Oberlin’s Attitude of Liberalism Kills Empathy

To the Editor:

There are many questions that can be asked about the legitimacy of Drag Ball, and whether it serves its purpose. Upon reading the two letters to the Editor regarding the Ball in last week’s Review, however, I worry that our fear of appropriating other cultures and coming to a false understanding of other people has led us to stop asking questions important to the functioning of a liberal tolerance between groups. In particular, I would like to respond to [junior] David Meadow’s letter, “Something Lacking at Drag Ball.”

One point that Meadow made was that Drag Ball wasn’t political enough, and that the “potential levity and frivolity” of the Ball attendants “make a mockery of women, transgenders and indeed all oppressed people.” The point that political consciousness is inconsistent with any feeling of levity is a questionable one, but more importantly, I wonder if we aren’t missing out on a key feature of Drag Ball in thinking about it this way.

It is precisely the things Meadow critiques in the rest of his letter that should be celebrated rather than condemned. He says about getting dressed for the Ball: “It seemed almost presumptuous of me to get a revealing look, just for one night, into the useless pains that so many women experience every day.” But then he dismisses the virtues of his potential empathy with: “How dare I try to learn about women? How dare any man?” Assuming this line was not in jest, it seems a horrible commentary on the state of the political consciousness Meadow so longs for that we refuse to even try to understand people other than ourselves. 

What makes him think that a complete lack of understanding will lead to a happy, liberal sort of tolerance? It seems, rather, that such a defeatist attitude is the surest thing to lead to intolerance and oppression.

Again, after calling for a heightened political consciousness, Meadow goes on to say “I would never have the audacity to associate with queer or transgendered people; it’s not my right.” I’m not sure what “right” of association it is that Meadow lacks, for the term “right” doesn’t even seem to make sense in this context, but I fear the implications represent an ugly misunderstanding. Are we to believe that all gays make up some homogeneous group that has no tolerance for even associating with straight people? Although some gay people may feel this way, all of them certainly do not. Maybe Meadow would do better to think of these groups as comprised of a variety of individuals, rather than a uniform mass with solely political interests.
The point I mean to make by citing these examples is that to assume a complete lack of empathy is detrimental to political and social relations between groups. For us to understand the different arguments that different groups make for equality, it is not only helpful but required that we take steps to understand the situations of oppression or social constraint these groups are trying to rise out of. Otherwise, there is nothing for our notions of equality to address; equality means very little without an understanding of how and why people claim to be unequal. 

On the other hand, we all must be aware that individual empathy can only go so far, and that theories of justice or equality must require further abstraction. This duality of empathy and humility is essential in a heterogeneous society that takes equality seriously.
This ‘damned for not understanding –– damned for trying to understand’ mentality is a fundamental inconsistency in Oberlin’s brand of liberalism that must be abandoned.

–Collin Sherman
College senior