak judiciously; he says, if you want people to let you speak freely, you should at least consider their requests: whether you do acquiesce to their demands will depend on the context:
‘you shouldn’t simply dismiss the voice of compassion, no matter how shrill it may sound.’[21]
Concerning ‘requests and demands,’ I am reminded here of the work of Marshal Rosenberg: in Non-Violent Communication the interlocutor is always encouraged to make (and hear!) a request rather than a demand: ‘shrill’ sounds more like a demand, although we could try and hear it as a request.
‘The goal, then, is to get to a place where cancelling and scoffing are replaced with dialogue and understanding, tolerance and respect. It won’t be easy, but if we commit ourselves to this process, we can create a society where compassion and free speech can both be celebrated and fostered.’[22]
In fact, this is what Buddhism attempts with its four speech precepts.
Compassion and its ‘enemies’
Buddhism has quite a sophisticated understanding of the family of emotions which constitute compassion, including its near and far enemies. Much of what passes for compassion today is mere indulgence: as when we support an alcoholic or drug addict in their addiction; the Tibetan teacher Chogyam Trungpa had a term for this kind of activity: ‘Idiot Compassion.’ The technical term for justifying or indirectly supporting someone else’s potentially harmful behavior is ‘enabling.’ True compassion quickly recognizes such ‘support’ as a form of self-serving sentimentality and refrains from it; ‘tough love,’ which can be an aspect of compassion, on the other hand, might encourage the addict to ‘face their demons:’ through engaging in a structured programme with a mentor and peer group to guide them through, such as The 12 Steps of Alcoholics Anonymous.
For true compassion to be present, three conditions need to be met:
The giver
Firstly, the ‘giver’ (of compassion) needs to be in full contact with the reality of themselves: they need to be coming from a place of groundedness and self-knowledge. We might say they possess a certain wisdom; not practicing compassion from a place of lack, or in order to feel better about themselves–in fact, the more ‘self’ is out of the picture, the better (Virtue-signallers pay attention!,) they practice compassion from a place of resource.
The receiver
Secondly, the giver needs to be in full contact with the reality of the ‘receiver:’ the person they are responding to: they need to be coming from a place of true awareness (of that person.) My teacher Sangharakshita has an aphorism, ‘Love is awareness of the being of another person.’ We need, therefore, to be as fully aware of the object of our compassion as we can: in the particulars of their situation; in the reality of them being a living entity in need of kindness and care, rather than something instrumental to our needs. And we need to keep this awareness of the person and their situation as vivid and alive as we can; and not let it drift.
The connection between the two
Thirdly, we need to forge and maintain a live connection and building energy between these two realities: as we continue to maintain not only the connection between subject and object, or between ‘giver’ (as source of wisdom) and ‘receiver’ (as object of compassion,) but also the emotional energy between them.
Compassion (Sanskrit / Pali: karuna) is an emotion; and emotions are often concerned with ‘what we want.’ The important Buddhist emotion of universal loving kindness (Sanskrit:maitri; Pali:metta) is ‘wanting the welfare of all sentient beings;’ compassion is metta’s response to suffering. With both metta and karuna all three above conditions need to be in place: the giver needs to be genuine and rooted; the receiver needs to be seen fully in their situation (including seen fully in their real suffering, if compassion is in play) and there needs to be a growing emotional strength of connection between giver and receiver. All emotion exists on a spectrum of intensity: we can want a thing mildly; or we can be completely passionate about bringing it about. Just so with metta and karuna: they are said to be illimitable: there is no limit to how intensely they might be felt.
The power of compassion then is that it brings to bear passionate emotion onto a real situation (of suffering) in a way that is resourced and genuine. Keeping all three factors in play at the same time is difficult, which is why compassion can be an uphill struggle. If we let any one of these three elements go, then the creative conditions and tension necessary for true compassion can be lost.
We might illustrate this with an analogy: think of a guitar string, attached at the body and at the neck of the guitar: unless the string is ‘pinned down’ at both ends (namely, in terms of compassion: there is a grounded and resourced ‘giver’ and an accurately perceived ‘receiver’) and unless the string is plucked or struck (in terms of compassion: there is emotional energy between the two,) there will be no sound.
Near enemies of compassion
In Buddhist terminology a near enemy of a mental state is a state which appears to be the real thing but isn’t; a far enemy is its opposite: there are therefore four possibilities when we try to cultivate compassion
- True compassion(Skt. karuna)
- The near enemy of ‘Sentimental Pity’
- The near enemy of ‘Horrified Anxiety’
- The far enemy of ‘Cruelty’:
Sentimental pity
This is what happens when we ‘let go’ at the ‘receiver pole.’ We might be grounded and resourced at the ‘giver’ pole and have strength of feeling and energy in our practice, but the string attached to the neck of the guitar is ‘not really pinned down:’ that is, we don’t have an accurate view of the person we are responding to. We drift into a kind of idealization of the person, seeing them as some kind of ‘abstract object’ in need of help; such sentimentality therefore seldom leads to our helping the person in a way that makes a difference: in fact, what we give them is often unwise. We see this when someone enables an addict by providing them with resources for their addiction: such as money for alcohol. Or today, where California seemingly throws vast amounts of money at the Fentanyl and homelessness crisis, which only seems to get worse.[23]
More often than not what transpires with sentimental pity is a kind of tokenism: often accompanied by demands concerning how other people should be helping that person more. Interest often centres on the person’s compassionate image of themselves: it is ‘all about them.’
Horrified Anxiety
This is what happens when we ‘let go’ at the ‘giver pole.’ We might be well connected with the person’s suffering and have strength of feeling and energy in our practice, but: particularly when the suffering is intense or widespread, as it can be today, looking at the global news, unless we are really grounded, the intensity of the suffering can become too much; and it can ‘blow us away.’ We become overwhelmed by anxiety. As a remedy, we need to become more in touch with a grounded and calm centre within ourselves: to perhaps withdraw and concentrate on rebuild our inner resources.
Cruelty
Where the far enemy of metta is ‘hatred,’ the far enemy of compassion is ‘cruelty,’ which is the mental state that arises when we direct hatred towards a person who is suffering: we delight in their suffering and want them to suffer more. This is no doubt what happens when we are connected neither at the ‘giver’ or ‘receiver’ pole. There is a certain ungrounded randomness in cruelty: we see this is psychopaths. the ‘giver’ is neither grounded in a healthy way within themselves, nor are they at all in touch with the reality of the suffering of the ‘receiver.’ The cruel person may, though, have energy for their cruelty; maybe they see suffering as an abstract lesson to be taught to others: a way, perhaps, of drawing attention to their own suffering.
We need to bear these variations (in compassion) in mind when we come to assess the emotions trans activists and their supporters are engaging in: probably a mixture of all four.
The chapter goes on to explore the Middle Way between extremes.
[1] Patrick Carroll. ‘Peterson, Rubin Suspended from Twitter as the Culture War Heats Up.’ Fee. 6 July 2022.
https://fee.org/articles/peterson-rubin-suspended-from-twitter-as-the-culture-war-heats-up/
[2] Vanessa Serna. ‘Dr. Jordan Peterson is suspended from Twitter after tweeting that Umbrella Academy star Elliot Page had his ‘breasts removed by a criminal physician’ Daily Mail. 1 July 2022 Vanessa Serna. ‘Dr. Jordan Peterson is suspended from Twitter after tweeting that Umbrella Academy star Elliot Page had his ‘breasts removed by a criminal physician’ Daily Mail. 1 July 2022.
[3] Ibid.
[4] Ibid.
[5] Ibid.
[6] ‘Ontario court rules against Jordan Peterson over social media training.’ Trending Now. YouTube. 24 August 2023. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H6OmPqCAU4Q
[7] Ibid.
[8] Lily MacLeod. ‘Lessons from Jordan Peterson’s “Off Duty” Tweets – Regulating Professionals who Post on Social Media.’ Fasken. 15 November 2023.
[9] ‘JBP Reacts to Court Decision.’ Jordan B. Peterson. YouTube. 24 August 2023. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v_o8goN6FOA
[10] ‘Peterson, Rubin Suspended from Twitter as the Culture War Heats Up.’
[11] Ibid.
[12] ‘Article: Twitter Ban.’ Jordan B. Peterson. YouTube. 1 July 2022.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UYfKWQqvFac
[13] ‘Peterson, Rubin Suspended from Twitter as the Culture War Heats Up.’
[14] Ibid.
[15] Ibid.
[16] Ibid.
[17] Ibid.
[18] Ibid.
[19] Ibid.
[20] Ibid.
[21] Ibid.
[22] Ibid.
[23] Nick Watt. ‘California has spent billions to fight homelessness. The problem has gotten worse.’ CNN. 11 July 2023. https://cnn.it/48x74L2
Users Today : 99
Users Yesterday : 23
This Month : 557
Total Users : 13984
