THE GAZE OF MULTICULTURALISM

William L. Blizek
University of Nebraska at Omaha

Dr. Boler and I come to the topic of multiculturalism from different backgrounds, but with what I believe is a similar perspective. Dr. Boler teaches an introductory level course on different cultures through the arts and literature, while I teach an introductory level course on human values in medicine through literature and film. The most significant difference between these two courses is that Dr. Boler’s focuses upon the differences between cultures and mine focuses upon our shared humanity.

When I say that Dr. Boler and I share a similar perspective, I mean that we believe similar things about our respective projects. First, we believe that our teaching should make a significant difference in the lives of our students, indeed, a difference in the world at large. Dr. Boler puts the point this way: “As an educator I understand my role to be not merely to teach critical thinking, but a critical thinking that seeks to transform consciousness in such a way that a Holocaust could never happen again.” I frequently say to my students that to learn something (in the important sense of learning) is to become a different person. That new person will feel differently toward others and therefore behave differently; for example, to never allow a Holocaust to happen again. To put this another way, you might say that Dr. Boler and I share an interest in teaching virtue.

A second shared belief is that the effort to change our students requires that they understand the other in a way that is not merely intellectual or formal, but also emotional or affective, thus the use of the word “empathy.” It is an empathic understanding of the other that we seek and so we have turned to the arts and literature as the method of our teaching. No philosophical argument or mere historical account will suffice. Disembodied ideas are not enough. Ideas must be accompanied by feeling, by commitment, by values. This is what the arts and literature will allow us to accomplish.

This brings me to the third belief that Dr. Boler and I share about our respective projects. The work that we undertake in the classroom is dangerous work — dangerous not only in the sense that we might fail to achieve the desired goal, but dangerous in the sense that we might end up doing more harm than good. How could this happen? The answer is that while using the arts and literature in the classroom is likely to “move” our students (that is, elicit from them powerful feelings), using the arts and literature does not guarantee that the emotional response will be appropriate, that is, that the student will value others differently as a result. A further problem is that the use of the arts and literature, because it elicits powerful emotions, may encourage students to believe that they now “really” do understand the other, when in fact they do not. The result is that students continue to behave badly, continue to disvalue the other, but now believe that their behavior and values are appropriate because they have felt strongly. It is now more difficult to bring about a change in our students because they mistakenly believe that the appropriate change has already taken place. Instead of developing an understanding of the other, it is possible that we only develop an attitude of self-righteousness and that attitude will do more harm than good.

This problem is exacerbated by the fact that on many college campuses there are one or more Drs. Feel Good, faculty who intentionally elicit from their students strong feelings through the use of arts and literature, but who then go on to assure their students that everything is just fine, there is nothing to worry about, there is nothing to do. Many students find this to be a very attractive alternative to the drudgery of their usual classes. They seek out the Drs. Feel Good (who are often very popular teachers) and when they graduate from the Feel Good course they encourage other students to have the same experience. Eliciting appropriate feelings, however, as far as Dr. Boler and I are concerned, has nothing to do with feeling good. Indeed, it may have to do with feeling shame, or guilt, or responsibility, and it means that there is much difficult work that lies ahead.

Into the discussion of this serious problem, Dr. Boler introduces the notions of confession and testimony. Drawing on Michel Foucault’s definition of confession, Dr. Boler claims that a confessional reading of history (for example, the history of the Holocaust) produces an isolation of the self from others and separates the self from responsibility. In contrast, Dr. Boler claims (drawing on the work of Shoshana Felman) a testimonial reading of history “defies isolation” and “is inseparable from a responsibility to self and to history.” This is another way of talking about the difference between eliciting a powerful emotional response in our students and eliciting the appropriate emotional/intellectual response. The distinction between confession and testimony helps us to understand that empathy may be either one. “The risk, however,” Boler rightly claims, “is that testimony and confession easily slip into one another.” The result is that students may feel strongly and think that they understand the other, but absolve themselves of responsibility and fail to understand the other in a way that changes their future behavior and attitudes.

Given Dr. Boler’s warning about the very real possibility that the use of the arts and literature in teaching multiculturalism may do more harm than good, what should we do? One alternative is to quit doing what we are doing. That is, we can abandon the arts and literature and give up the effort to evoke a particular form of empathy in our students. Believe me, after teaching a very difficult class like the one I had last semester, quitting does not seem like such a bad idea. Eliciting the appropriate response from students is a difficult and delicate task that I find exhausting. This alternative, however, means giving up the task that both Dr. Boler and I feel is so important. For myself, if this is not what teaching is about, then I might as well find another profession, hopefully one that pays much better.

A second alternative is to continue to look for some other, less dangerous way to help our students appropriately understand the other. I am not optimistic about this alternative, because I do not believe that there are any simple answers, quick fixes, easy solutions to the problems of teaching well. I am reminded here of Nietzsche’s aphorism, “From the practice of wise men. — To become wise, one must wish to have certain experiences and run, as it were, into their gaping jaws. This, of course, is very dangerous; many a wise guy has been swallowed.”1

The third alternative is suggested by the example Dr. Boler gives at the end of her paper of the student who seemed to move from a confessional reading of Holocaust history to a testimonial reading. How did this happen? Dr. Boler suggests the answer when she says, “We had a lengthy and careful discussion of her troubling first essay.” It was, Dr. Boler goes on to say, “a conversation in which I took risks, and pushed her to think deeply about her relationship to the text, to her own audience, and to her experience” (emphasis added).

Success of the sort that Dr. Boler and I both seek, whether it is in teaching multiculturalism or human values in medicine, comes from hard work and individual attention. There is no single strategy that works for all students alike. There is no easy method for achieving the goal of understanding the other. Each student requires individual attention. Each student may need to be dealt with differently, because each student and his or her background are different. Often the method is one of trial and error, a method that takes a great deal of time and energy. And at every turn we may meet with failure. First, we may not find a way of discussing the issues that is helpful to the student. Second, we may say the wrong thing — the thing that turns a student away from understanding the other — in which case we do more harm than good. And finally, we may say the right thing, but in the wrong way, that is, with the wrong motive. We must always remember that it is the success of the student that we seek, and not our own. “Many a wise guy has been swallowed.”

---

1. Friedrich Nietzsche, “Appendix: Seventy-five Aphorisms from Five Volumes,” in On the Genealogy of Morals, trans. Walter Kaufmann and R.J. Hollingdale (New York: Vintage Books, 1969), 184.