More than a decade ago, psychotherapist Miles Neale coined the term “McMindfulness” to critique the commercialization of mindfulness training. This trend, marketed as a remedy for stress by corporations, schools, and even governments, has sparked a divisive debate within the meditation community. The question at the heart of the matter is whether spreading meditation, regardless of its purpose, is always a positive development.
For Neale, the commercialization of mindfulness oversimplified its potential, reducing it to a quick fix for stress. He likened it to “using a rocket launcher to light a candle.” Ronald Purser, a management professor and Zen teacher, goes even further, labeling McMindfulness as “the new capitalist spirituality.”
Purser argues that mainstreaming mindfulness has not only missed the essence of meditation but has also given rise to a multi-billion-dollar industry. Moreover, by integrating mindfulness into exploitative corporate practices or military operations, it deviates from the ethical principles that underlie meditation.
According to Purser’s 2019 book, McMindfulness undermines collective discontent that could drive workplace changes such as unionization or broader economic reforms. Instead of inspiring collective struggle and reform, it has seemingly become a lubricant for capitalism.
As someone deeply committed to meditation, I believe that stress and suffering often stem from ingrained mental patterns, which meditation can help unravel. However, I contend that companies should address these issues through shorter workweeks or salary increases rather than offering mindfulness apps like Calm Business. Nevertheless, my primary concern lies in the growing interest in corporate mindfulness programs, potentially leading to increased corporate involvement in employees’ mental lives.
Corporations may not be the ideal stewards of mental health. The corporate pursuit of productivity often contributes to worker distress. For instance, Amazon’s implementation of “ZenBooths” for mindfulness videos coexists with a corporate culture that pressures employees to forgo bathroom breaks for fear of losing their jobs. McMindfulness can encourage individuals to internalize stress, obscuring its true source in the external work environment.
One fundamental issue highlighted by the McMindfulness critique is the focus on productivity, which may itself be a significant cause of workplace stress. What if the key to better mental health involves reducing productivity or allowing companies that promote McMindfulness to fade away?
In the early 20th century, economist John Maynard Keynes believed that as economic growth progressed, humanity would free itself from excessive labor and have more time for personal well-being. Unfortunately, this vision hasn’t materialized, with average workweeks remaining largely unchanged for decades. The movement for shorter workweeks is gaining momentum but mainly in industries where it won’t compromise productivity.
To ensure that mindfulness practices align with workers’ well-being, two essential elements are required: worker representation in corporate governance and safety nets providing genuine exit options. Workers’ voices, channeled through unions, sectoral bargaining, or codetermination, can influence the integration of new neurotechnologies or mental health protocols in the workplace.
Moreover, a strengthened social safety net would enable even the most vulnerable workers to leave high-stress situations and seek employment aligned with their values. Reforms such as unemployment insurance, guaranteed income, or separating healthcare from employment can contribute to this goal.
Ultimately, the debate surrounding McMindfulness raises important questions about the future of mental health in the workplace. We must consider whether a mentally healthy workforce is one free from work obligations, allowing individuals to pursue endeavors that truly resonate with their values. Perhaps the future of mental health relies on freedom from the constraints of traditional employment.