The same person described the goals of Umix as "focused on relaxation and community-building." This is neither the coffee house nor the salon that Habermas imagined in his account of the Public Sphere. Umix is about consumption, and as such is not a place where people can engage in critical rational debate. Habermas writes, "...the settling of political questions, as far as their moral core is concerned, depends on the institutionalization of practices of rational debate." No one is arguing against people's ability to engage in debate, simply that there need to be the proper institutions in place for this to occur. So the solution is simple. There needs to be a separate university sponsored event for controversial films that creates a space for dialog to follow. I believe this will help on in two ways: creating the proper framing for such films and allowing for thoughtful discussion about them with a potential diversity of views.
With regards to framing, I think simply implying that there is something special about a movie like American Sniper will encourage its viewers to think critically about the film and not simply consume two hours of flashing lights and loud noises. If someone told you that American Sniper might be racist as you were about to watch it, you're going to think about whether or not they could be right. A separate venue doesn't have to go so far as labeling a film: simply pointing out that there is something that makes a film different than a traditional popcorn film will encourage individuals to analyse deeper than they might without this framing. If a screening of a film was followed by a town hall type discussion, with some faculty monitoring and directing conversation, then students would have the chance to challenge and defend their beliefs and this would lead to understanding. While this is not going to radically change anyone's mind, that's not really the point. It isn't about conformity, it's about empathy.
This venue would also create an essential pressure valve for anyone seeking to protest a film. With American Sniper the protests lead to cancellation, which lead to Muslim students being accused of censoring free expression. If there was a known alternative venue, students could direct protests at moving the film away from Umix without the University's only option being to cancel the film. When human error leads to an inappropriate film selection, people would have a meaningful way to challenge this film.
This isn't a perfect solution. It might not even be a good solution. But it's a step in a direction that could lead to more empathy on campus. There's always going to be bad people who are going to think and do bad things. This wouldn't fix them. But they might be beyond our help. What this would do is help people who want to be good allies to their fellow students, but who aren't quite sure what that looks like. We don't need perfection, we just need meaningful, positive, change.
.JPG) |
| This is our home. Let's make it a place where everyone is comfortable living. |
Gavin,
ReplyDeleteI found this blog series incredibly interesting- I remember when this entire situation arose and caused quite some disruption on our campus last year. In fact, it raised many discussions and questions in many of my friend groups and even a few of my class discussions. At the time, I was enrolled in an IGR (Inter Group Relations) dialogue course, in which we talked about the consequences to campus climate and the effects of the University, and particularly a prominent figure at this University (Jim Harbaugh), taking stances on such a polarizing film and the ultimate decision to actually screen the film.
I was intrigued to read about your proposed solution- it was an unexpected one, but reading your justification and explanation of it really made sense. I really do agree that UMix is not the venue, nor was it ever intended to be the venue, for expressions of deliberative civic culture. I find it interesting that you turned to Habermas and his ideal of a public sphere as a solution and proposed a potential entirely separate venue for the viewings and subsequent deliberations over controversial and polarizing films on campus.
Your solution does make me wonder: is it a solution that could be applied to other instances of similar democratic failures? For example, if a controversial song was played at a University event (such as the recent Spring Fest, hosted by Music Matters), would we then have to set up an entirely separate event for a deliberative setting in which such polarizing songs can be discussed? Is this asking too much of the University (to set up all of these separate spheres/venues for Habermas-esque deliberation? Should these public spheres then be created preemptively, with expectations of polarizing issues arising?
I think in the example of deliberating over polarizing songs seems intuitively less useful. In the case of a movie, people have a strong desire to see a film and maybe some people might also stay for discussion after. In the case of songs, there is much less motivation to go to a school sponsored event when basically any song could just be found easily on the internet. While I'm not arguing that that means other topics also don't need to be discussed, simply that my proposed solution specifically addresses one type of issue, and may not be applicable in any other situations. I think the most important thing to accomplish is creating a space for reasonable objection, so if someone is trying to argue against some form of art the debate doesn't get trapped in the 'where do we draw the line to protect free expression' that the American sniper debate seemed to take.
ReplyDeleteGavin,
ReplyDeleteI really enjoyed your blog series, I thought you brought good insight to the situation and both of your interviews gave interesting perspectives. I think the film certainly called for discussion of different aspects featured within it. The idea of specific University events to talk about polarizing topics seems like it would be very beneficial and prevent University breakdowns such as the one caused by American Sniper.
I remember when this conversation was happening last year, and honestly I'm still amazed it even happened. As someone who studies both film and political science, I always find and pick out political messages within a film; when I watched American Sniper, I noticed that actually politics weren't as present as I thought they would be. The film is trying to tell the story of the most effective soldier in US military history and does so by only focusing on his perspective as a soldier ordered to kill, not by focusing on the political ideology behind the invasion. On this note, I found it perplexing that students would try to silence oppositional opinions; I understand students may not agree with the film, but to try to prevent other students from experiencing it and judging it for themselves, the protestors wanted to suppress any narrative that supports either the institutions or the people involved in the Iraq War. Regardless of political affiliation, I feel like suppressing the stories of American soldiers does more harm than good in society.
ReplyDeleteI think the worry that the minority students had was primarily that the average student wouldn't be able to effective analyse the film, especially in the context it was being shown in. You (a student of film and political science) may be completely capable of digesting a film with a purely objective view, but I don't know if its reasonable to assume that all, or even most, other students are equally able. I don't think the film actively tries to be marginalizing, it probably stays true to its source material but things can accidentally harm a group of people, and that was the worry here. In an ideal world everyone would be able to watch movies and internally debate their merits rationally. But, in an ideal world racism wouldn't exist and we don't live in an ideal world.
ReplyDelete