(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

[redbird]

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.

Well put.

A more useful question would be "how can we fix these problems/how can I help?" If we [members, in this context, of the dominant group] feel a need to define a "winning" condition, we might say "I win when I am making things better" or "We win when racism and other forms of oppression lose." The latter might be useful for people whose victory conditions/idea requires that someone or something else lose.

[therealjae.livejournal.com]

This is a smart post.

I have one concern, though. If we're supposed to listen to people of colour talk about their experience by just sitting there and listening, without chiming in with experiences we've had where we've felt similarly, then this means refraining from doing something that is simply a part of everyday conversation. I know from my work in conversation analysis that telling a little anecdote from your own life is a normal, useful way for a co-conversationalist to convey empathy with the person who's narrating some aspect of *their* life. It's not "egocentric," it's typical conversational style.

It sounds to me like you're suggesting that white people should talk with people of colour about their experiences as a therapist might talk with a client, instead of as a friend or an ally. Isn't there a level on which that's problematic?

-J

[papersky.livejournal.com]

I think there's a huge way in which it's problematic if the conversation is up to that point an ordinary conversation. If all I can do is listen and say "Yes, dear, and how did that make you feel?" I am no longer having a conversation. I think Rivka's suggesting that in such a conversation to context shifts from conversation to storytelling by the other person -- which is OK in some contexts, but somewhat unnatural.

But if the context is cultural appropriation and I'm not allowed to say that my culture and cultural heritage and mythology has really and truly been really thoroughly appropriated by American fantasy writers, that it's the most overused culture going, that people mangle my language and make the mangled version a cliche, and that I used to be really unhappy about that but now I think there's a way in which it's OK... well, I have white skin so I should just shut up.

[cheshire23.livejournal.com]

Having not been a part of the original debate, but realizing that there are a lot of good points on both sides, I'll say this:

There is a problem when "white culture" is assumed to be, well, WASP culture. I wrote a piece about ten years ago about this - going into toy stores and seeing the Asian doll, the African-American doll, the Hispanic doll, and the blonde, blue-eyed white doll, over and over again. As a child, I sincerely believed I was ugly because I had green eyes and all the "pretty girls" in storybooks have eyes that are either blue or brown. We are all judged on the basis of physical ideals.

My Polish-American family had similar experiences to your father's, and even as recently as ten years ago, I went to college with a group of young women who would never have considered telling racist jokes, but who thought "dumb Polak" jokes were perfectly A-OK, even in front of my Polish immigrant friend.

I agree that race matters, and it matters a lot more because of its visibility in people's day to day lives (it's pretty hard to hide one's race, after all, and impossible for most people), but I also think that lumping a bunch of very different cultural groups together under the banner of "white" does everyone a disservice.

[jhetley.livejournal.com]

>There is a problem when "white culture" is assumed to be,
>well, WASP culture.

I think the focus is narrower than that. "White culture" is assumed to be _USA_ WASP in many ways. Both of my father's parents were born and raised in Canada, and one of them was second-generation Irish refugee and the other was raised a Mennonite. White and Protestant, yes, but _not_ Anglo-Saxon and USA, and the differences affect a lot of attitudes.

[(Anonymous)]

I think it's way more natural, when someone comes to you, to listen to the issue, and then say exactly how you feel about what it is that they are troubled with. If you also cannot stand hearing racial jokes, say so...if you have a problem, also, with the way that literature presentation in the public school setting is handled, say so, if you do not feel that your friend is looking at the situation fairly, say so. Get into a natural discussion.

Personally, I would never dream of reacting to someone who is having angst over their race, socioeconomic status, gender, disability, lifestyle, religion, or *any* injustice, by trotting out any more than the cursory anecdote of my own that realjae suggests, and then returning to discuss what it is the other person has thrown on the table. I wouldn't need to go into great detail about how I am not one of "those" white people, nor would I need to get wound up about ways "I" have been similarly persecuted for being different. That is no better than responding to a friend's illness with a long, drawn out version of your illness, which, by the way, was worse! Save your angst for when you have the floor...

Sometimes, if one is being egocentric, it does not mean that it is okay, because egocentrism is a constant in human nature: it simply means that the person behaving egocentrically needs to take a look at themeselves, and adjust. Because it IS narrow and egocentric to think, "Oooh, I am indirectly or directly in an oppressed minority, too, so this is kind of all about me, and my own suffering."

[kalmn.livejournal.com]

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

marry me?

[juliansinger.livejournal.com]

Though I do want to note that, particularly in the beginning stages of this kind of work, sometimes listening /is/ an action that can be done. (And/or something that can be done to help fix the problem.)

[wordsofastory.livejournal.com]

Oh, wow. I think this is one of the best posts on the topics I've seen yet. Thank you!

[juliansinger.livejournal.com]

Conversation analysis? Is this in linguistics, or in something else?

Anyway, having worked with (and facilitated) small-group dialogues focusing on issues of race and racism, I would say that no, actually, the kind of listening she's talking about is neither a passive thing, nor is it a therapeutic thing. (Though often therapeutic sorts of things happen in this kind of dialogue.)

It should be active, it should be grappling with questions -- it's just that a lot of people don't learn how to be that active a listener in any sort of conversation. (Nor do they learn how to get past their own defensiveness when questions of race and racism turn up.)

[rivka.livejournal.com]

This is a great point, and I'm not sure how great of an answer I have. I'm going to flail around here a little, and hopefully other people will jump in as well.

It sounds to me like you're suggesting that white people should talk with people of colour about their experiences as a therapist might talk with a client, instead of as a friend or an ally. Isn't there a level on which that's problematic?

Yes, that would definitely be problematic, and it's not what I meant to suggest. And yes, I understand what you're saying about "chiming in" being a normal conversational technique for expressing empathy. But I think that there are situations in which "chiming in with an anecdote from my experience" is experienced as anti-empathy, because it seems to be claiming equivalence between situations which actually reflect a huge imbalance.

For example: when I was literally crippled by my arthritis, requiring crutches and narcotics just to be able to manage to get through a curtailed version of normal daily activities, I had this interaction again and again: I would try to talk about how that affected my life or outlook, and the other person would say something like, "Well, on some level we're all disabled. I'd like to run a marathon, but I'll never be able to."

Now, whatever their motives - expressing empathy, making me feel that I wasn't alone, suddenly struck by the fact that all bodies are imperfect and wanting to share their insight - the effect on me was always to make me feel completely alienated, misunderstood, and trivialized. It felt like the difficulties of my situation made them so uncomfortable that they had to gloss over them by comparing them to something minor and making it seem like they'd "been there." It definitely felt like they were making the comparison to make themselves feel better, not to make me feel better.

I think there are normal, conversational, non-therapeutic ways of expressing, "wow, that sounds really rough and unfair and it's outside my experience entirely. I have no idea how I would handle that." Or, "that really sucks - what do you think should be done about it?" Or yeah, simply (as redbird suggests, "How can I help?"

[therealjae.livejournal.com]

Yep, CA is a field of linguistics these days, though it originally grew out of sociology. (More information here (http://www-staff.lboro.ac.uk/~ssca1/sitemenu.htm), if you're curious.)

As for the topic at hand, are we talking specifically about "dialogues focusing on issues of race and racism," or are we talking about conversations in which a person of colour starts discussing his or her experience with same? Because I think that's where what papersky is saying comes in.

-J

[therealjae.livejournal.com]

I see what you mean. I suppose, though, that I think if someone makes an attempting-to-be-empathetic analogy to their own experience, the other person has every right to say, in some way (whether directly or indirectly): "well, but that's not the same thing, because x, y, and z." Again, that's how it tends to work in everyday conversation--in fact, I wrote a paper once that analyzed an excerpt just like that.

I really did like all the points you made here, and I think you're right about them in the context of this discussion. But looking at it from a slightly different direction, it's sounding a little too much like you're saying that when a member of a marginalized group is talking about his or her experiences as a part of that marginalized group, normal conversational procedures don't (and maybe can't) apply. And while that may in fact be true, I really hope it isn't.

-J

[rivka.livejournal.com]

I suppose, though, that I think if someone makes an attempting-to-be-empathetic analogy to their own experience, the other person has every right to say, in some way (whether directly or indirectly): "well, but that's not the same thing, because x, y, and z."

Of course. But if it's something that seems like it always happens, or seems to be happening in a systematic way because of the very power imbalances that you're trying to describe, or if it triggers intense emotions about being trivialized/marginalized, it's still likely to shut down communication even if the opportunity to correct and move on is technically present.

it's sounding a little too much like you're saying that when a member of a marginalized group is talking about his or her experiences as a part of that marginalized group, normal conversational procedures don't (and maybe can't) apply. And while that may in fact be true, I really hope it isn't.

I hear what you're saying, and I don't actually know if I think that's true or not. I think it's definitely an area where you have to pay more attention to the meta-conversation, or the larger context of the conversation, but I don't know that I think it's totally its own thing.

[rivka.livejournal.com]

I'm not saying that anything you've said here isn't accurate, but I do wonder how you think it fits in as a response to my post.

[juliansinger.livejournal.com]

Well.

I was assuming that we were talking about conversations, yes. (Dialogues and dialogue groups are a different kettle of fish.)

And I rather strongly think that in any conversation, including charged ones like this, that if all you do is listen and nod your head and say yes dear, then it's not a conversation.

I just think that in these types of conversations, the ability to listen (and the awareness that listening and not reacting defensively) is central. That's not to say that argument, discussion, and chewing a topic over don't have their place in these sorts of conversation. It's just that the listening is a skill in and of itself.

[vito-excalibur.livejournal.com]

It sounds to me like you're suggesting that white people should talk with people of colour about their experiences as a therapist might talk with a client, instead of as a friend or an ally.

When my therapist listens to me talk, it's not because it's going to be of any great value to her to hear what I have to say.

[juliansinger.livejournal.com]

As to the last paragraph-- Yes. I actually think both "sides" have to kind of increase the level of their meta-conversational awareness, once the conversational ante has been upped. (Which is to say, it's not just the Caucasian/chromatic/white person's responsibility, although obviously, since you primarily wrote this to white people, you're primarily expecting the white people to be the ones increasing their/our awareness.)

If you're in casual conversation and the level of conversation shfits, it's easy to miss the cues. Which isn't a crime, just a truth.

[vito-excalibur.livejournal.com]

As an illustration?

[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

[juliansinger.livejournal.com]

Er, awareness OF listening and not reacting defensively. Sigh.

[johnpalmer.livejournal.com]

One of the troubles with saying "that's not the same thing" is that it can lead to accusations (internal or external) of whining. Or fears of accusations of whining. Or, just an overwhelmed feeling of how there's no way to bridge the gap.

I think that's one of the reasons it's important to be careful in this kind of situation, to be aware of the possibility that it could be hurtful to draw any kind of comparison. That way, if you do make a statement that's intended to be empathic, and it doesn't work out, well, now you can try to recover.

[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.