Sensitivity Writers. AKA: avoiding cultural appropriate in writing

[BookBarbarian]

FWIW, I do appreciate the feedback in this thread that was helpful. Especially the person who offered the Writing with Color blog; that was super helpful and I'll have a lot of value from that.

I've bookmarked that one as I think I'll be going back to it again and again.

 

[Mercurius]

Why do some keep acting like we're arguing about whether to write up anti-appropriation laws, or something?

We are literally just asking folks to seek out and listen to marginalised voices before using elements of their culture as a prop, costume, or "muse" for creative endeavors. At no point is the "don't appropriate" side of the "debate" saying, "never use stuff from other cultures". That is 100% something made up by people who don't want to be asked to think about appropriation.

My point has mostly been that there are different ways to approach this issue, that it doesn't have to be (solely) through the lens of "cultural appropriation." That there are ways to be sensitive and respectful without, say, hiring a "sensitivity consultant," or whatever it is called.

In other words, if the underlying goal is to not negatively impact others in a significant way, there are different ways to accomplish this. And further, that there are some real problems around such concepts as cultural appropriation that should be discussed, that shouldn't be swept under the carpet - such as the possible censoring and limitation of artistic expression.

I also do feel that we've veered into rather tricky waters in which the power of public opinion has become so great, that one single person yells "fire!" and everyone looks and assumes its a fire. Maybe there's no fire? Or maybe it is good to recognize that there's a difference between a match and a flamethrower?

What concerns me is the almost fundamentalist attitude that often arises around such conceptual frameworks, that often leads to punitive action, without any sense of nuance or distinction. I have no problem with people being offended (even if I sometimes might question why or the degree to which they are offended), but what concerns me is when offense leads to punitive or harmful action. It seems that quite frequently things go overboard, whether it is a relatively mild "I don't like or understand your thoughts, so will put you on ignore," to "you're de-platformed" to "we're going to destroy your career." Sometimes the punishment far outweighs the crime....and sometimes the crime isn't really a crime, just a different way of thinking.

 

[Gradine]

I think I said that there are good things happening, but I also see a lot of bad - particularly in its divisiveness and finger-pointing at certain demographics, as well as insularity and inability to be self-critical. I feel that, as a general rule, anything that tribalizes and separates often does more harm than good. We should be looking for ways to bring us together to recognize our shared humanity, not further divide.

That's one opinion. For many, culture and "tribe" are sources of healing, inspiration, strength. This tends to be much more common in marginalized and oppressed groups. Culture can provide a useful refuge from such marginalization and oppression.

I think also you diminish the degree of entrenchment, and how the rigidity of a certain ideological outlook has spread outward...as evinced by some of the participants in this thread, who are--as one poster put it--thumping the bible down and saying, "this is how it is - no questions or variances in perspective allowed." When a movement or ideology doesn't question itself, isn't self-critical, it risks becoming cultish.

In fairness, not every poster in this thread is an academic in a field related or adjacent to race, gender, sexuality, etc. Some perspectives are born out of personal experiences (either their own or those who are close enough to them to have shared their own perspectives). I'll make the point: these perspectives are no less valid, just less likely to be self-critical. As human beings we are cursed with a mind that seeks answers, and that drives us to universalize our own personal perspectives. We're all, in certain ways, guilty of this.

I don't see why it is a problem to question underlying assumptions. Certainly there are certain phenomena that are unquestionable. But the way we interpret that phenomena? The frameworks and concepts? Certainly those shouldn't be inviolable.

Of course not. I'm not talking about questioning the way we engage in theory or practice; these conversations happen all of the time within the field. I'm talking about the people who argue that the field should not exist at all. The people who cheer when politicians make a big show of removing cultural curriculum from schools or taking away funding to universities that study culture, gender, and/or sexuality. You'll see the greatest entrenchment there, and not without good reason, in my not so humble opinion.

If you didn't already, you might want to watch the "hidden" epilogue at the end of the special. He shares an interaction he had with a trans person who actually loved his standup and thanked him for normalizing transgender people by telling jokes about them. I'm not saying this is the right way to look at it, or that you should look at it this way, but it is the way that at least one transgender looked at his standup.

Hey, that's great for that person. There's also a lot of internalized transphobia within the community; I'm not saying that's the reason this individual had this perspective; that's not a terribly unusual perspective to take on comedy and particularly "punching down", as it were. Call me old-fashioned, but I don't happen to like "jokes" that deny my identity or ridicule my existence. I get enough of that crap from people who don't use "comedy" as a shield to pretend that they're actually doing me a favor.

 

[Kaodi]

Over and over I get the sense that some people suffer from myopia based on their own circumstances. The world is bigger than the context you find yourself in, and any good argument must be applicable outside of that context. Like when someone says "minority cultures" - that is not doing half as much work as you think. It works for indigenous peoples but it is nearly useless when applied to Desi or Chinese cultures whose overarching ethnic grouping is as bigger or bigger than white people. And you can still appropriate from those latter, extremely populous peoples.

People never talk about "American privilege" but I would say it definitely exists, and follows similar patterns to some things ascribed to "white privilege" - assuming you are the default, assuming that your experience is universal, et cetera, et cetera. Universal arguments are possible, and desirable, but you will not happen upon them if you never think about whether your premises hold true outside of your own context.

 

[Sacrosanct]

Over and over I get the sense that some people suffer from myopia based on their own circumstances. The world is bigger than the context you find yourself in, and any good argument must be applicable outside of that context. Like when someone says "minority cultures" - that is not doing half as much work as you think. It works for indigenous peoples but it is nearly useless when applied to Desi or Chinese cultures whose overarching ethnic grouping is as bigger or bigger than white people. And you can still appropriate from those latter, extremely populous peoples.

People never talk about "American privilege" but I would say it definitely exists, and follows similar patterns to some things ascribed to "white privilege" - assuming you are the default, assuming that your experience is universal, et cetera, et cetera. Universal arguments are possible, and desirable, but you will not happen upon them if you never think about whether your premises hold true outside of your own context.

As someone who has spent years living in various countries overseas, I totally get how American privilege is a thing. For example, whenever an American goes to a different country for vacation or whatever, we expect at least some people there to speak English to communicate with us. We hardly ever try to learn their language. However, when a foreign visitor comes to the US, we also expect them to speak English.

 

[Superbeast20]

This is true. Which is why, IMO, the onus is on the potential offender to do due diligence and be proactive to see if it's just one voice being amplified, or a bigger issue that you (general you) might not be aware of. It's why me (writer/designer who is the potential offender) creates a thread like this in the first place. To do additional due diligence

That is a fair point, and is the reason for this thread in the first place.

I fear that the intensity of the accusation against potential offenders is having an undesired effect.

I myself love to write as well, and there is a lot of work that you have to do and balance. Adding onto that the risk of being accused of cultural appropriation? Despite whatever your intentions? Have to say that is not something I am interested in adding to my workload all while I am trying to learn to write.

Take this thread as an example of that. You wanted to write and examine a culture not your own so you posted about it. And this thread blew up. Been going for 3-4 days right? How much effort and time have you put into just reading and responding to this forum? Not to mention the emotional drain that such debates and arguments cause.

Writers can see that and many will just say its not worth trying to write about other cultures if all they seem to get out of it is work and trouble. Far easier to just write about the world you know about. Therefore ignoring the cultures that are already under represented.

 

[lowkey13]

*Deleted by user*

 

[BookBarbarian]

As someone who has spent years living in various countries overseas, I totally get how American privilege is a thing. For example, whenever an American goes to a different country for vacation or whatever, we expect at least some people there to speak English to communicate with us. We hardly ever try to learn their language. However, when a foreign visitor comes to the US, we also expect them to speak English.

In my mind I've started using the terms Majority Privilege and In-Power Privilege. This is the first time I've actually used them in a conversation with another human being.

Likewise travelling highlighted the effects of both to me.

 

[BookBarbarian]

You know how Americans are, Sacrosanct. They all love to travel abroad, and then they only want to meet other Americans and talk about how hard it is to get a decent hamburger.

The eternal quest to drive cheeseburgers into my gut does not recognize political borders.

 

[Mercurius]

@Gradine , first of all, thanks for the respectful interaction. I'm glad that we can discuss these things without it having a nasty edge - thus far, at least!

I have to run off to work, so this response will be brief.

That's one opinion. For many, culture and "tribe" are sources of healing, inspiration, strength. This tends to be much more common in marginalized and oppressed groups. Culture can provide a useful refuge from such marginalization and oppression.

I totally get that. I'm talking "both/and." Sure, embrace your tribe, family, group, etc - but we must move towards a wider embrace. I rarely use words like "must," but I think it really is that important. We live in a global, multicultural environment. The problem, in my view, isn't being part of and loving your group, it is building walls around it and seeing other groups as the problem. We must find humanity in each other - even when we find the views of another objectionable. I always think of this guy for inspiration. I'm not saying we can all be like that, but certainly a source of inspiration?

In fairness, not every poster in this thread is an academic in a field related or adjacent to race, gender, sexuality, etc. Some perspectives are born out of personal experiences (either their own or those who are close enough to them to have shared their own perspectives). I'll make the point: these perspectives are no less valid, just less likely to be self-critical. As human beings we are cursed with a mind that seeks answers, and that drives us to universalize our own personal perspectives. We're all, in certain ways, guilty of this.

Fair enough, and well said. So I'll keep hammering on being more self-critical - questioning one's own assumptions and beliefs, always. Or maybe that is me universalizing my own personal perspective, what I value? Haha.

But the danger is implicit in any ideology. We don't have to look further than major religions, which are almost always founded on a message of peace and love, and the mystical unitive experience of the founder, but then lead to religious wars, persecution, witch-hunting, etc. In other words, maybe most professors at universities have a nuanced, self-critical approach and follow the scientific method, but certainly many of their students and followers don't, as they take these ideas out into the world.

Of course not. I'm not talking about questioning the way we engage in theory or practice; these conversations happen all of the time within the field. I'm talking about the people who argue that the field should not exist at all. The people who cheer when politicians make a big show of removing cultural curriculum from schools or taking away funding to universities that study culture, gender, and/or sexuality. You'll see the greatest entrenchment there, and not without good reason, in my not so humble opinion.

You'll find no disagreement with me on this.

Hey, that's great for that person. There's also a lot of internalized transphobia within the community; I'm not saying that's the reason this individual had this perspective; that's not a terribly unusual perspective to take on comedy and particularly "punching down", as it were. Call me old-fashioned, but I don't happen to like "jokes" that deny my identity or ridicule my existence. I get enough of that crap from people who don't use "comedy" as a shield to pretend that they're actually doing me a favor.

I hear you (to the degree that I can, not being transgender or having experienced that).

One way of seeing that came to mind in response to the Chappelle thing is that when you're made fun of, you're part of the gang. That's what I think Daphne, the transgender aspiring comedian that Chappelle had that conversation with, was getting at by saying he was normalizing it. I mean, Chappelle makes fun of all kinds of people - including (and perhaps especially) his own demographics. Again, not saying this is the right or only way to look at it, or that Chappelle is justified in his routine, but just pointing out that different perspectives yield different reactions.