Language in racial discourse
In Sen. Barack Obama's speech in Philadelphia a few weeks back, he spoke to the power of words, which got me thinking about the vocabulary that I and my peers use to discuss race.
As part of the white hegemony, I am certainly in no place to judge race relations at Hopkins. It is much more appropriate for those who feel the full force of the atmosphere to judge which way the wind is blowing.
I do feel as though I am in a position to comment on the vocabulary and language we use to discuss race, especially positive terms like "multiculturalism."
It's difficult for negative words like "anger" or "prejudice," which have their place in race discourse, to lose their impact. But ameliorative terms that are used to identify solutions tend to lose their emphasis and meaning as they get diluted by overuse.
"Multiculturalism" isn't just an -ism defined by the ennui of relativity. Nor is it that scrubbed-clean sentiment as defined by "It's A Small World" or Olympics bromides. Multiculturalism is the belief in the alchemy of cultural interaction. It's a messy, mysterious term that places at its core value an acquisition of knowledge and awareness.
While the idea is that each demographic appreciates others' cultural values, that does not mean accepting them at face value. When engaging in a multicultural dialogue, one must ask questions, demand answers, and appreciate the complexity of what one learns.
A dynamic dialogue helps to create a better idea of not only who we interact with, but what lies in our own identity. And it's that increasing awareness of self and others that is the true success of multiculturalism.
Racial dialogue has to deal in forceful terms, not only about the illness, but also about the cure. The problem when positive words lose meaning is that the theories behind them lose their significance as well. As a result, people roll their eyes when terms like "multiculturalism" are employed and a substantial part of the dialogue gets lost in the absence of compelling words.
So, how does this apply to Hopkins? The simple answer is that the student body needs to be active. We have many different special-interest groups on campus that put on many events open to the campus, but so often, the student body doesn't go. It's a combination of a lack of awareness and a lack of interest. This is where the Hopkins administration needs to step up. While Hopkins has many different ways to support campus events monetarily, it does little to promote the efforts of students. The University needs to promote worthy causes that increase awareness, so that the community can sustain a constant dialogue on culture and heritage, rather than allowing things to foment and explode as they did last year.
As part of the white hegemony, I am certainly in no place to judge race relations at Hopkins. It is much more appropriate for those who feel the full force of the atmosphere to judge which way the wind is blowing.
I do feel as though I am in a position to comment on the vocabulary and language we use to discuss race, especially positive terms like "multiculturalism."
It's difficult for negative words like "anger" or "prejudice," which have their place in race discourse, to lose their impact. But ameliorative terms that are used to identify solutions tend to lose their emphasis and meaning as they get diluted by overuse.
"Multiculturalism" isn't just an -ism defined by the ennui of relativity. Nor is it that scrubbed-clean sentiment as defined by "It's A Small World" or Olympics bromides. Multiculturalism is the belief in the alchemy of cultural interaction. It's a messy, mysterious term that places at its core value an acquisition of knowledge and awareness.
While the idea is that each demographic appreciates others' cultural values, that does not mean accepting them at face value. When engaging in a multicultural dialogue, one must ask questions, demand answers, and appreciate the complexity of what one learns.
A dynamic dialogue helps to create a better idea of not only who we interact with, but what lies in our own identity. And it's that increasing awareness of self and others that is the true success of multiculturalism.
Racial dialogue has to deal in forceful terms, not only about the illness, but also about the cure. The problem when positive words lose meaning is that the theories behind them lose their significance as well. As a result, people roll their eyes when terms like "multiculturalism" are employed and a substantial part of the dialogue gets lost in the absence of compelling words.
So, how does this apply to Hopkins? The simple answer is that the student body needs to be active. We have many different special-interest groups on campus that put on many events open to the campus, but so often, the student body doesn't go. It's a combination of a lack of awareness and a lack of interest. This is where the Hopkins administration needs to step up. While Hopkins has many different ways to support campus events monetarily, it does little to promote the efforts of students. The University needs to promote worthy causes that increase awareness, so that the community can sustain a constant dialogue on culture and heritage, rather than allowing things to foment and explode as they did last year.
Viewing Comments 1 - 3 of 3
MaryJ
posted 4/04/08 @ 12:50 AM EST
This is moronic. While everybody in the US is gazing at their navels and babbling constantly about "multiculturalism" as this author seems to advocate, the Chinese will be kicking our asses even more than they already are. (Continued…)
MR
posted 4/04/08 @ 1:49 AM EST
MaryJ:
The perceived "obsession" with race doesn't imply a discussion about it. Nor is race equivalent to culture.
The "obsession" with race is really more of a tacit discomfort with it. (Continued…)
Tefo Kgamanyane Linchwe
posted 9/30/08 @ 11:47 PM EST
Those terms do exist, but the most vital part is when do we use such words when we having a discourse with others, but without being so impolite and harsh to them with such words. (Continued…)
Post a Comment