sami | A curious parallel

Current Mood: tired
Current Location: Reid Library
Current Music: Pete Anthony - Introducing Charlotte

Entry tags:

A curious parallel

Despite disapproval from certain quarters, I've been somewhat keeping up with that which is called RaceFail '09. (JFGI.)

I've not written about in my journal yet, and I'm not sure I'll ever write a comprehensive post about my thoughts on it, if only because I should be spending that time keeping up with uni work. If it gets on top of me, it will crush me.

Anyway, the thing is this: at the end of the 18th century, radical movements for social and political change changed from being the hobbyhorse of a few wealthy intellectuals (yes, I'm guilty of gross reductionism, shh) to the product of widespread working-class involvement, thought, activism, argument. The lower orders, as they were known, began speaking up, demanding representation, demanding rights.

This was a problem, and was met with repression, where the previous advocates of universal suffrage and suchlike had been tolerated calmly. The old advocates were eccentric aristocrats. The new radicals were workers. Lower-class, absent all the privileges held by the wealthy and titled.

The lower orders talking about politics, reading "The Rights of Man" and trying to claim they deserved respect and all that stuff? Arrogant presumption.

I think there's still something like that today, with some people's reactions to minorities advocating for themselves; while people might think they believe that disabled people should be accommodated equally with he abled, that homosexuals deserve the same rights in their loves as heterosexuals, that people who aren't white should be placed on an equal footing with people who are (including recognising that centuries of oppression have left their mark, and merely removing active barriers is not enough to put them, as a population, on that equal footing, because someone born in poverty to illiterate, alcoholic parents is not in a position of equality to someone born in better circumstances, and while it is not a firm rule for individuals of any race where they will fall on the socio-economic spectrum, on balance of population majorities, some groups are currently at a disadvantage that needs to be remedied)...

Pause here because that sentence got away from me a little, and I have a lot of reading to do and haven't time to edit it properly.

Yes. While they think they believe all that stuff, and probably sincerely do, some people seem to find it something of an affront when members of that minority group express their own opinions, voice their own experiences, insist on the respect which in theory most of us agree they deserve but only some of us notice they don't get. The idea being that "we" know whats best for "them"; it's probably an intellectual (as grouping) bias, in that intellectuals tend towards believing that We're Right.

And it can feel like a terrible shock, I guess, when you think you're being ever so kind and wonderful, and discover that actually, no, the person doesn't want your help, exactly, they want independent equality.

The thing is that that attitude is condescending. Like a wealthy landowner condescending to talk to his gardener; it's understood that it is an act of kindness and charity for the master merely to acknowledge that the servant is human, with experiences beyond his role as The Gardener. For the gardener to initiate the conversation would be presumption.

The unprivileged demanding equal status with the privilege is presumption almost by definition; it is denying that the unprivileged person should just "know their place", demanding that their place be moved, presuming equality to be their right.

I don't have a point to this, really; I just noticed the parallel between a number of people involved in RaceFail and the behaviour of people 220 years ago.

There is nothing new under the sun.

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only

Yes, I think that's the issue too. It only counts as listening if you pay attention even when they disagree with you.

I find the whole topic pretty thorny. Am I meant to pay more attention or give more credence to someone because they're in a minority? In terms of political dialogue I'm not sure this makes any sense at all; as long as everyone gets to speak, all is well, but nobody has to listen.

It depends on the circumstances in which the dialogue is taking place. If the topic under discussion is: "Is this exclusionary of Minority Group X?", then the opinions of members of Minority Group X do, in fact, need to be listened to, and given more credence, because they're speaking about a quality of experience you *can't have*.

If the topic is "to what extent did the immigration of the Irish poor affect the quality of life of the Scottish working class in the early 18th century", then I'm not sure that any minority representative gets a blanket greater authority, even if they're Irish or Scottish and from Glasgow, except in ways they have direct experience (e.g. what it's like living in a Glaswegian tenement).

(My lecturer is Scottish and from Glasgow, but his authority on the subject derives from expert knowledge, not from being a Glaswegian.)

This, I think, was part of what went wrong in the beginning of RaceFail. One group thought the topic under discussion was "is this exclusionary of Minority Group X" and the second group thought it was "literary criticism". In a discussion of literary criticism the latter group, being authors and editors, felt they had the right to be given at least as much credence.

And what school of literary criticism were they following that published authors and editors with contracts at Tor (for example) got more points and credence than their critics? K. Tempest Bradford is a published sci/fi author, but somehow she ended up being part of the 'orcing horde' anyway. Will Sh*tt*rly claimed that coffeeandink's ten minutes working at a book publisher made her 'biased,' but it wasn't enough for her to 'count' as an editor or critic. IMO, it's another false comparison; 'oh, we're talking about literature, you silly people.'

The whole thing reminds me of Roger Ebert's takedown of Rob Schneider. (http://rogerebert.suntimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20050811/REVIEWS/50725001)

If PoC are entitled to more points and credence in discussions of race because of their credentials, why shouldn't authors and particularly editors feel entitled to more points and credence in discussions of literary criticism by virtue of their credentials?

What happened later in RaceFail is a different discussion IMO; I'm talking about the posts that were made in response to Avalon's Willow's 'open letter to bear'.

Why are you assuming that people of color are neither authors nor editors? And where do academics fit into this critique?

I know that there are both authors and editors who are PoC. But bear, truepenny, pnh, macstone and coffeeem who were the authors and editors initially caught up in RaceFail, aren't. Academics fit into this critique because the authors and editors in question were, to my way of reading, claiming academic privilege not white privilege.

But some of the critics were and are academics. How can you claim academic privilege against academics?

As I read the initial stages of RaceFail, academic privilege was being claimed in refuting Avalon's Willow's critique of one of Elizabeth Bear's characters.

I'm going to step back for a moment and just ask what you're arguing, because I think I'm confused. Are you saying that was legitimate, or just trying to figure out the thought process of the refuters?

I'm suggesting an alternative reading of what happened in the beginning of RaceFail; I'm not saying that racist comments didn't occur later on. But to me coffeeem's etc. comments could be read as a claiming of academic privilege.

But then they'd still be operating out of a false and racist assumption, which was that the people they were talking to had no academic skills-- PNH, as I recall, pretty much said as much.

It may have been a false assumption (about one person - or possibly two because I think some of the comments also referred to deepad's post about cultural appropriation) but I saw no evidence it was made on the basis of the race of the authors of either post.

On the basis of what, then, other than their presumption in challenging the privileged position(s) of the people they were disagreeing with?

Their comments were literate, reasoned, and articulate. Whether academic privilege (which, by the way, is still rubbish; you're right if you can back up your coherent argument well, not if you have more degrees or professional success than the person you're arguing against) or white privilege, it was still unfounded. And since they went on to couch the discussion in racially oppressive terms, they were clearly speaking from a position of white privilege.

Assuming that a non-white person is going to be uneducated is an obvious racist stereotype; trying to claim it's otherwise is just a different way of trying to change the terms of the discussion. Derailing, as it's known. sf/F fandom is known for the bias towards highly educated participants; assuming that someone who is well-read in sf/F and critiquing a work of genre fiction in a thoughtful and articulate manner is uneducated and doesn't really know what they're talking about is something that wouldn't fly in ordinary discourse; saying it about a known non-white person, in the context of a discussion of race?

Racist stereotyping. Given the conventions of genre fandom and of online discourse (in which appealing to external credentials without references is largely frowned-upon) you will have difficulty convincing me otherwise, to be honest.

Assuming that a non-white person is going to be uneducated is an obvious racist stereotype Assuming anyone is uneducated based on the color of their skin is an obvious racist sterotype but assuming someone is un- or under-educated based on the content of their writing- no, I don't think that's an obvious racist stereotype. You perceived AW's post as thoughtful, reasoned and articulate; apparently not everyone read it that way and those who didn't responded based on how they read it.

but assuming someone is un- or under-educated based on the content of their writing- no, I don't think that's an obvious racist stereotype.

But there's nothing in the content of their writing that would assume an uneducated reader. Go back to the original post-- grammar's fine, spelling's fine; the only 'uneducated' aspect is 'their interpretation does not match mine.'

Not least, because to my knowledge none of these authors or editors have credentials in literary criticism. If you are trying to view this discussion in terms of literary criticism, their arguments are possibly even worse. Arguing authorial intent based on things which are not only outside the individual texts, but outside the entire canon of their published work (reference to blogging histories, or worse, testimonials about character from people who "know them in real life"), is absolutely rubbish literary criticism. Authorial intent is widely agreed to be meaningless in any case; if the author makes a claim about the meaning of the text which is not provable solely by the content of the text, the author is flailing wildly at justifications for poor communication.

So, no. They shouldn't feel entitled to more points and credence in discussion of literary criticism by virtue of their credentials because their "credentials" are not relevant credentials, and even if they were, literary criticism is an area in which credentials alone will not carry you through poor arguments.

So if the disagreement was with their literary criticism, why didn't commenters call them on that rather than accusing them of racist remarks, which is what happened.

In any case, I'm not certain that the author or her defenders made any claim about the text that wasn't provable solely by the content of the text - I didn't see that the discussion ever got to that point.

So if the disagreement was with their literary criticism, why didn't commenters call them on that rather than accusing them of racist remarks, which is what happened.

Um, possibly because the people making those accusations believed they had made racist assumptions and remarks in the course of their literary criticism?

Look, it's a "both / and" thing, as far as I can see. If someone insults me on two different levels (one insulting my understanding of Text A, and one insulting me as a person), I'm probably going to address the person on the level which I find more serious. Not to mention the fact that the literary criticism stuff is intertwined with the racial stereotyping, and has been since the get-go. They can't just be separated out nice and neatly, with "intellectually problematic" in one column and "racially problematic" in another.

Not to mention the fact that this was never an academically rigorous discussion, as

tevriel notes in another thread. Any English Lit professor reading the early discussions would have kittens at the idea that this was an academic argument being conducted along academic lines.

Oh my, strangers in my journal! Somehow I knew I got linked.

Other OT point: SAIYUKI ICON IS LOVE.

*ahem*

Your point is excellent. If nothing else, this is the twenty-first century, and the idea that authorial intent is intrinsically relevant to the interpretation of text has already been widely established to be false. You can take it into account up to a point, but, as has already been well established, the author is, to tall intents and purposes, dead, as far as literary criticism is concerned.

Once a text has been published, the author certainly has no more right to determine its interpretation through supplementary commentary than anyone else. If you wish to make something a part of your text, you have to write it in there. No backsies.

To me, it's, well... that whole thing about privilege and presumption I wrote the post about, mixed in with a hefty dose in a lot of cases of actual, they're-in-denial-but-so-what racism. (Which I didn't include in the post, because it wasn't really the thrust of my argument, and has been well covered in other sources.)

OH HI SORRY usually I'm really good about introducing myself but I've been doing a lot of link-reading and I get sloppy.

HI SAIYUKI ICON MEET MY KOUGAJI ICON.

And yes, exactly, authorial intent is good up to a point. Mark Twain was groundbreaking, but there are still racist elements in Huckleberry Finn.</em< We all know this! It is not a secret! His intent was to do things better, and he did do things better, but he wasn't perfect-- who the hell is?

Oh, that's fine, at this point in a discussion this wide-ranging it's pretty much a given that total strangers will turn up here and there, it was just a kind of "... I'm on rydra_wong's, aren't I?" moment.

:more iconlove:

Not to get too academic about this, but if people are trying to play the "it's literary criticism, not a discussion about race" card, then I will smack them in the face with an existentialist salmon: the author has been dead (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death_of_the_author) for over forty years now. Writers and editors get no bonus Credibility Points. None.

This one is FIERCE.

I remember the criticism course I took in college; not once, for some reason, did we discuss sucking the virtual cock of the people we were criticizing. They must have been Doing It Wrong.

I... am out of distinct Saiyuki icons. I need to fix that, soon. Have a Tendou Souji, he's smokin' hot too.

Literary criticism should more or less ignore the author as an entity. Taking the author into account is just not relevant; personal abuse is also not relevant, which is why at the beginning of all this, appropriately, no-one was saying that the authors in question were Bad People, just that there was some unquestioned assumptions in their work that were problematic.

He sure is. Have I done Goku's abs yet? No, no, I haven't. I like Saiyuki entirely too much, but it's helpful in RaceFail posts, where I try to use mostly PoC.

Yes, exactly. I was saying back in my own journal-- and, IIRC, have said elsewhere, it's like these people have never been criticized before, which just makes no sense at all, except perhaps critics are gentler in genre fiction? I used to read The New York Times Book Review every weekend, and Avalon's Willow was the gentlest brush of reprimand compared to that.

... that icon is awesome.

I've tended to use icons which were either appropriate-by-keyword (a lot of mine don't feature people/characters at all, and my favourite for discussions that are about ethics and art is probably this one), but when going to default, I've tended towards Goku or Tendou, because they're a) relatively neutral b) awesome. Whereas my default icon, which is a pair of sock-clad toddler feet, which is as race-neutral as you can get, I think, except the text is "socks to be you" which isn't quiiiite the message I'm trying to convey here.

(I'm pretty confident that my adoration of certain manga and Japanese kids' shows qualifies as cultural appreciation, not appropriation, so I'm relaxed about this. It's not that I think Mizushima Hiro, the actor who plays Tendou in Kamen Rider Kabuto, is hot like a thousand fiery suns because he's Japanese, it's because, no really, hot like a thousand fiery suns. Mei-chan no Shitsuji, with all its cracktasticness here and there, justifies its existence merely by the blatant fanservice that is Mizushima Hiro on his knees, in the rain, in formalwear, declaring his devotion. Swoon.)

(Also, watching shows where every single character and actor is Japanese is a wonderful way to have a respite from having to be bothered about race implications in casting.)

Ahem, yes. You're very right - there's something very odd with these reactions. It's true reviews tend to be less vicious in genre fiction, in my experience, because it's an insular and geek-fallacy-ridden (http://www.plausiblydeniable.com/opinion/gsf.html) environment, but seriously, if you can't take genuine - and, at least at first, constructive - criticism, you shouldn't be writing in public. Suck it up.

Thank you!

Yeah, most of my icons are people and/or expressions. And Tendou is very pretty indeed.

(I really do have to watch Kamen Rider, don't I. Hong Kong action movies are, in my experience, the absolute most fun in terms of diverse casting.)

I've heard people say 'but being accused of racism is terrible!' and yeah, it is, but dude, I've read and heard so much worse! There may be a correlation between writers of fanfiction and people who've acted sanely in this...hmmmmm.

Yes, under certain circumstances. Especially if you do not in fact have equal representation, ie politicians are mostly male yet represent a (slightly) majority female population, so the voices of female politicians on issues of gender should be given a bit more weight if only to counteract the tendency for male voices to dominate.

However, those politicians were selected through a political process in which everyone had the opportunity to (and in Australia, was compelled to) vote. If we end up with less female politicians despite a slight majority of women voting, I don't see why there should be any bias in the weighting given to opinions of particular representatives.

I guess I'm saying that if women believe that their gender-related issues need to be represented by female parliamentarians, then they should probably elect some.

Oh I don't mean their votes should count double or anything, just that if a party was developing a policy about maternity leave, say, they'd make sure to get a lot of women involved in writing it. Same way that if they're developing science policy they should talk to scientists and not just rely on the fact that some politicians happen to have science degrees.

But this:
I guess I'm saying that if women believe that their gender-related issues need to be represented by female parliamentarians, then they should probably elect some.

really misses the point of why women (or any other under-represented group) are proportionally under-represented in the corridors of power.

How so? It's not like women are < 1% of the population unable to get meaningful representation due to our system of elections.

uhm, male politicians in the runnings for these positions vastly outnumber their female counterparts - just for starters. There are social reasons behind that - women have it harder getting into politics then men due to social barriers and just outright sexism, go figure! But also, when women DO manage to get into those positions, they tend to do so by largely selling out the people they claim to represent and supporting policies that make the people around them (largely wealthy white men) more comfortable (see also: Sarah Palin). This means that if women (or any marginalized group, for that matter) want to elect someone who truly represents us, we are doubly screwed - our choices are so limited as to not be choices at all.

IN CONCLUSION: Blame the victim much?

If you have some time, could you explain why men are not expected to vote for women? Do they not have a stake in issues around, for example, child care?

It's well documented that in countries where women make up a minimum of 30% of the elected officials, issues like family support and child care get a lot more attention in national politics, so I would think, being that men have a stake in such things, they'd be eager to vote for women as well.

I don't need an answer right away - I'm far away and should be going to sleep three hours ago anyway. But I'm always curious as to why the answer is "women should vote for women more often!" and not "men should vote for women more often", and I was hoping you'd be able to explain it to me.

...
Okay, I both know you and like you - in fact I think quite highly of you as a person. So I can safely assume that you are honestly unaware of the can of worms you have just upended over your head.

Either that or you are trolling in a spectacularly dangerous (not to mention inappropriate, given the location) fashion. I suspect the former.

Anyway, you appear to have completely missed the last 80 odd years of the equal rights movement. Unless you really do not care at all what people on the internet think of you, or about how honestly hurt some people you know personally might be, my recommendation would be that you:
a) Put some serious thought into this
b) Do some research
c) Have a private chat with, say, Sophie (for example)
d) All of the above
before making any more comments.

Seriously. I sometimes play Devil's advocate with this stuff, but this is ... Well, kinda surprising, tbqh. I may have to rethink the trolling analysis. :/

Well, apologies if I've annoyed anyone - just following a chain of argument without much actual concern for what I'm saying. It's a fun thing to do sometimes..

To contribute maturely to this Serious Debate:

Bwahahah, you were pwned. :D

More seriously, I have loads of awesome books which cover themes of structural oppression and marginalisation, should you ever find the time and inclination for some light reading.

I've been mulling it over all afternoon and evening (wow, it got late fast), and it's remarkable how you can follow an argument down a blind alleyway and then get mugged by people who are right.

A good way to think about it, I think, is that when it comes to specific minority issues members of the minority group are automatically experts in a way non-minority members aren't (and in some ways *can't be*). If you are talking about racism, yes, listen to PoC over white people because the PoC have the personal experience, have been dealing with this stuff and learning about it the hard way since the day they were born and white people just can't match that. Which isn't to say that you as a member of the majority absolutely cannot disagree with what a minority group member they're saying, just that you should thinking long and hard about it and recognise that you're the one with the least experience and who is most likely not to see a lot of these issues.

It's also worth mentioning that it's a lot easier to shut up minority group members than majority, so even if you think you are giving equal attention to all sides it's very easy to create an environment where minority members don't feel safe or where their opinions go unheard (I kind of wish I could stamp this on the forehead of some of the people involved in Racefail.)

Well, automatic expertise is probably taking it farther than I would; they have a different qualitative experience with these issues due to their experiences, but everyone's experiences are different. This is why minorities should be listened to, but not taken as automatically right; where you have a multiplicity of minority voices in broad concordance, you must assume they're going to be right.

In part, I say this because otherwise you are stuck with "my black friend said this is okay so it's fine and not racist at all", where perhaps one black person has said that, for reasons we can't identify - like the black Republican defending the "Barack the Magic Negro" thing - but a vast majority of black people have said That's Wrong, and therefore authority goes to the majority.

The thing is that expertise doesn't necessarily confer being *right*. To pursue the analogy, you can have experts who have some really strange off-the-wall opinion or who stopped really paying attention to the subject after the 1950s or whose research is flawed or has been taking money from the drug industry or - well, there's a number of reasons you shouldn't be taking the word of an expert as God's given truth, and saying that "but my expert friend told me X was true when we went out to the pub!" when you are faced with a panel of experts saying X is actually flat-out wrong is still not a valid form of argument. And who knows, maybe your expert friend just didn't feel up to the argument on what was supposed to be a nice night out.

And, of course, I'm not saying that being a PoC = automatic expertise on all things relating to racism, antiracist discourse, etc. However, it does generally mean they're an expert on the experience of living with racism by default and, chances are, have had to do a lot more thinking and working through issues than most white people ever do, with less privilege-induced blinders on. It's just that in general, I'd think "probably this PoC knows more about this stuff than I do" is a better attitude to take than the alternative, provided you don't then go "and that means every word they say is the Platonic ideal of what racism is and how to combat it."

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only

A curious parallel

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

I've already broken the three comment rule so this is my last- promise

Re: I've already broken the three comment rule so this is my last- promise

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject