- In the opening paragraph, Kester talks about his work during the aftermath of 9/11 and raises the question: How do we form collective or communal identities without scapegoating those who are excluded from them? And is it possible to develop a cross-cultural dialogue without sacrificing the unique identities of individual speakers? I was wondering if you had any initial reactions or answers to those questions?
T: Personally, I wasn’t sure if it was possible or not. But I do think that it is a noble effort to try. Kester’s choice to open his argument by invoking 9/11actually reminded me of my own childhood when I lived in the suburbs of New York City. My family moved to New York less than a year after 9/11 and it was still fresh in everyone’s mind. Looking back as an adult I can see how all of the songs, movies, and tv shows that were written about 9/11 with the intention of bringing Americans together to heal from their collective trauma, while at the same time promoting American exceptionalism, heavily alienated Muslims and painted Islam as the opposite of everything that Americans value. It is in situations like these where dialogues are the most impactful. I think having to talk to someone face to face confronts us with their humanity and forces the brain to empathize with them in a way that you cannot by hiding behind a screen.
N: I feel like when you watch a movie or the news or read the newspapers or the media, you are being fed with the point of view of a fraction of people who will feed you with whatever they want. It’s almost like a one-way ‘dialogue’ where you don’t have a say. The 9/11 event was tragic, and the aftermath was also tragic for the Muslim community who suffered the consequences of their overall portrayal from the media. This is an example that you can’t trust everything you hear and see, you have to engage in conversations and dialogue to fully grasp the issue.
- Around the end of page five and beginning of page six, there is an argument made that “..the clash of forceful argumentation results in a final winning position that can compel the assent of the other party” Do you think that presenting a dialogue is accurately portraying the feelings of all the participants, or if it’s more like a persuasive essay where you are trying to convince the viewer to agree with your predetermined “correct” opinion?
T: That being said I don’t think it’s a bad thing to lead people towards understanding marginalized groups of people as many of the examples demonstrate. Kester describes artists who work with dialogues as “context providers,” and I think it’s important to have people who are willing to facilitate conversations that might not have otherwise taken place. I think overall these conversations that were used as examples have had positive outcomes, and hopefully encouraged people to have empathy for others.
N: I don’t think having a conversation with another person automatically means that your intention is to ‘win’. You should engage in dialogues with people every day to learn or even unlearn things. And artists who provide such contexts and allow people to dialogue with each other are presenting us with an opportunity that is extremely important for social change. Often people are scared to open a conversation with another person around social issues because of fear or incertitude of the other person’s reaction. In Suzanne Lacy’s The Roof is on fire, she provides a space for people to listen to problems faced by young people of color in California. Through these dialogues, we can have genuine insight, far from all the scripted news and media platforms, of the actual problem. I also think that providing a space for a specific dialogue removes all concerns on conversational taboos for example. Wochenklausur’s instruction was to simply have a conversation. The conversation was around prostitutes, drugs, and homelessness. Topics which most people will be uncomfortable to open a conversation on. Yet, doing so and giving people this platform created actual change. This goes to show how impactful dialogues really are. All people need is a platform provided by an artist, or not.