Sensitivity Writers. AKA: avoiding cultural appropriate in writing

Status
Not open for further replies.

Mercurius

Legend
If I may, what I hear Sacrosanct saying is that the definition itself is not up for debate. What I hear BedrockGames saying is that the concept is up for debate. The two are not the same thing, and it may be that the lack of distinction between the two is muddying the waters a bit.

Now maybe Sacrosanct doesn't think the concept is up for debate, and maybe BG thinks the definition itself is up for debate - I don't know. But it is important to differentiate between definition and concept.

As I see it, it does seem logical that the definition of "cultural appropriation" has to be relatively defined by its very nature. There is a definition and that's what it means. But the validity and utility of the concept is debateable. In other words, to what degree the phenomena it refers to exists, and more so how valid and useful the concept itself is--both to describe said phenomena and as a praxis for transformation--must be debateable, otherwise we fall prey to a kind of fundamentalism. Thou Shalt Not Question the Hallowed Tenets of Academic Multiculturalism!

Here's what Google Dictionary offers as a definition:

The unacknowledged or inappropriate adoption of the customs, practices, ideas, etc. of one people or society by members of another and typically more dominant people or society.

So if we go with the assumption that this is a valid definition (there are others), what becomes a matter of discussion is parsing out the different elements of the definition, and whether the total concept is useful for transforming the problem it points at.

For instance, "unacknowledged" is pretty straigtht-forward, but what about "inappropriate?" That seems far more fuzzy. And who is the arbiter of what is and is not appropriate? If you're tapping into Japanese culture (e.g. katanas), will any Japanese person do? And won't there be a great deal of variance of how people of the "appropriated culture" might view what is and is not appropriate or offensive?

{As an aside, when I lived in India for about a year, I was struck by how tourists were more likely to use the Indian names for cities (e.g. Mumbai), while most Indians used the colonial English names (e.g. Bombay). Similarly, I have found that it is generally white liberals who prefer the term "Native American" while many Native Americans/American Indians call themselves "Indians." Similarly with "African American" vs. "Black." The point being, everyone is different. There's no one-sized fits all way to refer to anyone, whether as a group or as an individual. Sometimes--often, even--the most offended parties are not even those who are being appropriated or refered to}

Or do we need to consult a certain sub-set of academics who specialize in such things? Who major in social systems, intersectionality, multiculturalism, etc? But doesn't that become circular? Meaning, we refer back to the folks that come up with the concept to begin with?

There are other things to parse out: What does "more dominant people" mean and how useful is that framing? Is a poor white person more dominant than a rich black person? Was Rabbit appropriating Papa Doc? Etc.

Further: how do we draw the lines between cultures? Who "owns" customs, practices, and ideas, and at what point do they become essentially "public domain?"

Another line of questioning: If "cultural appropriation" is deemed to be more trouble than its worth as a concept, what are some other possible ways of approaching the same issue? In other words, how can we approach the exchange and usage of different cultural ideas in a way that is respectful and non-harmful?

The bottom line is that there are a lot of complexities and subtleties at play. I think it would be terribly reductionistic, and even harmful, to simmer everything down to a one-size fits all approach: this is how you do it, this is what must be done, this is the one and only proper and true way to view such things. In the end I find entrenchment in any specific way of seeing as being a major part of the problem - so maybe we are better served approaching such a discussion with a healthy dose of openness and cognitive flexibility.

Or as the great Zen teacher DT Suzuki said, "Right view means no particular view."
 
Last edited:

log in or register to remove this ad

Bedrockgames

I post in the voice of Christopher Walken
If I may, what I hear Sacrosanct saying is that the definition itself is not up for debate. What I hear BedrockGames saying is that the concept is up for debate. The two are not the same thing.

I am was saying the concept is up for debate, and that the arguments behind it were up for debate. I was rejecting sacrosanct's notion that linking an article means we have to accept the underlying assumptions. It would be like someone dropping a bible on the table and saying "its the word of god, you can't disagree"
 

Mercurius

Legend
I am was saying the concept is up for debate, and that the arguments behind it were up for debate. I was rejecting sacrosanct's notion that linking an article means we have to accept the underlying assumptions. It would be like someone dropping a bible on the table and saying "its the word of god, you can't disagree"

Yes, that's what I thought - and I agree with you on this point, as I said in the next couple (now further edited) paragraphs.

But the proponents of what I called "Academic Multiculturalism" generally don't.
 

Dannyalcatraz

Schmoderator
Staff member
Supporter
You keep saying this. I don't think it is true. I don't accept your premise. I think you are laying out a flawed foundation, that asserts this causes harm and therefore we have a multitude of responsibilities when we cross cultural boundaries.

Which premise are you challenging as false?

That all rights have corresponding duties? It’s been a while since I got my Phi Sigma Tau key, but I can’t at this time come up with any major ethical system that decouples rights from duties.

That rational people cannot accurately assess that they have been harmed and how deeply? I’m thinking that’s a key component of rationality. And the right to ask someone to stop hurting you- physically or emotionally- would seem a fundamental element of any functional society.
 

Bedrockgames

I post in the voice of Christopher Walken
Which premise are you challenging as false?

That all rights have corresponding duties? It’s been a while since I got my Phi Sigma Tau key, but I can’t at this time come up with any major ethical system that decouples rights from duties.

That rational people cannot accurately assess that they have been harmed and how deeply? I’m thinking that’s a key component of rationality. And the right to ask someone to stop hurting you- physically or emotionally- would seem a fundamental element of any functional society.

Now you are just putting words in my mouth. Look, I am not as smart nor as educated as you or Umbran. I am not going to win on a legalistic or philosophical debate. But what I know is, and what I reject is, this idea that borrowing cultural elements for creative purposes is potentially as harmful as he asserts. And sure we all have rights and responsibilities. But there is a debate over what they are here. And of course people can accurately assess how they've been harmed. They can also assess it inaccurately because humans are flawed and often driven by emotions, even selfishness. It is very possible for a person to overreact for example. And it is perfectly acceptable, if you think someone is overreacting, to say so.

Of course people have a right not to be physically harmed or emotionally abused. And we have laws protecting people from those things. But this goes around existing laws and uses other forces in the culture to enforce arbitrary and shifting notions of harm. I am sorry but someone playing a song from your culture isn't abuse in the way that equals physical or emotional harm where society needs to step in and protect them. That, in my view, isn't a reasonable expectation or position. And like I have said many times, the end result of it is it harms art, it harms entertainment, it harms human communication, and it creates cultures that are segregated from one another. I do not buy this concept. And I don't have to. And I am not a bad person for thinking differently than you about it.
 

Bedrockgames

I post in the voice of Christopher Walken
Yes, that's what I thought - and I agree with you on this point, as I said in the next couple (now further edited) paragraphs.

But the proponents of what I called "Academic Multiculturalism" generally don't.

I am not quite sure what that means, but I am not against multiculturalism. I like being around people from other cultures.
 

Mercurius

Legend
I am not quite sure what that means, but I am not against multiculturalism. I like being around people from other cultures.

Of course! Not sure why you'd think I implied otherwise?

What I mean by "Academic Multiculturalism" is a particular school of thought promulgated in universities that gives rise to such concepts as "cultural appropriation." A lot of important, good stuff - but the problem is that there isn't a lot of openness or flexibility of thinking; they thump your proverbial bible on the table. They tend not to take too kindly to any kind of questioning, or diversity of thinking -- which, of course, is counter to the whole point of higher education.
 

Bedrockgames

I post in the voice of Christopher Walken
What I mean by "Academic Multiculturalism" is a particular school of thought promulgated in universities that gives rise to such concepts as "cultural appropriation." A lot of important, good stuff - but the problem is that there isn't a lot of openness or flexibility of thinking; they thump your proverbial bible on the table. They tend not to take too kindly to any kind of questioning, or diversity of thinking -- which, of course, is counter to the whole point of higher education.

The last time I was on a college campus was around 2007 or 2008, so I don't really know that world anymore.
 

Mercurius

Legend
The last time I was on a college campus was around 2007 or 2008, so I don't really know that world anymore.

Its been awhile for me as well, but what I'm talking about is rather ubiquitous in Western culture - at least in the domains of public discourse. And it is my take on it, for what its worth.
 

Dannyalcatraz

Schmoderator
Staff member
Supporter
Now you are just putting words in my mouth.

No. I’m not putting words in your mouth. You quoted a snippet of Umbran’s post, a section dealing with only two things:

1) Rights having corresponding duties, and
2) asserting rights without accepting the attendant duties is abuse

And you said: “You keep saying this. I don't think it is true. I don't accept your premise.”

I responded, asking you which part of Umbran’s post you find false, with attendant commentary as to what potential justifications I’m unlikely to buy at all.

So, again, what part of that snippet of Umbran’s post you find false?

I am sorry but someone playing a song from your culture isn't abuse in the way that equals physical or emotional harm where society needs to step in and protect them. That, in my view, isn't a reasonable expectation or position. And like I have said many times, the end result of it is it harms art, it harms entertainment, it harms human communication, and it creates cultures that are segregated from one another. I do not buy this concept. And I don't have to. And I am not a bad person for thinking differently than you about it.

Merely playing a song from someone else’s culture is not misappropriation. Playing a song from someone else’s culture in a disrespectful context may be...or may not be.

To make myself as clear as possible: I am an artist. I write fiction; I create physical arts in sculpture, acrylics, pastels, inks, and pencils; I compose and sing and play music in three different instruments. So I understand the issues intimately.

That said, the rights of an artist to create something do not automatically trump the other rights of human beings. As in ALL cases where rights are in conflict, it is a question of balancing relative harms and benefits on all sides.

Nobody said it was easy, but it is a daily task in a functioning society. Sometimes, majority rules stand. Sometimes, the minority’s view gets protected in preference over the majority’s.

So, artist to artist, when someone tells you they have a problem with an element in your creative output/process, that is not the time to simply fall back on your rights as an artist and plow ahead. That is the time to do your duty- pause and consider what you’ve been told.

Like I said in my first post, that won’t immunize you from cultural criticism, but most will understand and respect that you made the effort.
 

Status
Not open for further replies.
Remove ads

Top