"My and Yours"

Buddhism is often depicted as a peaceful religion that is on the opposite side of violence in every occasion because of their mindfulness and interconnectedness with nature and other people.  While none of this is incorrect, there is another side to every story.  Mark Juergensmeyer brings up one such exception in his book, Terror in the Mind of God.  He explains a situation where an offshoot of Japanese Buddhism called Aum Shinrikyo, "released poisonous sarin gas in the Tokyo subway, killing a number of commuters and injuring thousands more." (103)  Sure this kind of act happens far too regularly that we are becoming habituated to these types of acts, but I wish to draw your attention elsewhere to the idea of "ingroup" and "outgroup" characterizing.




As we know, there are two sides to every coin.  Buddhism is no different.  To many, Buddhists could do no wrong and are holy saintlike individuals in our eyes, while others (some of which may have witnessed the Buddhist actions on the Tokyo subway) view Buddhists as violent individuals who are not serving the common good, and are a threat to society.  Still others view Buddhists as "those guys who wear those robe things and chant a lot like those guys from Monty Python."



My point is that people view those within their group ("ingroup members") and those outside of their group ("outgroup members") differently and hereby characterize them differently because of that simple fact that they are in a certain group or not. When a member of the "ingroup" acts in a "good" manner, other members of the "ingroup" are quick to make internalizations about that individual to suggest that the act was a good act because the individual is inherently good.  When a member of the "outgroup" acts in a "good" manner, the "ingroup" is equally quick to make externalizations to suggest that the individual is inherently "bad," but this act is out of the ordinary and must be due to some other force to make it seem good.

Take Mark Juergensmeyer's example:

"The public response to the event was one of shock and disbelief.  It seemed inconceivable that innocent people could be assaulted in such a calculated and vicious manner in what most Japanese regard as the most mundane and reliable aspect of public life: the subway transportation system." (104)  The witnesses aka the "outgroup"  saw the public people as innocent and the manner of attack by the "perpetrators" was vicious.  This was a "bad" action, so these people must be bad.  This said, these individuals were later arrested and sentenced to death. On the other hand, one of the members of Aum Shinrikyo was asked if his master was involved and he responded, "if the master was involved...he must have had a religious reason." (106)  The "ingroup" is quick to make an externalization for the vicious act and maintain the good stature of one of their own.  I am not choosing sides as to which group is correct, I am merely pointing out the different points of view on one situation that stem from the idea of "ingroups" and "outgroups."

These ideas are found in your daily life if you only look around for them.  They are present in your sports rivalries and within your cliches, within your family reunions and favorite country singer.  This idea begs the question of what we can do to eliminate the "ingroup" idea so that we judge individuals by their merit and not their group involvement and I do not have an answer.