Denial
Last year Tara Westover published a ‘memoir’, Educated.[i] As I read it, I decided to check what a memoir was. Wikipedia came to the rescue explaining it was “a collection of memories that an individual writes about moments or events, both public or private, that took place in the subject’s life. The assertions made in the work are understood to be factual … a memoir often tells a story “from a life”, such as touchstone events and turning points”. Some reviewers have compared Educated to Hillbilly Elegy, as both are about growing up in poverty and escaping through education, but while that’s true, it ignores the differences. Tara Westover and J D Vance tell of lives following very different paths, and her account is quite clearly about moments in a life.
The story told through Westover’s recollections provides a thread around which are woven rich and often dark moments from family life, characterised by patriarchal domination, Mormon religious absolutism, vicious sibling cruelty, self-reinforcing powerlessness, and so much more. I don’t want to give you any details from the book, as I hope you will read it: it’s compelling, at times even a little frightening, and uncomfortably insightful. As I reflected on Tara Westover’s life, I began to think about how we see ourselves, how we look at the changes that are taking place, and how we make sense of the ways in which others see us. If that sounds complicated, it’s because it is. Strange creatures that we are, we constantly change, and yet tell ourselves stories about who we ‘really’ are, convincing us of our stability in the face of what is happening.
Some of my thoughts were personal, of course. For example, internally I feel that I haven’t grown up yet, that the child is still there, and I continue to hope the day will come when I turn into a mature, wise adult! I am certain you know that feeling: for me, it always comes out strongly when a person calls me ‘Mr. Sheldrake’. The only Mr. Sheldrake I know well is my dad, and, just for a moment, I think he must be there, standing behind me, although he passed away nearly thirty years ago. As I recollect him now, my dad looked wise and mature, offering a version of a person I might become, but one I still feel I haven’t been able to reach.
Is that part of our family inheritance? Parents are always older, have had more experiences, have seen more, and offer an image, not necessarily appealing, of what it is to be older. When I think of my mother, I saw her as demanding, pushing me, expecting me to perform well at school, leaving me feeling I could never quite achieve what she expected. There was an unspoken ‘not quite’ in the air: I could and should do more. I did want to do well, but refused to admit it. I’m sure it created a wall between us, one impacting other parts of my life, hiding information about leisure time, girlfriends, friends at school. I know she resented part of my life was inaccessible, one where she felt others had more influence than she did. I didn’t just hold back, but rejected her attempts to support and encourage me. Embarrassing: I must have been a difficult child!!
Childhood is part of the world of denial that infects our lives. Denial is part of growing up: as a child becomes an adolescent, and begins to create his or her own image of self, so for some (or many?) the process demands a rejection of past behaviours, rebelling to establish a new identity. As parents, we all know the teenage symptoms of sulking, breaking rules, mixing with the ‘wrong people’, staying out late, drinking, even experimenting with drugs or moving out. Often, they don’t want our help. For some children, part the battle is to break out from the image held by parents and siblings. In ‘Educated’ Tara Westover reminds us how hard that is.
One of the consequences of all this can be to slip into a lifelong habit of denial, feeling less stressed having decided the nasty and jagged parts of life aren’t there, or don’t exist, rather than confront them. A culture of denial can be pervasive, as people ignore or refuse to acknowledge what they ‘know’, not just the facts and pressures of family life, but broader issues and concerns. We see denial about big things, like climate change; we see it about behaviour, as immigration becomes recast as a story about crime and rape; and we see denial about other people, as those who are ‘not like us’ become victimized and excluded. Racism and sexism thrive on denial.
Eventually, denial becomes so embedded we can no longer see what we are doing, so caught up in the person we purport to be that our projected self-image blanks out anything else. I was going to avoid him this time, but does hype-master Donald Trump ever think about a Donald Trump behind his presentation of self. Is all he sees his public persona, his image of a highly intelligent, much loved man of the people, successfully changing America as everyone wishes?
Denial is a slippery slope. In recent years, the culture of denial has been infecting the world of higher education, especially when processes are put in place to shelter students from things that are upsetting or uncomfortable. This is the world of ‘trigger warnings’, statements alerting a reader or viewer to the fact that what they are about to see or read contains potentially distressing material; and ‘safe spaces’, places where you can feel free to express your thoughts even if they are those of a minority. Both these have been the source of considerable controversy and angst in universities. Now, you might recall the quote often cited from Henry Kissinger, that “academic politics are so vicious because the stakes are so small.” [ii] Funny and memorable, but he was wrong: academic debates are often vicious, but this is because of the importance of the issues. Nowhere is this more the case than in arguments about trigger warnings and safe spaces.
The debate over “safe spaces” is a telling example of denial in the face of alternative views. It is easier to make claims if you don’t recognise what others are saying. In this particular example, there are two quite different uses of the term. One is that ‘safe spaces’ on campus typically describe “extracurricular groups that are intended to be havens for historically marginalized students. In this sense of the term, “safe” refers to emotional protection, providing such students with the opportunity to gather with like-minded people, sheltered from ridicule, criticism or other aggression from more dominant groups. They are an important part of the current campus experience.” [iii] They are very helpful for many students, and necessary for some.
However, there’s another, similarly positive, type of “safe space”: academic safe spaces. These spaces are intended to encourage students to comment, to take intellectual risks and explore different and even controversial lines of thought. “Here, the safe space protects your right to make others uncomfortable through exploring ideas and rational arguments. It’s important to note that in this setting, free speech is the end goal. This type of safety is commonly emphasized in in classrooms and discussion groups, where open dialogue is particularly valuable.”[iv]
Both safe spaces and trigger warnings can lead to difficult situations, as happened at Augsburg University, Minneapolis, last year. During one of Professor Philip Adamo’s classes, a student read a sentence from James Baldwin’s The Fire Next Time: “You can only be destroyed by believing that you really are what the white world calls a nigger.” The professor asked the students if they felt it was appropriate to voice the word Baldwin had written. In doing so, he repeated the word, and later set the class two essays on the politics of the N-word. The next day, class members, together with other students who were not enrolled in the course, asked Adamo to leave while they discussed the controversy that had developed over his remarks. He agreed. Later, after a series of attempts to explain his actions, Adamo was stood down from teaching, and is currently suspended from the university while a formal review is taking place.
Philip Adamo could well have thought that a class was a safe space in the second sense, an academic safe space, a place to discuss controversial ideas. He subsequently pointed out there is “a distinction between use and mention. To use the word to inflict … harm is unacceptable. To mention the word in a discussion of how the word is used is necessary for honest discourse.” Many would agree this was an example of a teacher exploring Baldwin’s thinking and writing as he challenged racism, and Adamo was “ a professor who, attentive to the sensibilities of his students, sought to encourage reflection about their anxieties and beliefs.” [v]
No matter what he thought, the issue gained momentum, and confusions and denials were to be found everywhere. Adamo both sought to defend discussing controversial issues, and at the same time stated he spoke from a ‘privileged position’ where it might be better not to explore some taboo topics! The students did not accept the idea of an academic safe space, and reports suggest they felt any such discussion could only take place in their own safe space. Should he have issued a trigger warning? Even if he had, some students would still have argued the word should not have been used by a teacher. Overall, this is a telling example of denial: each party showing a willful inability to hear what others were saying, ignoring alternative views, or, equally problematic, swinging over to accept one perspective as the only one to be adopted.
As an example of this, some professors at Augsburg wrote, “”We believe that further conversations about academic freedom can only take place after we acknowledge that harm has been done to these students … discussion of a central pillar of the academic enterprise must be put on hold until everyone agrees to the [surely highly contestable?] claim that “harm” has been done”. They added they “want the university to “require meaningful and challenging diversity, equity, and justice training for all faculty.”” Will that help “educate their campus about the aims and priorities, freedoms and limitations that should be part and parcel of life at a serious university?”[vi] Professors continue to disagree while events like are becoming increasingly common. A another much-discussed case was last February when the University of California, Berkeley, canceled an appearance by Milo Yiannopoulos, a former editor at the far-right website Breitbart, after violent protests broke out. Surely, one commentator argued, “A university really is supposed to be a marketplace of ideas, and those ideas can and should be divergent at times.” [vii]
However, while banning speakers is still relatively rare, an everyday occurrence is the use of trigger warnings, which let students know when potentially upsetting material is on the syllabus, allowing them to excuse themselves from discussions or class assignments that they believe might harm their mental health, with content related to sexual violence or combat. These have led to controversy, too, opponents arguing they encroach on academic freedom and deny students critical knowledge and the opportunity to face and debate uncomfortable yet important ideas. Supporters suggest students should investigate where they might enroll, examining the racial composition of the faculty and the student body, as well as where in the curriculum they will learn about other people’s cultural histories. This research is intended to identity what is important when searching for the right fit, and how much shelter and support is available.
At times I am no longer feel confident I could teach the classes I love without falling foul of students’ fears and sensibilities. Then I read this suggestion from three professors (at Cornell and Emory): “we propose that the following trigger warning be given to students on their first day of college. We provisionally suggest that it be termed the One-Time-Only Trigger Warning: “Over the course of the next four years you will be encountering a number of topics that you may find emotionally challenging, even difficult. If some of this stuff makes you feel uncomfortable, that’s perfectly normal, and we encourage you to talk to us and your friends about it. But bear in mind that a liberal arts education is designed to confront you with things that challenge and at times even threaten your worldviews. So if you feel intellectually or emotionally disturbed by what you learn in class, don’t assume that you should be concerned. It may only mean that you are engaging with novel perspectives, which is what college is all about.”” [viii] Agreed.
And, finally, back to politics. Newly elected Representative Ilham Omar has been attacked for her remarks. What did she say? “[many] go to thinking that everything we say about Israel to be anti-Semitic because we are Muslim. And so, to me, it’s something that becomes designed to end the debate, because you get in this space of, ‘yes, like, I know what intolerance looks like, and I’m sensitive when someone says the words you use are resemblance of intolerance.’ And I am cautious of that, and I feel pained by that. But it’s almost as if every single time we say something, regardless of what it is we say … about foreign policy or engagement or advocacy about ending oppression, or the freeing of every human life, and wanting dignity, we get to be labeled as something, and that ends the discussion. … I want to talk about the political influence in this country that says that it’s ok for people to push for allegiance to a foreign country, I want to ask, why is it ok for me to talk about the influence of the NRA or fossil fuel industries or Big Pharma, and not talk about a powerful lobbying group that is influencing policy.” [ix]
Ilham Omar was criticised for what I saw as carefully expressed comments. She was called anti-Semitic, wanting the elimination of the Jewish state. The (mainly Republican) critics offered more evidence: ‘she supports BDS, that’s its aim’. In fact, Boycott, Divestment, Sanctions (BDS) “upholds the simple principle that Palestinians are entitled to the same rights as the rest of humanity. Israel is occupying and colonising Palestinian land, discriminating against Palestinian citizens of Israel and denying Palestinian refugees the right to return to their homes. Inspired by the South African anti-apartheid movement, the BDS call urges action to pressure Israel to comply with international law.” [x] Anti-Semitic or a realistic approach to a real problem?
In our culture of denial, do people bother to read, to analyse, to think? Not enough, it seems.
[i] Random House: 2018
[ii] Actually, he didn’t. He said “I formulated the rule that the intensity of academic politics and the bitterness of it is in inverse proportion to the importance of the subject they’re discussing. And I promise you at Harvard, they are passionately intense and the subjects are extremely unimportant.” I guess the abbreviated version is easier to remember. Speech by Henry Kissinger, Fourteenth Annual Ashbrook Memorial Dinner, September 11, 1997
[iii] See more on this here: http://harvardpolitics.com/harvard/what-is-a-safe-space/
[iv] Ibid
[v] https://www.chronicle.com/article/How-a-Dispute-Over-the-N-Word/245655
[vi] Ibid. The bracketed critical insertion is mine.
[vii] https://www.usnews.com/education/best-colleges/articles/2017-09-21/colleges-tackle-free-speech-trigger-warnings-safe-spaces
[viii] https://www.insidehighered.com/views/2018/10/18/way-handle-trigger-warnings-develop-one-time-only-one-opinion
[ix] http://www.publicseminar.org/2019/03/in-defense-of-ilhan-omar-again/
[x] https://bdsmovement.net/what-is-bds
