Free speech is not always positive
Nicholas Salazar
junior
Paul Schofield's letter printed Feb. 21 is a lamentable and all too common manifestation of the benevolent but ultimately noxious overextension of what is essentially a positive principle, i.e., free speech. Mr. Schofield advocates free speech. He is to be applauded for such advocacy. Mr. Schofield advocates welcoming "The Vagina Monologues" to Notre Dame. He is to be rebuked for such advocacy.
Mr. Schofield's essential mistake is to promote "The Vagina Monologues" on the ground that even if they be trash, they ought to be welcomed for the sake of "open discussion" and the "discourse that follows [them]." Some discussion is worthless. Some discourse is valueless.
Ponder the following hypothetical situation. An intelligent young rustic from the foothills of Arkansas has written "The Fist Monologues." In a witty and shocking series of soliloquies, our rustic (let's call him Adam) declaims the utterly wonderful and empowering fist, a feature of his anatomy which he has discovered is a source of incredible delight and independence. He can strike his wife with it. He can beat his children with it. He can even knock that annoying Cletus next door right on the kisser with it! It enables him to control his destiny — it is a veritable font of power and confidence.
Will Adam be invited to Notre Dame to put on "The Fist Monologues?" It would be unprofitable to make a wager on it, big or small. He advocates violence. He is an enemy of justice. It is of no consequence that what he is preaching may actually empower him. People of intelligence simply do not countenance such things. People of education do not entertain the notion that domestic violence wrought by a fist might be good. And this is right — people should not think that domestic violence perpetrated by someone's fists is a positive thing, even if it is empowering. Right?
Ponder the following historical situation. A young artist of above average intelligence from the land of Austria (let's call him Adolf) has written "Nation and Race," the 11th chapter of the first volume of some book which I can't remember. In passionate and arresting prose, our Austrian speaks at length of the glory and pride of being Aryan. He speaks of Aryan nobility, of Aryan puissance, of Aryan superiority. His ideas are bold. His words are energetic. There is a shocking and yet deeply moving quality to his work. And people are listening to him.
Should we listen to him, too? Should our young Austrian be invited to Notre Dame to present his ideas? Shall we discourse over the merit of his thoughts?
After all, we believe in free speech, and its resultant environment (the one replete with open discourse) is always a good thing, always a desirable thing, always a positive thing. People couldn't possibly get the wrong idea or embrace what isn't the truth or be corrupted by lies. Right?
And just so with "The Vagina Monologues," a sensationalistic and neurotic garbage which degrades those unlucky enough to be touched by it. Whether one reads or hears it, and whether or not it may empower individual women (though to what end who can venture to divine?), it categorically reduces women to a portion of their anatomy. A dear friend of mine who is virtuous and well-liked informed me that for a time after reading the monologues, all he could think when he saw a woman was "vagina."
The monologues objectify women as vaginas in a sort of perverse synecdoche. So let's not clutter our minds and souls with the tripe of "The Vagina Monologues."
Nicholas Salazar
junior
Fisher Hall
Feb. 21, 2002
All Viewpoint Stories for Monday, February 25, 2002
