| Opinion | Jan. 28, 2008 | 11:15 pm |
When you ask NU big questions, you don’t get big answers
By
Those hot-pink “askbigquestions” advertisements are ubiquitous on Northwestern’s campus, but most people probably don’t know that they’re a part of Fiedler Hillel, the same Jewish group that publishes Schmooze magazine and organizes trips to Israel.
The project, which started last fall, aims to “engage the Big Questions of life that all human beings wonder about, and to learn about diverse and authentic Jewish responses to those questions,” according to its Web site, though you’d have to dig to understand that there’s a religious angle at all. Online and off, askbigquestions confronts students with abstract ethical situations and matters of everyday life – the kinds of questions you could imagine a Dostoevsky character asking himself over a glass of vodka: Where do you feel at home? What are you addicted to? Would you die for a cause? For one of its talks last year, the group even invited Professor Gary Morson, an expert on Russian literature who also happens to be, yes, Jewish.
The trick is that, once you jump on askbigquestions.com, you can read answers to these questions that reference Jewish theology. But there’s no attempt to drive home that point. Unlike the unfortunately named Cru (as in, Campus Crusade for Christ), which last year solicited students’ questions about God, Hillel’s project asks the big questions first and lets the scriptural perspective follow. An essay on home begins with an advertisement at Target and a baseball metaphor, and it ends with a Genesis quote about leaving your birthplace. It’s the difference between a group that presumes your interest in religion – what were you dying to ask the big man upstairs? – and a group that provokes your natural interest in questions that have everything to do with religion.
Askbigquestions is more provocative as a marketing campaign than anything else. The blunt, snappy flyers announce the issues, and the Web site creates an open forum for student responses. But as with any public discussion on this campus, the hardest part is directing the conversation. In the site’s most recent question, “What should we sacrifice to change the world?,” two juniors talk in videos about reducing our carbon footprint, minimizing our self-interest, and giving up “a little time and effort.” They go on for too long and don’t say anything specific or personal – a soapbox speech without the good rhetoric.
The past week or so has proved NU is nothing if not conflicted about how to express itself. The MLK Day banners were filled with loaded but mostly sincere comments about race relations on campus, and ASG’s (no doubt well-intentioned) resolution condemning the prosecution of the Jena 6 came out of left field. Askbigquestions’ success – its open-endedness – is also its failure, because students are never forced to make the issues relevant to their own lives. Instead they dispense vague talking points that sound about right but mean almost nothing. When you ask big questions at NU, you’re probably going to get small answers.
Josh said,
January 30, 2008 @ 11:31 am
Paul, I think you’re generally right about this. A few responses:
1. The point of ABQ is not to be a bait-and-switch. As our About page says: “The purpose of askbigquestions is to provide an open space for all students at Northwestern University to engage the Big Questions of life that all human beings wonder about, and to learn about diverse and authentic Jewish responses to those questions. The online and offline spaces organized by askbigquestions are open and welcome to all students regardless of religious or ethnic background.”
These are questions of ultimate concern with which all human beings are ultimately concerned. Our purpose is to create forums–online and offline–for students to engage these questions from wherever they come from. Alongside many rich scholarly and religious traditions that provide a context for dwelling in those questions, Judaism–including Jewish thought, history, ritual, culture, etc.–is one such context, and it is the one we (Hillel) comes from. So we welcome responses from anyone and everyone–Jews, Christians, Muslims, Buddhists, atheists, and anyone else.
2. In terms of the responses: I hope your piece will prompt more students to share their own responses. This is a long-term project, and we’re interested to see how the responses and the discussion develops and deepens over several years.
So here’s my question to you: What do you think we should sacrifice to change the world? The easiest way to make the answers better is to share yours.
Mara said,
January 30, 2008 @ 5:11 pm
Paul,
In general I agree with your statement. As a part of a handful of student groups, we spend a lot of time on mission, vision, and goals, and unfortunately it seems that we only haphazardly get to any type of action.
Given this, I challenge you to attend one of the Ask Big Question’s discussion’s at Norbucks. Last week, with provocative Professor Jerry Stermer, we discussed a variety of aspects of the question- discussing both long term and short term perspectives, with debates ranging from philosophical to pragmatic. In particular, we had an extensive discussion on the challenge of balancing advocacy, family, and, the unappreciated but still necessary, sleep.
As a slightly bias Social Policy major, I believe that Ask Big Questions could benefit from mechanisms that spark more concrete action. However, it is naive to automatically negate the significance of the “small answers”, or discussions, that the initiative sparks.
Paul, on a personal level, I invite you to join next weeks discussion to offer us some of your thoughts…
David S. said,
January 30, 2008 @ 5:38 pm
I thought Paul’s article was excellent. While I admire the desire to increase thoughtful discourse on campus, Rabbi Josh, these questions seem so broad and open-ended that I’m not sure how they accomplish the stated goal.
What should we sacrifice to change the world? I can’t think of any way to answer other than “it depends.” Since there are infinite different visions of change, how can we begin to have a coherent discussion of this issue? It’s the same reason we don’t have a “change club” on campus; we have an anti-war club and a religious advocacy group and the College Republicans and so on, all working for different types of change in the world.
I can’t imagine how any expert or religion can begin to answer these supposedly big questions without further elaborating on what the question means.
Allison said,
January 30, 2008 @ 10:52 pm
I think the point of ABQ is NOT to answer the questions. It is to allow students to get into a discussion and express their different points of view. Dialogue tends to follow, when passionate people express their viewpoints.
You’re right there is no “change club” but that is not the point. The point is to have the anti war club, religious advocacy group and college republicans and anyother groups express themselves in open forum. That is normally how dialogue and discussion work. When else do we have a time on campus when all these different people can come together and answer big questions with their different takes on the world? The program is not about a black and white question… since there are so many grey areas for responses, there is much more room for rich discussion as we begin to understand where different people, with different backgrounds come from in their reasoning.
I think some of the people criticizing the program, based on the site or what they have heard, should consider coming to one of the firesides. You will see then, that discussion is possible– even with a broad topic. The difference between an online video comment on your answer and an actual face to face meeting is that people will naturally bounce off each other’s ideas (regardless if they have the same vision or not).
Give it a try. If anything it is interesting seeing the diverse and fascinating answers that people can come up with to one question.
Benjamin said,
January 31, 2008 @ 12:46 am
First, I think the people in the videos should not be judged for having “impersonal” answers unless you know them personally.
For example, I know one of the people in the videos who mentioned “reducing our carbon footprint” as a reason to sacrifice time, and it should be known that he dedicates countless hours to improving sustainability on campus and beyond, and has even received a competitive fellowship to do so. Perhaps a little more time should have been spent on interviews, rather than just surfing the website. Other questions on the site also reveal INCREDIBLY personal answers (like the “What day in your life would you like to live over?” page, especially the fifth video, but really almost every page has an answer or two that could only come from that person. Just look at them. It only takes a little bit of time.
And of course these videos aren’t necessarily going to seem personal to you because you don’t know these people, what’s behind their responses, what personal experiences contributed to the way a person answers a particular question. Think about if you were them. Think about what kind of personal principles and formative moments went into their vocalizations. It’s about getting YOU to reflect for yourself. And the open-endedness does perhaps leave room for a personal interpretation–but isn’t that the point? Just look back at the “What day in your life would you like to live over?” page, and you can see how people think of it in different ways. Some want to relive so they can do something differently. Some want to so that they can just have a fleeting moment of emotion back. Others love their lives and don’t want to risk changing them.
This article doesn’t address what the site is all about. It’s not like you type in the URL, read the question and an answer, and are supposed to think, “Oh! That’s the meaning of life.” These people weren’t specially chosen because they’re experts or gave great answers. The site is supposed to make you think about your OWN answer. If you don’t want to take that extra step, that is your own decision.
As for,
“you can read answers to these questions that reference Jewish theology. But there’s no attempt to drive home that point.”
Why would you want the site to force people to answer the questions in a Jewish way? That’s not very engaging. Two percent of the United States is Jewish. If instead of “When do you feel most alive?” the site asked, “During which Jewish holiday do you feel most alive?”, would it be as relevant for non-Jews? No. Would it be as relevant for even most Jews? Not at all! That’s not exactly “open and welcome to all students regardless of religious or ethnic background,” which is right in the mission statement for everyone to see.
When you ask YOURSELF a big question, do YOU get a big answer? That is what the site is about. Seriously. Think.
P.S. For David Spett: We do have a “change club”: the deliberately ambiguous Campus Activists!
Ben said,
January 31, 2008 @ 1:56 am
First, I would just like to clarify that the above poster is the person running the program.
Second, when you are asking big questions, are there really answers of any size? Would you like them to give you an answer in one hour? I think that they are looking to get people thinking and talking about questions that really pertain to the way we perceive of ourselves, contemplate our actions, and interact with everyone else in the world.