Novelist hopes militancy against "cultural appropriation" will pass

[Hex]

I don't think that being part of one group automatically makes you suspect others. People can be members of multiple groups and identify with others across groups that they're not necessarily part of themselves. It is, though, a powerful argument and I am reminded of the neuropsychology research demonstrating that you do not feel empathy -- that one does not feel empathy -- for someone who has been defined to you as member of an out-group. So if you hate and suspect liberals or Muslims or UKIPpers and you see a film of them being hurt, your brain will not respond in the same way.

That is why the creation and scapegoating of out-groups, carried out so painfully just now in the UK and the US, is so dangerous and permits such hatred -- people who condone the death of refugees genuinely do not recognise them as equally human. I admire what we see of Canada.

However, part of trying to come to an understanding is the ability to listen to people and while some of the complaints about cultural appropriation might be from those who don't really care or who hate everyone who isn't exactly like them, many come from people who genuinely feel that their identities are being co-opted and exploited for entertainment.

It may be that at some point in the future we can move beyond our cultural/ national/ racial identities to a future where none of this matters but we're a very long way from that just now and I seriously doubt the way to create the utopia is to dismiss people's complaints about your behaviour and tell them you have a right to take what you like from something they regard (however erroneously in your view) as theirs.

 

[JunkMonkey]

One of the worst things of this cultural appropriation stuff is that it says, quite specifically, that I can't understand, say, the life of a Peruvian farmer - not just that it will be difficult for me (it's difficult for me to understand the life of anyone other than myself, actually) but that it is somehow a moral wrong for me to try. Re-reading The Stepford Wives recently, which revolves around 1970s feminism, I was struck by the belief of the heroine (and presumably the author) in a general sisterhood of women.

Ironically (for this thread) the Stepford Wives was written by a man, Ira Levin , who was also responsible for writing Rosemary's Baby.

 

[WaylanderToo]

Just to say that I don't hear anyone saying that people cannot write other people outside of their experience - simply to do so in a considered manner, especially when there is a history of oppression and/or discrimination, or the subject otherwise invites sensitivity.

The extreme examples Shriver cites in her speech strike me as "White Knight" actions - I would be very surprised if the student bodies trying to ban Yoga, or the wearing of sombreros, were predominantly Indian or Mexican.

on the whole I agree with you, it does seem to be wannabe 'intellectuals' being professionally offended. However take the 'cornrow' discord from earlier in the year, the deeply unpleasant person involved in that particular piece of foolishness was black - there are idiots all over.

 

[Ursa major]

strike me as "White Knight" actions

They often are...

...which doesn't mean that they don't have consequences. Indeed, one might argue that lone complaints from someone who has genuinely found something with which they are uncomfortable are more easily ignored (in terms of the initiation of some sort of disciplinary action) than those from those who, though not themselves affected, are known for pursuing their complaints with vigour (and with ready-made... er... back-up).

O/T @Ursa major - just curious here. Whenever you add examples you always start with 2 asterisk (asteries? asterisks?) rather than just the one... why?

First of all, two (or more) asterisks stand out more than single ones**. Secondly: when I joined there seemed to be a convention in some of the role-playing areas where actions were separated from conversations by enclosing them in a pair a single asterisks (as if they were anti-quotes). Using two asterisks for my footnotes removed the possibility of confusion (for me as well as for those reading).


** - For me, at least: quite often I'm surprised to find a footnote (one starting with a single asterisk, that is), surprised because I've completely missed the asterisk in the body of the post.

 

[Ursa major]

I'd go as far as to say a pretty good barometer of the welfare of humanity a century from now will be to what extent we've moved past group identity.

This is never going to happen.

While there are serious downsides in investing in group identity, there are many upsides, including practical ones. Some individuals can wield a great deal of power and where they ought to be opposed, that isn't going to be successful unless someone, or a group of people, can deploy similar power. It would be nice to think that the law can always protect the weak from the strong, but we all know that it can't, if only because the strong tend to have more influence and more resources.

Instead, we** have to be vigilant in calling out nonsense when we see it (and, of course, we have to be able to separate nonsense from valid concerns).


** - Particularly those within the group concerned.

 

[MWagner]

While there are serious downsides in investing in group identity, there are many upsides, including practical ones. Some individuals can wield a great deal of power and where they ought to be opposed, that isn't going to be successful unless someone, or a group of people, can deploy similar power. It would be nice to think that the law can always protect the weak from the strong, but we all know that it can't, if only because the strong tend to have more influence and more resources.

Maybe so. But those narratives of weak vs strong, us vs them foster self-delusion. The powerful aren't like us. We are good, they are bad. It makes the villainy of some powerful group the source of the world's ills, whereas, IMHO, the line between good and evil runs the middle of every human heart. We are status-seeking, violent primates, capable of remarkable altruism, but also governed by ugly appetites. Very little of the harm in the world is the result of malice or oppression. Most of it is the result of a social animal giving in to natural appetites and behaving in ways that unintentionally hurt other members of the species. Unhealthy systems spring up from each one of us - they aren't imposed from above.

For example, globalization hasn't happened because some sinister cabal of bankers manipulated whole societies to serve their ends. It happened because technology enabled us to swiftly move money and goods around the planet, and consumers chose to reward any company that could provide the cheapest goods and punish any company that provided a more expensive locally-produced good. If globalization is something you're opposed to, toppling powerful corporate leaders won't do much good, because given the technology and given consumer choice, it will spring up again with other people profiting.

We have to move past emotionally-satisfying narratives with heroes and villains, and try to understand the enormously complex interrelations of the modern world, and how our own primitive minds misapprehend that world by imposing those simplistic narratives.

 

[Ursa major]

The warning, 'Don't throw the baby out with the bathwater', applies here, I believe.

 

[Brian G Turner]

Indeed, one might argue that lone complaints from someone who has genuinely found something with which they are uncomfortable are more easily ignored

Absolutely - notice how much criticism has been directed at the concept of cultural appropriation, rather than the actions of a privileged few who decided to speak over the minorities they claimed to represent.

 

[Stephen Palmer]

We are status-seeking, violent primates, capable of remarkable altruism, but also governed by ugly appetites. Very little of the harm in the world is the result of malice or oppression. Most of it is the result of a social animal giving in to natural appetites and behaving in ways that unintentionally hurt other members of the species. Unhealthy systems spring up from each one of us - they aren't imposed from above.

You've given a confusing picture here I think - on the one hand we're violent primates, on the other we're social animals. The two are separated by a massive gulf, imo. Malice and everything like it comes from our psychologies, not from our animal instincts, of which, in adults, virtually none are left - again, imo.

For example, globalization hasn't happened because some sinister cabal of bankers manipulated whole societies to serve their ends. It happened because technology enabled us to swiftly move money and goods around the planet, and consumers chose to reward any company that could provide the cheapest goods and punish any company that provided a more expensive locally-produced good. If globalization is something you're opposed to, toppling powerful corporate leaders won't do much good, because given the technology and given consumer choice, it will spring up again with other people profiting.

We have to move past emotionally-satisfying narratives with heroes and villains, and try to understand the enormously complex interrelations of the modern world, and how our own primitive minds misapprehend that world by imposing those simplistic narratives.

I agree with this, but, again, there's a conflation of sophisticated and primitive. Personally, I don't think it helps the debate to pretend we're still primitive, instinct-driven primates. It is good though to see past bog-standard good vs. evil.

 

[Boneman]

I liked the article posted (on page 3 somewhere) and particularly the concluding paras:

"Finally, Abdel-Magied gets around to what amounts to a plaintive call for literary reparation: “Cultural appropriation is a ‘thing’ because of our histories. The history of colonisation, where everything was taken from a people, the world over. Land, wealth, dignity … and now identity is to be taken as well?”

If Abdel-Magied can’t be persuaded that creation of a fictional character doesn’t constitute identity theft and that literary authority has little to do with ethnicity or sexuality, she and her fellow travelers should steer clear of fiction."

In FICTION if I come across pathetic stereotypes of my own colour/creed/beliefs or indeed any another such stereotype of another colour/race/ creed etc, that I know to be gross misrepresentations of reality*, I think 'jeez, what crap writing' and don't pursue it any further, spend any more money, promote/review/talk about that FICTION without actually disparaging it for the crap it is. It's the same as turning the television off, when you get hacked off at a play that's doing the same, and telling anyone who asks, what you thought of it. Is it wrong that another person actually enjoyed that misrepresentation? It says volumes about the person who might actually do that, but what is the danger? That said person comes to believe that's an actual representation of that race? And then what? If that's their belief, there's so much you can do to change that belief, educate them. Pointing out that it's FICTION is a pretty good start. Pointing out that if they read decent fiction (and maybe even some non-fiction) they might actually get to see the reality. But so what?? They may come to see the book they read was a pathetic misrepresentation of reality and they may come to understand it was FICTION. Job done.

And then there's always comedy... all Scotsmen are Rab C Nesbitt, aye? Has every Scotsman's identity been taken from him, by an entirely inaccurate cultural appropriation? Or was Rab a FICTIONAL character? One we all laughed at for the brilliant writing, that always had a message in it?** Or are all Scotsmen Sean Connery? Or 'Lonely' from Callan? Or Ewan Macgregor? Or Stuart Hogg? (one of the world's best rugby players, for those of you who may not follow the 'proper' odd-shaped ball game...) Ian Rankin? Billy Connolly? John Logie Baird? (Insert any famous Scotsman to the list that suits you) If you believe that ONE FICTIONAL character in a book somehow represents a negative picture, that upsets you, then only read the FICTION that has positive representations. Not sure how you'll get round finding villains ( who exist in every race across the planet) who may do bad things to excess, without getting upset, but good luck...

'Thou shalt not culturally appropriate without attempting to get it as right as possible' seems to me pretty sensible, but when a reader sees one 'misrepresented' FICTIONAL character and jumps up and down saying "this is awful, we're not like that" then I do wonder why. That one fictional character cannot possible represent a whole race, yet in reality every possible shade of character/creed/belief will exist. I live in the Southeast of England. You could chose to represent a FICTIONAL character as a greedy, yuppy thrill-seeking banker, and I won't jump up and down saying "We're not like that!!" I know I'm reading FICTION, honestly. Reality overcomes fiction at every turn if you ignore stupid writers and concentrate on the good ones: when was the last time you saw a Frenchman depicted riding a bicycle with onions hanging from the handlebars, with a beret and a horizontally striped T-Shirt? So stupidly pathetic that no-one does it any more, surely? Except a stupid crap writer, whom we would ignore. The best way to FICTIONALLY represent a Frenchman is by his language, enough said***. If he has FICTIONAL quirks that the writer wishes to use to dramatic effect(do they still smoke Gauloises and exclaim Zut alors! at every turn?) then surely the writer is entitled to use them, without being hounded out of the room because he culturally appropriated something that wasn't representative of the actual entire race of frenchmen?

There is a solution: every race/region sets out what is acceptable as truly representative of that race/region, and only those characteristics can be used in fiction. That might just be a little close to censorship for some... Or: every fiction book could have a disclaimer at the beginning that says: All characters in this publication are fictitious, and any resemblance to real persons, living or dead, is purely coincidental.

* And I fully accept I do not know every culture on the planet, so may not know if it's a true representation, but I do like to think I wouldn't be influenced into thinking that when I'm reading fiction.

**I recall one sketch where Rab has been told if he doesn't give up drinking he'll be dead in a year, and an off-screen pal is trying to convince him otherwise, saying something like: "Rab, we've matched you pint for pint all our lives, we'd all be dying, if that were true, have a drink!" The camera pulls back to reveal the pal as a pink elephant...

*** Having said that, regional reality may trip you up: there's an assistant manager in my local Tesco, extremely helpful, very knowledgeable, great sense of humour - headscarf, Asian, with a terrific Yorkshire accent. I expected an Asian accent, and laughed at myself for thinking that (revealing my lack or cultural awareness?). Put her in a book as a fictional character, she'd be brilliant. But someone, somewhere, would object...

 

[Hex]

OK. And now, without looking them up on the internet, list as many examples of Sudanese comics/ sportspeople etc as you did Scots.

Given what I assume the result will be, can you see some of her point? In a rich, full environment of representations, it's not such an issue to have Frankie Boyle being an idiot. Given that most people know almost nothing about (The)Sudan, a few silly misrepresentations could actually be more serious.

 

[Toby Frost]

Perhaps I am being a literary snob here, but when someone says that any issue "is a 'thing' because" I wince slightly.

 

[Brian G Turner]

what is the danger?

That the "stereotypes" and "gross misrepresentations of reality" don't simply continue, but reinforce real-life attitudes towards other people to their detriment.

At some point we in the West decided that certain racial depictions were abhorrent - Fu Manchu villains and "primitive" African barbarians come immediately to mind as staple enemies of good white civilised heroes of the early 20th century, that are no long tolerated.

IMO the argument against "cultural appropriation" is simply that lesser extremes are also unwelcome. Some may not see their harm, but other people do.

I have pointed out about the fact I am ginger, the daily abuse, the casual insults, the physical and emotional assaults when I was a child.

I'm so glad you brought this up. To me it's a clear example of how inequality and discrimination is both pervasive and tolerated in Western society, and needs to be challenged. You've inspired me to try to explore this.

 

[Ursa major]

without looking them up on the internet, list as many examples of Sudanese comics/ sportspeople etc as you did Scots.

One might as well ask for examples** of Sudanese characters in fiction -- given that we're debating fictional characters -- as that would advance the argument just as far (which isn't very far at all).

when was the last time you saw a Frenchman depicted riding a bicycle with onions hanging from the handlebars, with a beret and a horizontally striped T-Shirt?

Probably in 'Allo, 'Allo, a very broad comedy. But, as it happens, I have (give or take the stripey T-shirt***) seen a real Frenchman riding (and, at other times, pushing) a bicycle with onions hangling from its handlebars and wearing a beret. This was in the late 1960s in a suburb of Poole (on the south coast of England, for those who don't know where it is); the French onion sellers used to appear every year.


** - I can't recall any, off-hand. The main "character" in Abdel-Magied's book is (sort of) Sudanese, but that's because her book is a memoir. According to Wiki, she was born in Sudan, but went to primary school in Brisbane. (Oddly enough, her father is Egyptian and her mother has "part Egyptian, part Sudanese heritage".)

*** - I simply don't recall whether these onion-sellers wore stripey T-shirts or not. Given that they may have been playing up to the stereotype, they may well have been.

 

[Hex]

Sorry you don't feel that my point was useful.

I was trying to get the idea across that we know all sorts about Scots (and in fact most of the silly representations of them are perpetrated by Scots -- it's a bit different when someone else mocks us), but nothing about people from much of the rest of the world. I could have picked Nigerians or Romanians as examples, but my point is a simple one: when we have almost no stories about those people, one badly researched representation defines them, as far as we're concerned. We don't have other stories about them, just that one. And so, it's more destructive than stupid stories about Scots.

 

[Nick B]

Also, villains are often English men. Why is that? Charles Dance has SO much to answer for. And he's ginger.

 

[Ursa major]

we know all sorts about Scots

Well, we in the UK know a lot about Scots, for rather obvious reasons. And that knowledge may -- though perhaps a somewhat attenuated and/or distorted version of it -- may exist in other countries. However, that's probably not true for a lot of people who have read a fictional story with one or more Scottish characters in it.

Note that the first Scots I encountered were probably** fictional, and that's despite my parents coming from a town from where one can see Scotland, and that some of my ancestors were Scottish.


** - I can't recall when I first met my father's Scottish brother-in-law, who was (stereotype alert) a doctor, specifically a GP.

 

[Hex]

Right, so we in the UK making judgments about how acceptable it is to represent or misrepresent other cultures based on what we know about Scots is not the best example, because we in the UK (and probably in most of the English-speaking world) know lots about Scots and can contextualise misrepresentations (unless we only read bad romance).

 

[Boneman]

Ismail Ismail, Manute Bol, Lopez Lomong, Yamilee Aldama. All athletes/sportspeople, because that's what I've watched. Can't name a Sudanese comic/academic/writer/scientist. (Naturally in Sudan they wouldn't know many of the Scotsmen, either. Maybe Sean Connery... and Ewan Macgregor, but I bet they don't know Stuart Hogg. Or Lonely.) That's culturally normal isn't it? Real life interests that I hold that impact upon me, by my choice.

But we're talking about fiction, though. By definition, made up. I'm not sure how 'misrepresentations' in fiction can be 'serious'. Serious in what way? If someone reading fiction thinks that the fictional character is a representation of the whole culture, you have to feel sorry for them, but that's their choice/belief. If they feel the fictional character is a misrepresentation of the whole culture you have to feel sorry for them too, that's their choice/belief. I don't believe either of them is right, sorry. Show me a fictional character that one person is objecting to, because they feel it's cultural misappropriation, and I'm pretty certain that exact character could be found in real life.

Since you spoke earlier of how annoying accents can be, because they're so often wrong, I can choose to have a Glasgow Scot who speaks in a Morrrningside accent and this might upset you, because it's 'wrong'. Yet I have a friend who does exactly this, he was my Best Man. I could chose to have a Glasgow Scot affect a Rab Nesbitt accent, if I want, because it's a fictional character, and it's a trait I wish to use to bring some point over. You can choose to say 'That's stupid writing and wrong', and wish you'd never read it, but you're reading fiction...

I wholeheartedly agree that cultural appropriation in non-fiction writing should be totally quashed, because that is 'real' and will lead to misrepresentations that influence people (Brexit campaign, anyone?), but in Fiction? I have trouble seeing it, sorry.

 

[Ursa major]

@Hex

Frankly, I "know" far more fictional US citizens -- most of whom seem to be involved in crimes, one way or another -- than real ones, even including those I meet here on the Chrons. And I've got to "know" the fictional ones for over half-a-century, well before I knew anything much about real Americans. (The first I recall hearing** about was President Kennedy, of whom I knew only that he'd just been assassinated.) Oddly enough -- as Boneman was suggesting -- I have never assumed that these fictional characters represented an accurate cross-section of real Americans. (And the same is true of all the fictional characters I've seen, heard or read about from any country on the planet.)


** - I was born pre-Telstar. We tend to forget that the US was not covered in the UK media back then to the extent that it is now. (There was Letter From America, but I didn't listen to that as child. I rather suspect that many, if not most, people in the UK had never listened to it.)