Sensitivity Writers. AKA: avoiding cultural appropriate in writing

[Mercurius]

I don’t think we ever have perfect understanding of anyone, but doesn't this attitude just turn people into more of an other? Essentially it starts from ‘this person is so different from me, they are ultimately unknowable’. That doesn’t seem like it is healthy or likely to produce empathy. My wife is from another country, from another culture and a different language. Somehow we have managed to bridge that. I think if we viewed one another as do alien neither of us could understand the other truly, we’d have no real human connection.

I hear your point and that's not really what I meant. I mean, I think we all experience the same basic emotions: your experience of jealousy or rage or wonder isn't all that different from mine. How they differ is mostly in terms of what triggers them, or to what degree we experience them.

But you cannot know my own biography, all the things that led to me being me (and vice versa). The beginning of true empathy is to grok that.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

But where does it end?

It doesn’t. It’s a continuous process of listening and learning.

And who is the final arbiter?

Nobody. Eventually, if people listen honestly and react ethically and morally, incidents will be reduced to a point where it’s just noise in the system. That’s when the remaining concerns will generally be so trivial as to not be addressable at a broad level.

There’s a concept in economics that there is an optimum level of crime in any society. IOW, there is a point beyond which it is too expensive for society to expend more resources to prevent a given kind of crime, that the expenditures to do so outweigh the costs of the crime committed. It sucks for the individual, but it’s a good for society as a whole. (At least in terms of economic efficiency.)

This is the problem - there is no end, or rather the end is dystopian authoritarianism which George Orwell described beautifully in the 1940s.

No. No it doesn’t.

Furthermore, the "constant drumbeat of complaints" don't in and of themselves prove their own validity just because they're constant. There are a wide range of complaints, and my concern is when no differentiation is made. This is happening in a number of different contexts, from cultural appropriation, the metoo movement, free speech, etc etc.

You can’t spoon-feed understanding.

Differentiation requires exerting some effort on the part of the listener. Even the most condescending explanation of distinctions between Situation One and Situation Two will demand the audience using a couple brain cells to comprehend.

There's quite a difference between Harvey Weinstein and Louis CK, just as there's a huge difference between wearing blackface and being inspired by African mythology in a roleplaying game.

That’s a terrible analogy. Weinstein & CK both did things that were legally wrong. Being inspired by African mythology has NOTHING in common with wearing blackface.

The problem with the "constant drumbeat of complaints" is that it tends to drown out any difference or nuance.

Only if you stop listening with a critical ear.

If you turn your attention away from it, a drum solo from a song- even one as complex as found in Frank Zappa’s “The Black Page”- can sound random. But I f you pay attention to it, you can pick it out of a bunch of randomized rhythmic sounds.

 

[Bedrockgames]

But Danny that process you describe also creates complexity around the process of cultural borrowing that has buybin and weight.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

But why? What if I am a very simple and not particularly worldly musician and I walk by a monastery and hear Gregorian Chant. I instantly start emulating it without understanding its original context but I create something new and vibrant. Why is that problematic. The same would be true if I walked by and heard Buddhist chants in Sanskrit or walked by a house playing salsa music and decided to emulate the scales played on the keyboard. We can like things and borrow them without necessarily understanding them. Borrowing aesthetics isn’t a sacred act that has to be officiated by a priest class (which is what I think is going on and why I pointed to how social class plays a role in navigating this issue)

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.)

 

[MGibster]

I'm typing this with a Phoenician alphabet, I use Roman numerals when computing numbers, and despite having no solid cultural connections to Mexico I have tacos for dinner at least once a week. Cultural appropriation isn't always a bad thing which is what makes it such a complicated issue. And, yes, sometimes the lines between good and bad cultural appropriation isn't very obvious. Other times it seems obvious.

The best thing an author can do is listen to constructive criticism. That doesn't necessarily mean they need to make any changes. But at least be aware of the criticism and decide what you want to do from there.

 

[Bedrockgames]

How you react to that could determine a lot about your future.

This is the mindset that I think is very harmful coming out of this. It doesn't really seem like it is coming from a desire to spread good, empathy and understanding. It seems very focused on the punitive, and bordering on the inquisitorial. And in my example, I am talking about a person with no understanding of the context. So whatever the end result they do is, it is without knowledge. And that gets to my point about the increase in complexity and the classism/elitism going on here with this. There are all these little rules, protocols and expectations of understanding of complex topics. But the person in my example is just a simple musician emulating sounds he or she heard. I think this is where cultural appropriation as a concept tips us into much darker territory than if we are simply concerned about whether we are doing things that are visibly offensive. And does a Catholic or a Buddhist have the moral authority to tell a non-Catholic or a non-Buddhist to abide by their taboos when handling their music? I am not sure they do have that authority.

 

[Bedrockgames]

I'm typing this with a Phoenician alphabet, I use Roman numerals when computing numbers, and despite having no solid cultural connections to Mexico I have tacos for dinner at least once a week. Cultural appropriation isn't always a bad thing which is what makes it such a complicated issue. And, yes, sometimes the lines between good and bad cultural appropriation isn't very obvious. Other times it seems obvious.

But I think the point I am trying to make is when this concept spread, people had a really hard time finding that line (which is why you now do see people protesting things like appropriation of food). I don't know that it is obvious. I think a lot of people have hard time understanding where the lines and boundaries around appropriation are, what appropriation is, and why it is so significant. I think when you look at the pros and cons of it, it just ends up being a concept that causes more harm than good.

 

[Bedrockgames]

The best thing an author can do is listen to constructive criticism. That doesn't necessarily mean they need to make any changes. But at least be aware of the criticism and decide what you want to do from there.

Obviously writers should listen to criticism. You don't improve as a writer if you don't. But there are bad critiques. There are bad trends in criticism. There are times when we get too neurotic about certain things. It is one thing to find problems when they present themselves. But it is also possible to be overly vigilant and see problems in every shadow. And when I hear complaints about cultural appropriation most of the time they seem to be just that. The rest of the time, people are really just talking about something being offensive.

 

[Zardnaar]

I avoid it for the most part and just use extinct cultures best as I can.

Exceptions are if it's in a published adventure.

 

[Mercurius]

It doesn’t. It’s a continuous process of listening and learning.

That's one way of looking at it. There is a shadow side, though, which is a continuous process of smothering any disagreement or diversity of ideas and approaches, as if there is "one true way" to look at and understand this and related issues.

That said, I do agree that ideally there's a continuous process of listening and learning, but I think we disagree on how to go about that, and what may or may not be conducive to deepening understanding.

Nobody. Eventually, if people listen honestly and react ethically and morally, incidents will be reduced to a point where it’s just noise in the system. That’s when the remaining concerns will generally be so trivial as to not be addressable at a broad level.

But there's always going to be--at least for the foreseeable future--a gap between a person's intention and how another person interprets their actions. What you say implies that either that isn't the case, or that there is a one-sized fits all formula to ethical action, one morality that we're all aspiring to.

Now maybe there is - but at this point it is an imagination, it is the "best possible world we can dream of." In my view it is based in interconnectedness, underlying oneness, deep compassion and love. It is not about the proper way to act appropriately in every situation that won't offend anyone, and it allows for a wide diversity of not only expression but ways of thinking and seeing.

There’s a concept in economics that there is an optimum level of crime in any society. IOW, there is a point beyond which it is too expensive for society to expend more resources to prevent a given kind of crime, that the expenditures to do so outweigh the costs of the crime committed. It sucks for the individual, but it’s a good for society as a whole. (At least in terms of economic efficiency.)

Not exactly sure what you're getting at here, but what this brings up for me is gun control. On one hand, I don't like the idea of limiting anyone's freedom because of people who misuse guns...the vast majority of gun owners are responsible (or responsible enough). But on the other hand, if stricter gun laws will noticeably reduce deaths, I think that the price of slightly diminished personal liberty for some is worth it.

No. No it doesn’t.

We'll have to disagree on that one as I see that tendency very strongly in that ideological framework.

You can’t spoon-feed understanding.

Differentiation requires exerting some effort on the part of the listener. Even the most condescending explanation of distinctions between Situation One and Situation Two will demand the audience using a couple brain cells to comprehend.

Yes, but what about the listening capacity of the "drumbeater?" As far as I can see, those of that framework are so instistent on their rightness that they tend to disavow the kind of listening that they insist upon from the people they're trying to teach. It has to go both ways. If you want people to listen to you, you have to listen to them as well.

That’s a terrible analogy. Weinstein & CK both did things that were legally wrong. Being inspired by African mythology has NOTHING in common with wearing blackface.

Afaik Louis CK didn't do anything illegal. Furthermore, there is room for interpretation about the morality of what he did. Weinstein is more clear-cut to what degree he abused power. Even if you don't see as large a gap as I do, there is a gap, now? Or maybe if you want something more obvious, how about Bill Cosby and Aziz Ansari? Cosby was possibly the worst serial rapist in modern history, while it is now widely agreed upon that Ansari simply had a bad date that he was unfairly blamed for. But the point is, both received the scrutiny of the Ethical Police - one rightly so, the other not so much.

Only if you stop listening with a critical ear.

Many of the "drumbeat" do very much stop listening. They just want to bang their drum and point their fingers out there.