So far the trip to Willamette University had been fulfilling and productive. Just the night before, my one man performance was enthusiastically praised by a sizable audience. . This futuristic courtroom drama (Pandora’s Child ) dealing with a raped woman’s decision to commit infanticide, had been used a lot by Christian groups over the last few years to stimulate discussion. Today, at the invitation of a theater professor who wanted to expose his students to Oral Interpretation, I was performing the same play. Although the proff smiled a lot throughout the entire performance, I did sense a bad vibe from the Assistant Proff. Still, I hoped it was my imagination.
Now I was finished and the students were sharing their comments.
“ You presented both sides so well,,” one of them said, “Are any of these characters or situations based upon personal experience?”
“Not as much as you would think, “ I answered.
“Well then,” The Assistant Proff chirped like a vulture who’d been waiting for the right moment, “You broke the first rule of play writing. You wrote about something you haven’t experienced. Obviously you’ve never been raped as a woman.”
The comment caught me off guard and I gave the only honest reply I could think of. “I don’t believe that one can only write about what he’s experienced.”
I guess a lot has changed since 1977 when I graduated San Jose State University with a degree in drama. Never once did I hear this peculiar notion . It would have been laughable to imagine a drama lit teacher saying “Death of a Salesman is an illegitimate play because Arthur Miller never had the experience of committing suicide as a salesman.” Or, (to bring this notion to its logical conclusion): “No play should have more than one character because nobody has ever been more than one person at a time (split personalities exempted).”
Walking out of the room, I found myself wishing for an opportunity to return some day and discuss this unpleasant event in more detail. I’m sure that if I were able to get into a longer conversation with the Assistant Proff, he would modify his statement to say that certainly some liberties are necessary to make good drama “Still,” he might remind me, “ Overall, the play should come from one’s own life. Pure fiction is not good fiction.”
It was most strange to have an argument begin in the class room but continue in my mind. The more I thought about this, the angrier I became. “Great ,” I said to myself, “Political Correctness has invaded theater as well. Is nothing sacred?”
I realize that drama is more important to some than others, but this incident served to show me that nothing is beyond the sweep of the P.C. movement.
When we think of Political Correctness, a lot of scattered issues come to our mind, ranging from multiculturalism, to gay tolerance to “a women’s right to choose.” Actually the topic is not as complicated as one might think. There is a simple underlining theme: Human nature itself is not enough commonness. We must find our commonness in some kind of sub divided group. Ergo, men do not have enough in common with women to ever discuss abortion because they have not experienced pregnancy. Likewise, heterosexuals cannot view homosexuality as unnatural. Indeed, they are not entitled to view homosexuality in any manor at all because (you guessed it) they are not homosexuals. The philosophy goes on to teach that African-Americans, Asians, Latinos and White Europeans are all so different that it is difficult to use words like right and wrong across the board. To suggest universal standards is to be naive at the very least and racist at the very most. After all, imposing your morality on another person is disrespect for that individual’s culture.
Obviously, we can never completely comprehend something we didn’t experience for ourselves. But I question those who would stretch this idea like a self righteous taffy pull. Assuming that one cannot relate at all to a “different” person”, is not only untrue but downright destructive. It strips down communication and robs people of an incentive to understand each other. Indeed, it is quite paradoxical to hear, in the name of multiculturalism, that we can never understand each other and yet we must learn to appreciate each other. Certainly where appreciation is present, understanding must be close at hand.
I do believe we should respect diversity and I’m convinced that many social mores are limited to the respective culture. But there is a universal comradery which exists underneath the variety, complete with common standards and common empathy. P.C. folk may claim to disagree, but their own words betray them; Words like appreciation which call us to a common moral action. No, I don’t know your pain, but I do know mine. So we can relate. There is a connection. We do have a joint responsibility.
Unfortunately, ideas usually spread without being tested. Political Correctness will be with us for a while. Oh well! Ignorance and the repression of free speech make for powerful drama. Maybe I can write a new play .
Share this on
