(no subject)

[rivka]

I've been following the Great Post-Wiscon Cultural Appropriation Debate with considerable interest. (If you haven't, rilina has a comprehensive link roundup here.)

My thoughts are a little bit scattered, and mostly focus on this observation by yhlee:

In four journals--mine, rilina's, oyceter's, and cofax7's (I believe that was the fourth; oyceter, correct me if I'm wrong)--discussion of cultural appropriation and authenticity kept turning to discussions of white cultures and distinctions, deflecting attention away from cultures that do not have white privilege.

My father has told me stories about ways in which, as a person of Jewish descent in Boston in the 1940s and 1950s, some people perceived him as Not White (and Not Acceptable). Those are interesting stories about my father, and interesting stories about the history of anti-Semitism in the United States. But if they're what immediately comes to mind for me to talk about when a person of color talks about racism he or she experiences today, I need to stop and ask myself why.

I was talking about this with Michael yesterday, and he pointed out that people are likely to perceive two potential characters to identify with in a story about racism: the victim and the evil oppressor. Well-meaning liberal whites genuinely don't see themselves as the oppressor, so the only way for them to slot themselves into the story is to find a way to analogize themselves with the victim. So the prejudice their Irish ancestors experienced a hundred and fifty years ago, or the suppression of a minority white ethnic group back in the Old Country from which their ancestors emigrated, is placed on the table as a token of which side they belong to.

I don't think that's necessarily a conscious process, by the way. I think that one of the ways that white privilege affects its recipients is that it makes distinctions among white cultures and white ethnic experiences genuinely seem like the really interesting questions about race. I think the people yhlee complained about had no perception of themselves as ignoring or minimizing the perceptions of people of color - I expect that they saw themselves as moving beyond racial dualities in a sophisticated way that looked at subtle distinctions among races generally perceived as monolithic. In one sense, they weren't wrong. Those are interesting questions. They just happen to be interesting questions that put the spotlight on white people and their feelings and experiences, at the expense of people of color who are pushed into the background.

I want to suggest that white people don't have to choose between slotting ourselves into a story about racial prejudice as the Victim or being forced into the role of the Evil Oppressor. There's a third option, a third role that one can identify with: The Person The Story Is Not About. It's possible to listen to people of color talk about race without either trying to ally your experiences with theirs, or explaining why you aren't the bad guy. It's possible, in other words, to just listen, and try to hear the story from the other person's perspective without immediately leaping to put yourself at its center.

That's not an easy thing for a member of a dominant culture. We're used to most stories being about us, in one way or another. (Okay, it's also hard for humans in general, because egocentrism is pretty much an organizing feature of the human brain, but members of minority cultures get a lot more experience with stories that are not about them and that don't even allude to them.) I recognize that it's not easy, and I don't claim to be especially or particularly good at it myself. But given the number of other things that are easier when you're white, I don't think it's unreasonable to expect us to spare the effort.

A final comment about egocentrism. In white folks' comments to the cultural appropriation debate, I'm seeing a lot of frustration that "there's no way we can win." If a white author depicts an all-white world in her books, that's racist; if she doesn't, that's cultural appropriation. Double-bind! It's a common theme in white folks' responses to discussions of white privilege in general.

Here's what I want to say about that: "how can I win?" is not the right question to be asking in this discussion, especially if "winning" means something like "not having to worry any more about being criticized on racial issues." "There's no way we can win," again, takes the focus off the problems of people of color and puts it onto white people. I'm sympathetic to the feelings it reflects, because I too am a person who wants to Do The Right Thing with respect to race. I don't think there's anything wrong with wanting that. What's wrong, I think, is expecting that I should be able to put myself into a position where my race doesn't ever matter because I am behaving correctly on racial issues. People of color don't ever get to be in the position where their race doesn't matter, and it's a reflection of white privilege to believe that if I "follow the rules," I should be able to be there myself. Race matters, and requires careful consideration and reflection and acknowledgement of double-binds and paradoxes and above all listening.

One doesn't get to demand rules that let one opt out of doing that work.

Comments

[therealjae.livejournal.com]

True, but I'm talking about behaviour, not intent. The behaviour of a therapist seems to be very similar to the behaviour of listening carefully without offering up your own anecdotes or observations.

-J

[vito-excalibur.livejournal.com]

What then is the difference between the behavior of a therapist and the behavior of a student?

Note also that anecdotes != observations.

"My mom died."
"Oh, that's too bad. You know, my cat died a couple of weeks ago, so I know how you feel."

is different from

"My mom died."
"Oh gosh, that must be hard. You two were very close."

[therealjae.livejournal.com]

I'm sure there are plenty of differences between the conversational behaviour of a therapist and that of a student (though I haven't read enough about the conversational behaviour of therapists to answer your question). I do know, though, that both are quite different from the typical conversational behaviour of friends and allies. Are you saying that when conversations turn to racism, we should all stop talking like conversationalists and start talking like teachers and students?

I'm not sure what your analogy has to do with any of this, either, since that is *not* the sort of anecdote that's typical for the kind of empathetic ping-anecdote typically used in ordinary conversation.

-J

[vito-excalibur.livejournal.com]

Is it not? To me it sounds rather like "Well, on some level we're all disabled. I'd like to run a marathon, but I'll never be able to." (http://rivka.livejournal.com/305457.html?thread=4498225#t4498225)

I certainly don't mean that in these conversations we should formally start talking like teachers and students. What I mean is something more like: there are conversations in which everyone brings roughly the same amount to share, like, say, in your average conversation about the movie the group just saw, or about a recent action of the state government, or something. And then there are conversations in which it becomes clear, or should, that some people in the conversation have information which the other people do not have. In that case, it seems to me that the intelligent thing for the other people to do is to shift into more of an information-sucking-up mode than in an ordinary conversation, in which, I assume, people like to talk more. This doesn't just have to be about racism, of course, and I don't think every conversation about racism has to go this way.

Way, way off topic apart from the last sentence, but probably necessary

[therealjae.livejournal.com]

It does sound like Rivka's example. That's also not a typical example of the sort of empathetic analogy I'm talking about being typical in conversations. I'd give you a real example of what I do mean, but all the conversations I've analyzed professionally are in German. :-) So here's a fake one:

Young woman #1: Oh, my god, my real estate agent is driving me crazy. He keeps showing us houses that are too far away from the centre of town! I keep trying to guide him in the right direction, but he's just not getting it.

Young woman #2: Oh, jeez. We had to deal with that with our builder, too. They wanted us to build in one of those icky suburbs, and we couldn't convince them that we really wanted a downtown neighbourhood.

Young woman #1: I just don't know what to do. I mean, should I fire him or what? Surely there are plenty of other real estate agents out there.

#1 is complaining in her first "turn," and #2 makes a comment on that complaint in her first turn, by means of an analogy. The analogy conveys an experience that has some superficial similarities with the one #1 is complaining about, but isn't identical. #1 doesn't comment on the analogy, but takes it as the "ping, I understand" that it was meant to be, and goes on saying what she'd been intending to say. Also important: the conversation continues with #1's narrative, and doesn't get derailed by #2's side comment.

If #1 didn't accept #2's analogy, an ordinary conversation along the same lines might go like this:

Young woman #1: Oh, my god, my real estate agent is driving me crazy. He keeps showing us houses that are too far away from the centre of town! I keep trying to guide him in the right direction, but he's just not getting it.

Young woman #2: Oh, jeez. We had to deal with that with our builder, too. They wanted us to build in one of those icky suburbs, and we couldn't convince them that we really wanted a downtown neighbourhood.

Young woman #1: Yeah, but at least you could fire your builder if you wanted to! My real estate agent is Jane's cousin. I just don't know what I should do. Should I fire him or what? Maybe it would be worth the hassle.

Young woman #2: Maybe you should ask Jane what she thinks you should do.

Here, #1 interjects the objection to the analogy into the conversation, and then continues with what she really wanted to ask her friend. Her friend responds by addressing neither her analogy nor the objection, but the original conversation topic. Nothing gets derailed.

This happens all the time in casual conversation. It sounded to me like Rivka was saying in this post something like "when it's a cultural minority talking about her cultural experience, the conversational rules are different." Which may be true, but if it is, that's not without its own problems.

-J

Re: Way, way off topic apart from the last sentence, but probably necessary

[vito-excalibur.livejournal.com]

Ok, I do understand what you mean by this sort of analogy.

I think the problem rivka is talking about is more than just this gone wrong, though. It's a hijacking of the discussion. I suppose that might be more of an effect than an intent, though.

Re: Way, way off topic apart from the last sentence, but probably necessary

[therealjae.livejournal.com]

I definitely think it's more than just that gone wrong. I mean, I'd have to look at a bunch of examples in context to really analyze what's going on, but I have a hard time attributing empathy to something like that. And it's more than just a hijacking of the discussion, it's also a...belittling. Trivalizing. Again, I'd have to look at the function of a whole bunch of examples to be sure, but I have a hard time imagining that that's not intentional.

But--as the person who brought up this issue to begin with--I assure you that I never meant anything along Rivka's example's lines in the first place. (And having discussed these issues with Rivka in the past, I knew she would realize that.)

-J