Letters to the Editor

Dear Editor,

Recently, Georgia College & State University hosted “Mexotica,” an event involving displays and behavior that have stirred considerable controversy around campus. I did not attend the event, so all of my information is second-hand and comes from this newspaper as well as numerous reports from concerned students, some of whom did attend. In addition, it seems that there is a bootleg video that was surreptitiously recorded, now making its way around campus. (I haven’t seen that either.)
According to The Colonnade, the performance, which involved various forms of sexual expression, was led by three individuals who are part of a kind of traveling troupe. This troupe was joined by several GC&SU student volunteers. Those attending the event, moreover, were encouraged to participate so that several of our students as well as, reportedly, a few Milledgeville townspeople joined in the action. That action included nudity, sexual fondling, and simulated sexual intercourse. The stated theme of the evening was to help students “to confront important issues related to cultural and sexual exploitation” and to expose our tendency to “hyper-sexualize things.”
Some have defended the activity arguing that it encourages debate. Indeed it does, and I hope that the ensuing discussion is constructive. There’s also been a lot of recent debate about the German, Armin Meiwes, who advertised on the internet for someone to cannibalize (“well-built man for slaughter”)-and got a willing participant whose consumption was video recorded.
In other words, just because something stirs debate doesn’t mean it has intrinsic merit that justifies its encouragement and support, especially the hard earned tax and tuition money of students and their families. There are a lot of good ways to prompt a debate about sexual exploitation; none of them necessarily involves stroking the genitalia of a stranger to get a good discussion jump-started.
Others argue that “Mexotica” gives the audience the opportunity to distinguish the line between what is artistic and what is merely obscene. This is a more substantial question. Gustav Flaubert’s novel Madame Bovary so scandalized some in 19th century France that its author was tried for immorality. Today the novel is prized as a tragic portrayal of humanity, expertly written, overflowing with psychological and moral insight.
The argument about distinguishing art from obscenity, though, presupposes that the allegedly obscene work is, well, artistic. This means, arguably, that the promised artistic merit should outweigh the apparent obscenity. If not, then maybe we should be more judicious in our selection of material if we really want students to take their education seriously. If students are to acquire aesthetic judgment, then it would be good if they were to see their instructors exhibiting aesthetic judgment. It is hard to teach critical thinking without demonstrating critical thinking.
Some would argue that the event was useful to “broaden the minds of students.”
To be sure, widening the intellectual and moral horizons of students is a function of a liberal education. But there is a difference between broadening a student’s mind and polluting it. Just because an event has “shock” value doesn’t mean it has academic value. It may just be trash. If, moreover, “shock” is the best method we can find to challenge a student’s thinking, then perhaps it is time to re-think pedagogy.
Finally, some may shrug and say that Milledgeville simply isn’t ready for this kind of “performance”-unlike more “progressive” venues like San Francisco or New York or Paris. I, for one, won’t mind if Milledgeville is never ready.
Flannery O’Connor’s fiction is populated by all kinds of strange characters. She was once asked why Southern writers have a penchant for writing about “freaks.” O’Connor replied, “It’s because we can still recognize one.” She explained that to recognize what is abnormal, one must retain some conception of what is normal. For all its quirks and backwardness, she believed that the South kept people grounded in a way that helped them distinguish between what is freakish and what is not. Some, at GC&SU, are undoubtedly disappointed that the university hasn’t risen and with one voice acclaimed the artistic genius of a naked woman with a strapped-on dildo interacting with students. I hope they’re disappointed the next time around, too.
GC&SU is at an important stage of its growth as Georgia’s “Public Liberal Arts University.” We have put a lot of emphasis on the method of teaching the liberal arts, but less attention on the substance of what is taught. A few argue that in our “post-modern age” an agreement on content is no longer possible. The problem with this nihilistic position is that if we reject an academic canon, demean the function of moral judgment, dismiss questions of taste and disregard the moral and religious sensibilities of our students-then Mexotica is what we get. I think we can do better-and, I should note, we often do.

Hank Edmondson, Professor
Department of Government and Sociology

Posted by Colonnade Archives on Apr 9 2004. Filed under Opinion. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0. You can leave a response or trackback to this entry