“Contemplation, Consciousness and the Academy” belongs to a moment when a set of practices long treated as extra-academic—meditation, silence, breath awareness, reflective attention, even explicitly monastic disciplines—were beginning to seek a legitimate place within higher education. Barbara Sellers-Young’s paper does not approach that emergence as a passing educational fashion, nor as a pious supplement to ordinary study. It asks a prior question: what conception of knowledge has made such practices seem marginal in the first place? The essay’s force lies in the way it relocates contemplation from the edges of spiritual life to the center of an epistemological argument about the academy itself.
Its opening quotation from George Spencer-Brown sets the keynote. “To arrive at the simplest truth,” he writes, requires “years of contemplation,” not “busy behavior,” not “reading,” not “talking,” not even “thinking,” but “simply bearing in mind what it is one needs to know.” Sellers-Young does not simply endorse this as anti-intellectual wisdom. Rather, she uses it to expose a contradiction within modern education: universities celebrate discovery, creativity, and insight, yet often organize their daily practices around forms of attention that inhibit precisely those capacities. In this respect the paper is best read not as a defense of spirituality against scholarship, but as a critique of scholarship when it narrows itself to one style of cognition.
The essay begins with Maria Julia Carozzi’s claim that academic discourse carries forward “western medieval monastic conceptions” of a divided human being: spirit exalted, flesh distrusted. Sellers-Young quotes Carozzi’s sharp formulation that the academy tends to “define the body as something human that does not produce nor perceive discourses.” This is the crucial pressure point. The body is not merely neglected; it is imagined as incapable of participating in thought. Academic life then reproduces this assumption through habitual forms—“writing, reading and silent production of discourses”—that train what Carozzi calls a “selective attention.” Sellers-Young accepts this diagnosis “basically,” but she refuses to leave the matter at critique. Her interest is in a countercurrent within the university, one that has begun to treat contemplative practice as an educational method capable of increasing “body/mind unity” and cultivating “expanded states of attention and consciousness.”
This shift is wholly characteristic of Sellers-Young’s larger intellectual practice. Throughout her work, she resists a simple opposition between the social and the somatic, the institutional and the experiential. Here too, the problem is not merely philosophical abstraction; it is the training of attention through institutions. And the response is not merely personal inwardness; it is the redesign of curricula, fellowships, programs, and classrooms. In other words, the essay treats consciousness not as a private possession but as something historically formed and pedagogically shaped.
The academy’s habits of disembodiment
What Sellers-Young identifies in the modern university is not thought as such but a hierarchy of methods. Tobin Hart’s summary of academic norms crystallizes the issue: “The rational involves calculation, explanation, and analysis; the sensory lives off of observation and measurement.” Taken together, these form “the rational-empirical approach that has set standard for knowledge across most disciplines.” Sellers-Young does not reject this approach. Indeed, one of the paper’s most disciplined features is its refusal of anti-rational rhetoric. Rational and empirical inquiry remain indispensable. What she contests is their monopolistic status. The academy’s difficulty, in her account, is not that it values disciplined thinking, but that it has largely confined discipline to forms of cognition that can be abstracted from the living body.
This point matters because it distinguishes the paper from softer arguments for “balance” or “wellness” in education. Sellers-Young is not saying simply that students are stressed and would benefit from calm. She is making a stronger claim: disembodied models of knowledge are conceptually inadequate because consciousness itself is embodied. If the body contributes to knowing, then educational systems that suppress bodily awareness do not merely leave out a pleasant supplement; they misdescribe the conditions of thought.
The essay’s language repeatedly returns to attention, and with reason. Attention is where institutional form and consciousness meet. Academic culture, as she presents it, does not only privilege certain conclusions; it cultivates certain perceptual habits. It encourages students and faculty to attend selectively: toward abstraction, verbalization, argument, and the evidentiary forms recognized by rational empiricism. Contemplative pedagogy appears here not as mystification but as retraining. It seeks to widen the field of what can be noticed, endured, held in suspension, or understood through sustained concentration.
This concern with attention links the paper directly to Sellers-Young’s broader commitments in somatics and performance pedagogy. Elsewhere she argues that technique is never neutral, that it forms consciousness by shaping the relation between self, body, environment, and action. “Contemplation, Consciousness and the Academy” extends that insight from the studio to the classroom. Reading, lecturing, writing, silence, discussion, and reflection are also techniques. They too produce particular kinds of subjects.
Counterculture, translation, and the academic afterlife of the 1960s
One of the essay’s most useful historical moves is to situate contemplative pedagogy within a longer American encounter with Asian philosophies and practices. Sellers-Young traces this encounter through translated texts, world’s fairs, immigration from China and Japan, and the gradual diffusion of Buddhist and Taoist traditions into U.S. culture. Yet she is clear that such ideas “did not gain wide popular appeal until the 1960s and 70s.” This chronology matters. The rise of contemplation in universities is not treated as an isolated educational reform but as the institutional afterlife of a broader cultural reorientation.
Her account of the 1960s and 1970s is concise but telling. Young Americans, she writes, turned toward Asian religious traditions in part because they no longer felt at home in belief systems “drenched in the polluted stream of the commercialized, competitive, power-hungry West.” They sought forms of transformation that united self, nature, and cosmos without reliance on drugs. The Beatles and Maharishi Mahesh Yogi stand in the essay as emblematic of this search, but Sellers-Young does not reduce the movement to celebrity exoticism. She distinguishes between secularized appropriations of “oriental spirituality,” such as EST, and more sustained participation in Buddhist communities such as the San Francisco Zen Center founded by Shunryu Suzuki.
That distinction is important because it anticipates a tension that runs quietly through the whole paper. Contemplative practice enters the academy through translation, adaptation, and institutionalization. It is made speakable in secular, pedagogical, and scientific terms. This makes it more portable and more publicly legitimate. But it also risks thinning out the historical and religious density of the traditions from which it comes. Sellers-Young does not dwell polemically on this danger, yet she never presents contemplation as a free-floating universal technique. Her historical narrative keeps visible the cultural pathways—Asian religious communities, immigrant transmission, countercultural disillusionment, later academic programs—through which these practices arrive.
In the context of her career, this historical tact matters. Sellers-Young is a scholar acutely alert to intercultural borrowing and its ethical limits. In her work on belly dance, Japanese performance, and actor training, she repeatedly shows that forms do not travel intact; they pass through desire, fantasy, market structures, pedagogy, and new bodies. “Contemplation, Consciousness and the Academy” does not foreground appropriation as its central issue, but the paper is shaped by the same methodological caution. Asian traditions are neither romanticized as pure antidotes to the West nor treated as interchangeable techniques for academic self-improvement. They are part of a history of seeking, misunderstanding, institutionalization, and translation.
Institutions as carriers of consciousness
The essay’s middle sections are especially strong on the institutional mechanisms that helped contemplative pedagogy move from marginal experiment to recognizable academic movement. Sellers-Young attends not only to ideas but to infrastructures: universities, foundations, conferences, fellowship programs, and public discourse. This emphasis prevents the argument from becoming merely aspirational. It shows how alternate forms of knowing require organizational support if they are to enter the academy on any durable basis.
California Institute of Integral Studies and Naropa University appear as early models in which contemplation is not an auxiliary exercise but foundational to the institution’s self-conception. CIIS describes itself as expanding “the boundaries of traditional degree programs” through “interdisciplinary, cross-cultural, and applied studies” for those committed to transforming “themselves and the world.” Naropa, “Buddhist-inspired, ecumenical and nonsectarian,” becomes especially significant in Sellers-Young’s telling because it places contemplative practice at the heart of creative writing and the arts. The phrase she quotes is revealing: contemplative practice “unlocks the power of deep inward observation,” making available “a wellspring of knowledge about the nature of mind, self and other that has been largely overlooked by traditional, Western-oriented liberal education.” The issue, again, is not devotional allegiance but epistemic range.
Sellers-Young then turns to the Fetzer Institute and the Center for Contemplative Mind in Society, which together form the paper’s most important account of how contemplation became legible to mainstream academia. Fetzer’s founding premise—that global problems cannot be solved by political, social, and economic strategies alone, but require psychological and spiritual transformation—gives the movement its broad civilizational ambition. The Center operationalizes that ambition through a deliberately expansive definition of contemplation. Sellers-Young carefully catalogs its “meditation tree”: “stillness practices” such as silence and centering prayer; “movement practices” including walking meditation, t’ai chi, and contemplative movement; “creation process practices” such as singing and brushwork; “activist practices,” “generative practices,” “ritual/cyclical practices,” and “relational practices” grounded in dialogue and deep listening.
This taxonomy matters for more than descriptive completeness. It tacitly revises what the academy is willing to recognize as disciplined mental work. Contemplation is not reduced to silent sitting. It can be mobile, artistic, communal, ritualized, even politically engaged. That breadth resonates strongly with Sellers-Young’s own anti-Cartesian commitments. Bodies think not only in stillness but in movement, relation, and artistic process. A contemplative classroom need not look monastic in a narrow sense; it can include practices of listening, design, making, walking, and sustained sensory attention.
The Contemplative Practice Fellowships, founded in 1997 with ACLS and Fetzer support, are perhaps the paper’s clearest example of contemplation being recoded as pedagogical method. Sellers-Young quotes the Center’s statement that a “fully democratic society requires a system of higher education that trains students for reflective insight as well as critical thinking.” The pairing is exact. Reflective insight does not replace critique; it supplements and deepens it. The democratic claim is equally significant. Contemplative pedagogy is presented not as private self-cultivation for elites but as preparation for ethical and political life: the “integration of the ethical and the political, the spiritual and the practical.” In this way the essay quietly moves contemplation out of the domain of private serenity and into the formation of public judgment.
Neuroscience and the politics of legitimacy
A distinctive feature of this 2007 paper is its attention to neuroscience, especially as a language through which contemplative pedagogy gained legitimacy. Sellers-Young is shrewd about this. She neither treats neuroscience as final proof nor ignores the strategic role it plays within academic culture. In a university system still governed by positivist assumptions, contemplative advocates found that meditation and attention became more acceptable when described in the vocabulary of brain science, neuroplasticity, and empirical research.
Antonio Damasio’s work is central here. Sellers-Young uses The Feeling of What Happens to argue that mind is not detachable from body, but emerges from the interplay of brain, body, and environment. The sentence she quotes—“The body contributes more than life support and modulatory effects to the brain. It contributes a content that is part and parcel of the workings of the normal mind”—functions as a direct rejoinder to the academic habits Carozzi had criticized earlier. If bodily processes contribute “content” to thought, then the exclusion of bodily awareness from education is not a refinement of knowledge but a conceptual truncation.
The attraction of Damasio within the paper lies in how neatly he supports Sellers-Young’s long-term intellectual project. Across her writings, embodied knowledge is never merely metaphorical. It is not that the body “influences” thought from the outside; rather, consciousness is formed through bodily being-in-environment. Here, that claim becomes a challenge to academic pedagogy. The classroom cannot remain neutral with respect to embodiment because cognition itself is embodied.
Neuroplasticity strengthens the argument by giving it temporal and practical force. The brain, Sellers-Young notes, is not fixed; it can undergo “wholesale changes in job functions,” and it “remakes itself throughout life, in response to outside stimuli—to its environment and to experience.” Attention and focus are crucial to this process. This makes contemplative practice pedagogically plausible in a new way. If disciplined attention can reshape neural pathways, then meditation is not simply a spiritual pastime but a trainable mode of transformation.
Yet Sellers-Young is careful not to overclaim. Her discussion of meditation research—from studies by Antoine Lutz, John Dunne, and Richard Davidson to Jon Kabat-Zinn, Herbert Benson, Margaret Kemeny, and James Austin—keeps a measured tone. The Shamatha Project, with its retreat design, EEG monitoring, diaries, facial-expression analysis, and social problem-solving tasks, is especially revealing in this respect. Sellers-Young presents its research questions with precision: whether intensive meditation produces measurable changes in attention, emotional resilience, stress response, and interpersonal functioning, and whether such changes persist after retreat. But she immediately notes the limit: such studies “are not undertaken to validate the inclusion of contemplative practice into the academic curriculum.” Their positive results have nonetheless been useful in conversations with administrators and in public accounts of contemplative classrooms.
This qualification is one of the paper’s most intelligent moments. It recognizes a constitutive tension in the institutional life of contemplation. Practices proposed partly as remedies for the academy’s overinvestment in detached rationality are often authorized through the very structures of scientific evidence and institutional legitimation that characterize that rationality. Sellers-Young does not resolve this tension, nor should she. The paper is strongest when it lets the paradox stand. Contemplative pedagogy enters the university not outside the system, but through a strategic negotiation with its prevailing standards of proof.
Mindfulness, reperceiving, and the observing self
If neuroscience gives the movement public credibility, the paper’s real pedagogical center lies in its account of mindfulness. Here Sellers-Young turns from institutions and research to the lived mechanics of contemplative learning. Her chosen framework—drawn from Shapiro, Carlson, Astin, and Freedman—organizes mindfulness into three elements: intention, attention, and attitude. The triad is attractive not because it is comprehensive in any final sense, but because it clarifies contemplation as a practice rather than an abstraction.
Intention names why one practices. Sellers-Young underscores that intention is dynamic. Students may begin with stress reduction or curiosity, but over time practice often shifts motivation “from self-regulation, to self-exploration and finally to self-liberation.” The movement here is significant. It suggests that contemplative pedagogy cannot be reduced to therapeutic management. Its horizon is larger: a transformed relation to self and knowledge.
Attention, the second component, is “the ability to observe the moment-to-moment experience, both internal and external.” Sellers-Young links this to phenomenological awareness and, crucially, to the training of dancers and actors. This is not incidental. It is where the paper most clearly bears the mark of her expertise in performance and somatics. Acute, sustained, and flexible attention is already familiar in artistic training; performers learn to inhibit distraction, focus on an object, shift focus responsively, and attend to sensory stimuli as the basis of action. By placing contemplative attention alongside performance training, Sellers-Young quietly argues that the arts have long cultivated capacities that the wider academy has undervalued. The contemplative turn in higher education is therefore not wholly new. It converges with embodied disciplines that performance pedagogy has developed for decades.
Attitude, the third element, concerns the quality of awareness brought to attention. Sellers-Young quotes the warning that “bare awareness” is insufficient if the awareness is cold, critical, or self-absorbed. Mindfulness requires openness and generosity, “a stance of active listening.” This emphasis on nonjudgment is easy to sentimentalize, but Sellers-Young gives it a more demanding form. Nonjudgment does not mean passivity or relativism. It means the suspension of premature closure, the capacity to discern without immediately collapsing experience into approval, disapproval, or defensive certainty.
The result of these three elements is what Shapiro and colleagues call “reperceiving”: the discovery that the contents of consciousness are distinct from the mind observing them. Sellers-Young recognizes the pedagogical importance of this shift at once. Students who can become an “observing self” gain self-regulation, psychological flexibility, clearer values, and greater willingness to enter unfamiliar areas of knowledge. One can hear, in this vocabulary, an early version of concerns that later become central in her work: reflexivity, the layered self, and the disciplined observation of one’s own embodied patterns. Here the emphasis is still pedagogical rather than autoethnographic, but the family resemblance is unmistakable. Contemplative practice teaches not only calm but a method for noticing how one’s habits of thought, perception, and reaction are formed.
Classroom form: contemplation as method, not ornament
The paper’s classroom examples are more than illustrations. They show what Sellers-Young means when she insists that contemplative practice must be integrated into pedagogy rather than “just added onto a course.” This principle is one of the essay’s lasting insights. Too often, contemplation in educational discourse appears as an opening exercise, a stress-reduction technique, or a moral signal. Sellers-Young’s examples insist instead on structural integration: contemplative practice must shape the way the subject itself is approached.
The Amherst course “Eros and Insight,” taught by Arthur Zajonc and Joel Upton, is exemplary because its sequence translates contemplative awareness into an epistemological procedure. The four-part process—“observing silence, noting the afterimage, reflecting on value, and sustaining contradictions”—trains increasingly subtle forms of perception and judgment. Students begin by sitting quietly with attention to breath and then describing silence as an embodied state. The phrasing is crucial: silence is not absence but experience. It has somatic texture, relation to environment, and internal differentiation.
The next stage introduces sound, for example a bell rung three times, and asks students to attend to its “afterimage,” the lingering trace of sound within silence. This is an elegant pedagogical gesture because it teaches attention to intervals, residues, and thresholds—the “spaces between action and non-action.” Such spaces are central not only to contemplative practice but to aesthetic perception and performance. Sellers-Young is especially alert to this continuity. The contemplative classroom becomes a site where students learn to perceive process, nuance, and emergence rather than only stable objects.
From there, the course moves to “valuing practices,” in which students attend openly to paintings, readings, music, architectural drawings, or photographs in order to “discern difference.” Finally, they learn to “hold two contrary concepts and/or situations in tension with each other” through open attention “aware of difference, but not critical of difference.” Here the educational aim becomes fully explicit: to cultivate a way of living with contradiction adequate to “a complex world.” This is perhaps the essay’s strongest answer to those who would dismiss contemplation as private inwardness. Properly used, it is a preparation for complexity. It trains students not to escape contradiction but to remain with it without panic, aggression, or simplistic resolution.
Kat Vlahos’s architecture course at Colorado makes a related point through environmental perception. Guided meditation helps students experience their bodies as intertwined with “the forces of nature”: the sun’s warmth, the trajectory of light, micro and macro features of landscape. Sellers-Young’s conclusion is exact: this contemplative relation to landscape yields a design process “that mathematical equations or theories simply cannot.” The phrase is not anti-theoretical. It means that some forms of insight arise only through embodied attunement. Design, like performance, depends on perceptual and kinesthetic intelligence that rational abstraction alone cannot supply.
These examples also reveal how naturally Sellers-Young’s somatic concerns inhabit the essay, even when not named as such. Breath, silence, sensory nuance, bodily orientation in environment, sustained attention, nonjudgmental discernment: these are all recurrent motifs in her performer-training work. The paper effectively extends the studio’s psychophysical intelligence into higher education at large.
Contemplation in Sellers-Young’s intellectual trajectory
Within Sellers-Young’s career, this conference paper occupies an important middle position. It comes after her major work on ritual, intercultural performance, and somatic actor training, and before the fuller development of her later reflexive and autoethnographic frameworks. It therefore shows a scholar widening the implications of embodied knowledge beyond the domains of dance and theatre, without abandoning the conceptual tools formed there.
Several continuities are especially striking. First is the insistence that bodily practices are modes of knowing. In studies of actor training, Japanese performance, and dance pedagogy, Sellers-Young repeatedly argues that technique shapes consciousness. “Contemplation, Consciousness and the Academy” generalizes this principle: the university, no less than the studio, is a site where techniques of attention produce forms of selfhood and understanding.
Second is her refusal to universalize embodiment in a naïve way. Although this paper is more programmatic than ethnographic, it remains attentive to historical transmission. Contemplative practices are located in Asian and Western monastic traditions, immigrant communities, the counterculture, and institutional adaptation. The academy’s new embrace of contemplation is therefore not the spontaneous discovery of an eternal truth, but a culturally mediated development.
Third is the paper’s investment in pedagogy as transformation. Sellers-Young has long resisted a “toolbox” conception of training in which techniques are isolated skills. Here, too, contemplative exercises matter only when they reorganize the learning environment and the learner’s mode of engagement. The goal is not relaxation but a changed capacity for concentration, reflection, creativity, ethical awareness, and openness to difference.
What is not yet foregrounded here, but is already latent, is the more developed reflexive position of her later work. When she discusses “reperceiving” and the emergence of an “observing self,” one can see the groundwork for the more elaborate three-part model of self she would later use in somatic autoethnography. The contemplative classroom teaches students to notice how they know; later, Sellers-Young will ask ethnographers to notice how their own movement histories, sensory structures, and embodied metaphors shape what they can perceive. In that sense, the paper is not an isolated foray into educational theory. It is part of a larger intellectual movement from the analysis of embodied practices to the use of embodiment as method.
The paper’s larger stakes
What finally gives “Contemplation, Consciousness and the Academy” its continuing value is that it treats higher education as a struggle over the form of consciousness it produces. Sellers-Young does not imagine contemplation as a cure-all, nor does she suggest that rational inquiry should be displaced by inwardness. Her concluding formulation is more exact. Integrating contemplation into the curriculum is “not separating the spirit from the body.” It is “expanding the potential for rationale discourse through the discovery of the potential of non-judgmental thinking and inspired creativity.” The slight awkwardness of “rationale discourse” in the text usefully signals the point: reason itself is to be broadened, not renounced.
The concluding citation of Rumi’s “Two Kinds of Intelligence” gives the essay a poetic closure, but it also sharpens its critique. One kind of intelligence is acquired, schooled, ranked, measured, accumulated. The other is “already completed and preserved inside you,” “a spring overflowing its spring box,” “a fountain head / from within you, moving out.” Sellers-Young does not oppose these absolutely. She does not reject school-based knowledge. Rather, she asks the academy to make room for the second without abandoning the first. The problem with higher education, in her account, is not that it teaches too much, but that it has often taught students to distrust or overlook the embodied sources from which insight arises.
This is why the paper still matters beyond its immediate mid-2000s context. It captures a transitional moment when contemplative studies and pedagogy were consolidating institutional legitimacy through a convergence of historical critique, curricular experimentation, philanthropic support, and neuroscience. But more deeply, it articulates a principle that runs through Sellers-Young’s work as a whole: bodies are not the mute carriers of culture and cognition; they are active participants in perception, reflection, and transformation. The academy, if it is to educate whole persons rather than merely credential analytic specialists, must reckon with that fact.
In Sellers-Young’s hands, contemplation becomes neither mystique nor retreat. It is an educational discipline of attention, a way of holding contradiction, deepening perception, and loosening the academy’s inherited confidence that only disembodied thought deserves the name of knowledge.
Reflect with VABS