We need dreams, not dogma(A shorter version of this letter was printed in the December 2002 Swarthmore College Bulletin.)At Swarthmore I was known as "that libertarian guy." Rarely could I resist challenging the school’s dominant left-wing ideology, be it in Sharples, Parrish Parlors, or in The Phoenix. Yet, on my way to the reunion, I wrote in my journal: "Drop the politics. … What’s important? People, relationships. Not ideology & arguing. There is a time and a place for it. But a College Reunion is not the time." That Friday evening was fantastic; in was not long before my cheeks hurt from smiling so much. After a merry Breakfast and parade to the Amphitheater, I looked forward to the Collection Address by Arlie Russell Hochschild ’62, entitled "Why We Need Dreams." For the past day, I had been fascinated with what my classmates had done with their lives. Their diverse paths were more or less true expressions of themselves as individuals. I considered Hochschild’s topic only fitting. After all, to various extents, my classmates were living out their dreams, but surely I was not alone in doubting if I was doing so myself. Unfortunately, Mrs. Hochschild never explained why we need dreams. A version of her speech, printed in the September 2002 College Bulletin, is nearly 180 lines of text. Yet, fewer than ten of these lines concern dreams and characteristics of dreamers. To her credit, Mrs. Hochschild eloquently described them, but could not resist slipping in political statements. Her political views on various issues, which she glibly stated as if her audience agreed with them, occupy thirty lines. The last third of the article contains her thesis: the only worthwhile dreams advance left-wing Statist political causes, and that Quakerism inherently supports them. Why do we need dreams? She did not say. My point here is not to debate Mrs. Hochschild’s politics or her interpretation of Quakerism; rather, it is to decry the speech’s fraudulent title and its presumptuous and small-minded content. Even if I did agree with her on these issues, I would still find them inappropriate for a Collection speech. Swarthmore professes to be a tolerant community bound by not only by the love of learning, but also dreams. Yet, by invalidating the dreams of anyone who disagrees with her politics, and those alumni whose dreams simply do not concern politics, Mrs. Hochschild efficiently alienated much of her audience. Brian Schwartz ‘97
Epilogue: |