Today any topic could be controversial in a classroom. Even in the "neutral" hard sciences, such as chemistry, a matter as factual as the composition of the female hormone estrogen could lead to a heated discussion of sex and gender. In certain circles, affirming the connection between biology, sex and gender can unleash a debate on the supposed “transphobic” prejudices of those who dare to raise the biochemical basis of sexual identification.
A few days ago, I had the opportunity to participate in a seminar in Washington, DC about the teaching of controversial issues. The meeting, organized by the Cultural Mediation and Social Affairs Project, brought together academics from various regions: Spain, Latin America, Canada and the United States. Although the degree of "sensitivity" on controversial subjects varies depending on the country (for example, it is a much more recurrent issue in American and Canadian universities than in Spain or Latin America), all the participants recognized that the trend is growing everywhere. My colleagues offered different explanations: some saw it as a symptom of a radical leftist ideology that has taken over most academic institutions (at least in North America); others think that it is a process typical of democracies where social groups that have historically been marginalized want to make their voices heard and achieve more equitable societies; others – like me – believe that digital media contributes to polarizing and emotionally charged debates.
Overcoming self-censorship
In each of these explanations there is some grain of truth. The common concern of all the participants is whether the university will be able to continue being the space of freedom of speech and inquiry, even in countries that call themselves democratic. The answer is not obvious. Even in prime high education institutions such as Yale and Princeton there are already symptoms of censorship and self-censorship.
What do the majority of professors and students do when they see the manifestations of the cancel culture and intimidation against those who are not aligned with the discourses of political correctness? According to some of the experts who participated in the seminar, the majority prefers silence, a low profile, a "studied neutrality" (this was the expression used by one of the scholars). Others, a minority, protest against the intolerant trend, but sometimes paying a high price of shaming and marginalization, and a few others resign their teaching positions.
In this climate of suspicion and self-censorship, there are ideas that are not discussed. The challenge is how to open these spaces for debate with respect and civility. Some organizations such as the Mercatus Center are organizing laboratories where students from different social sectors and geographical origins meet to become "entrepreneurs of ideas." Their aim is to rescue the value of freedom of expression (according to a study, the millennials think that the first amendment to the United States Constitution that protects freedom of speech "goes too far"), inciting the curiosity of young people, to get out of their comfort zone, to put their prejudices aside, and to be willing to be part of a conversation where there will be differences and coincidences.
Identity at the heart of the debate
Topics linked to identities are some of the issues that spark controversy. Some experts recounted the difficulty they find in raising certain questions of identity in environments where a way of identifying oneself can be problematic. The goal should be, according to one of my colleagues, to promote the necessary open attitude to dialogue, based on the principle of "love your neighbour", in recognition of the vulnerability of all human beings, and in accepting the danger that implies "always being right".
Identity is sometimes an excuse to exacerbate external differences between people and hide one's own internal differences or conflicts. As one of the participants said, in a society where "subjectivity is worshiped", the truth is reduced to "my feeling", which ends up being a "tyranny of intimacy". How to get students out of that bubble of identity? One way is to create a “creative confusion” in the style of the Backward Brain Bicycle, promote the discussion of paradoxes, take intellectual risks, search for the truth but at the same time build the social bond through practices that unite people.
Ethics from the fundamentally human
One of the experts told us that the challenge that the United States is currently experiencing (and that would be applicable to other countries) is how to make people better tolerate ambiguity (which requires psychological maturity) allowing them to see what is fundamentally human beyond particular identities. This requires, she stressed, patience and compassion. And also stop focusing on our narcissism.
Another colleague highlighted an initiative that proposes "courageous dialogue" on thorny subjects that generate polarization. This dialogue of the brave is based on four prerequisites: good will, curiosity to investigate, search for the truth and respect for the dignity of the other. Without this dialogue, the expert warned, trust is eroded, social relations are limited, respect for human dignity is diminished, and opportunities to learn are lost.
All this occurs in a public sphere that has changed, as a professor specializing in the study of digital media explained. More than ideological, he told us, it is a sphere in which emotions have prevailed, reinforcing prejudices, provoking political polarization, in a "swarm democracy" where, more than ideas and reasoning, unconditional flattery or destructive insult prevail.
A professor reflected on the need to connect with students based on a common ethic ground to overcome the initial barriers that divide the educator from his/her disciples (for example, perceptions based on the teacher's age or physical appearance). The encounter that takes place in the classroom, she explained, must consider that we all have a body that makes us potentially vulnerable or that offers us the possibility of enjoyment. It must also contribute to recompose the fragmentation of identities (without forgetting that everyone has a story to tell), and it must help us save time, especially to avoid dry and useless discussions, to concentrate on what we should and can do.
A philosophy professor closed the seminar with a presentation about the teaching of a controversial identity such as Christian identity in some contexts. Rather than avoid confrontation, he suggested that we fully enter into it (with all the qualities of respect and civility) in order to understand that controversial topics include us all. They give us the opportunity to review our own arguments and reasoning. And maybe to recognize that we could be sometimes wrong.
Comments
Post a Comment