Label, state, path: three functions of Buddhist identity

Sociologists of religion have struggled to agree on a taxonomy of Buddhist groups and adherents that can comprehensively account for Buddhism as it exists in both the West and the East: the global Buddhist community is remarkably heterogeneous. A typical solution is to talk of “new” and “ethnic” Buddhists (Coleman 1999) or “convert” and “culture” Buddhists (Numrich 2000), splitting Buddhists into either Western converts or those born into Asian Buddhist households. There are numerous problems with this dichotomy, though, with other theorists proposing a threefold (Prebish 1993) or even fourfold (Tanaka 2007) structure. To date, no consensus has been reached. As part of a wider grounded theory investigation into the psychological processes of conversion to Buddhism in the West, 18 Buddhist practitioners from the North West of England were interviewed about their experiences leading up to and after their contact with Buddhism. It was found that even among this group of ‘new Buddhists’, the notion of a Buddhist identity is far more complex than had previously been suggested, with many long-term practitioners even being uncomfortable with the notion of identifying as Buddhist at all, in spite of a clear commitment to Buddhist practices, traditions and communities. A model of Buddhist identity is proposed that distinguishes three different identity functions: “Buddhist” as a label, “being Buddhist” as state, and Buddhism as a path. Each of these is explored, allowing us to achieve a nuanced understanding of what is involved in being Buddhist in the West. There is some conceptual overlap between this model of identity and the notion of religious orientation, which posits extrinsic and intrinsic religious orientations (Allport & Ross 1967) and a quest orientation (Batson 1983). This more complex understanding of Buddhist identity may not solve the issue of Buddhist taxonomy, but at least helps account for the seeming inability to arrive at a consensus.