COLUMN: Madame M and Race Relations

From Dan Schorr's "Behind Enemy Lines," Fall '94 From Dan Schorr's "Behind Enemy Lines," Fall '94The circle we sat in represented our country's exclusionary, patriarchal structure. The rules for facilitating discussion were analogous to regulations of societal oppression. And then there was the list, and the empty seats... The result of the weekend was a plan that will be the first step towards improving race relations on campus and a new sense of understanding and friendship among the participants. Such success occurred when the real issues were able to surface. At other times, unchecked emotion reigned. A major theme of the weekend was the unconscious reenactment of the most dreaded evils of society. We watched a film in which a third grade teacher separated her class into "blue eyes" and "brown eyes." After the teacher labeled one group inferior, chaos resulted, with the little children demonstrating startling acts of intolerance, discrimination, and hate. William Golding would be very proud. The message was clear: at heart, we are all evil. Then the regulations of oppressive power and exclusivity began to take their evil form. Of course, we would not learn the true nature of the system of we were creating until one of the summit's coordinators, Madame M (not her real name), spoke up and condemned the group. Unfortunately, we did not realize the significance of our actions at the time. This in itself was significant, Madame M explained. We had demonstrated unconscious acts of intolerance. First, we needed a shape to arrange the chairs in for our discussion. After the parallelogram and the dodecagon were rejected, we decided upon a circle. We didn't realize that society, when it decides who is a part and who is an outcast, can be deemed a "circle" too. However, Madame M did. Even in a seemingly harmless arrangement, discussion among fifty students who all consider themselves to be student leaders has the distinct likelihood of growing out of control. Everyone there was used to speaking his or her philosophy, each was accustomed to dominating the floor. We felt that a facilitator should lead discussion, so that calm, intelligent discussion could occur. That was the conscious rationale for appointing a chair. Unfortunately, a regulator, a leader, could be seen as controlling those who are not lucky enough to be empowered themselves. To Madame M, this was no doubt our subliminal motivation. The facilitator clearly represented the oppressor in society. The chair/oppressor would keep a list of those who wished to talk. But what about side conversations? With sixty people, these could become distractive. The answer was to ask anyone who wished to discuss something independently to leave the circle so that the main conversation would not face interference. Naive as we were, it seemed reasonable. But to Madame M, such intolerance and bigotry was definitely not reasonable. The list demonstrated the need to squelch the dissent of those who are not fortunate enough to have positions of power. So there we were, creating a system to facilitate a frank, open discussion of important campus issues. There were objections to the structure, but the majority overruled these sentiments. But were we oppressors? Were we, like the third grade children in the blue eye/brown eye video, allowing our inner desire to create an unjust society to surface? Madame M walked in, sat down off to the side with two others, and began her own conversation. She was signaled by someone in the circle to prevent her peripheral discussion from interfering with the group's. Time passed, the group discussed. Madame M was asked to speak, she passed, saying she was not yet ready. More time passed, more was discussed. The hour grew late, and some participants left to go to sleep. There were gaps in the circle now, and our chair asked the group to move in, eliminating the circle's spaces. And then she rose. And then all hell broke loose. She stared at the group, desperately holding on to her visibly shaken composure. Her words were something to the effect of: "This is what society does! "You make a circle, you make your rules! It doesn't matter if people outside aren't a part of them. No. You have your list, you control who can speak, who has the power! "You make a circle, and whoever is a part is included, and whoever is outside is excluded. "And then what do you do? You move in. You close the circle, make it smaller, close it off from everyone else -- just like society! "People can't talk because you have the power. If you're not on the 'list' then you have to remain silent. Just like society, you control everything! For a moment we sat there in silence, no doubt reminded of Winston Churchill's comment, "I do not resent criticism, even when, for the sake of emphasis, it parts for the time with reality." People began to object, but she persisted. Strong arguments existed against the merit of the discussion's procedures. Many had felt that ideas would be better communicated in another manner. But Madame M insisted that she was not objecting to the quality of the discussion's facilitation. It was the societal element, the harsh recreation of mankind's evils, that deeply troubled her. She was outraged. And then people began to apologize. For what? It wasn't clear. But she had labeled herself a victim, and that's all that seemed to matter. Later, some would say that as long as someone was upset, they deserved an apology. Did she? She saw herself as a victim and received the requisite sensitivity. Within minutes, the group dispersed, and productivity ended for the night. Here were rules designed to enable intelligent discussion of race relations issues, yet the night was ended when they were deemed indicative of an oppressive society. The significant issues were ignored as we appeased the person who was able to demonstrate outrage. If a system of discussion can be deemed oppressive -- and lead to apologies -- so can any type of idea, word, or action to which someone can voice objection. Surely there is oppression, bigotry, and discrimination in the world. But in the format for our discussion? The recreation of the prejudiced evils of the human experience? In our group, the need to appease someone who declared victim status and accused others of fostering oppression superseded our efforts to deal with the real issues of race relations. And, as a wise Madame once said, "This is what society does." Dan Schorr is a junior English major from Valley Stream, New York. Behind Enemy Lines appears alternate Fridays.