An Ocean Without a Tide: Dalai Lama and Dislocation of Cultural Hegemony (Part I)

June 16, 2010 - The Fourteenth Dalai Lama, Tenzin Gyatso, holds a press conference condemning any “violence” conducted by the Sea Shepherd conservation society. Shortly after, he hails his host country India, for maintaining “harmony” for over 1,000 years 1.

When did non-violence become the pervading ideology for Buddhism? Considering the history of the Fourteenth Dalai Lama’s Gelugpa (“Yellow Hat”) tradition of Vajrayana Buddhism; violence was an effective tool used to spread Buddhism throughout Asia. The title “Dalai Lama” (“Ocean of Wisdom”) itself was given to the Third Dalai Lama, Sonam Gyatso, by the former Mongolian King Altan Khan who made Buddhism Mongolia’s religion and reigned terror throughout China during the Ming Dynasty 2 (not to mention the grandfather of the Fourth Dalai Lama Yonten Gyatso 3).

Ironically enough, the Fourteenth Dalai Lama himself advocated violence with the creation of the guerrilla cadre Chushi Gangdruk during the 1959 Tibetan Uprisings to halt Chinese occupation as well as to escape his own country4. More recently, he’s made great efforts to suppress followers of the saint Dorje Shugden 5, who was used as an oracle for his own escape from Tibet.

Many in the West have looked at the current Dalai Lama with great honor and praise; a messenger of peace and a beacon towards an altruistic, non-violent world. This message is also proclaimed from a somehow non-ego 6 manner surrounded by security personnel from both exiled Tibet and the government of India, 7 in sold-out stadiums across the globe (of course there’s no ego attached when you’re giving a speech to a packed stadium) 8,9,10.

The harm seems to be his ideological persistence towards non-violence, going as far as to say that “Violence is against human nature…” (I suppose he never looked around him) and that he would resign from his position if the uprisings in Lhasa didn’t stop back in July, 2008 11.

Conversely, the Sea Shepherd Conservation Society has saved thousands of lives through direct actions campaigns (which were ambiguously labeled “violent” by the current Dalai Lama, when not one life has been lost); condemning them publicly in Japan (the country where the illegal poachers are protected), serving as a great disservice to the Sea Shepherd Conservation Society and other groups whose aim is to stop the suffering and slaughter of endangered marine life. It’s this seduction to such extremes that keeps the everlasting Wheel of Suffering and contradiction to turn. Yet the buck doesn’t stop there.

In a July, 2009 Reuters article, the Dalai Lama expressed the importance of free-market capitalism and the benefits it has on multiculturalism; negating its most implicit violent ramifications (human/non-human exploitation, ecological degradation, cultural extinction, stratification, alienation, etc), adding that “Profit is a fine aim…”12. It’s the position of ideological cohesion of non-secular moral consciousness towards capitalism is what solidifies Mao Zedong’s infamous quote that “religion is poison.” 13 However, it’s not solely religion that is the issue but the ideological construct of non-secularism in compassion towards capitalism (capitalism with a human(e) face).

Nevertheless, the discontent towards the Fourteenth Dalai Lama isn’t solely the fact of an overt moral contradiction (though it is apparent) but more so the misguided agency and location projected as a spiritual figure of Buddhism.

Within Mahayana Buddhism, the emphasis of the teacher is extremely imperative; however, when there is such an internal contradiction, there is also a lack substantial validity to the teachings. In this scenario, the location of agency has been displaced into a self-attached, self-projected ideology that has transitioned into cultural hegemony.

Street Art: The End of Subversion

What once was symbolic of social rebellion is now another form commodity. Subversive tags, stencils, or murals spray painted on walls, only to be captured on camera, sold at posh art galleries or reproduced to hang in some college dorm. Simulacrum of the Spectacle.

Shepard Fairey, one of the golden boys of the street art world. Famous for his co-option of the slogan "OBEY" from John Carpenter's 1988 cult classic film, They Live with the imagery of Andre the Giant hovering above, redefined the aesthetic landscape for 90's street art. However, with time, Fairey has become anything but subversive and has fallen into being another commodity fetish. Whether if it's suing for copyright violations 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, confusing romantic portrayal of revolutionaries and reformists 6, 7, 8, marketing prints, the OBEY clothing line, or his magnum opus Hope poster; one can't really take anything antagonistic or serious about Fairey. Nevertheless, Shepard Fairey is the testament of how capitalism's post-ideological materialization has pervaded to what once was perceived as reactionary, now a household name. Interestingly enough, the buck doesn't stop there.

One could perceive street art as the liberation of an architectural aesthetic from the confines of a specific landscape as well as a reaction to legal jurisprudence within the constructs of property (property damage, vandalism, etc). Therefore, street art acts as an agency of antagonism in regards to the State. However, displacement to its original location, juxtaposed to a location of tolerance and acceptance, negates its ideological placement. The manifestation of this phenomena is designated legal graffiti walls, art shows displaying the simulacra-ed art, marketing of reproductions, etc. Nevertheless, amongst the dead there is still a glimpse of sunshine.

If there was an executioner for the consumer/capitalist driven, anti-intellectual, bohegoisie, it would be the Krylon® crusader Banksy. Culture jamming around the world and propagating an anti-capitalist, anti-consumer spirit (while maintaining to keep it "real" and illegal), giving life to a "dying art".

In his latest antic, Banksy made a film entitled Exit Through the Gift Shop, which brings insight to the devolution of street art and the egotistical trauma of those who fell victim to it. Knowing Banksy's antics, the viewer is left uncertain whether or not Mr. Brainwash (the movies center character) is fabricated and apart of the farce or is he an actual victim. The brilliance of the film isn't the factor of an egotistical artist being "humiliated" by the seduction of capitalism. On the contrary, Banksy's utilization of Mr. Brainwash was extremely strategic in exposing the absurdity of the street art movement. In one part of the film, Banksy states on camera, "I used to encourage everyone I knew to make art; I don't do that anymore. " This is a beautiful critique of the current post-ideological location street art resides in.

Like an unoriginal zine, street art has fallen victim to the abstraction of absurdity (as well as the the absurdity of abstraction). In it's D.I.Y. spirit, it has left people to "create their own canvas" but mistakenly create something that is as boring as their pretentious, fixed-gear lives (a stencil of two unicorns fucking serves only as a sight of sore eyes). With redundancy and replication, the artist(s) is not only the victim of their own farce but also fixed to the naivete of their social construct. Ideological displacement.

So what's the future of street art? How would something so brilliant (and later fall victim to its own ends) break free from its post-ideological debacle? As of now, the answer is as blank as the walls it left bare.

The Karate Kid: Multiculturalism Without a Race

If there was a movie that would reflect the ideology of multiculturalism, it would be Harald Zwart’s remake of the Karate Kid. Whether if it’s the film’s title (an instructional video of Karate is the only glimpse of the Japanese martial art), the non-existence of racial tension, or the homogeneity of the protagonists, the Karate Kid provides the misalignment that pervades multiculturalism.

Dre Parker, played by Jaden Smith, is a character that is displaced from his home of Detroit, Michigan to move to Beijing, China where his mother has found a new job. Throughout the whole film Dre encounters agencies of antagonism within language, culture, and the social. He cannot communicate with anyone because of ignorance towards the Chinese language, he is unaware of mandatory uniforms, and is perplexed by the channels on the television (Sponge Bob Square Pants in Mandarin). The breaking point for Dre is when he’s attacked by bullies who badly beat him when he attempts to talk to his love interest Mei Ying, played by Wen Wen Han.

With the utopian ideology of multiculturalism, the bullies never once confront Dre for being a foreigner or Black for that matter. This symbolic misrepresentation negates to realize an Other in relation to race but projects the placement of an Other that is completely dislocated to an actual representation besides possible teenage angst. This displacement is the ideological distraction of a false modus operandi to the viewer (males from the ages of 8-15), giving the semblance of a Symbolic, distanced from any realistic social antagonism (race, culture, sex, religion, gender, etc).

The cohesive mediator of the protagonists’ homogeneity is the coincidental comprehension of the English language. It could be argued that further alienation projected towards the antagonists is from their non-comprehension of the English language. This widens the gap of empathy and sets the ideological location of an Other.

Interestingly enough, Chakie Chan’s role as Mr. Han, the apartment complex's maintenance man, could be perceived as an ideological contradiction. Working class man that is disconnected from any social life due to a traumatic loss of his family yet is somehow fully fluent in the English language. Of course, it could be argued that he could have comprehension from working with Westerners but encountering even working class Chinese immigrants in America, this reality is pure fabrication. Nevertheless, it’s obvious that the importance of understanding the English language in film, closes the gap of alienation and further empathizing with any transgression displayed by the character.

Of course the perplexing nature of the whole film is the relation between Dre and Mei Ying. After kissing at the festival, in which all festival participants witnessed through their reflection from the puppet show, their action prompted anger amongst Mei Ying’s family, shunning any bond with Dre and Mei Ying. This displacement of anger was intentional and solidified the ideology of multiculturalism, negating any context of racial tension.

Furthermore, the Karate Kid still attached itself to essentialist connotations towards Eastern cultures with exoticism of the orient. This motif was presented when Mr. Han took Dre to the Mountains of Wudang, providing Dre further insight in the human psyche by viewing a relationship between a woman, played by Michelle Yeoh (Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon - who wasn’t credited) and a cobra snake, stating that the snake was emulating the woman, not the other way around (a metaphor of dislocation that is apparent throughout the movie).

The conclusion of the movie is when Dre is participating in the Kung Fu Tournament and like the original, is hurt until the deus ex machina (what Hollywood film is complete without one?) when Dre is saved by Mr. Han’s ability to heal through the art of fire cupping (further exoticism) and inevitably wining the fight (Eurocentricism exposed once again).

So what can be learned from the Karate Kid? Just as any ideology, multiculturalism with all its naiveté can instill a sense of moral righteousness at the same time persist on with a methodology of deception and coercion, creating an idea to something that really isn’t, just like the title, Karate Kid.