Liberal extremism

A thread yesterday got me thinking about this, but I mulled it over for a bit, and decided it might make a better separate thread.

All philisophies have their extremists. I am going to focus on one particular type of liberal extremism which I experienced strongly as a freshman at Cornell University. (Although I've seen it pop up occasionally since...)

All freshmen were required to undergo cultural/racial/sexual sensitivity workshops in their residence halls. I was looking forward to my workshop as a potentially interesting evening of debate, ethics and philosophy.

Unfortunately, the experience wasn't designed to provoke thought. It seemed designed to instill Pavlovian knee-jerk reactions (in the spirit of Brave New World) to potentially offensive comments. Even if this were an effective means of teaching people, it's going to have no impact over a single two-hour session.

Here's an example of one of the activities: the leaders selected several people from the group, and gave them cards. Each card had the name of some group, such as "women", "jews", "hispanics", etc. The rest of us were given cards that had statements on them. We had to stand up and read the statement when it was our turn. The person targeted by our statement was to reply, "As a X, I find that offensive." (My statement was, "Jews are rich.") No discussion was encouraged, or in fact, even allowed. They had a certain number of statements to get through, and told us time did not permit discussion. No comments were made as to why these statements would be offensive, or why such stereotypes exist. Other activities were similarly mindless.

Pervading the entire session was a not-so-subtle message, driven by guilt and anger:

If you're caucasian, you're necessarily a racist.
If you're straight, you're necessarily a homophobe.
If you're male, you're necessarily a sexist. (And a potential sex offender, as well.)

The argument was that, as a caucasian living in America, I reap the benefits of a racist society. No understanding, compassion, or deed can change this; therefore, I am a racist. They defined racism (and every other ism and phobia) entirely in the perception of receiving party, divorced of any intent. We were told that as caucasians, we couldn't possibly understand racism well enough to know if words or deeds were racist, and that we had to go entirely on the reaction of the affected party. They drew little, if any, distinction between bigotry resulting from innocent ignorance or militant stupidity.

Now, I am fully aware that between the two possibilities that (a) the receiving party misinterpreted something, or was overly sensitive, or (b) the other party was behaving in a bigoted manner, intentionally or otherwise, that (b) is generally the more likely explanation. But I've known people who had a McCarthy-like ability to see racism/sexism/homophobia in anything. The organisers of the sensitivity training themselves fell into this category, when I approached them afterwards and gave feedback. But they were denying absolutely the possibility of simple miscommunication or over-sensitivity. They were over-correcting. This kind of over-correction generally creates a backlash.

I came away from the experience feeling distinctly rubbed the wrong way, and I wasn't the only one. Several women said they felt like the session portrayed all women as victims.

I feel that the organisers of the program really lost some allies they would have had, had the presentation not been so abrasive.

Do you believe the attitudes of the organisers were correct, or extreme? Do you feel there's any merit to the statements above in bold?

Sounds more like they were trying to condition people to a specific response with no critical thought involved.


Knee jerk psych, I call it.

you do your own thing and don't let people make you feel guilty. Did you discriminate? if so, feel guilty and correct it, if not why feel guilty? Don't let the self proclaimed civil /gay /women's rights people tell you what to think and say...

"If you're caucasian, you're necessarily a racist.
If you're straight, you're necessarily a homophobe.
If you're male, you're necessarily a sexist. (And a potential sex offender, as well.)"

aside from the sex offender thing, this is actually quite true.

take a minute and read why:

as a white person, i have white privlege. i can't help but exert that privlege. it gets exerted for me all the time without my even knowing. that makes me a working part of a racist society and, hence, makes me unwittingly a racist.

intent has nothing to do with racism/sexism/homophobia. racism is racism regardless of it's stated purpose.

i will never overcome my racism -- unless society magically becomes not-racist during my lifetime. the best i can do is acknowledge it and do my damndest to understand how it affects my actions and thoughts.


on edit: it SHOULD make people uncomfortable to be told that they are guilty on these discriminations. but discomfort does not mean it is incorrect.

to find someone such as your self who recognizes the truth of their position in a culture whose most defining characteristic is its homophobic, sexist, and racist nature.

It was long after I began actively fighting the effects of racism and found, understood, and faced my own unavoidable role in its perpetuation, that homosexual companions in those struggles brought me to know I had also been well trained as a bigot in that respect.

The most cutting lesson was still later when my wife began organizing in the woman's liberation movement. Of course the hard reality came home as she held her own mirror to my face. That we're still married is due in part that I was able with her help to perceive my image as it was.

The conquer and divide aspect of the culture's various bigotries serve as the grease that allows the wheels of commerce to turn and move to further perpetuate the class divisions from which few benefit as most suffer. The true sadness is exhibited however on a more personal than societal level. It is there that the sickness can be seen infecting the hearts of all who have been raised in or reside in the society.

I am never surprised to see bigotries exhibited while personally denied by those who might openly shun a leftist outlook. That republican party has well mastered the deception in using and profiting from the resulting divisions. It is disheartening however to commonly hear the same personal denials issued by those who would term themselves more liberal.

Physician cure thyself. The best and only medicine for fighting the disease of bigotry in all and any of its forms is to be found within ones own pocket. Reach deeply, and you'll find it there.

even if the label fits.

Informing your audience that they are bigots is only going to offend them, and they will be forever after deaf to your message.

Rather than apply the label, help them understand how our society is biased. Help them understand how a caucasian straight boy from the 'burbs who has two asian friends, a black friend, and an openly gay friend may still harbor hidden, subconscious prejudices. Explain how he may benefit from the latent bias in his society, and help him come up with constructive ways to deal with it when the opportunity arises.

Don't attempt to preach a message of guilt, with undertones of resentment. Doing so is the surest path to lose your audience.

This is what I was trying to get at.

The politics of guilt and self-loathing never accomplishes anything productive.

About the statements in bold: there's truth in each statement, but I also think that ending a workshop with those conclusions is defeatist and ultimately more polarizing. I can see how it would promote more resentment than sensitivity on both sides of each equation.

It would be more productive to talk about racism, sexism and homophobia in terms of "what can we, as individuals, do about these problems" rather than the approach above, "racism, sexism, and homophobia are inescapable and there's nothing we can do about it."

It's important that people acknowledge racism, sexism and homophobia exist, but if the message is that nothing can be done to overcome these problems, what hope is there for building community?

I've always felt that the emphasis on personal attack when people discuss racism directly gets in the way of what the aim supposedly is: to get folks to realize that racism really exists, and extends further than overt bigotry. It's true that "white" (a racist term par excellence) people enjoy advantages whether they realize it or not, I feel, but this needs to be discussed, not condemned, because they are also the ones in the best position to do something about it. I have no problem, on the other hand, with people condemning overt bigotry.

The problem with these sessions I described is they left the audience with the impression they were being cast as overt bigots.

They weren't being asked to consider how racial/sexual/cultural struggles may have affected them. They were being asked to accept, with no evidence given, that they were racist, sexist homophobes.

Some might argue that shock treatment like that will at least lead to introspection. Those who examine themselves as a result of such shock treatment would likely have done so with less abrasive methods, anyway. I think the greater danger is that many will close their minds to such self-investigation, rejecting the label as obviously false, and be far less willing in the future to opening such dialogue.

Even if the delivery of the curriculum didnt create a decent remedy ....

There is NO DOUBT that racism HAS been a serious problem, IS a serious problem. and WILL BE a serious problem in american society ...

It hasnt been THAT long since black men were regularly dragged to town squares for lynchings in the noonday sun, while hawking ice creams and lemonades to the throngs who came to admire the 'strange fruit' .....

I cannot defend a poorly run education program, but I CAN defend the general premise that RACISM is real, and should be diverted, if possible, through a decent educational regimen ....

There isnt anything wrong with that, and everything RIGHT about it ...

ALL white people are racists, etc.

James Cone, liberation theologian, also crossed the line with his semantic gyrations when he claimed that ALL oppressed people are "black", and ALL oppressors are "white". Not even saying that all black people are oppressed (though likely he would agree with that), but that anyone who IS oppressed should be considered "black", whether african, Indian, Korean, native American.

Never bought that line, either.

Obviously racism and sexism and homophobia and everything else exist, and we need to be contionued to be made aware of it, but it does not help the issue at all to completely reverse the tables and make such bold claims. Your audience won't listen and will be offended. I was often offended in seminary becuase I was so often automatically put into the racist/sexist mode, and couldn't even have dialogue because of the asumption that "I wouldn't get it" or, sometimes, didn't even have PERMISSION to talk about an issue/idea. Sheesh. And this from educated people who are trying to make the world more peaceful.

To say ALL white people are racists is to make a very bold racist statement. To say ALL men are sexists is to make a very bold sexist statement. Etc. Etc. Etc.

Some years ago at the Universtiy of Maryland a womens group stole the entire roster of male students and made a big poster that said everyone on the list is a potential sex offender and posted it all over campus.

Personaly, I was offended. Just because I am male means I'm a "potential" sex offender? Come on! This is not the way to win friends or influence people. I think it was the same year that a female student dressed as a vulva ran onto the field durring a game involving men and a ball of some sort. I folow things closely...sports I mean.

These sorts of statements offered with no discussion, just blanket statements meant to enflame are not helpfull to anyone. That was a very bad couple of weeks after that.

Zizzer

It happened my freshman year, and the women's rights group seized on that incident to promote the same bullshit at Cornell.

Yes, date rape is real.

Yes, many date rapists may not consider themselves as such.

Yes, it's important to promote thought on this issue, and to help men understand what constitutes consent, and how nonverbal cues can indicate nonconsent.

But when you smack every guy on campus with fightin' words like that, you've so alienated your target audience that they will no longer be able to hear your message.

It's funny that feminists would do that, because, in college, I used to argue with these Nietzsche-wannabe types (all men) who would argue about the "primitive" inside us all, and they would say that we all had the capacity to become murderers, so where do we get off thinking that we're different from murderers.

I suppose that, under very specific social conditions, we could all become rapists or murderers, but if one of us did become a violent criminal, that person would then be most unlike the majority of people...so this observation is absurd, and in the end meaningless.

sounds more like a "men hating group"

I agree with you that this sort of activism defeats the purpose.

The facts of my victimization by one man, living in a male-dominated society, having suffered sexual harassment, and having been at the mercy of rampant misogynists do not give me license to view all men as rapists or sexists. I've met so many men who make a point of trying to be sensitive to women's issues...and many more who are actively attempting to evolve from the ignorant attitudes society planted in their brains.

I find it more helpful to my psyche to try to understand where and under what circumstances people develop "sexist" views. We can't hope to alleviate bigotry of any sort until we view it from an unprejudiced perspective of both perpetrator and victim.

I think that the organizers of the event went about things the wrong way if they were trying to promote cultural, racial, and sexuality sensitivity. First of all, I disagree that members of groups that are "privledged" are necessarily oppressors of "nonpriveledged" groups. Many people are racist in that they may prefer associating with members of their own group or be more comfortable going into a room full of strangers of their own group than another. They may not speak up when they are given privledge or someone makes a bigotted remark. They may be rather conscious of racial or other group difference. Be truly non racist happens the moment when you are talking with your friend and forget that he or she is any different from you or that you are in a room and you are the only "privledged group member" and you don't notice because you really feel that you are all equals.
I think that stating that all members of privledged groups are opressors not only makes the dominant groups feel offended but discourages them from getting involved in combatting racism, sexism, and homophobia and associating with those minorities. The best way to combat racism, sexism, and homophobia is to have open discussion about these issues. Perhaps, there could be a speaker or speakers first and them students break into diverse groups lead by a counselor or other trained person.

But I wonder if there shouldn't be more than one counselor, so nobody views the discussion leader as a bigot.

They have no right to make you read those disgusting stereotypes.

Given just how blatantly the Right Wing promotes hate, I have to question why sometimes liberals allow ourselves to be denounced for being insufficiently tolerant.

Several years ago, I went to a conference where an African-American activist got up and denounced ALL Caucasians as racist because we either 1) treated Black people as different from Whites, or 2) treated Black people the same as Whites. My best friend - a white woman married to a black man - stood up and announced "F**k it! We can't win. I'm outta here..." We both ditched the conference and went to the museum.

Had the speaker actually suggested ways that well-meaning white women could help black women achieve equality, I'm sure we would have stuck around.

I suspect that men who want to treat women well would do the same, if not confronted with the kind of pseudo-feminist who insists that all men are abusers...

To Andrea Dworkin who thinks that "all penetration is rape": I've been raped. I've also had fantastic sex with a man. There is no comparison. Now sit down and shut up.