Invoking the fears of women vis-à-vis men is perhaps the most common means to reinforce the new gender identity. In 1993, for instance, a large contingent of female students participated in Stanford's annual “Take Back the Night” march, demonstrating against the fear women have of being attacked while walking home alone at night.75 The demonstration provided the chance for women to march through campus at night (which at Stanford was decidedly safe)—something they supposedly were unable to do on other occasions. Of course, the fear of criminal attack is not exclusive to women (especially given the activities in library bathrooms and the Rape Education Project's findings that one in eight males had been “coerced” into sex), but organizers used the event as an excuse to remind the audience of the pervasive oppression women supposedly face in society at large. “It's such an oppression to feel boxed in and closed up all the time,” pronounced organizer Amy Solomon, implying that the oppression of women was so vast that the march should perhaps have been entitled “Take Back the Entire Day.” Added graduate student Sara Duckler, “We want women to know that they have a right to exist and to make choices about where they are going and who they are going with.” But what woman, let alone what Stanford woman, would not know that she had “a right to exist”? Again, the purpose of these events was not to tell women the obvious, but to create a new identity for (oppressed) women, in relation to (oppressive) men, who supposedly sought to deny women's “right to exist.”76 These systematic exaggerations about the dangers to women, much like Reges's homophobic theater and Casa Zapata's race-conscious programming, have something of a circular character, in that they often generate the very fears these demonstrations protest against.
Because the new gender identity constitutes little more than the passionate conviction that women are oppressed, even devoted campus feminists, like Women's Center Director Rebecca Bliss, can rarely describe anything more about what the identity entails. Bliss was asked what a society without sexism would look like:
I can't even begin to imagine it. I can't imagine that it (sexism) would not be there on some level, any more than I can imagine that racism or any of the other “isms” wouldn't be there. So, what would it look like? It would look a lot different than society does today. But I can't imagine what it would look like.77
One feminist studies class offered a little more direction. The aptly named “Going Out of Our Minds: From Women's Movement to Women's World” sought to provide a sketch of what the new social order might look like.78 Feminist writer Sonia Johnson spoke in Robinson House (Stanford's “feminist studies” dorm) on her hopes for a utopian women's revolution in America:
The pie is rotten. We have got to bake a new pie. We need to start from scratch. Have you ever wondered why things are the way they are? I mean, think of the legislature. It is just so bizarre. The economy. Why do we need an economy? All they have brought are war and destruction and were they not the work of men?79
In a sense, Johnson had carried the ideas about sexism just one step further than everyone else. For her, it was unthinkable that men and women could ever become friends; they could relate to one another only as enemies.
“The work of men” in Johnson's new feminist order plays a role analogous to “the work of the devil” in the medieval order. It is evil incarnate and must be condemned utterly, even if this requires us “to bake a new pie” and “to start from scratch.” The oppression is so ubiquitous that many cannot even recognize it, but Johnson offered a sketch on how one might achieve the new gender consciousness. Through indirection one would find direction:
Think about it. Everything that you have ever been taught. You think they are true? I'll tell you what. If you want to know the real truth, take the exact opposite of what you hear should be or is correct; that will be the truth in its purest form. At a crucial point in my life, I realized that I had been programmed to believe everything that I believe. Then I decided that I would forget everything and resort instead to my inner voice. I was determined to believe nothing until I had actually tried it out. Literally, I started to go out of my mind. To everyone else, I appeared insane. But you know, I believe the exact opposite: I am very sane and everyone else is insane.80
Johnson's “inner voice” speaks to her about the oppression of women and gives her a new identity as a woman—the two are the same. Whereas before multiculturalism the women's movement was limited to eliminating false differences between men and women, the proponents of the new gender identity seek to achieve precisely the opposite goal—to create additional distinctions between men and women. Indeed, Johnson concluded her presentation with an apocalyptic prophecy regarding the dawn of a “woman's world”:
Yes, women are starting to listen to their own inner voices. They are starting to remember a time before patriarchy, before this mad, destructive world was brought about. It was a different world. This world will come again. The men's world is dying. It may kill us with it but it is dying. Prepare for the dawn of a new world of women. One without control.81
Johnson, incidentally, has thrice been a candidate for president of the United States.82
The Double Bind
The treatment of race, gender, and sexual preference in relation to crimes like institutional racism, sexism, and homophobia suggests a more refined answer to our original question: What holds the multiculture together?
Multicultural identification does not lead to extreme individualism, but rather promotes its exact opposite. Multicultural identities are interdividual—that is, multicultural distinctions and differences do not stand on their own, but exist only in relation to one another. Multiculturalists act as if each “victim” is endowed with some sort of independent essence, requiring special needs (hence, specialized deans) and separate space (hence, ethnic dormitories). But to describe this position is to refute it: “Victims” can exist only if there exist oppressors, in relation to whom victim status may be defined. One should not take the multiculturalists at face value when they claim to be recognizing individual identities that, like some sort of Platonic forms, preexist the multiculture—and that have been submerged (often for centuries) by oppressive Western society. The opposite is the case: Multicultural identities are constructed by the multiculture itself, which determines precisely what role each actor may play in the larger theatrical production. Without the Kennys, Bens, and Guses to play the role of Prospero, there can be no Calibans.
Because the new identities are defined as a counterpoint to pervasive oppression, grievances and complaints must be recycled continuously. Without institutional racism or widespread homophobia, the new identities would cease to exist. “Disrespect for one community” must translate into “disrespect for us all” to ensure that there are enough examples of oppression to go around and, thereby, to magnify the claims of each. If necessary, episodes must even be manufactured. The most elaborate of productions are acted upon these stages of oppression. Perhaps the only difference from Broadway is the lack of a clear line between actors and spectators.
Multicultural victimology is so powerful because it taps into two base emotions that are not often found together—self-pity and self-importance. The self-pity comes from believing oneself a victim, the self-importance from casting oneself in a fantastical historical melodrama. But, however psychologically gratifying in the short term, the focus on victimization creates a double bind for multiculturalists in the long run: If they ever succeeded in their struggle to end oppression, then they would lose their identities. At the same time, to give up the struggle to end oppression would also force them to lose their identities—since the oppression (and, hence, their identity) is evidenced, in large measure, by the intensity of the struggle. “I can't see [sexism] ever being 100 percent eliminated from society,” remarked Women's Center Director Rebecca Bliss. “I think if sexism isn't there, there will be a new ‘ism’ to take its place, there will be a new something.”83 The “struggle continues unabated” (to borrow Dean Jackson's words) because it must never end. A succ
essful outcome is absolutely precluded. It would be difficult to imagine a pursuit more sterile.
In a sense, multiculturalists like thinking of themselves as victims far too much to want to end their victimization. They need their imaginary oppressors to give their lives meaning. Consider, in this context, the response of MEChA member Gloria Sanchez to students’ booing the film No Grapes at Sunday Night Flicks: “I'm glad it happened. Thank God it finally happened and hundreds and hundreds of people woke up to what the climate is on this campus.”84 Of course, if the episode really had been as racist as MEChA members maintained, one would hardly expect them to thank the Deity for it. But the episode served the useful purpose of reinforcing their victim status (if only in their own minds) and, in turn, their interdividual racial identity. One is reminded of Mike Newman's satirical description of the Algerian peasantry: “The Algerian peasants…and by extension all oppressed peoples, can achieve revolutionary consciousness and fight back, even though….the peasants often depend on their oppressors even as they curse them.” With a few word changes, this would provide a fairly accurate sketch of the multiculture: “Oppressed peoples can achieve revolutionary consciousness and fight back, even though they often depend on their oppressors, because they need to curse them.”
This double bind fuels a vicious cycle of what may be called multicultural ressentiment. Ressentiment is not merely resentment; it is resentment compounded by a frustration over not being able to relieve the source of that resentment. In a destructive circle, frustration breeds more resentment, which in turn exacerbates the frustration. For multiculturalists who have adopted fake racial and gender identities, the resentment of their oppression is compounded by a frustration over not being able to relieve its source. They cannot relieve their oppression both because it is largely imaginary (as in the Phi Delt protest mistaken for a KKK rally) and because this fantasy provides the backbone of their identity. Feminist Sally Kempton unwittingly summed up the dilemma: “It is hard to fight an enemy who has outposts in your head.”85 Like Cervantes's Don Quixote, who transfigured windmills into monsters so that he could play the role of knight in a postmedieval world, Stanford's multiculturalists struggle to break down racial and sexual doors that have been wide open for some time. At the end of each day's unabated struggle, multiculturalists have only succeeded in making themselves look rather silly.
Ressentiment is the interdividual force that bonds the disparate elements of the multiculture. The multiculturalists’ many protests, from the march against Western Culture to MEChA's hunger strike against grapes, focus this ressentiment, concentrating the anger of the community against its designated enemies. Day-to-day accusations also manifest the same resentments and collective anger. This collective unanimity is the fundamental component of the multiculture: Even though the victim groups differ from one another in many respects, they are generally able to agree on who their oppressors are. The multicultural actors misperceive these collective efforts as the recognition of a diversity that preexisted the founding of the new state. The reality is the reverse: The new multicultural “cultures” (or, more precisely, the multiculture) did not have an existence anterior to the protests themselves. The protests created the new multiculture, just as the collective attacks on racism or sexism or homophobia provide the prism through which the multicultural rainbow is refracted.
Notes
1. Newt Gingrich, “An America That Works,” GOPAC Audiocassette, December 18, 1990.
2. Linda Friedlieb, “Orientation continues usual focus on multiculturalism,” The Stanford Daily, September 24, 1992. Colleen Krueger and Cathy Siciliano, “Diversity a source of campus vitality; Stanford students enhance their education with multiculturalism,” The Stanford Daily, September 23, 1993. According to Krueger and Siciliano, “New students get their first taste of multiculturalism at Stanford during Orientation.” Incidentally, the head orientation coordinator was Victor Madrigal, a leader of the MEChA hunger strike.
3. See, for instance, “Orientation Calendar,” The Stanford Daily, September 19, 1991; and “Orientation Calendar,” The Stanford Daily, September 23, 1993.
4. Benji Jenkins, “Frosh Relate Their Impressions of the Farm,” The Stanford Review, October 8, 1989.
5. Brady Mickelson, “Welcome to Freshmen ‘Disorientation,’” The Stanford Review, October 5, 1992.
6. Mark Robinson, “Cultural heritage and diversity celebrated during Orientation,” The Stanford Daily, September 28, 1988.
7. Ibid.
8. Ibid.
9. Ibid.
10. Stanford University, Program, 103rd Commencement Weekend, June 10–12, 1994.
11. Bob Beyers, “Committee Recommends Guidelines for Theme Houses at Stanford,” Stanford University News Service, December 2, 1986.
12. “Theme house life: Freshmen should not be randomly assigned to theme houses,” The Stanford Daily, October 25, 1990.
13. Octavio Pedroza, speech at “Rally Against Racism,” October 26, 1988. His remarks were reprinted in “A Mandate for Change,” October 26, 1988, a press statement printed and distributed by the Black Student Union, MEChA, Stanford American Indian Organization, and Asian American Students Association.
14. Tony Mecia, “Sowell Blasts Affirmative Action's Harmful Effects,” Campus: America's Student Newspaper, Fall 1991.
15. Delia Ibarra, “Feeling out of place here,” The Stanford Daily, February 17, 1991.
16. “What is Blackness?” The Real News, Spring 1994.
17. Raoul Mowatt, “Wynter: University must explore intellectual wonderland,” The Stanford Daily, February 23, 1990.
18. Cametra Thompson, “Wynter speaks on inner city, race relations,” The Stanford Daily, November 12, 1993.
19. Omar Wasow, “Learning to see whiteness,” The Stanford Daily, March 5, 1992.
20. Jeff Brock, “Greg Ricks provides new spark for Res Ed,” The Stanford Daily, March 1, 1990.
21. Bill Workman, “Anti-Black ‘Hysteria’ Protested,” The San Francisco Chronicle, March 4, 1994.
22. Cecilia Burciaga, “‘Small daily daggers that one feels in the environment,’” Stanford University News Service, June 3, 1987. The article reprinted her speech from a Forum on Racism.
23. Ibid.
24. David Dirks, “Freshman loses housing for insensitive conduct,” The Stanford Daily, May 23, 1988.
25. Ibid.
26. Interview with Kenny Ehrman (class of 1991).
27. Dirks, supra note 24.
28. Ibid.
29. Ibid.
30. Bob Michitarian and Glen Tripp, “Night vigil causes racial scare,” The Stanford Daily, May 25, 1988.
31. Ibid.
32. “Faculty cautioned about stereotypes in the classroom,” Campus Report, June 1, 1988.
33. “Two prongs of racism,” The Stanford Daily, November 12, 1987.
34. John H. Bunzel, “Black and White at Stanford,” Hoover Institution Reprint Series, No. 139. See also John Bunzel, Race Relations on Campus: Stanford Students Speak (Stanford, CA: The Portable Stanford Book Series, 1992).
35. David Smolen, “Final Report: Senate Chair's Task Force on ASSU Staff Hiring,” May 16, 1988.
36. Matthew Poppe, “Panel accuses Tresidder of racism,” The Stanford Daily, February 19, 1988.
37. Ibid.
38. Nick Anderson, “Law dean apologizes to ex-visiting prof.,” The Stanford Daily, November 23, 1987.
39. Tim Marklein, “BSU charges ASSU with racism,” The Stanford Daily, April 6, 1988.
40. Ibid.
41. Ibid.
42. Smolen, supra note 35.
43. Leta Hong Fincher, “Learn from HAPA,” The Stanford Review, November 11, 1991.
44. Bunzel, supra note 34.
45. Ibid.
46. Ibid.
47. Ibid.
48. Rajiv Chandrasekaran, “Budget cuts force Burciaga from job,” The Stanford Daily, April 1, 1994.
49. Ann-Marie Gallegos, Lisa Gallegos, Yvette Espinoza
, Amanda Navar, Ben Olguin, Lubia Sanchez, and Nicole Sanchez, “Responses to video on grape boycott showed intolerance of campus,” The Stanford Daily, May 3, 1994.
50. A poignant reminder of Sowell's insight was provided during MEChA's hunger strike. When asked whether they would like anything to read or do, according to Gonzalez Luna, fasters requested copies of Esquire or Glamour and some cards—nothing in Spanish, much less in Aztec hieroglyphics. Even during a demonstration for cultural difference, the protestors engaged in activities not foreign to any other student. They were not occupying their time shaping clay pots or memorizing unique oral traditions. See Sarah Katz, “Strike ends after three days, agreement reached: Committees to look into possible grape boycott, Chicano Studies and EPA community center,” The Stanford Daily, May 9, 1994.
51. Jim Luh, “Few eateries serve grapes,” The Stanford Daily, May 6, 1994.
52. Ibid.
53. Brad Hayward, “Loud protest disrupts governor's speech: Gay-rights demonstrators face off with police at convocation,” The Stanford Daily, October 2, 1991.
54. John Abbott, “Open Letter Urges Gays To Incite Homophobic Incidents,” The Stanford Review, December 1988.
55. Ibid.
56. Ibid.
The Diversity Myth Page 24
