Political Realities and the Navigation Thereof

[Postbib Yeshuist]

So, I'm slowly discovering that the school where I'll be doing Ph.D. for the next 5 years is more conservative than I initially thought. Mind you, it's not horrible, but I'm learning that much of the faculty will be open-minded in some areas and closed in others. A good example is the comparison of sexuality and gender, with the latter being the more closed perspective (i.e. God is "he") while issues of sexuality tend to have more diverse support (though there are still the holdouts). I know that this is not uncommon, but since the school does not appear to have a official stance with respect to issues of inclusivity, there's no standard to which to appeal. As someone who is more or less notorious for speaking his mind when encountering exclusive perspectives, I wonder if anyone has advice, experiences, etc on how best to navigate this very tricky minefield. I want to remain in community, but I'm also going to have a tough time keeping my mouth shut everytime "God is he" comes up. The next five years (and probably the five after, working on tenure) are gonna be tough in this respect.

Edited May 18, 2010 by Postbib Yeshuist

[poco_puffs]

My experience as the liberal odd duck wasn't in an academic environment, but rather as the extremely liberal girlfriend of a guy with an extremely conservative extended family-- still a lot of pressure, especially since I was staying with all of them during a long vacation. I learned a couple of lessons that might help you weather the significantly longer challenge you're about to face:

1.) Resist the urge to bait others about their beliefs unless you are prepared for the possibility of an argument, ill-will, being humiliated or ostracized, etc. Choose your battles.

2.) If YOU are the one being baited, resist the urge to escalate the interaction. Keep a level-head and express your beliefs with sincerity (not sarcasm); be a good representative of the ideology you espouse.

3.) Be prepared to answer questions, clearly and pleasantly, in case someone is legitimately curious or if you are in a situation where not answering the question (or answering it poorly) would be a mark against you or your beliefs.

4.) Most of the people you meet will believe as firmly in their ideology as you believe in yours. It's taken them years to develop their ideas and sentiments, so don't expect to "convert" people simply because you believe they are mistaken or misguided. Feel free to relish in small victories, but be realistic about your ability to start some sort of revolution on campus.

I'm sure you'll find some other people who run along the same political/social lines as yourself. Even the most conservative campus will have its contingent of outliers. Find some campus groups, have lunch together, do some volunteering-- you'll find your own little pocket of acceptance, and with luck it will get bigger over time.

[oldlady]

Speaking of God, there is holiness in seeking out commonalities with others, rather than differences.

[Postbib Yeshuist]

Both very true. In the past, I have had a bit more freedom to speak my mind. My concern is that now, as a Ph.D. student, there are definite political consequences that can come from such stances. Choosing my battles wisely is defintely a skill I'm going to have to acquire.

And Oldlady, I agree up to the point where the focus on commonalities starts to ignore the pain that the differences can cause. Ug, such a tricky topic.

[oldlady]

Both very true. In the past, I have had a bit more freedom to speak my mind. My concern is that now, as a Ph.D. student, there are definite political consequences that can come from such stances. Choosing my battles wisely is defintely a skill I'm going to have to acquire.

And Oldlady, I agree up to the point where the focus on commonalities starts to ignore the pain that the differences can cause. Ug, such a tricky topic.

Pain is inevitable; suffering is optional. Pray for acceptance -- there is room for all of us (even conservatives).

[Postbib Yeshuist]

suffering is optional.

Sometimes.

[poco_puffs]

In turn, I think that you'll find conservatives to be much more tolerant of your opposing ideas than they're portrayed to be in the mainstream media.

Talk about a great point. Can you imagine how much better America might get along if we were forced to get to know each other on a case by case basis, without the "aid" of polarizing labels and unfair characterizations (of both sides) by the mainstream media?

[Riotbeard]

I say for the first month of school only wear t-shirts with polarizing slogans!

[Postbib Yeshuist]

lol, Riot.

As for being tolerant, I really am to be honest. But let me give an example that might be helpful in understanding where I'm coming from: I had a good friend in a class once who had been raped by another classmate. Nothing came of it because it was the "he said, she said" situation (he said she was hopped up on Nyquil and said "yes," She said she was hopped up on Nyquil and was in the act of passing out for a good night's sleep. In many ways, an impossible situation to sort out.) The next week, a discussion takes place in class (only my friend was there since the other student was in different classes) and someone begins to argue that women are responsible for making sure they don't get raped (the usual "don't dress provocatively, don't drink in public, etc"). A few people push back, but he really stands his ground and doesn't budge an inch. There I sit, seeing the pained expression on my friend's face and the tears welling up in her eyes and just kind of lose it. Though my words were "academic" in nature, there was a definte silence when I was done. At the end of class, multiple people thanked me for my comments, but I also knew that had it been a different professor, I might have suffered some (political) repercussions. No biggie at the Masters level, but something like that at the doctoral level can be tough to recover from. And yet, when you see someone sitting there in pain because someone else won't entertain an alternate notion, it's hard to keep silent.

So anyway, that's more what I'm thinking about. Religious Studies can become VERY emotionally charged (as I'm sure you can imagine) with lots of hurt to go around when people speak without thinking. It can be tough to discuss something "rationally" that's been used to oppress people for so many millennia.

[And for what it's worth, I put liberal and conservative in quotes beause I know they're broad labels that rarely fit the individual.]

[Riotbeard]

lol, Riot.

someone begins to argue that women are responsible for making sure they don't get raped (the usual "don't dress provocatively, don't drink in public, etc"). A few people push back, but he really stands his ground and doesn't budge an inch. There I sit, seeing the pained expression on my friend's face and the tears welling up in her eyes and just kind of lose it. Though my words were "academic" in nature, there was a definte silence when I was done.

Kudos for not beating the hell out of that person! I think the fact that you maintained a level of academic discourse is incredible! I hope I don't have to worry about these types of politics in my program. I know my advisor is at least "liberal", but I tend to describe myself as socialist, so I am planning to try and restrain myself. I always hoped academia would be a place where people could hold opposing views and not get there feathers ruffled. Oh but I am an idealist.

[socialpsychg]

My approach in this kind of situation to take the route of moral relativism. My more conservative peers simply hold different values than I do, and that's completely okay. Ideologies are rigid, and often extremely resistant to change. In particular, this TED talk by psychologist Jon Haidt really helped me reconciliate the notion that similar people may hold completely opposing political views. While liberals are more concerned about fairness and reducing harm (and not notions of ingroup loyalty, adherence to authority, or purity), conservatives hold all five values more equally. Although I grant I'm still inclined to fight on issues where the other person may be misinformed (as in the rape case mentioned above), other issues I'll let slide - gay marriage, abortion, foreign policy, etc. (Note: I'm pretty tired, so I mostly skimmed the other replies. Hopefully I haven't said anything redundant, misinformed, etc.)

[Riotbeard]

My patience ends when it comes to discriminatory views whether related to gender, sexuality, or race.

[wordslinger]

My patience ends when it comes to discriminatory views whether related to gender, sexuality, or race.

Yeah, my personal policy tends to be "live and let live," but I become really frustrated when people are cruel or unfair to others. Fiscal policy is one thing (arguably), whether you are liberal or conservative, but the desire to restrict the rights of others on the basis of gender, sexuality, or race is something that I cannot understand. On that note, I honestly do not understand the opposition to gay marriage; nobody's *insisting* that you marry someone of the same gender, just that you have the option.

Riotbeard: People accuse me of being an idealist all the time, and I don't think they mean it in a nice way. But I'll take it over the alternative.

[Infinite Monkeys]

Religious Studies can become VERY emotionally charged (as I'm sure you can imagine) with lots of hurt to go around when people speak without thinking. It can be tough to discuss something "rationally" that's been used to oppress people for so many millennia.

It was charged to the point of explosive at the undergrad level; I can only imagine what it's going to be like at the grad level after being out of the field for three years. My policy is to just keep my mouth shut until I have a good grasp of whatever the situation happens to be.

This is what my MA adviser told me: You have to learn to play nice. Basically, you have to play play politics with these people. For the next 4-6 years, you're going to have to deal with them and the field's inherent emotionally charged atmosphere. I'm not looking forward to it either, but that's how the field is. If you're going to argue, don't. If you're looking to counter an argument, couch it in theory.

And (another tidbit of wisdom from the prof training me to be a good academic or both of us will die trying), it's as much about getting along with the cohort as much as it is about getting along with the faculty: you never know who you'll be working for, who you'll be working with, or who'll be hiring you. This isn't an enormous field like English is, so reputation is going to be everything for us. Everything you do now has to be done with that end goal in mind.

Don't compromise your views, no, but remember that you have to think long-term at this point. You got in, now you have to start working towards getting out.

[Riotbeard]

It was charged to the point of explosive at the undergrad level; I can only imagine what it's going to be like at the grad level after being out of the field for three years. My policy is to just keep my mouth shut until I have a good grasp of whatever the situation happens to be.

This is what my MA adviser told me: You have to learn to play nice. Basically, you have to play play politics with these people. For the next 4-6 years, you're going to have to deal with them and the field's inherent emotionally charged atmosphere. I'm not looking forward to it either, but that's how the field is. If you're going to argue, don't. If you're looking to counter an argument, couch it in theory.

And (another tidbit of wisdom from the prof training me to be a good academic or both of us will die trying), it's as much about getting along with the cohort as much as it is about getting along with the faculty: you never know who you'll be working for, who you'll be working with, or who'll be hiring you. This isn't an enormous field like English is, so reputation is going to be everything for us. Everything you do now has to be done with that end goal in mind.

Don't compromise your views, no, but remember that you have to think long-term at this point. You got in, now you have to start working towards getting out.

I say you exclusively site Richard Dawkins and Christopher Hitchens, and whenever someone brings up religion in yours classes, tell them it's a farse and not worth discussing.

[Riotbeard]

I say you exclusively site Richard Dawkins and Christopher Hitchens, and whenever someone brings up religion in yours classes, tell them it's a farse and not worth discussing.

I misspeeellled Cite .

[Infinite Monkeys]

I say you exclusively site Richard Dawkins and Christopher Hitchens, and whenever someone brings up religion in yours classes, tell them it's a farse and not worth discussing.

Why not? I'm already going to have people looking askance at me because I want to research South Park (and other pop culture) for religious significance; I may as well go whole hog and guarantee that the entire cohort will think I'm insane.

I misspeeellled Cite .

And "farce."

...just tryin' to be helpful...

[Riotbeard]

Farce doesn't count cuz it's an advansed word

Why not? I'm already going to have people looking askance at me because I want to research South Park (and other pop culture) for religious significance; I may as well go whole hog and guarantee that the entire cohort will think I'm insane.

And "farce."

...just tryin' to be helpful...

[Postbib Yeshuist]

I bring this up because opposition to gay marriage is not rooted in the subjective fear of being "forced" to do something, but out of concern for a broader view of the objective realities of the world.

I think your sentence, in a way, encapsulates the main issue that makes it so hard in all of this. For the most part, there really aren't any "objective realities," just perceptions of on a topic. I think both sides approach a debate from this mindset. Those who admit that their perspective is exactly that--a perspective and not reality--are ones I rarely have an issue with. They're at least willing to consider arguments from the other side. It's those who stake their claim on a certain stance and then argue it's somehow "objective reality" that I tend to have difficulties with. (And I'm not saying that's what you're claiming here, but your comment did raise a few flags for me).