Opinion
The Michigan Daily — michigandaily.com
4A — Monday, January 14, 2019
Trigger warning: Column discusses
graphic scenes of sexual assault.
T
witter
has
become
a platform for social
and political activism.
While scrolling through tweets,
I sometimes come across cute
photos of dogs and the occasional
heartwarming video, but I mostly
see tweets aimed at controversial
media and news. One television
show that has sparked a large
amount of these tweets is the
Netflix series “Thirteen Reasons
Why.”
One
scene,
in
particular,
fueled contentious debate. In
season 2 of “Thirteen Reasons
Why,” there’s a scene in which
one of the characters, Tyler, is
confronted by the much stronger,
more aggressive Monty. In the
shocking scene, Monty smashes
Tyler’s head against the bathroom
sinks repeatedly before dragging
him to the toilets and sodomizing
him with a mop as Tyler screams
out in pain.
Many people took to Twitter
to voice their thoughts about the
necessity of the scene. Many who
opposed the inclusion of the scene
argued that such graphic scenes
are unnecessary and that the
trigger warning at the beginning
of the episode was insufficient.
Those in favor of the scene argued
that the scene was supposed to
be uncomfortable for viewers
to watch and was crucial for
“starting the conversation” about
male victim sexual assault.
As someone who watched both
seasons of “Thirteen Reasons
Why”
I
became
physically
sickened by that scene, so I went
on Twitter to read the debates
about the series, and there was
one part of the argument in favor
of the scene that baffled me: There
was no depth in the conversation.
The
only
conversation
about
male rape centered on whether
the scene with Tyler and Monty
should have been put in the show
or not. The main conversations
were about how Hannah and Zach
(two of the protagonists who were
briefly involved in a relationship)
“deserved
better”
and
the
attractiveness of Justin Foley,
another one of the protagonists.
There were a few miscellaneous
tweets about how male rape is
more common than people think,
and how people need to discuss
it, but they got lost among the
photo edits of Zach and Hannah,
as well as tweet threads about the
controversial scene. Nothing was
factual, in-depth or executed with
care.
It seems as though “starting
the conversation” has become an
excuse, rather than the reason,
for sharing shocking and often
graphic content about sensitive
topics. However, the response to
the scene in “Thirteen Reasons
Why” serves as a prime example as
to why creating and then releasing
graphic content that relates to
prevalent societal issues doesn’t
really do anything.
Doing something to simply
“start the conversation” is a
lazy, problematic approach to
tackling issues. It’s a cop-out
that absolves the person starting
the conversation of any event
that ensues, and showing people
horrifying scenes to “start the
conversation”
about
societal
issues
is
the
equivalent
of
showing children porn to “start
the
conversation”
about
safe
sex. Starting a conversation is
important, but so is facilitating it
and making sure that something
comes out of it. Content like the
scene in “Thirteen Reasons Why”
might have encouraged some
people to learn more and engage in
meaningful dialogue, but for most
people, it just becomes something
shocking to tweet about before
losing interest. It is naive to assume
that after watching a graphic scene
in a television show, viewers will
engage in meaningful dialogue
about the scene and then go on to
become some kind of activist for
whatever issue or topic the scene
covered. More often than not,
viewers become traumatized by
what they watch and discuss the
scene rather than the trauma itself
and then forget about it.
This is clear even when
examining how people react to
the news: People have become
so desensitized to horrific events
such as mass shootings that while
they might initially feel awful
when hearing about such an event
and discuss it, many people tend
to forget about the event and move
on with their lives. This isn’t to
say that the news shouldn’t report
about such events. However, the
news has shown us that simply
showing people horrible things
that happen to others does not
result in real change.
While
media
depicting
graphic scenes might have more
shock value and more potential to
become viral and, thus, reach more
people, it doesn’t do anything
but shock people before being
forgotten. In order to encourage
people to discuss issues in an
impactful way, we must direct
them so that know even where
to start considering, conversing
and changing. For example, if
“Thirteen Reasons Why” hadn’t
shown that scene, and had
instead perhaps only alluded to
such an event happening (after
inserting a hefty trigger warning)
and had followed it up with an
unavoidable discussion between
the cast member and experts or
statistics about sexual assault, the
show might have succeeded in
creating and facilitating an actual,
meaningful conversation about
sexual assault.
People need to be given
direction when asked to deal with
complex problems. It’s lazy to
drop a bombshell on unsuspecting
viewers and then essentially leave
them to figure everything out by
themselves. Instead, we must
educate people about certain
topics without traumatizing or
triggering them and then offer
ways in which they can help,
such as by providing the names of
certain organizations that work
towards change or the names of
proposed pieces of legislature
people can help support. Starting
a conversation is important, but
it only helps if there are people
willing to act following it.
Don’t just “start the conversation”
Krystal Hur can be reached at
kryshur@umich.edu.
Emma Chang
Joel Danilewitz
Samantha Goldstein
Elena Hubbell
Emily Huhman
Tara Jayaram
Jeremy Kaplan
Sarah Khan
Lucas Maiman
Magdalena Mihaylova
Ellery Rosenzweig
Jason Rowland
Anu Roy-Chaudhury
Alex Satola
Ali Safawi
Ashley Zhang
Sam Weinberger
FINNTAN STORER
Managing Editor
Stanford Lipsey Student Publications Building
420 Maynard St.
Ann Arbor, MI 48109
tothedaily@michigandaily.com
Edited and managed by students at the University of Michigan since 1890.
MAYA GOLDMAN
Editor in Chief
MAGDALENA MIHAYLOVA
AND JOEL DANILEWITZ
Editorial Page Editors
Unsigned editorials reflect the official position of The Daily’s Editorial Board.
All other signed articles and illustrations represent solely the views of their authors.
EDITORIAL BOARD MEMBERS
What conservatives get wrong about identity politics
AARON BAKER | COLUMN
N
othing evokes a more
visceral reaction from
modern
conservatives
than political correctness and
identity
politics.
Conservatives
often point to the annoyance of
identity
politics
and
political
correctness as the reason for
President
Donald
Trump’s
election. Jonah Goldberg, fellow
and Asness Chair in Applied
Liberty at American Enterprise
Institute, explained how identity
politics are destroying Western
civilization as we know it in his
book “Suicide of the West: How the
Rebirth of Tribalism, Populism,
Nationalism, and Identity Politics is
Destroying American Democracy.”
Similarly, the popular intellectual
Jordan Peterson decries political
correctness and identity politics
as “Marxist,” “totalitarian” and
“postmodern.” Peterson is only
right that political correctness and
identity politics are postmodern,
however,
that
shouldn’t
scare
conservatives. Most opposition to
political correctness and so-called
identity politics is rooted in
misperceptions.
Conservatives
and
critics
of
political
correctness
and
identity politics argue the two
movements
are
symptoms
of
cultural
collectivism.
Political
correctness and identity politics
supporters, according to many
conservatives, view life through the
reductive lens of race, gender and
sexuality in which everything is a
power struggle, creating only the
oppressors and the oppressed. To
conservatives, those who talk about
racism or sexism are only thinking
about their membership in a group
— a modern form of tribalism. It
is this tribalism that challenges
the pillars of Western civilization,
specifically
the
Enlightenment
values of individual rights and
rationality.
When
conservatives
deride
identity politics, they eschew any
political discourse that touches
on
prejudice.
All
democratic
politics
are
coalition-based
in
some way, requiring appeals to
voting coalitions that are often, in
some way, identity-based. What
conservatives
deem
identity
politics is simply politics that
discuss racism, sexism, xenophobia
or any issues created by prejudicial
thinking in some way, and political
correctness is simply an effort to
use language and concepts that
are more inclusive and fairer.
The goals and effects of identity
politics and political correctness
are primarily about individualism,
which
conservatives
rightly
support.
Of
course,
identity
politics and political correctness
can go too far, but the core ideas of
political correctness and identity
politics are valid and necessary.
The
Enlightenment
was
a
multifaceted
intellectual
movement
that
produced
a
wide array of ideas. I would say
conservatives are right when they
talk about Enlightenment values
of individualism and rationality
and the benefits they provide
democracies around the world.
The only problem is the idea of the
rational individual that comes from
the Enlightenment has historically
been qualified and limited. White
men were considered as rational,
autonomous agents, but everyone
else was perceived as inferior, less
rational and less autonomous.
The fact that the Enlightenment
championed
empiricism
and
scientific discovery is something
to be celebrated, as the human
condition has improved immensely
since the Scientific Revolution. But
there were two problems. The first
was that scientific knowledge in
the 1700s was limited and flawed.
Second was that the Enlightenment
created
scientism,
in
which
scientific truths discovered and
verified about the natural world
are applied to social realities. The
result was shoddy science used
to justify oppressive ideologies
that
categorized
humans
and
dictated how they should live and
interact with others. This thinking
ultimately
produced
Social
Darwinism, scientific racism and
biologically-justified
sexism
in
the 19th and 20th century, the
remnants of which are still alive in
our society today.
Postmodernism
says
there
are no absolute truths in social
realities,
only
constructs
and
human inventions. There are truths
in the scientific world, but they
are irrelevant for how humans
should live their lives. Biological
differences
between
individual
humans or groups of humans are
largely irrelevant in a social or
political setting.
As Yuval Noah Harari writes
in his book “Sapiens: A Brief
History of Humankind,” humans
have used their cognition to
imagine social realities, stories
and structures since the so-called
cognitive revolution some 30,000
years ago. These social realities
allowed Homo sapiens to organize
themselves in ways other animals
were
unable
to,
advantaging
humans and allowing them to
climb the food chain. According
to Harari, this is the primary
difference between humans and
other animals: We can invent
social realities that override our
underlying biological impulses in
determining human action and
organization.
Postmodernism is cognizant of
the construction of social realities
— a process wherein language
plays an important role. Therefore,
political correctness and identity
politics seek to use language to
challenge historic schemas. These
dictate human behavior based on
group identities — race, gender or
others — that were bequeathed
to us from the scientism of the
past.
Postmodernism
tells
us
one’s
phenotype,
reproductive
organs, sexuality or other traits
are irrelevant to an individual’s
capabilities
or
personalities,
leaving them to carve their own
fates.
The individualism so many
conservatives champion is thus
an incomplete idea of what it
means to be an individual. It is
only concerned with individualism
between citizen and government,
as envisioned by the vertical
social contract of John Locke.
This is totally legitimate as the
worst crimes against humanity
have
been
committed
by
tyrannical governments. Liberty
and
individualism
require
examining the lateral relationships
between people, especially where
majorities can oppress minorities
by creating social realities that
limit, categorize and essentialize
them. Conservatives can do a
good job in acknowledging the
former, but fail to do so in the
latter. Likewise, liberals can be
guilty of the opposite: succeeding
in challenging oppressive social
norms and language, but remaining
unconcerned
with
unchecked
government power and coercion.
There’s room for a middle
ground in the polarized debate over
political correctness. Conservatives
who care about individual liberty
should consider the possibilities
of
adopting
postmodern
ideas
prevalent on college campuses.
For
social
conservatives,
postmodernism is likely a hard pill
to swallow. But for conservatives
who prioritize low taxes or an active
foreign policy, political correctness
and postmodernism don’t have to
be strongly opposed. By ceding all
postmodern ideas to liberals and
progressives,
conservatives
are
losing potential allies.
Likewise, liberals who engage
in censorship and social media
shaming are also losing potential
allies. Harmful speech should
be countered by better speech.
Protesters who stopped Charles
Murray’s
speech
on
campus
probably didn’t convince anyone
who agreed with his pseudo-
scientific,
prejudice-enabling
ideas. Forcing people to use the
right language won’t convince
them the ideas behind the changes
in language are valid, and the
oppressive concepts will persist.
Changing language and social
norms can help alter unconscious
bias,
according
to
research
suggesting language shapes the
way we think. But if people don’t
believe the change in norms or
language is necessary or even
valid, then different language will
be adopted to produce the same
oppressive effects.
Aaron Baker can be reached at
aaronbak@umich.edu.
SAM SUGERMAN | COLUMN
T
hroughout
history,
society
has
frequently
utilized
the
band-aid
method – we love a quick fix. In 1863,
William Banting wrote the “Letter
on Corpulence,” popularizing fad
diets for the first time. Instead of
promoting a reduction in sugar intake
or encouraging exercise, Banting
believed the cure to corpulence, or
obesity, was a low-carbohydrate diet.
Banting’s work precipitated the rise
of the dieting industry, now worth
$66.3 billion per year; however, even
today global obesity is on the rise. For
centuries, society has sought a single
quick-fix to multiplex issues, like
obesity, by creating oversimplified
solutions that erroneously promise
easy results instead of focusing on the
situation as a whole.
Today, the complex issue we
confront is plastic pollution in our
oceans and the need to preserve
these vital bodies of water for the
future of our planet. Plastic in the
oceans has begun to infiltrate our
food system and kill sea life with no
end in sight. Over the last 65 years,
plastic use has increased 200-fold.
Instead of addressing the crisis as a
whole, we have fragmented the issue.
Following the 2015 video “‘No’ to
Plastic Straws,” society has shifted its
attention to the elimination of plastic
straws, the biggest trend of 2018. In
doing so, we have ignored other more
significant perpetrators of pollution
that are killing the oceans.
The
eradication
of
plastic
straws intends to prevent the
pervasive issue of plastic pollution
in our oceans, but there is no such
thing as a simple solution to a
complex issue. Multifold problems
cannot be fragmented. The oceans
cannot be salvaged strictly by
getting rid of all plastic straws, a
small part of the problem.
As a society, we have to fully
evaluate the causes of plastic
pollution
and
take
responsive
actions targeted toward attaining
the most efficacious and positive
outcomes while mitigating the
effects, no matter how arduous
the process may be. The complete
eradication of plastic straws is
unlikely because people living
with disabilities rely on plastic
straws to assist in their dietary
intake. However, even if activists
succeed, plastic straws only make
up a lowly 0.025 percent of the
estimated 8 million tons of plastic
that pollute the oceans annually.
According to USA Today, straws
were seventh on the list of items
collected on 2017’s International
Coastal Cleanup Day, far behind
wrappers, bottles with caps, and
bags. It is not plastic straws that
are the issue, it’s plastic in general.
Society is magnifying the issue of
straws and, in doing so, distracting
attention and remediation efforts
from more significant polluters. In
fact, the abatement of plastic straws
will not lead to a concurrent decline
in pollution as total plastic pollution
is projected to triple by 2025.
Supporters of “The Last Practice
Straw” movement, however, assert
plastic straws are a gateway to
the larger issue of global plastic
consumption
and
pollution,
an
issue so grave that by 2050 plastic
is projected to outweigh fish in the
ocean. Except it is just not working.
People are evidently rationalizing
their use of other plastics because
they no longer use plastic straws.
Travis
Bradberry,
author
of
“Emotional
Intelligence
2.0,”
recognizes this human tendency as
the compensation effect. “Humans
use good deeds to balance out
bad deeds, or alternately, we give
ourselves breaks from goodness,”
Bradberry writes. Therefore, when
a person stops using plastic straws,
they accumulate an assumed moral
capital that they then use to justify
other
environmentally-damaging
actions.
I myself have fallen victim
to this effect. Earlier this year, a
friend noticed my metal straws
leaning against my box of granola
bars, each individually covered in
a plastic wrapper. He commented
on the irony of this display. I
irrationally justified the excess use
of plastic, touting my refusal to
use plastic straws. I had assembled
so much moral capital that I
blinded myself to how my other
choices detrimentally affected the
environment. This mindset begets
disaster for our oceans.
We are fighting a losing and
distracting battle. Even if we
eradicate
plastic
straws,
total
pollution in the oceans will become
only a scintilla less. It is time
we create a strategy to actually
curtail
total
plastic
pollution.
The elimination of plastic straws
is a simple solution that, while
positive in its minor impact on
the environment, merely focuses
on a single and small aspect of
all
oceanic
plastic
pollution.
Regrettably, this focus on just a
facet of the problem detrimentally
increases an individual’s assumed
moral capital and prevents a more
comprehensive solution.
It is estimated there are 15 to
51 trillion pieces of microplastics
in the ocean and an additional 5.25
trillion visible pieces of other plastic.
The Pacific Ocean has an “island”
of plastic that is three times the
size of France. For real change, it is
critical that we confront the plastic
epidemic head-on, instead of fighting
a minimally-impactful battle on the
side.
I
recognize
plastic
straws
are unique in the fact they are
lightweight and can slide through
mechanical recycling sorters. I
acknowledge they are a contributing
factor to plastic pollution and I
applaud every person and company
that has phased plastic straws out,
but we must consider this only a first
step, not a finish line. To establish
real change, we cannot just focus
on straws. Since the first recorded
fad diet in 1863, we have focused on
creating simple solutions to complex
societal problems and it has not
worked. Society must learn from its
failures and focus not on the easy fad
response, but rather the often more
difficult, comprehensive solution.
The campaign to #StopSucking is not
entirely cutting it, instead, we must
#StopUsing. Decreasing our plastic
footprint will take diligence, from
refusing a plastic-wrapped snack to
carrying a reusable bag and bottle.
It is vital to the longevity of
our oceans and humanity that we
change the norms of our everyday
lives and challenge those of others.
Eliminating plastic straws is not
enough, because there is no such
thing as a simple solution or magical
elixir to resolve the issue of plastic
pollution.
A bad solution to pollution
Sam Sugerman can be reached at
samsug@umich.edu.
CONTRIBUTE TO THE CONVERSATION
Readers are encouraged to submit letters to the
editor and op-eds. Letters should be fewer than
300 words while op-eds should be 550 to 850
words. Send the writer’s full name and University
affiliation to tothedaily@michigandaily.com.
There’s room
for a middle
ground in the
polarized debate
over political
correctness
KRYSTAL HUR | COLUMN