Sensitivity Writers. AKA: avoiding cultural appropriate in writing

[Mercurius]

Aaaaaand at this point, you and I are done for the foreseeable future. I find it hard to believe you’re discussing things in good faith.

Louis CK was accused of- and admitted- that he exposed himself to and masturbated in front of at least 5 different women, only one of whom (Sarah Silverman) expressed any notion that it was in any way consensual. And even she stated that he abused his power and celebrity. This isn’t obscure stuff, this was widely reported in industry outlets like Variety, news outlets like The Guardian & CNN, tabloid press like TMZ, and even soft news like People.

Louis C.K. Admits Sexual Misconduct Allegations 'Are True'

"The power I had over these women is that they admired me. And I wielded that power irresponsibly. I have been remorseful of my actions. And I've tried to learn from them. And run from them," a portion of Louis C.K.'s statement reads

people.com

That isn’t ethical/moral shades of gray stuff, that behavior is black letter law illegal. In all likelihood, only the statute of limitations has kept him out of jail.

We'll have to just agree to disagree on shades of gray--both because I just don't see the world in a black and white manner and feel that every situation is different, that there are degrees of misconduct, abuse of power, etc; but also because I think it will take us into territory that neither of us really wants to go, and probably doesn't serve the discourse.

For me the more important point is that we allow for a divergence in opinion, that it isn't always veering towards "either you're with us, or against us." "Either you think the way we think, or you are bad/wrong/evil/ignorant/some form of ist that don't like."

I'd rather us start from a place in which different ways of seeing the world are not only tolerated but explored and honored as valid, even if they differ from our own. Or in the context of the original post, that there are different ways to approach the question of "cultural appropriation" that don't have to be framed within the usual language and ideas of the ideology from which such terminology arises.

The problem I have with this general ideology, which I'm very familiar with as it is prevalent in the left-liberal circles that I mostly inhabit (being mostlly a left-liberal myself), is that it is becoming a new kind of secular religion that is ultimately authoritarian in that it requires everyone to agree on an ethical code, on specific tenets, and if you diverge at all than you're "one of them" (the bad guys, aka those who won't get with the program). It is ultimately, as I see it, a closed system that sees anything that differs from it as a threat.

If we shut down conversation and all views that differ from our own as inherently bad or wrong, then we narrow the range of thinking and we limit our own potentiality as human beings. If our ideological immune system is activated, we refuse to entertain different ideologies and ways of seeing, we end up calcifying our own view and seeing everything else as a threat, and thereby miss opportunities for our own growth and to meet others beyond the limitations of our respective ideologies.

Ultimately we're all just human beings, wearing the clothes of ideologies and identities, none of which are truly "us." The more we buy into those ideologies and identities, the more we separate ourselves into tribes that are opposed to each other, which is not the direction we need to go. IMO.

 

[Mercurius]

Sacred land is a physical thing. That is like digging up someone's grave or knocking down the door of a church. Obviously if you are inside a church or at a Native American ceremony, they would both have moral authority in those cases. What I am saying is, people can't hold you to their taboos outside of their 'jurisdiction' if you don't share their foundational beliefs. If you are a guest participating in a ceremony, that is one thing. But when you move outside that venue, especially in the realm of imagination and art, why would you be beholden to peoples' taboos? I mean a non-Christian playing with Christian themes doesn't have to be bound by the same taboos as an actual Christian would be. We shouldn't be able to impose our religious taboos on other people who don't believe.

This is well said and one of the points I was trying to get at in my more long-winded post just above this one (I read yours after writing mine, otherwise I might have just abbreviated it and pointed to your post).

My issue is with the insistence that everyone play by the same rules, that is, have the same ideology and way of seeing - and approach everything from the same ideological assumptions. Obviously as a community--on whatever scale--we have to share certain things, but hopefully one of those things is an openness and acceptance of a diversity of perspectives and ways of seeing and thinking.

 

[S'mon]

Obviously as a community--on whatever scale--we have to share certain things, but hopefully one of those things is an openness and acceptance of a diversity of perspectives and ways of seeing and thinking.

Now that's just crazy talk!

 

[Mercurius]

Now that's just crazy talk!

I know, right?

 

[doctorbadwolf]

Well, the point of this thread was to get info like that lol. So no need to PM, I’m sure others could probably find it useful as well

Eh I don’t know that all of them would appreciate having their handle posted in a thread where some folks are arguing vociferously that cultural appropriation isn’t a real thing.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

We'll have to just agree to disagree on shades of gray--both because I just don't see the world in a black and white manner and feel that every situation is different, that there are degrees of misconduct, abuse of power, etc; but also because I think it will take us into territory that neither of us really wants to go, and probably doesn't serve the discourse.

Nope. No grey here. A man who intentionally exposes himself and performs a sexual act in front of unwilling people is pretty much committing a crime In any country with a modern judicial system.

Done with you as well.

 

[Bedrockgames]

Lack of understanding doesn’t guarantee offense, just increases the odds that it will happen.

If- like many modern musicians- you routinely carry some kind of recording device and use it record the music you hear as you pass, then use it as a sample in your own, not realizing that the words in the sample are part of a ceremony not for public dissemination, you can and should be called on it. How you react to that could determine a lot about your future.

If someone let you know about the nature of your sample before you released your tune, you're in deeper trouble. (As always, what you know nd when you knew it matters.)

Just want to clarify my example wasn't about sampling. I think sampling is a deeper topic on its own because you are taking another person's performance of something. I was talking about a musician who uses his or her ear to emulate the sounds on instruments or by voice. But not someone who just records it and releases it as an album. Very, very different things.

 

[Umbran]

And in my example, I am talking about a person with no understanding of the context.

Does this person actually exist? Because, if they don't, it is a hypothetical that distracts us from the real issue. And... such hypotheticals are really quite common in online argument today.

For example, someone who makes music with significant skill, but who has zero understanding of the cultural context and history of music? A person like this who enters into the markeplace of art, and is actually successful enough for their intellectual borrowing to be noticed, but doesn't understand that you can't just take any old snippets, phrasings, themes, or styles that you want without issue? A person who gets into the marketplace of ideas, but doesn't have any concept of ownership of ideas?

I question whether this person is common enough to be a relevant case in our discussion.

And no, our general approaches to things do not need to be iron-clad. Nobody here is smart enough to come up with an absolutely perfect scheme. If we make perfect the enemy of good, we make no advancement ever. We can afford to leave some edges rough as we move forward, and work them out with time.

 

[Bedrockgames]

If we make perfect the enemy of good...

I would argue that this is what the concept of cultural appropriation does and why it is such a flawed idea.

 

[Mercurius]

Does this person actually exist? Because, if they don't, it is a hypothetical that distracts us from the real issue. And... such hypotheticals are really quite common in online argument today.

For example, someone who makes music with significant skill, but who has zero understanding of the cultural context and history of music? A person like this who enters into the markeplace of art, and is actually successful enough for their intellectual borrowing to be noticed, but doesn't understand that you can't just take any old snippets, phrasings, themes, or styles that you want without issue? A person who gets into the marketplace of ideas, but doesn't have any concept of ownership of ideas?

I question whether this person is common enough to be a relevant case in our discussion.

And no, our general approaches to things do not need to be iron-clad. Nobody here is smart enough to come up with an absolutely perfect scheme. If we make perfect the enemy of good, we make no advancement ever. We can afford to leave some edges rough as we move forward, and work them out with time.

Good post.

Even aside from issues of cultural appropriation--although related to it, if in a more general sense--there's the concern every artist has, in whatever genre or medium, which is: "Has this been done before?" For example, if you're a budding science fiction writer and you have this great idea that you're certain no one has ever thunked before, chances are you're wrong - or at least that someone has thought of and probably published a very similar idea.

This is why I feel that originality has more to do with authenticity than it does novelty. A new author should be more concerned with being true to their own voice, their own vision, than they should with making sure that everything they write hasn't been done before in any shape or form. Of course being well-read in the genre, or at least spending hours and hours browsing The Encyclopedia of Science Fiction helps a good deal. While I'm loathe to suggest any rules or "Thou Shalts" to creative practices, I do think being a student of whatever form you're engaging in is a very good idea. And a true student is a lifelong learner.

Of course this does relate to cultural appropriation in that just as a new science fiction author is well-served by educating themselves in the genre, so too might it be a good idea for someone incorporating cultural ideas into their project to have a sense of that culture and any issues that may exist, and to be respectful of those issues. But if a person wants to entirely avoid any inkling of "cultural appropriation," then the end result is writing from one's own experience - as this article posits - which ends up greatly limiting, if not outright killing, creative imagination. To quote:

"But it’s not just writers who ought to be worried. The logical apogee of a prohibition on cultural intercourse is a future in which each person is allowed to document only his or her precise subjective experience. A future, in other words, where fiction is history. And that sounds like a very dreary prospect for us all."