[alecbenzer]

> I've seen it suggested in other articles here before that mindfulness programs for employees are often a way for employers to try and get their staff to be more accepting of crappy conditions, or unpleasant, meaningless or unethical work.

I'm not sure I buy this. I suppose it's true that being better able to tolerate unpleasant situations does mean you might put up with them for longer. And while meditating, yes, the goal is to not react to things you're feeling.

But for me, a big benefit of mindfulness is more clarity on where my emotions are coming from. I'd sometimes feel tense, or upset, or nervous, but couldn't even really notice I was feeling that way, let alone why I was feeling that way.

I think clarity there generally helps people change their conditions more than it urges them to just accept them.

[tomhoward]

> But for me, a big benefit of mindfulness is more clarity on where my emotions are coming from

That's what I'd say about the emotional work I do, so I'm not criticising that kind of work if that is the actual outcome, and if it leads to more authentic perception of one's surroundings and increased ability to make decisions that are best for one's self and the world long-term.

I'm just questioning whether that really is the outcome or indeed the intention for programs branded as "mindfulness" in workplaces, schools, etc.

[jka]

How would you encourage genuine mindfulness in an organization without opening up this kind of concern/criticism of the potential motivations behind it?

I think in many cases it's a valid criticism - perhaps due to practitioners who don't communicate how to apply mindfulness clearly, or staff who fail to understand the true goals and attempt to use it to suppress complaints and problems.

[savolai]

My understanding is that there is an actual definition and research of mindfulness that can be used to evaluate and I guess even benchmark whether a given program actually is using the methods as intended?

[tomhoward]

Can you point to any links to details of what you mean?

[grasshopperpurp]

>I think clarity there generally helps people change their conditions more than it urges them to just accept them.

It can work either way. Any mental approach can be used for clarity and motivation or as an opiate - or something worse (justification for harm, etc.). It depends on what you emphasize. For kids in school, they're probably not going to be able to change their own conditions, particularly at school.

I've experienced both in myself. Meditation, discovery, and self reflection helped me deal with very bad work situations, but it also eventually made it clear where balance was lacking and the motivation to find better balance, which is very difficult in the US (and I'm sure most of the world).

I also think there's a big difference between wanting it for yourself and having it pushed on you. If I didn't seek it out but instead had school or work force it down my throat, I doubt I would have benefited much from it. I'm sure there are kids and adults who were ready for it anyway, so when it was forced on them, they scooped it up and ran, but I doubt that's the typical experience. Balance is different for different people, because we're all off balance in different ways, so I might need to learn a little this way or a lot that way to find balance, and you may need to lean in the opposite directions. Mindfulness is vague enough to give people room to adjust according to their needs, but in an institutional setting, it will be filtered through the balances of whoever is presenting it. Because some of these approaches helped me, I'm inclined to want other people to experience them, but I also understand that different things work for different people and that I shouldn't expect my experiences to translate to everyone else.