Of all the events on campus, none seems more divisive than The Vagina Monologues. The poorly advertised play put on in a small venue serves more to polarize than critics or proponents would like. Nonetheless, it has a presence on campus – one which cannot be avoided. In response, this writer and editor offers some reflections on the matter.
Ultimately, the presence of The Monologues on our campus boils down to free speech. Freedom of speech, constitutionally defined and as upheld by the court system, would be better named “license of speech.” Legally, anyone can say anything in anyway at anytime for any purpose.
This is not free speech as understood in academia. The goal of a university education is to give students and faculty an environment in which the “big questions” can be answered: Who is man, and where did he come from? What is the meaning of life? Why is there something rather than nothing? If we speak but are only willing to accept certain answers to these questions, then we are not speaking freely in the academic sense. Speech which presupposes answers or actively works against certain answers from being voiced has no place in academia. This rule applies, as Catholic thinker Josef Pieper demanded, regardless of the religious affiliation of the school. There is no difference in academic free speech between MIT and Boston College.
Do The Vagina Monologues fit this qualification of free speech? Without a doubt they emphatically do not. Departmental co-sponsors justify their support by regurgitating the same rhetoric about “free speech” and “engaging controversial issues.” However well intentioned that rhetoric may be, it is ultimately without substance. Those behind the performance have no intention of academically posing questions and seeking answers. Having a full auditorium chant the “c-word” is not posing questions or starting a discussion. On the contrary, it is the imposition, quite violently, of one group’s understanding of human sexuality upon a group of onlookers with no opportunity for meaningful debate. Having a discussion afterwards is redundant and self-serving for those in charge. If questions like “how do you feel about your orgasms?” can even be considered academic, then the answers have already been calculated by those in charge. To challenge those answers guarantees one will be labeled a sexist or homophobe for disagreeing with the predetermined answer.
As evidence for my claim, look at the number of department co-sponsorships. Many departments and programs support this event annually, many whose academic relationship to The Monologues is doubtful at best. I would call to question the play’s relevance to Irish Studies, American Studies, Romance Languages, and History, among others. Rather, the co-sponsorship en masse of The Vagina Monologues indicates thinly veiled political and ideological motives behind the play’s supporters. The play’s explicit, one-sided attack on Catholic morality and virtue ethics appeals to secularist department heads. They sponsor the performance not out of a concern for a “campus wide dialogue,” which has yet to happen at BC as a result of The Monologues. Rather, they see an opportunity to undermine the university’s mission as a Catholic school and exploit that opportunity discreetly with their power to sponsor events. If the many departments co-sponsoring the play truly do so in order to create a discussion on campus, then under those auspices they should be willing to support literally any and every event at BC. Yet, I highly doubt whether Latin American Studies, Africa & African Diaspora Studies, and Sociology would be so enthusiastic about sponsoring a panel discussion about the Theology of the Body.
I am not sure if it is possible to have a non-politicized performance of The Vagina Monologues, which complies with academic free speech, properly understood. If it is possible, however, I have yet to see it happen at Boston College.
I conclude by offering some food for thought for those who put on the play. No one doubts that an alienation from one’s own body or a poor understanding of one’s own sexuality is a problem of self knowledge – an existential dilemma not easily solved. I don’t think I know the answer to that question myself, but what I will say is this: the solution is not the exhibition of these problems on a stage.
The outcome of exhibitionism was clear to me. Boston College cannot fulfill its mission as long as politics is mixed with academia; as long as those entrusted with searching for Truth exclude certain answers from the search. As the actresses on stage faked orgasms and danced in skimpy cheerleader outfits, I saw Plato’s Academy burning to the ground before me.
And it burnt to thunderous applause.
The radicals of the 60s were tenured in the 80s and are tainting liberal learning today. It’s time for department and program heads to realize that John Lennon died a long time ago. Fortunately, the University as a whole is forcefully moving away from having a Monologue on important issues like sexuality and beginning to finally have Dialogue on them. A few narrow-minded leaders on campus are in a negligible minority. It is only a matter of time before Boston College returns to its roots as an institution of higher learning rooted in the rich Catholic intellectual tradition.
Related Articles:
- “The Observer” Responds We believe the message of the recent...
- BC Students for Sexual Health Responds There seems to be a lot of...
- Observer’s News Editor/Deputy Managing Editor Tutors in Math and English Morgan Chalfant spent her summer in her...
- Letters To The Editor RE: “Voluntary Segregation” I would like to wholeheartedly thank you...
Hi Max,
Just wanted to touch on some things brought up in your editorial. I think you take The Vagina Monologues in a canonical way, where it is meant to be a portrayal of specific women’s stories. The Monologues are not law or creed, they are a benchmark for other women to compare to, and for men to learn enlightening facts about women and there sexuality. Each actress carried note cards with her to indicate that she was not telling her own story, but the story of another woman. Also, I think if you were looking for a debate, then a performance is the wrong place to look for it. Any sort of theatrical or artistic experience has a viewpoint; that is what makes it art. Art cannot be impartial. Its the discussion that are had after watching a performance or seeing an exhibit that constitute balanced thought. The point of this production in particular, and most productions in general, is not to come to a solution, but simply to expose something that has gone under appreciated.
And why don’t you mention some monologues that discuss female circumcision in the Middle East, or sex slavery in the Democratic Republic of Congo, or the struggle of an African American teen to find her sexuality? Those monologues spark questions. They demand thought, unlike some of the other monologues that are inserted for levity and humor. They are even more prominent that the monologue that discusses “the c-word.” They serve to educate the greater audience about the history of sexism and horrific actions that are still taken against women even today. Perhaps these monologues are why the History Department, Africa & African Diaspora Studies Department, American Studies Department and the Sociology Department co-sponsored the event. The compassion for these women who have been so brutally abused directly aligns with Jesuit ideals that BC supports. And the fleeting dialog that you speak of doesn’t require an academic setting. Have it with friends, roommates, coworkers, and professors. While the Women’s Resource Center does have scheduled forms to discuss issues brought up in The Vagina Monologues, those forms should not confine the discussion, they should be a jumping off point.
I think your analysis at points is fair, but on the whole a little misguided. Thanks.
Best,
Cam Cronin
I found it very intriguing that that the author of this article wrote the “hard news” review on the Monologues as well. Some might think it unprofessional, but apparently not at The Observer.
To whom this may concern:
I write primarily as a response to the ‘cartoon’ entitled “The end of the women’s rights movement at BC”. Many of my peers and I were appalled by the crude and explicit rendering of an actual member of our cast. While I acknowledge that the publication of that picture falls within the realm of freedom of speech, I think the Boston College community deserves more from a newspaper that claims to exist solely for “the greater glory of God”.
It is nothing more than hypocritical to condemn a theatrical work for being explicit and respond to it by producing something even more explicit. This drawing demonstrates exactly why women on this campus need a healthy, non-judgmental forum for expressing and judging sexuality: currently, to talk openly about sexuality on this campus is to be objectified as a half-naked piece of meat. We do this play to change the existing paradigm.
Secondly, I contest Mr. Bindernagel’s assertion that BC’s production of The Vagina Monologues leaves the audience “with no opportunity for meaningful debate”. If Mr. Bindernagel, any member of the Observer staff, or, quite frankly, anyone who finds aspects of the play problematic had actually attended any of the four post-play forums for discussion led by eight different faculty members, they might have seen that this campus does not unilaterally accept this play as gospel. They might even have observed a group of men—the friends, boyfriends, classmates, mentors and professors of cast members and audience members alike—speaking frankly about issues of masculinity related to the play in the Gate on Monday evening.
As a student who is not only engaging with this piece as a director and performer, but also writing a senior English thesis investigating the relationship between form and meaning in the play and the lived interviews that inspired it, I deeply resent your statement that “those behind the performance have no intention of academically posing questions and seeking answers”. I see problematic aspects of the play in a new light every year as a result of these panel discussions and talk-backs. It is possible to engage with the play in a critical lens—this should be obvious to anyone who has done a merely perfunctory scan of academic articles published on the play.
I would hope that the editorial staff takes into account Mr. Bindernagel’s own statement that “speech which presupposes answers or actively works against certain answers from being voiced has no place in academia”. Actively resisting the opportunities for discussion of this play that already exist on campus—not to mention continually condemning the very presentation of the material itself—is really what set Plato’s Academy ablaze.
Maggie Carr ‘10
Executive Director of The Vagina Monologues, 2010
Performer, 2007-2010
Dear Max,
The Observer’s consistent criticism of The Vagina Monologues at this point seems predictable. Every year the women who organize and put on this performance to raise money for charity and empower women put on a thought-provoking show that raises questions about society’s attitudes toward sexuality, human justice in various parts of the world, and women’s identity as it relates to the idea of gender. And every year some correspondent for The Observer manages to weave together the same argument about the show’s provocative subject matter.
The reality is that no matter how you structure your argument about the show, people will come to see it because it provides a forum for discussion that is incredibly lacking at Boston College. There are very limited forums to discuss sexuality or gender on campus, which is a sad truth for the students on campus. Your argument that “an exhibition of these problems [alienation from one's body and a poor understanding of one's sexuality] on a stage” is not the answer is positively absurd. Without these issues brought to light for students, they might never find a way or place to discuss them freely. Stating that a “Theology of the Body” panel discussion is a solution is incredibly discriminatory. Issues of gender and sexuality expand beyond the confines of religion and should be discussed on a multifaceted level that considers the sociological, biological, psychological, and religious aspects, among others.
What’s more disturbing that the arguments you make in and of themselves is the tone you take in your editorial. It’s one thing to write that you didn’t find the performance effective or that there are other ways you make think are better to discuss these issues. But, to adopt a misogynist, pretentious and frankly hateful attitude in the way you speak about the sponsors, partipants and even attendees of the performance is unacceptable. It is clearly evident that you are due for a lesson in tolerance and understanding that will await you once you leave BC. There are points of view other than the Catholic Jesuit perspective that are worthy of consideration when looking at the universal issues presented in this play.
Your idea of a “non-politicized performance” of The Vagina Monologues is a misnomer as well. What you really suggest is censorship. You have no right to say that the question, “How you do feel about your orgasms?” cannot be considered academically. I challenge you to ask yourself that question and really think about how an orgasm is one of the most powerful intersections of a biological, emotional, psychological and social response. Perhaps you’ve taken the sensation for granted.
In closing, I pity your stubborn attitude and willful ignorance regarding the merits of this piece of theatre. I hope that one day you can see people’s right to discuss issues that might make you feel uncomfortable.
Sincerely,
Louis Tullo
The problem I have with this letter is its myopic view of what is “academic”. The primary purpose of a Jesuit education is to educate oneself so as to become an actualized, concerned citizen who questions societal viewpoints in order to reach his or her own truths. In order to become men and women for others, as our institution proudly challenges us, we must discern the truths behind the issues which we are up against in this world. One of these greatest challenges we face, I would argue, is the ability for us to express our stories and to be who we are, for we live as an oppressed people struggling to find our own voice. This particularly applies to women, who at a university like Boston College, are in a constant struggle between defining themselves by their own terms and by conforming to pressures around them.
Thus, I am of the opinion that sex and sexuality are most certainly academic topics. The screaming of “cunt” may not be academic in the traditional sense, but its goal is to provoke us into partaking in important dialogue about the constraints society places upon us. The point of screaming this uncomfortable word is so that we may begin to talk about the issues which are uncomfortable to us, so that we may find the strength to talk about topics which need to be discussed. Often times, we refrain from talking about items which are taboo. The monologues seek to create an outlet for us to recognize problems in society which are often not discussed, including oppression and violence against women, minorities and people of different sexual orientations.
The purpose of the monologues is to foster a thought process on this supposed “existential dilemma” which society imposes on us. Society greatly limits us by making us feel that we must fit a certain mold, yet it is precisely when we live outside of this mold when we face existential dilemmas for we feel invalidated, misunderstood and silenced because we feel “different”. But if we are to find meaning in our lives, we must be able to confront our stories, our struggles, our joys and our triumphs with dignity. And that is precisely what The Vagina Monologues does: it demonstrates a wide spectrum of women, free from constraints and definitions, exploring the stories which matter most in their lives and telling them in a dignified, empowered manner. If anything, this empowerment of the oppressed is exactly what an institution like Boston College strives for.
The truth of the matter is we are simply not free to express ourselves in our society and as a result people become trapped in a search for their identity, when really all should be able to celebrate the experiences that make our lives so colorful and rich. Therefore, the question, “how do you feel about your orgasms?” can be considered academic for it causes us to think in ways that transcend typically limited societal dialogue. Thus, there is something meritorious in asking taboo questions for they help us to question and realize our own truths. This freedom to question and to express ourselves is of utmost importance in human formation.
If anything, The Vagina Monologues celebrates what should be at the center of Catholic Morality—it celebrates the pursuit of each individual to find his or her voice and it celebrates empowerment of the individual. The truth is, we cannot be expected to carry out God’s work with a silenced voice.
Most Sincerely,
Matthew Gelman
Matthew,
You write, “The primary purpose of a Jesuit education is to educate oneself so as to become an actualized, concerned citizen who questions societal viewpoints in order to reach his or her own truths.”
This is a serious misunderstanding of the Catholic idea of truth. We don’t have our “own truths.” There is one truth – it is objective, unchanging, eternal, and absolute.
This play is not a genuine search for Truth, but is, as you put it, a way to “reach [one's] own truths.”
Bishop John M. D’Arcy couldn’t have said it better when he wrote, “This play violates the truth about women; the truth about sexuality; the truth about male and female, and the truth about the human body.”
Respectfully,
Andy
Andy,
Assuming ‘Andy’ is not short for Andrea, and that you’re a male – Don’t you dare try and tell me what the truth about women is, or the truth about my body, or my sexuality. Unless you have a vagina, you don’t know a thing about the truths (and I say truthS because to quantify all human experience as one ‘truth’ without taking into consideration race, class, gender, and a slew of other factors is quite possibly one of the most ignorant things I’ve heard) of being a woman, and neither does Bishop John D’Arcy.
And by the way, though BC is Jesuit, last time I checked there wasn’t a university mandate requiring all students to be Catholic, or Christian, or to reach the “Truth” – which, to be honest, given your description I have no interest in. If you’re not interested in the play, then don’t go.
Respectfully,
Meg
I have no interest in debating Max’s article or the play, but this struck me. “The primary purpose of a Jesuit education is to educate oneself so as to become an actualized, concerned citizen who questions societal viewpoints in order to reach his or her own truths.” I’m not sure who told you this, but it is false. St. Ignatius was quite clear that the purpose of a Jesuit education is to save your soul by rejecting what in “the world” is contrary to the Gospel. Pedro Arrurpe tied that to doing good works, to service of the poor and striving for justice. But the goal remains the same, not “concerned citizenship” but eternal salvation.
Please–do not criticize theater as an art if you don’t understand it’s purpose. Leave that to the theater critics.
You had a great opportunity to write a splendid piece about this incredibly unique and eye-opening show and the students’ responses to it, and I am sad to see that you chose instead to narrow-mindedly present your stubborn opinion.
I wasn’t going to post, but it seems necessary at this point. The criticisms are duly noted, but the internet is hardly a place to have a debate. I’m more than open to meeting with anyone and everyone who so wishes. You can find me at my email address mbindernagel@gmail.com. Thank you!
The dialogue, not debate, that is currently taking place on the internet is due, in part, to your absence at the four post-play discussions. The “criticisms” that you so “duly noted,” might have then been taken into greater consideration prior to The Observer’s printing of both articles and, to put it mildly, offensive cartoon depiction. Quite frankly, this could have alleviated any of the backlash that you and the editorial staff are experiencing now.
Your opinion and perspective of the Vagina Monologues would have fostered more conversations had you attended any of the faculty-led discussions. I believe everyone would have gained a greater understanding around both the opposition and support of this performance. Unfortunately, however, you continue to believe that “those behind the performance have no intention of academically posing questions and seeking answers,” because you did not fully intend to investigate, learn, and discuss the issues brought up by this performance.
Max,
As others have noted, and as a former journalist myself, I find it comical that you have chosen to “respond” to your own, objective news article with an opinions piece. An interesting choice. Additionally, I find it strange that you claim that “the Internet is no place for debate,” yet you chose not to attend any of the discussions following The Vagina Monologues. You claim that “Having a full auditorium chant the ‘c-word’ is not posing questions or starting a discussion” … yet had you attended the panel following the performance last year, you would know that this was a significant element of discussion, as women and men alike engaged in reflection on this particular monologue, posing questions about their own identity and beliefs.
The multiple academic departments sponsoring the show may not discuss The Vagina Monologues following the performance, but these organizations support The Vagina Monologues because, like most compassionate, educated people, they are taking a stance against violence against women, which is the point of the Monologues. Surely, you must recognize this. You say, “Boston College cannot fulfill its mission as long as politics is mixed with academia” yet I believe what you mean is that it cannot fulfill YOUR mission when YOUR politics are not mixed.
So that I’m clear, are you suggesting that rather than “exhibiting these issues on a stage,” we keep them quiet so that they do not become politicized? I struggle in understanding how this will make any progress. In a perfect world, violence against women would not exist … but this is not the case; thus, the need for The Vagina Monologues.
Searching for the Truth – in my opinion, and with which I am sure many agree – means looking at what actually exists in our society, which are the issues presented in The Vagina Monologues: violence against women both domestically and internationally, sex slavery – as well as positive, celebratory issues, such as women being comfortable with their sexuality and learning to love their identity as a woman. I challenge you to open your mind and realize that while you believe this play may challenge beliefs that existed in centuries past, The Vagina Monologues is a revolutionary example of how women have become something to be discussed, celebrated, and empowered in this modern 21st century.
Sincerely,
Erika Vargas
To all concerned, I actually did attend the post-play discussion on Monday at the Gate. I felt guilty leaving the discussion, but I did have other obligations and thus left somewhat early. I had also planned on attending one of the discussions after the performance, but there was, regrettably, not one following the Saturday performance – the only one I was free to attend. Two years ago I did attend the “Dialogues on the Monologues,” and did not attend last year only because it was poorly advertised. In addition, I emailed most of the department heads and the student director of the play to gain as much information as I could before writing. Finally, I would not have written anything had I not been there to see the performance itself, something I felt very important to giving an honest critique of the play. And for the record, I did speak out to my fellow editors against publishing the cartoon – a satire which I found in bad taste given the goals of the Monologues and those involved with the production. Ultimately the choice was not in my hands.
As much as I am flattered by character assassination, I really would prefer to meet my critics face to face if at all possible. We are not detached names on a computer screen, but real people who ought to engage each other as such. My email address is listed above. Thank you again!
Max,
I appreciate that you made an effort to attend the discussions following the Monologues. I regret that you were unable to stay for the entirety of Men and the Monologues and participate in what proved to be a fascinating conversation. However, one person’s inability to attend the whole gamut of scheduled panel discussions is not grounds for the assertion that there is “no opportunity for meaningful debate” following the performances of the play.
Also, thank you for expressing your distaste for this offensive cartoon. If other Observer staff had made the effort to see the show, as you did, I highly doubt that such a reductive, sexist rendering of a woman would have been so roundly commended and, in the end, published.
Maggie
In your “objective” article about the show, you describe the “molestation” of a 16 year old woman by a 24 year old woman. It amazed me that a person could see this particular monologue and focus on the controversial behavior between the 2 women. You CONVENIENTLY left out that the same girl who found “heaven” in the touch of a woman had been raped at age 9 by a MUCH older male, a man old enough to be her father. Actually, you conveniently left out almost all references to monologues that were about rape, sex slavery, or any violence against women. By focusing all your attention and energy on the cheerleader, you are not only showing your bias, but also hiding true stories of abuse and rape from the BC community. Is it so people won’t attend next year and yell the c-word? You would prefer to promote the silence of women and do nothing about horrific violence committed against them because your Catholic “values” are against talking about orgasms? I would get your priorities straight.
Max,
The main problem is that in your honest critique, you failed to look at all aspects of the production. The proceeds of our event go toward supporting an end to the brutality around the world towards women. There are monologues that raise awareness for some of the most vicious war crimes in the world. I suggest you watch this short video about VDay, http://drc.vday.org/paintopower. I feel that this confirms that our mission truly is in line with Jesuit ideals.
While I appreciate the fact that the Vagina Monologues is a controversial piece, and there are certain aspects of it that can certainly make viewers feel uncomfortable, I believe that it also does a great deal of good for this community in helping stimulate conversation about sexuality and sexual violence. As such, I respect Mr. Bindernagel’s right to disagree with some of the Monologues, but I do have several points of contention with this article, as well.
1. the BC administration puts heavy restrictions on permitted advertisement for the Vagina Monologues every year, so it is very unfair to fault the play for being “poorly advertised” (furthermore, every performance is nearly if not entirely sold out, which is a testament to the effort that they put into word-of-mouth and other alternative advertisement)
2. McGuinn 121 can hold one of the largest capacities on campus
3. I fail to see what is so mysterious about various department’s interest in co-sponsoring the Vagina Monologues; V-Day and the Monologues work very hard to speak out and take action against violence against women — something that is a universal problem; as I’m sure you noticed, several of the Monologues shine a light on particular atrocities that have occurred in various cultures around the world. The issue of violence against women and gender roles play important roles in American, Irish, Romance, African and African Diaspora Studies, etc., and certainly have implications and interests for members of the History, Sociology, and Pyschology Depts.
4. You say that “No one doubts that an alienation from one’s own body or a poor understanding of one’s own sexuality is a problem of self knowledge”; for many people self-knowledge and reflection are very necessary, but we must also acknowledge the fact that our society continues to subjugate certain communities. Silencing the issues of sexuality, femininity and sexual violence will only lead to stagnation — certainly not progress and academic dialogue (which you seem to be interested in).
You did not like the methods that the Vagina Monologues use to initiate dialogue — that is fine. But please do not disrespect the play by simply glossing over all of the hard-hitting and important issues that they highlight. And might I point out, that, simply judging by this article and its responses (never mind the post-show panels), I would say that quite a bit of intellectual debate has been sparked by the Monologues…
The mission of the Vagina Monologues is to educate people about the violence that it committed every day against women. It grabs people’s attention and shows women that it is alright to take control of their sexuality. The purpose is not to conform to the antiquated and male-dominated studies of “Plato’s Academy”. As a returning attendee of the play, I once again left with a sense of pride and fulfillment not only in myself but also in my sex. The sense of camaraderie I experienced with the rest of the women in the room was not political, yet I am sure that the goal was similar to a statement quoted by BC President Leahy, “Boston College endeavors to educate a new generation of leaders for the new millennium—men and women who will be capable of shaping a new century with vision, justice, and charity—with a sense of calling, with concern for all of the human family.”
I conclude by offering some food for thought…..The show is empowering women to embrace their own sexuality. It is the ultimate embodiment of individuality and femininity. You need to grow up if the subject of the vagina is so offensive to you.