When does “normal” cause more problems than its ability to solve? The answer is when “normal” provides less than a 100 percent safety net for people who are different from the majority, when “normal” passes for natural or superior and “different” substitutes for deviant or inferior. This hypothesis can apply to race, gender, sexual preference, religion, abilities/disabilities, inter alia. When normal does not reflect a view of difference which contains a value judgment (which might imply better/worse based on the above categories), then we will be moving towards a society without bias, without prejudice.
I have been at or around Northwestern since 1968 and incidents of outward demonstrations of bigotry, intentional or otherwise, have been a regular but not frequent occurrence. Our community has generally responded to these incidents by encouraging dialogue through public forums. Let me be clear that I am in favor of such responses; dialogue is always better than confrontation. And I am going to assume that none of us wish to identify with bigotry.
Sometimes I am afraid that normal at Northwestern allows for the occasional episode which we then must meet to discuss and seek not to repeat. Perhaps the time has come to renormalize our culture and admit the fact that like it or not, part of our quotidian existence contains bigotry. This is perhaps most frustrating when public manifestations of bigotry are unintentional and surprising, even to those members of the community caught in the act. How do we, as a community take responsibility and re-normalize our campus?
In full disclosure, I owe Northwestern undergraduate Paul Jackson thanks for raising the discourse of normal which informs this column. If racism and other forms of bigotry are normal, not aberrant, then how do we proceed? The University Diversity Report takes significant steps in the right direction. From increasing minority presence at all levels at Northwestern to expanding courses which touch on “minority issues” to less precise notions of “third spaces” where students can talk with one another, the Committee report offers some provocative options aimed at renormalizing our local culture. It even goes so far as to mandate that students must pass two courses with diversity issues in the curriculum. As one who teaches classes in African tudies, and on global poverty and global insurrection, I welcome more students in attendance. But while I am ambivalent about requiring a two-course mandate, I am wholly in favor of the educational mission behind it.
Increased admission and hiring at all levels are slam dunks. That we have greatly increased enrollment in the past three years indicates that a greater commitment will pay off. Yet why do I have a small hesitation about some other aspects of this plan? Perhaps it is because too much of it feels like our seeking a Kumbaya moment; an ecstatic epiphany of brotherhood and sisterhood. It is not that simple. The social structure in America today is not a large smorgasbord in which X number of religions, cultures, sexual identities etc. each contribute in their own way and the best thing we can do is sample those we want to and respect the others. This assemblage of cultures and preferences, do not, in the real world, relate to one another in a symmetrical manner. They are embedded within a hierarchy; with differential access to the rights and benefits of America. Some can marry, some cannot. Some can get social security after contributing from their earnings and others cannot. Some live in the shadow of Plessy v. Ferguson, some don’t. The list is manifold. So merely pondering the pleasures of each group, their music, food, cinema, etc., is a start, but we must be honest about the historical realities of their relationship to the whole.
Hegel argued that the whole is greater than the sum of its parts, and others from Smith to Marx to Weber argued that how the whole is assembled will get you the real story. This should be part of our pedagogical goal, to analyze how American and global society are really structured. And the public spaces where students regardless of class, race, gender, gender preference, and religious beliefs can feel at home talking with one another (but not appear as specimens to be met, studied, and become sensitized to).
I began with talking about the trouble with normal and the need for re-normalization. To renormalize we must admit and confront that sexism, racism, homophobia, Islamophobia, anti-Semitism are real; even on our campus. You see, we are part of America which is rife with bigotry. Rather than pretend otherwise and then act embarrassed and contrite when an eruption occurs, we should be proactive and become a leader in confronting this reality and saying no to bigotry.
Jeff Rice (Weinberg ’76) Is a senior lecturer in the history department and a Weinberg adviser. He can be reached at [email protected].
