Sitting in my office this morning, I thought it would be the perfect day to go out in the quad and finish Dharma Bums, but once there, I was reminded what week it was. There, in the center of the quad, is a large display of the so-called “Genocide Awareness Project” – a tall billboard displayed distorted images of fetuses, comparing abortion to genocide, surrounded a fence in order to separate the display and its staffers from the general populace. It’s rather disgusting – both for its graphic images and for its rather insensitive comparison of abortion to genocide.
I want to applaud their use of the public sphere, but it’s a rather disingenuous use of the public sphere. Rather than holding dialogue and genuine discussion, GAP holds up images that they readily admit are altered and not real (in order, I suppose, to illicit an emotional response that wouldn’t happen if the pictures were more genuine) and walls themselves off from the public. While the fence might be there for safety, I don’t think it’s warranted. If we look at violent behavior in the pro-choice / anti-choice debate in this country, I would garner a guess that 99% of the violence have been by anti-choice activists who bomb abortion clinics, attack women who are about to have abortions, and kill doctors who have performed abortions. The likelihood of violence is rather slim here, I think.
And more importantly, it creates a wall between people that limits discussion. Architecturally, it creates a divide between folks that doesn’t allow for the exchange of ideas and the changing of minds. There are camps rather than dialogue.
The Feminist Majority Leadership Alliance and the Women’s Center have small booths on the quad as well to protest the presence of GAP. I signed a petition asking for a federal bill protecting a woman’s right to chose, but I didn’t feel comfortable signing a bill requesting OSU President Ed Ray to forbid GAP from returning to campus. I don’t think that limiting this type of speech through banning is productive, and could lead us down a slope of censoring anything in bad taste. For who will decide what is grossly offensive? Other things for which I advocate and think are productive could be read as offensive by others and banned under similar (though less logical, I think) reasoning (e.g., the lube wrestling during Pride Week is an event that gets enough of a reaction from opponents to lead to a petition to ban it). I suppose I was thinking of Kant: If I had the power, would I will it that all material that is grossly offensive be banned from the quad?
But to return to my experience, trying to read Kerouac in the quad. I found it hard to concentrate, thinking that I shouldn’t just be sitting there reading, but should instead be engaging in dialogue with the anti-choice advocates about various things: what are they doing to eradicate the need for abortion (educating women and men about reproduction, safe sex, and birth control; eliminating poverty), why they have the fence up, why they use distorted images instead of more accurate portrayals of fetuses?
And I couldn’t bring myself to engage in dialogue with them. Partially because I felt that a mere 20-30 minutes conversation wouldn’t actually do much good in such a charged atmosphere. It would be nice to actually have people sit down and talk about these issues, but there is a lot of emotion and irrationality that prevents this.
As I stood at the FMLA table, someone was asking about the issue from an anti-choice religious perspective. A former classmate of mine rode up on his bike and began to say things like “we should eat fetuses” and “those pictures are really cool because they’re so graphic and gross,” in order to shock the more conservative man beside him. Once that man walked away, my former classmate said that we can’t hold conversation with those people because they are all nuts.
And I think this is the most damaging perspective those of us who believe in rationality and a woman’s right to her own body have: that those on the Right are not rational at all and that there is no point in having dialogue. This perspective that removes the humanity of others, that reduces them to merely irrational beings who don’t have the capacity for rationality, will never lead us to having discussions for change. Of course, I’m as guilty as the next person for calling conservatives “whacko” or “crazy” — I’m not trying to claim some moral high ground.
And I don’t have answers. What would this conversation among folks who so radically disagree look like?
Michael,
I wonder if you’re not conflating something here: While it may be useful at some point to talk to some conservatives, you yourself seem to think that the GAP folks are just not a good use of one’s social justice time (as it were). I tend to agree with this.
On the other hand, if you were referring to the incident at the FMLA table, then I agree with you: If someone has actually come over to a progressive table and is serious and nonconfrontational, then dismissing them is bad politics, not to mention potentially very dehumanizing.
Finally, to provide an answer to your closing question: Communicative Action. Most conversations I’ve had (and am continually having while working in a small-town high school) are attempts to bridge a rather large worldview and values gap (as an aside, this is getting harder and harder the longer I sub, which does not bode well for thoughts of teaching). Genuinely looking for common ground and not trying to persuade the other person are about as far as I ever get, and I think they’re a great place to start.
Yes, I agree with you, Dennis. The individual who came over to the FMLA table was most certainly worth dialoging with, while the people at the GAP performance were probably not, due to the set up of their display.
And, yes, I’d agree with you (and Habermas) – finding common ground is a great place to start, and in my experience, talking with conservative Christians has created a wealth of common ground, including a discomfort with the way people relate to each other in general, a disturbance about hyper consumerism and the hyper-sexualization youth (at the expense of real relationships), etc.
Just to play both sides, I’ve noticed those bits of common ground that you have when it comes to conservative Christians. However, the common ground quickly becomes a chasm of difference when the “where do we go from here?” question arises: I don’t think anarchists and Baptists share the same vision of the ideal world/utopia. How do you account for diversity when confronted with a Christianity that seeks not unity, but uniformity?
On the other (third?) hand, the discomfort-with-the-way-people-relate thing seems to have a lot of potential. Or is it a call for civility that buries real anger and pain in disguise?
I don’t think it’s a mere call to civility – I think it’s a desire for real human relationships in which people actually learn from each other and listen. I think the alienation we feel from each other is a common ground to start with — or perhaps, more accurately, to get to, because I think many people feel this but are not sure how to articulate it, or cover up those feelings with other feelings.
The former question regarding unity v. uniformity is a tough one.