2008 Woodie Awards
Remembering to look beyond the stress
By: Miriam Larson
Issue date: 4/21/06 Section: Opinion
- Page 1 of 2 next >
Al riesgo de parecer ridÃculo el revolucionario está animado por gran sentimientos de amor. (At the risk of seeming ridiculous, the revolutionary is motivated by great sentiments of love!)
-Che Guevara
On Sunday I sewed together the thick, spongy rind of an oversized grapefruit (that I have learned is called a pomelo) into an intensely fragrant mobile that I hung from a pipe on my ceiling. As I pushed my needle through the foamy fruit-skin I laughed to my mother on the phone about the ridiculousness of it and she laughed in return. I need that ridiculousness in these last weeks of school to put the loads of work in perspective, because I am not here to bust my butt for A's or to come up with groundbreaking new theory or to be a revolutionary student activist. I am here because of my family, friends and community who laugh, encourage, inspire and potentially benefit from the contributions I'm learning to give to this world.
Unfortunately, Che's “great sentiments of love” are frantically getting buried, neglected or forgotten among piles of “should's,” objectivity, and urgency. At Macalester, where so many informed arguments are made because people believe in the changes they suggest, love gets buried under the “should's” that theory produces. For example, I am writing a paper about the prison-industrial complex that communicates my belief that prisons in their current state are not just and therefore should be changed. But it is not the “should” that I hope to take away from this paper, it is the understanding that the U.S. American prison system is not strengthening communities and is not caring for troubled people. Perhaps I also expand my tolerance of prisoners who I believe are not justly treated by the criminal justice system.
But although my arguments can engage the world's problems, I do not believe tolerance can be learned in books and therefore academic theory is useful only as one tool among many to change the world. This is particularly true in light of academia's thirst for objectivity, which cuts emotional ties in order to impart unbiased truth. I would go as far as to say that reason is used to explain the world in a demonstration of control. I certainly use it in this way; the world is confusing and overwhelming and if I can theorize it into writing or bullet points it seems more manageable. But sometimes I get so many bullet points or so many theories that I stumble over my words and when my aunts and uncles ask over Easter dinner what I think about volunteering for the Peace Corps, it is difficult to offer my opinion of volunteerism (which I shared in an earlier column) in plain language.
-Che Guevara
On Sunday I sewed together the thick, spongy rind of an oversized grapefruit (that I have learned is called a pomelo) into an intensely fragrant mobile that I hung from a pipe on my ceiling. As I pushed my needle through the foamy fruit-skin I laughed to my mother on the phone about the ridiculousness of it and she laughed in return. I need that ridiculousness in these last weeks of school to put the loads of work in perspective, because I am not here to bust my butt for A's or to come up with groundbreaking new theory or to be a revolutionary student activist. I am here because of my family, friends and community who laugh, encourage, inspire and potentially benefit from the contributions I'm learning to give to this world.
Unfortunately, Che's “great sentiments of love” are frantically getting buried, neglected or forgotten among piles of “should's,” objectivity, and urgency. At Macalester, where so many informed arguments are made because people believe in the changes they suggest, love gets buried under the “should's” that theory produces. For example, I am writing a paper about the prison-industrial complex that communicates my belief that prisons in their current state are not just and therefore should be changed. But it is not the “should” that I hope to take away from this paper, it is the understanding that the U.S. American prison system is not strengthening communities and is not caring for troubled people. Perhaps I also expand my tolerance of prisoners who I believe are not justly treated by the criminal justice system.
But although my arguments can engage the world's problems, I do not believe tolerance can be learned in books and therefore academic theory is useful only as one tool among many to change the world. This is particularly true in light of academia's thirst for objectivity, which cuts emotional ties in order to impart unbiased truth. I would go as far as to say that reason is used to explain the world in a demonstration of control. I certainly use it in this way; the world is confusing and overwhelming and if I can theorize it into writing or bullet points it seems more manageable. But sometimes I get so many bullet points or so many theories that I stumble over my words and when my aunts and uncles ask over Easter dinner what I think about volunteering for the Peace Corps, it is difficult to offer my opinion of volunteerism (which I shared in an earlier column) in plain language.
Be the first to comment on this story