Brown symposium 33

I liked this symposium in theory more than I did in practice. Conversation itself is an unexplored goldmine for debate. Generally, this is something radically opposed to the culture which we inhabit. We rarely speak to one another, let alone speak about speaking. Bringing people together in public gatherings for conversation seems like a simple enough idea, and yet it is an activity rarely practiced in this country. Ultimately, conversation is a slow medium to move through, and indeed, this was visible during the symposium. Topics are brought up, then dropped without response. Circular logic goes unquestioned. Conversants become too anecdotal and subjective. There are many potential problems with conversation, but of course, there are benefits. The most obvious of these seems to be the multiplicity of perspective. If allowed, it tends to be thorough as a result. And this point is connected to much about the parallels of democracy and culture, brought up at the symposium—particularly in the slowness of the process. Beyond that, however, there is the simple fact that conversation is all we actually have. This seems to parallel a common theme in our cohort, in the role of language on understanding. Ultimately, we understand through language (if we can’t describe something in language we can’t know it), which is medium which is itself constructed with at least two individuals in mind. In this sense, to not converse is to not practice how we understand—an odd and worrisome proposition indeed. (On a personal note, this reminds me of when I was little and my parents would ask, “How was school,” to hear, “Good.”—indicative of a lack of practice).
As for the actual content discussed, I thought much if it was fairly rehashed. Much of what was reached seemed fairly paradigmatic, and often decent points were brought up and ignored, while illogical propositions were investigated. It is understandable that the topic, “Science, Art and Religion,” was left fairly broad, as to not limit conversation. However, a more narrowed scope was needed to provoke conversation. We were left to merely scratch the surface, yet again going over old scraps of material as opposed to unearthing something new. One problem was that there was no microphone on the balcony. This would have been an easy problem to fix, giving many students a voice. The panelists physically entering the audience was a bit over the top. It was a nice idea, but it seemed unnatural, like we had nothing to focus on. Thinking on this, it still seems like a valid point (a stage is nice to focus on, and should be filled), but at the same time, perhaps such discomfort was more culturally conditioned than we think to give credit. As a culture, we are not used to engaging in conversation publicly. There is a fair exception in the effects of the ivory tower of academia, but this is precisely the problem. Conversation is not seen as something “practical,” and “everyday.” This primarily seems to be because the everyday moves at a speed too fast for conversation to keep up. Sitting at a restaurant, you are taking the seat for the next bill—asshole. You don’t spend time eating, speaking over interests-- you eat quickly because you have better things to do with your time. Sticking around at the end of a meal for relaxing debate is not considered. Perhaps this culture is not entirely dead, Starbucks providing a useful, well-priced commodity for a change, in the form of street-side talk. Fostering such atmospheres is unquestionably beneficial, reminding us of what should be valued, as opposed to valuing them blindly, and most importantly, that we ourselves create these values.

Sexuality Seminar

The seminar was surprisingly well done. This is particularly so, considering the fact that much of it was simply dialogue. As such, much of the talk seemed to be preaching to the choir. That being said, I suppose reinforcement is always helpful. Ultimately, what I’d like to talk about, is the type of language used in the discussion. I understand wanting to be inclusive in language. Language serves as a first step, for without it, you can’t even begin to speak. There is, however, another concern at the other end of the spectrum. I honestly think language can be too inclusive.
For example, I had a hard time distinguishing the meanings of heteronormative and heterosexism, and I don’t think that’s uncommon. It seems, understandably so, that people are eager to create a science here in the face of persecution, but we’re getting carried away with ourselves. The danger of this is that the field as a whole is not taken seriously. The idea being, clearly they don’t know what they’re talking about if they can’t even get their words right. Or an even worse consequence, it’s approached as a false science altogether. As the term science suggests, precision in language is essential.
As sexuality becomes less and less taboo to discuss in public, a science on it will no doubt become more accurate. We are seeing its formation, now, and as such, need to tread carefully. And so, the definitions written on the board that didn’t seem to end was frustrating. This isn’t a science—it’s a hodgepodge. A “throw everything at it and see what sticks.”—it all stuck.
Philosophically, or biologically, sex, not consciousness, is what connects us to all life. As such, it makes sense that a science of sexuality is a late bloomer, so to speak. We’re a bit embarrassed of it as a species. (On the whole –see ‘preaching to the choir’) We like to think of ourselves as separate from species—we’re the ones who create taxonomy, and as such, aren’t really in it per se, at least not relative to everyday life, as is all other life. i.e. we’re not homosapiens first –maybe humans, but even that’s a stretch. We usually don’t even bother looking at ourselves, but assume our reference point is universal.
Ultimately, the conference illuminated where we really are in the creation of a science of sexuality. This is not to say that there hasn’t been truckloads of serious research already done—I’m sure there has been. But the fact that it was an open dialogue---a sharing of personal experiences—something anecdotal as opposed to concrete in theory, is a good indicator of where we are in the process (early). We just need to be able to first speak about it in the open, with all our cards on the table. This is why the seminar as a whole was particularly useful, as well as frustrating.