Daniel Schryer
Contributing Writer
When politics enter the conversation, most people display a certain amount of apprehension; topics delving into the political realm have a history of dividing friends and distressing otherwise casual relationships. But is abstaining from the conversation the best way to go about it?
On Thursday, Sept. 25, Meiley-Swallow Hall was host to TIP Talks, a lecture series focusing on themes and events related to political violence. Each of the four speakers had their own area of focus, from the beginning of World War I to the political aspects of domestic violence.
These lectures aimed to introduce the North Central student body (and all others that attended) the political nature of the world around them in reference to contemporary and historical themes.
Another undeniable link between the lectures was the nature of violence in the political sphere and its place in society at large.
The lectures were also noted to coincide with Constitution Day, an important event in America’s history. It was with this date in mind that the speakers put the issues at hand into a more immediate and understandable context: politics, both hand in hand with and fighting against violence, can lead to monumental changes in the world evolving around us.
Professor Stephen Caliendo was the first at the podium, discussing our fascination with violence, especially in the context of the recent protests in Ferguson, Missouri. Caliendo was was careful to note the distinction between justifiable violence and violence with which we disagree.
“How do we (justify violence) if we fail to identify with the victim?” Caliendo asked the enthralled crowd. “We can justify violence when it is against the ‘other,’” the Professor concluded, seeking to explain the escalation of violence in the headline-garnering Missouri town.
North Central’s 2014-2015 Scholar-in-Residence, Professor Riad Ismat, was next at the microphone, delivering a stirring lecture on the violence and turmoil that has gripped his homeland of Syria. Through personal anecdotes and harrowing accounts of being caught in the crossfire, Ismat’s message is clear and concise: “Blood brings blood, violence brings violence. The only solution: constructive dialogue.”
Professor William Muck next ruminated on the 100 year anniversary of World War I, lamenting on how the entire war could have been prevented if not for a single inexperienced assassin. Through his signature style and energetic stage presence, Muck implores the audience to reflect on ways to prevent conflict whenever possible.
Finally, Professor Suzanne Chod explored the political factors of domestic violence against women. While acknowledging the steps made throughout history in the advancement of women’s rights, Chod still reminds us that domestic violence has a foothold all over the world; “Think about where we started and where we are”.
These lectures provided us a window into which we can further examine the political nature of our everyday lives and how we can affect our political climate.
Politics are an inescapable part of the world we live in. Liberal and conservative no longer only describe one’s personality or interpersonal behavior, but their political standing as well. Still, as strong as one’s allegiances to one party or the other may be, such preferences are hardly perceivable on the surface. And herein lies an issue: how can we understand the political atmosphere we live in when we don’t know what that atmosphere looks like?
According to a Gallup Poll, Americans have been affiliating themselves with the Independent parties in overwhelming numbers. As of September, 47% of Americans affiliate with the Independents, compared to 25% with the Republicans and 26% with the Democrats. This is significantly higher than the 35% of independently affiliated Americans in December of 2008.
This trend of not towing the bipartisan line is an intriguing one, and perhaps a sign of some larger cultural pattern. The apparent refusal to affiliate with the democrats or republicans can be seen as either a protest to the animosity between the two parties or, perhaps, a lack of substantial political consciousness.
Although we may live in a political world, this doesn’t always mean that we are forced to be political ourselves. As students, we put into a precarious position: although not directly involved in political situations, we are allowed to interpret world events through an almost innumerable number of perspectives. We have available to us the means to better educate ourselves and our peers about the world that surrounds us.
But just because an opportunity is available does not mean that it will always be taken. Ultimately, it is up to the public to make use of the information presented to them, be it through television, newspapers, the internet, or whatever other means are available.
Political and global awareness is not something that can be given to you; information must be sought out, judgment calls must be made and, if necessary, action must be taken if one ever hopes to truly facilitate a change for the better. If violence and extremism isn’t always the answer, maybe it’s time to start asking the right questions.
