I wrote a blog around a year ago when there was an on-campus group that had displays around campus that showed huge, graphic images of aborted fetuses. A friend of mine was the one that organized it, though he graduated last year, so I am unsure at this point whether he had any part to play, but again today could UCSB students find the displays once again standing tall, demanding one’s attention. Thankfully, this year, they did away with the “Warning: Images of Genocide Ahead” in favor of the more accurate “Warning: Graphic Images Ahead.” Regardless, the campus was, as it was last year, abuzz with comments or discussions regarding the presentation.
Usually the conversations, or brief comments, were microcosms of the larger “conversation” taking place on campus. Where the presentation was, pro-choice groups from different backgrounds congregated to make their voice known. Whether the conversation was between a pro-life activist and a pro-choice activist or simply student-to-student, they generally followed the same pattern: support each other’s views in contrast to the Other.
When I wrote about these presentations last year, I spoke of seeking to create a new category in the abortion debate called Pro-Respect. A group of different-minded people who recognize the common ground between the two opposing groups, where education and compassion are central instead of legislation and pure passion.
Now I want to focus on a specific component of this Pro-Respect approach. And that is the detrimental nature of polarizing propaganda. I say this not to indict the 20 ft. tall images alone, but to call out those who would stand a mere 20 feet away and offer the diametrically opposed view. I was given a button that I put on my backpack that reads “Men For Choice,” which I wore proudly. But, I was saddened all day that I was unable to return to see if I could get a “Men For Life” button, should one exist, to put on my backpack as well. I would very much like to have both because that is how I view the situation. It is not an either/or. It is a Yes And…
The emotionally evocative approach taken by the Pro-Lifers, which demands a dramatic, energized response from the opposition, merely perpetuates the polarization of the entire debate. As evidenced by the conversations around campus, there were not conversations of reconciliation and understanding. They were conversations of bolstering of opinion, of shoring up arguments, of reassurance of belief, of strengthening of mutual opposition. As I stood under these huge images, I understood their goal and their purpose. I fully respect the movement’s basic premise, but it is their methodology that I disagree with. Because anyone who walked through the Arbor of UCSB today did not come away with a different viewpoint than when they walked in. They merely exited with sterner resolve to hold onto their views, whether they be Pro-Life or Pro-Choice.
Polarization does not lead to conversation. Polarization does lead to motivation, but it is a motivation towards isolation. As the presentations on campus today show, there is no draw towards common ground and mutuality when shock value is sought. We need approaches that have talk value. I submit that the effectiveness of either side of the aisle would benefit far more greatly in the long run should conversational propaganda be utilized over and against polarizational propaganda. I ask for you, regardless of your views on the matter, to not slide further to the left or the right. The further we slide apart from one another, the more it becomes nigh impossible to embrace as brothers and sisters. And then those who have yet to come into this world will be in an even worse situation. And it is our future generations that we must work for. It is for our current generations that we must work with. And it is our past generations we must work through.
