Page 113 - Cultural Studies Volume 11

EXPERIENCE, EMPATHY AND STRATEGIC ESSENTIALISM 107

therefore is responsible for accommodating to the situation in which s/he is
entering. Inclusion therefore means permission to enter—a permission which can
always be rescinded. The space has already been carved out by the powerful
participants—members of the dominant group. Rebels and resistors are
marginalized or excluded.
In order to actualize multivocality as a norm, we need to question how the Other
is created. Who is the Other? Who is constructing the definition of Other?
Indeed, who is represented by the word ‘we’ in any given conversation? These
questions condition the very possibility of even thinking that there is such a thing
as an ‘alternative’ perspective. It is the neglect of this unspoken process that
explicitly informs the liberal stance.
Kazmi underscores the necessity of evaluating the power dynamics in a
conversation by asking who is speaking, from what social location and in which
domain. If legitimacy is accorded only to those who accept confinement within pre-
established guidelines defining common concerns, then any dissent is necessarily
irrational, argumentative and unconstructive. Again we face the unspoken—
indeed unthought question—Who has the power to define what encompasses the
‘common concern’? It is in the silence, or inaudibility, of the Other—either
through intimidation or resignation—that is the severe indictment of liberal
hypocrisy. The reconceptualization of curricula through an intercultural focus
will need to address, in order to circumvent, the pitfalls of its liberal precursors.
Let me conclude with three comments. First, the challenge to educators in the
academy is that most students, and some professors, enter the classroom without
knowledge of the sophisticated theories about culture. Furthermore, it may not be
possible or even necessary to introduce students to more than a passing reference
to the intricate, and sometimes tedious, arguments over the concept of culture.
What is important, however, is that careful thought be given in advance to the
various assumptions brought to the classroom, and to the implications of how the
material and presentation will unveil these assumptions, disrupt common-sense
views and bring students to an understanding of the complex relationships
between power and knowledge and between representation and identities.
Second, the title of this article—‘empathy, experience and strategic
essentialism’—intentionally suggests that an appropriate departure point for
reflecting on cultural encounters should explicitly privilege and make salient the
subject positions from which we speak. If experience shapes perspectives and
provides a lens through which to empathize with other people, neither empathy
nor experience should be mistaken for the homogenization or transcendence of
differences. Thinking from the standpoint of others, as Hannah Arendt
emphasized, means ‘coherent reversibility of perspectives’ in which the
boundaries of self and other are always clear. It follows, then, that a prerequisite
for dialogue, in the sense of encounters and interaction in public spheres, is that
the other has a voice which is not merely heard, but which is taken into account.
From this standpoint, strategic essentialism does not preclude alliances
between different social groups; nor does it presume that communities are