Anotable feature ofDartmouth culture isthe tendency tosqueeze all manners ofviews and opinions into a restrictive set of categories, namely left, right or (least often) center.Speaking out for or against anything is enough to get one branded a "conservative" or (more often) a "liberal." Quite apart from whether these terms are as deserving of scorn as they are made out to be, are such terms of reference the only ones there are?
Confucius once said, "The superior man, in the world, does not set his mind either for anything, or against anything; what is right he will follow."These are wise words indeed, and most of us would like to believe that we live by such a maxim.
But how can this be true if we come pre-equipped to see the world from an ideological stance? How, in fact, do we know that the ideologies we espouse are the right ones or not? Is it because we have thought them over, or, as is more likely, because the ideas we subscribe to are those our friends and families subscribe to? If the second reason is the one behind our positions, then such positions are more likely an obstruction, rather than an aid, to the search for truth.
What value then is there in calling oneself a Jeffersonian Democrat or a Rockefeller Republican? What does it mean to say someone is, say, a "liberal"? Does this mean that this person henceforth must hold prototypically "liberal" opinions?
This tendency can indeed be observed amongst ourselves, when people, without shame, gush forth with phrases like "I'm SO conservative!" Such a view is symptomatic of a narrowness of vision and a foolish consistency on the part of he who holds it. To say such a thing is an admission that one is unable or unwilling to think upon individual issues for oneself, content to leave the thinking to the sages at GOP or Democratic Party headquarters. It means one has surrendered the freedom to disagree which this republic goes to such pains to safeguard.
It would in fact not come as a surprise if many of the readers of this article have often felt uncomfortable with the liberal/centrist/conservative categorization. It is understandable enough for such terms to employed by political hacks, eternally under pressure to simplify issues that cannot be made simple, but amongst a community of avowed scholars such restricted thinking is simply unacceptable.
For instance,there is no discernible alliance between supply-side capitalism and xenophobia, and yet people who hold either of these views are lumped together in the "right-wing" category. Similarly, advocates of free-love and Marxist-Syndicalists are both labeled "left-wingers," as if such classifications explain anything.
What then should be done?
First, we must all realize that holding a particular view on a thing does not compel us to take the same view on all other things, and that we need not force ourselves into any of the categories into which the demographers tell us we must fall.
The second is to foster in ourselves a healthy skepticism toward the accepted wisdoms and received opinions around us.One would think this would be obvious, yet, if we are honest with each other, how often does any of us do the hard work of researching and reasoning out our positions? How often do we consider the possibility that, for instance, both the Democrats and the Republicans might beclueless as to how to solve the problems which assail America?
It is, in fact, in this irreverence for received wisdom and opinions that most of the knowledge of which we can be reasonably sure originates. This is a time in our lives when the facilities are at hand, if we wish to use them, to aid us in testing the veracity of the things we are told. Except for the fortunate few who will go on to become academics, most Dartmouth students will never again have the time, energy or resources to question that they do at present.
Then why do we not make use of the opportunitiesDartmouth provides while they are still at hand? A friend of mine distinguished between "academic" learning, the kind done in class for the sake of a good grade, and "personal" learning, that done simply because one cannot do without knowing. It is precisely the latter that is so little engaged in here at Dartmouth: It is true enough that one sees people studying all the time, but how much of that studying is done because of a question which has been gnawing at the studier's psyche?
The general tendency to resort to worn out and ill-fitting categorizations is symptomatic of this lack of intellectual hunger. It is the satisfaction of this very hunger that is the prime goal of an institution such as ours. It would be a heartening thing to see in evidence more people who are possessed by the desire to know, and who are unafraid of doing without hackneyed concepts such as "conservative" and "liberal" in going about knowing.
