Psychology's own mindfulness: Ellen Langer and the social politics of scientific interest in "active noticing".

Ellen Langer's mindfulness construct is presented as "indigenous" to disciplinary psychology. Langer's early work laid the foundations for the research program she would come to call the psychology of possibility. Studying inattentive behavior (mindlessness) and intentionally reflective cognition (mindfulness) placed her work directly in line with the theoretical priorities of the 1970s and influenced the direction of research in several subdisciplines related to social cognition. Positioning Langer's work at an intersection crossed by various discourse communities in psychology explains much of its influence within the discipline. However, its relevance is additionally related to a broader field of research and application also employing the terminology of mindfulness. While superficially synonymous, the majority of mindfulness research is distinguished from Langer's due to differences in origination, definition, and goals. Comparative assessments are used as a lens through which to interrogate the social politics of mindfulness theories' burgeoning success over the past half century.

Adding historical depth to definitions of mindfulness.

Research on Mindfulness-Based Interventions (MBI) is hampered by semantic ambiguity surrounding the term 'mindfulness'. Understanding the core quality involved in such research could be improved by adding historical depth to definitions of mindfulness, based on more detailed information on mindfulness from text-historical and doctrinal sources in the Buddhist traditions. Particular applications of mindfulness in current clinical usage could be compared to related approaches or doctrinal teachings in Buddhist traditions as part of an ongoing cross-disciplinary dialogue between academics in Buddhist studies and in psychology under the shared aim of deepening our understanding of what mindfulness involves and how it operates.

When mindfulness is therapy: Ethical qualms, historical perspectives.

In the past 20 years, mindfulness therapeutic programs have moved firmly into the mainstream of clinical practice and beyond. As they have, we have also seen the development of an increasingly vocal critique. At issue is often less whether or not these mindfulness practices "work," and more whether there is a danger in dissociating them from the ethical frameworks for which they were originally developed. Mindfulness, the argument goes, was never supposed to be about weight loss, better sex, helping children perform better in school, helping employees be more productive in the workplace, or even improving the functioning of anxious, depressed people. It was never supposed to be a merchandized commodity to be bought and sold. The larger clinical and religious community, however, has not always been troubled by the idea that (PsycINFO Database Record

The contemporary mindfulness movement and the question of nonself1.

Mindfulness-based stress reduction (MBSR), mindfulness-based cognitive therapy (MBCT), and other "mindfulness"-based techniques have rapidly gained a significant presence within contemporary society. Clearly these techniques, which derive or are claimed to derive from Buddhist meditational practices, meet genuine human needs. However, questions are increasingly raised regarding what these techniques meant in their original context(s), how they have been transformed in relation to their new Western and global field of activity, what might have been lost (or gained) on the way, and how the entire contemporary mindfulness phenomenon might be understood. The article points out that first-generation mindfulness practices, such as MBSR and MBCT, derive from modernist versions of Buddhism, and omit or minimize key aspects of the Buddhist tradition, including the central Buddhist philosophical emphasis on the deconstruction of the self. Nonself (or no self) fits poorly into the contemporary therapeutic context, but is at the core of the Buddhist enterprise from which contemporary "mindfulness" has been abstracted. Instead of focussing narrowly on the practical efficacy of the first generation of mindfulness techniques, we might see them as an invitation to explore the much wider range of practices available in the traditions from which they originate. Rather, too, than simplifying and reducing these practices to fit current Western conceptions of knowledge, we might seek to incorporate more of their philosophical basis into our Western adaptations. This might lead to a genuine and productive expansion of both scientific knowledge and therapeutic possibilities.