While completing my geography major, I have spent a great deal of time studying the effect of discourse. To put it simply, discourse is the way one frames an issue. For example, a "natural disaster" in Malibu, California would qualify for federal disaster funds, while a "fire exacerbated by wealthy estate owners who refuse effective fire management policies" might not merit the same sympathy. Politicians have known this for centuries, with huge consequences for our understanding of major issues. What is often ignored, however, is that both sides of any debate engage in the same divisive and hateful polemic that dominates modern political culture.
Spenser Mestel recently wrote of the hatred and homophobia he observed in the recent exorcism at Manifested Glories Ministry, located in southern Connecticut ("An Exorcism of Hate," June 30). He makes some very good points about discourse, like when he points out that politicians would rather stand up for "family values" than claim "the incapability of gay couples to successfully raise children."
Mestel is right to lament the verbal tip-toeing that permeates modern dialogue. Excuse me for a moment while I air out a tiny fraction of the laundry list of loaded words: sustainability, patriotism, diversity, family values, radical, socialist and so many other words ending in ist. While all of these words have their place in discourse, they do little but breed division in our society.
For reference, I'd like to paint a picture of some people Mestel might dismiss as intolerant. I come from a wonderfully WASP-y, conservative, Lutheran or Catholic lower-middle class agricultural county in North Dakota. We are incredibly socially progressive, as evidenced by the recent string of marriages between Lutherans and Catholics. All joking aside, this is my home and my heritage. I was raised in a Lutheran church, and while there are more important and frequently covered sermon topics out there, homosexuality is regarded as a sin in my home and my church.
With that said, one might read Mestel's column and throw my entire community into the "radically homophobic" category. Rest assured, people at home are very kind, loving and wonderful people who would probably slap their foreheads after watching the exorcism video that Mestel mentions, accompanied by a Fargo-Norwegian-Lutheran inspired "Uff-daa" They would then go on about their day and wish people would just love one another and get along. As much as Mestel might find the idea incomprehensible, "hate the sin, love the sinner" is practiced and preached throughout evangelical America. It might sound strange, or even hypocritical, but it's the reality that gets drowned out by words like "homophobia" and "evil hell-bound sodomites."
Before arriving at Dartmouth, I recall reading about the "Rally Against Hatred" in response to a tasteless issue of the Dartmouth Review that depicted a Native American with a scalp in hand getting "restless." The Dartmouth community was right to address the controversy and hurt caused by the incident. We must be cautious, however, that our solutions don't preclude understanding. Years later, many students on campus fail to see the value of the Native American program to their education (considering the budget cut polls last year). While we may have remedied the specific incident, were we merely eliminating the symptoms of a larger problem?
We are part of a close-knit community here at Dartmouth. Even in the midst of conflict, we have many choices of how to engage with those we might perceive as outsiders or backwards. Labeling someone as "homophobic" may or may not do justice to the truth. It will perpetuate conflict and social distance and forego a great opportunity for understanding and reconciliation.
Imagine if the approach of the gay community toward communities like my own was one of pragmatism. Instead of forcing communities to change, political campaigners should advocate for solutions that allow societies to govern and regulate their own social norms; Massachusetts could have gay marriage and North Dakota traditional marriage. In the absence of a "culture war," communities could move at their own pace toward democratic solutions. People must put down their pitchforks and partisan discourse and get to the business of compromise and understanding. With our diverse society, Dartmouth students are well equipped to start this movement.
