I read the article too, but took it a bit differently. I agree, a lot of the insinuations or implications you point out may have been there, or they may not have been – but as long as the article was factual, so what? So John Friend makes $100,000 a year – so what? It’s a decent but far from lavish income, and a fair number of people make that amount, give or take a few bucks, including people who may have accomplished a good deal less. To me it’s actually surprising he’s paying himself only what amounts to a decent middle to upper-middle class income (and why not?): it tells me he must be plowing a good deal back into the enterprise. If he were in it just for the bucks, I’m sure he could be taking in 10 or 20 times what he does, or more. Feh on the New York Times, but good that they exposed the prejudices you point out (which many unthinkingly share), because it provides a good opportunity to talk about them.

A little snarky? ok, maybe…but, hey, it’s NY! It’s their nature to slice the tops off the fatuous, the over-inflated, the over-hyped. To pin-prick ballooning egos. In their world, I’m not sure this article would even make measure on the ol’ snark-o-meter.

I agree there’s too much ado being made about the mention of JF’s salary. Again, in the context of the NYT’s regular readership–more than 3/4 of whom have annual salaries over $75,000.–JF just came off reasonably paid. The actual intent might have been more that suggest he wasn’t milking it since, as Eric mentioned, a hundred grand tips JF into the upper middle class pool. Respectful, but certainly not lavish.

That JF provides financial resources for academic research, and draws from academicians for his philosophical support? Positive info. Keys pressed into his palm…who knows? Wouldn’t surprise me. There are always people who want to get closer, be special, and don’t recognize proper physical parameters. In many camps, this info might be considered a gloss to JF’s profile (ie rock star status + therefore he must be good).

The big sin of this article–and as it appears in the NYT it IS a bloody sin–is that the writing was so tragically prosaic. Whether Mimi wanted to trash JF or deify him, couldn’t it, shouldn’t it, be done with wit? With pulsing electrically-charged prose? With delicious and refreshing turns-of-phrase? With nuance?

Not to sound too anusaric, but shouldn’t it have flowed with a little grace????

Five pages of prime international journalistic visibility and Mimi simply trudged and plodded, her sentences lead-weight as well as light-weight–neither journalistically excoriating nor lyrical. Nothing we didn’t know, no surfaces scratched, no stones turned over.

Sjanie, if her screen was as filled with Post-its as yours, I would wish Mimi half your considered positions, half your dazzling verbal unconventionality.

To Mimi: Forget JF. Instead, surprise me! Delight me! Educate me! Explicate the subtleties of tantric philosophy, or at least interview a couple people who can! Ask WHY this yoga is so fast-growing? What’s missing in people’s lives that this yoga seems to fill? And why this yoga and not another–is it JF? If so, he must be marvelously charismatic. If not, then what’s up, Mimi, what’s up?

conclusion: I don’t know about JF, but someone to do with the article didn’t earn her wages.

$100k is a “middle-class income” now? Wha???

Don’t get me wrong, I think that’s a fine income that I would probably pay myself if I had the opportunity to, but, geez, what? The median HOUSEHOLD income in the U.S. is about $50k. An individual who makes twice that is wealthy.

Well, “wealthy” is one of those terms that doesn’t have a hard and fast meaning (same is true of “middle class”). U.S. census data says that the upper quintile of family incomes starts at $91,000 and goes up from there. You may consider 20% of the U.S. population to be wealthy, but to me that seems to stretch the meaning of the word a bit. Especially in a world where athletes and investment bankers are pulling down seven- and even eight-figure incomes.

When I had $20,000 a year, I thought $50,000 a year was wealthy. When I had $50,000 a year, I thought $100,000 was wealthy. I’ve been up higher than that, and have come down again. Not to be glib, but once you have basic material needs covered (and I recognize there’s probably some argument about what those are), the rest is to a large degree a matter of attitude and perspective.

Anyway, semantics aside, I have known successful people in a variety of fields who make many multiples of what John Friend takes home in a year, and would not be the subject of adverse commentary in the New York Times or by most of society. I think the point is there’s a kind of hypocrisy in pointing to someone who’s been highly successful, and implicitly criticizing him for (gasp!) making $100,000 a year because he’s a yoga teacher, when people in other walks of life can make many times that without attracting the slightest comment, because it’s considered “normal” for people in more conventional or “respectable” professions. It’s really that hypocrisy that’s the issue, not whether John Friend is “middle class” or “upper middle class” or even “wealthy”. In my opinion, anyway.

Hmmm… multiple thoughts on all this:

- The New York Times’ worth, according to this article: http://www.businessweek.com/investor/content/jul2008/pi20080725_458084.htm (from 2008) is about $750 million. If they want to maintain their ethics and integrity as journalists, shouldn’t they distribute their fine journalism at a lower price? Based on what I’ve seen, NYT costs twice as much as other papers – more than 5x as much on Sundays! Great content, but apparently (based on the John Friend article) content and quality of information is irrelevant to what you’re charging to access it. Industry average, right?

- If John Friend was still a financial analyst, and he was making 3x what other financial analysts made, what would the tone of the article have been?

- If we take a “product” like Anusara yoga and proceed to “sell” it to “consumers” who find benefit in it, is that necessarily a bad thing? I used to be super anti-corporatization, anti-big business, etc, etc, etc, and then I started working for Whole Foods Market, where we educate consumers about healthy food and lifestyle options, the impact of fair trade programs, community giving, and waste reduction programs. It might be pricey, but it’s pricey because that money’s being spent on making the world a better place, not funnelled into the pocket of the CEO. So what’s the big deal?

It’s interesting to see this discussion regarding yoga, because I’ve had it with regards to both activism and alternative sexuality education. It’s funny how people are okay with Gucci charging $800 for a wallet, but for the best education and life-alterting experiences available we’re not willing to give it the same level of value.

to sylvia m: as an aside, the times is free to all online (including their archives).

Yoga’s free to all, with YouTube and a personal space. Just sayin’.

Great comments, friends. If you are interested, John’s response to this article is here:

http://www.anusara.com/index.php?option=com_wpmu&blog_id=2&Itemid=250

and an interview is here:

http://www.elephantjournal.com/2010/07/waylon-lewis-interviews-john-friend-founder-of-anusara-yoga-re-controversial-popular-ny-times-feature-article/

Eric, you’re not the only one to find the article uninflammatory; however, as an oversensitive hippie I reserve the right to howl when hit, even with a whiffle bat. I enjoyed your comment about recontextualizing wealth and class.

Hope [dear Hope!] yeah, it’s not particularly redolent and viscid snark, is it? Just that pale-mauve “I’m not saying, I’m just saying” variety. Fair enough, I took it too personally…and yeah, if that counts as NYT-worthy, if I promise to brush up on my excessive ellipses and comma splices, is the cheque in the mail?!?!?!

And Sylvia: yes yes yes: it’s a little too pat to take every system of human endeavour, from spiritual study to corporations, and paint each category with the same rank brush. Love your questions.

The best thing about the NY Times article is that it’s sparked debate, conversation, discussion and that’s not a bad thing.

I won’t sugar coat, Anusara classes and Philosophy keep me “sane”. Both have helped me mentally, spiritually, emotionally and physically. Thank you to John and all my teachers -Sjanie, Trisha, Shelley, Chris Chavez, Chantal, and those I studied with in LA way back when.

None of you ever forced me to pay you to teach me. I did so and do so gladly, with love and grace. My eyes are open, I’m smile about being apart of the Anusara Kula and laugh at the idea of being part of the Cult of John. Nobody has asked me to shave my head, or drink the purple kool-aid, nobody insists I wear a certain style of clothes or use a certain mat – heck I’m only of the only people who use the John Friend designed Prana Revolution Sticky Mat. I don’t do so because John Friend says so, I do so because it’s longer and wider than other mats and I like extra width because my knees don’t slip off onto the floor.

Okay I’ve lost my train of thought now. Thanks for the comments. See you in class.