Why you can't trust your values

[alias_sqbr]

(A continuation of my basic principles, inspired by this discussion)

In general, if everyone from group A (women, the poor, immigrants etc) just happens to violate seemingly coincidental and objective value B then:
(a) It really is a coincidence
(b) They're just inferior in general
(c) There's something skeevy going on with the way your values are contructed
(d) You're not applying your values consistently

Now (a) happens sometimes, like I have an intolerance to milk fat so tend to see french food as "inferior" but it's not that I have any deep seated aversion to the french. And I have no problem with those french dishes I can eat. That was a crappy example. A better one is the way that many societies associate black with the night, and thus scariness and evil, and afaict this has (or had) nothing to do with the racist representation of dark-skinned people as inherently bad, though the two have since become linked.

Most people will deny the possibility of (c) or (d), and once the "evidence" builds up (a) starts to look a bit shaky, and so the subtext ends up being (b). This is the justification for almost all modern intolerance, since it's no longer acceptable to explicitly say (or even think) "Group A is just naturally inferior".

But when you scratch the surface? Most of the time it is (c) or (d).

For an example of (c), classism relied on the marks of "gentility" being valued above all else, and those marks were things you only tended to get if you were upper class: the right accent, knowledge of the classics, proper etiquette, the right clothes etc. Thus, the lower classes were provably inferior! And if you think that doesn't happen now you obviously haven't encountered the idea of "white trash"/chavs etc. There are similar deliberately created reasons for the devaluing of women, non-european cultures etc.

On the other hand (to illustrate (d)), a lot of western christians will talk about how the entire middle east as a region is doomed to irrational violence because of the calls to violence in the Koran, despite the fact that the Bible has an awful lot of similar passages, so by that logic all of western europe/America etc is just as doomed.

But even if it is a coincidence you still have to think about the consequences of your actions: if you take an action against everyone who violates value B, and that adversely effects people in group A, well you have to keep that in mind.

This is why saying "It's not that I'm racist/sexist/ etc, it's just that I value *blah*" is a very weak argument, and you shouldn't make it without thinking very hard about where your values come from and how you're applying them.

Of course, "objective values" are different from subjective taste/opinion, and if you are willing to admit your subjectivity that can help ameliorate the "Everyone in group A just sucks" effect. You still have to think about the reasons for and consequences of your value judgements though, especially if your "personal taste" happens to correspond with a lot of other people's for (c) and (d)-esque reasons. For example, you can't help it if you think women are unattractive, but some straight women/gay men can use this as an excuse to be sexist which is bad.

It's important to note that you can't help having skeevy values if you live in a skeevy society, and you may not be able (or wish) to retrain ourself out of them. But it's important to be aware of where this stuff comes from and the effect it has.

Comments

[evil-megz.livejournal.com]

I would personally go for a 5th option which is similar to B) only instead of asserting that the group is inferior for violating my value, I accept that they are just different to me. That said I'm unsure how well I uphold that idea in my actions etc, and I doubt most other people are able to see things the same way.

Also I can't think of many if any groups of which every member violates one of my values, without defining that group by their violation of that value.

[evil-megz.livejournal.com]

Also I'd like to mention that the original scenario begins flawed because values are by definition subjective, and so if a person has their "objective value" violated they are already unjustified in their opinion regardless of what they conclude.

[alias_sqbr]

Yes, I forgot to clarify about matters of taste/acknowledged subjectivity. If your taste "just happens" to be against a particular group you might want to consider why that is and what effect that has on your behaviour, but for example I don't feel very sexist for not being much attracted to women :D (then again, some straight women can be really misogynistic about it so there you go)

[kadeton.livejournal.com]

Okay, if that's an example (albeit tongue-in-cheek), then you need to re-examine your definition of "values".

"I am not attracted to women" is not a value.
"Women who are attracted to women are bad" is a value, intended to marginalise lesbians.

Importantly, all values must be constructed in such a way as to categorise everyone as "good" or "bad"; they are judgement criteria.

[alias_sqbr]

Mm, I didn't explain it very well. "Attractive" is a good/bad measure though (subjective, yes, but that's what I was talking about with that example)

What I was thinking about was slash writers: wanting to write romances/porn where the main characters are male (and young etc) is perfectly reasonable if that's what you find attractive. But using that as an excuse to marginalise/demonise etc all the female characters (and some do) is sexist, and since female characters tend to get marginalised/demonised in regular fiction too it doesn't leave many spaces for them to be treated well.

[kadeton.livejournal.com]

"That person is attractive" isn't a value judgement, though, it's just an expression of aesthetic preference. "Attractive people are good / ugly people are bad" would be the value-based prejudice commonly attached to that preference.

What the slash writers are expressing is their value judgement that women are bad and men are good, which I agree is obviously sexism. Their choice to write about male characters in those cases (I would hypothesise) is motivated primarily by that prejudice; their attraction to gay men is a side-effect.

I think it's strange that you're speaking as if slash fiction (and mainstream fiction) was required to marginalise female characters. Every fictional "space" is open for female characters to be treated well... you can't say that there "aren't many left". The problem is that most authors have sexist views, because most of society has sexist views. Female characters don't need their own "space" in which they are well-treated, they just need more authors (male and female) who lack that deep-seated hatred of women.

[alias_sqbr]

That person is attractive" isn't a value judgement, though, it's just an expression of aesthetic preference.

Yes. But when I use it, I'm not talking about values: I'm saying even when you're talking about matters of taste you still have to think a bit about what you're doing. Ah, I see, but I used the word "value" when I meant "property", that was an unfortunate wordchoice.

Hmm, no, I think enjoying slash isn't necessarily a product of misogyny, I mean I wouldn't say that liking lesbian porn is a sign of misandry :)

Sorry, I made my argument very badly there. What I meant was: slash (and fan fiction in general) is a genre (primarily) written by and for women, which in no way is directly controlled or dictated to by mainstream patriarchal ideas about what makes a good story. So if fanfic writers can't manage not to be misogynistic we're in all sorts of trouble.

[kadeton.livejournal.com]

Unfortunate word choices and lack of instant clarification are two of the main reasons why text is a rubbish medium for discussing complex ideas. ;)

As far as slash, I was only talking about the writers you were discussing, just my own interpretation of the cause-and-effect relationship. I realise there are other reasons why people might write or read it!

Ah, I see what you mean. You're speaking as though it's men that are mysogynistic, though, rather than society. Sexist social expectations are reinforced just as much by women.

(That's one of the reasons why I really dislike the use of 'the patriarchy' as some sort of shadowy male force in feminist discourse. It distorts the debate: the problem is not that 'the patriarchy' needs to be rooted out and destroyed, it's that society as a whole needs to change its views of women.)

[alias_sqbr]

Unfortunate word choices and lack of instant clarification are two of the main reasons why text is a rubbish medium for discussing complex ideas. ;)

On the other hand, people in real time conversation are less forgiving of me taking a few days to think about things :)

But yes, to give another example: I totally use "the patriarchy" to include women, it's the power structures. Fanfic writers are still inside the patriarchy in general, but are less personally stymied by the specific constraints of the publishing industry etc. EDIT: but I tend to think women on the whole are better at noticing and transcending misogyny, because people are self-centered like that whether they mean to be or not.

[kadeton.livejournal.com]

I see what you mean.

While there is a strong argument for the publishing industry being extremely conservative and retarding progress on social reform, to put the onus on them still feels like a failure to acknowledge that it is society in general which is responsible.

People love to blame their personal problems on 'society', but when tackling problems that are actually to do with society, they prefer to break the problem down into more manageable chunks... without realising that the social structures that support those undesirable aspects remain in effect. To attack the publishing industry for being conservative is refusing or failing to realise that the majority of consumers support that view in the only language that matters - money.

[kadeton.livejournal.com]

Reply to your edit:

Everyone is obviously more sensitised to marginalisation of a group they are part of. However, as can be demonstrated by your slashfic example, women are just as rubbish as men when it comes to acknowledging their own prejudices, even if those values marginalise women.

Joint reply

[alias_sqbr]

I think we mostly agree on the essentials at this point but:
a) I'm not saying publishers are constrained because they're necessarily more sexist. A big industry like publishing is going to be "conservative" in the sense of slow to change existing formulas out of caution, even if on a personal level the writers etc aren't extraspecially old fashioned. Even when the public wants something new, figuring out how to cater to that taste takes a while.

On the other hand, while there is SOME peer pressure on fanfic writers to conform to pre-existing conventions etc on the whole they have the freedom to express themselves how ever they want, so the genre is more able to quickly adapt to changing social mores. In a similar way, avant garde/alternative music/films/writing etc tends to be more progressive than mainstream music/films/writing etc.

The advantage of mainstream stuff is, it's more reliably palatable to your average person. They perform different functions.

b) I think women are in general just as rubbish as men at acknowledging our own prejudices, and can sometimes be really bad at acknowledging our own sexism, but on the whole a group of women will do a better job of noticing and transcending sexism than a group of men (or mixed gender group) I mean, there is some really great feminist fanfic, and as sexist as fanfic can be on the whole I spend much less time feeling skeeved out by sexism than I do with regular sff.

Re: Joint reply

[kadeton.livejournal.com]

I find fanfiction to foster an extremely conservative community, and I would argue that the genre is essentially the opposite of avant-garde. However, I'm extremely biased against fanfiction both in concept and execution, so my opinion will be distorted.

We basically agree on (b), but I guess the clarification that I thought was important was that while women are better at noticing the sexism of others, they are generally terrible at noticing their own (just like everyone else). You would think that forming groups would sort this out, but unfortunately people tend to form groups with those who share and reinforce their views (especially on the internet).

Re: Joint reply

[alias_sqbr]

Hmm. I tend to think women are better at noticing our own sexism in general, since we can frame it as throwing off the shackles of the sexism that was forced onto us by society etc and thus avoid the whole "Acknowledging that we are personally complicit in oppression" thing that seems to go completely against human nature. But I agree we're not so good at acknowledging it when it gets to the point of us being actively nasty to other women, since we can't frame it that way any more.

[tevriel.livejournal.com]

I was going to make an argument for acknowledging "I value *blah*" being potentially acceptable, but then I thought more about applying it in re: racial groups. I think it's more in defense of my elitism, because I can't think of something I value that leads to racial assumptions, just classist ones.

Like I value courtesy, by the standards of manners to which I am accustomed, intelligence as displayed in an educational/interest background compatible with mine, etc.

Which leads to the conclusion that while I'll be polite and all to people who don't really fit with my value set, we're not likely to be friends, particularly.

Which then follows on to cultural barriers. Like, I have friends from different cultural backgrounds, but we have to have enough of a crossover of experience/interests to really be friends. Then again, that's not really racist either, I think; it's difficult to bond with someone with whom you have nothing in common.

So, I'm not sure what my point is, that's all a bit stream of consciousness.

[alias_sqbr]

But I assume you an learn to translate someone with different cultural expectation's behaviour into the equivalent behaviour by your standards? I can't think of a good example, unfortunately.

Overall I think it's important to figure out what you really value and not put too much faith in superficial markers. Like, my mum had trouble fitting in at my working class primary school, she made some friends but part of her wished for more people who liked Opera etc. At my posh highschool she met LOTS of opera fans..who were still shallow, cliquey idiots just like the mums at my old school, and she made roughly the same number of friends (in both cases they tended to be intelligent, sensible and unconventional women with good taste and judgement. Some of whom liked Opera :))

I think it's fairly natural to tend to make friends with people from the same cultural background, but I think it can end up being limiting if taken too far or if you let superficial differences stop you from connecting with people you are otherwise well suited to (which I don't think you would do, I'm just saying)

[capnoblivious.livejournal.com]

What about the possibility of incompatible values? (c) and (d) basically say, group B's values are faulty or badly applied, and the onus is on them to reassess them. Excluding the possibility that cultural_value_A might clash with cultural_value_B seems unfair to group B.

(I'd explore my thoughts, but I'm actually kinda busy, so I'm hoping you'll explore yours and I can argue or agree with you. :) )

[alias_sqbr]

Hmm.

I think that unless you define group A as "everyone who disagrees with me" then chances are it doesn't divide up as neatly as that. I guess I didn't talk about when group A is a subset of a much larger and fuzzy-edged group who clash with value B (as with the death penalty), I think I need to ponder that some more, though I went into somewhat in the post on cultural intolerance.

And, you know, maybe it is a coincidence. But if it is you still have to consider the way in which the fact these people are in group A interacts with the fact that you disagree with them on principle B.

[kadeton.livejournal.com]

Classism violates your thesis, because the values aren't in any way "seemingly coincidental" (and no values are objective, so I'm just ignoring that bit). It's a system purely defined on the predicate that a particular group is inferior.

I would go so far as to say that in general, if everyone from group A just happens to violate value B, then value B cannot be coincidental, and must be specifically intended to marginalise group A. The only possible alternative is the application of a double-standard, as in your option (d).

[alias_sqbr]

Well, no: either someone thinks the lower classes really are inferior, in which case it's covered by (b), or they don't, in which case it's (c). There's a lot of values which stem from class but people think of as objective (or at least not class based). Like having a "silly accent" or "bad taste in clothing" or "too dumb to know correct grammar" etc.

An example I thought of after posting: blackness is often associated with evil and badness, due to night being black. Dark skinned people are a group who suffer a lot of racism. As far as I can tell, this is a complete but very unfortunate coincidence (and racists have been quite happy to blur the line between them so that they're no longer so separate) But such coincidences are VERY rare, and even in this sort of case you can't ignore the consequences of the situation (ie making "dark elves" evil is skeevy even if you genuinely just mean "dark like night")

[kadeton.livejournal.com]

No, it can't be any of the options, because all the options stem from the initial condition:

if everyone from group A (women, the poor, immigrants etc) just happens to violate seemingly coincidental and objective value B

Classism does not fulfill that initial condition, because its values are neither coincidental nor objective.

You could change your statement to be:

In general, if everyone from group A violates personal value B, then:
(a) Value B is intended to specifically marginalise group A
(b) You're not applying your values consistently

I don't agree with your darkness = scary therefore dark people = bad people example. Anyone who actually used that argument to justify racism would really be clutching at straws.

[alias_sqbr]

Classist attributes are not coincidental and objective in fact, but they are often seen/presented that way. Thus "seemingly".

So someone might say "We can all agree that good grammar is an objective measure of good sense. Well, as it happens the lower classes tend to have bad grammar. So clearly they are inferior." I agree that your formulation of my statement is more precise and elegant, but I think mine does a better job of highlighting hypocrisy :)

People don't say "Africans have dark skin therefore they're evil" (Well, I'm sure SOMEONE believes that, but not many people)

But for example, look at "Lord of the Rings". The beings of pure evil (Goblins, orcs, Sauron in human form) tend be associated with darkness and black, have dark hair(*) (if they're not bald), many of them having dark skin, and the extra-scary Urak-Hai are black skinned(**).

The good guys are all white, having paler skins than all the "bad" human races. The hero is quite pale indeed, and the most refined, good, pure races and people almost all have pale white or golden hair and blue eyes. I'll admit there is a bit of a "good people who are overcome by evil become sickly pale" thing.

Is this racism? Or tying into fantasy ideas about good=white bad=black? Or both at the same time? What about Willow's hair going black when she's evil in Buffy?

(*)I said "almost all" but I can't think of any exceptions who aren't just really old (Saruman, the wraiths-as-ghosts etc)
(**)Something I didn't notice until it was pointed out to me by a very annoyed black person

[kadeton.livejournal.com]

The person saying that, though, is basing his statement off an assumption that the lower classes are inferior in the first place... after all, that's how you can determine that good grammar is a sign of good sense. I suppose it's not explicitly stated as such, but it's a fairly transparent ruse in all cases I can think of. I agree that your version is probably more appropriate for your intentions.

I'm generally annoyed by the reading of race constructs into fantasy or science fiction. As Zoe keeps forcibly pointing out to me, "new" racism is focused on culture, and (in your example), the orcs are culturally more similar to Nazi Germany. Saying that they have dark skin and therefore Tolkien must have hated black people is a pretty pointless criticism - it ignores all the themes that actually make the orcs scary.

In the end, I don't think that sort of reading adds anything to the reading experience; in some cases (C. S. Lewis, for example) it ruins the enjoyment of the work totally. Far better to find and promote authors whose values the critic does agree with.

[alias_sqbr]

I'd have to strongly disagree that it's bad to deconstruct the subtexts (racist or otherwise) to fiction.

I'll agree that Lord of the Rings is quite ambiguous, that's why I chose it to illustrate the blurry boundary between "black=evil" as a racist and non-racist idea. My argument wasn't that it's horribly racist, just to point out that the line between the two sorts of association isn't always easy to draw.

But CS Lewis offended me as an eight year old, and thinking about this sort of analysis has just allowed me to put that discomfort into words.

The "Red heads are awesome, brunettes are evil" subtext to "Prince Caspian" might not have bothered you but it bothered me :P (Though actually I was more bothered by the blatant "Muslims are evil devil worshippers" metaphor in "The Horse and his boy") Similarly, while you and I can dismiss the fact that every single dark skinned character in the LOTR movies(*) is evil it's probably not very nice for all the dark-skinned people watching, especially when taken in conjunction with the same being true of a great deal of fantasy.

If you don't poke at the subtext of things and think about what's really going on you end up supporting the status quo, and the status quo sucks. (This is one of the basic principles I was brought up on, mind you, which might explain my childhood reaction to books being a bit atypical)

(*)I can't remember if the Uruk-Hai are black in the books

[kadeton.livejournal.com]

Hmm. I guess what I mean is that the critical deconstruction process will only reveal whatever agenda or bias you bring to the process. If you're looking for a particular subtext, you'll find it. Often such critical analysis is conducted without sufficient investigation of the context.

That's not to say that there isn't, say, a racist subtext in The Lord of the Rings. Tolkien was an ultra-conservative, of course he had racist views. Does that make it a bad book? Many people would argue that is does, and I cannot share their opinion.

You must have been an unusually prejudice-conscious eight-year-old. And red-heads are awesome. ;)

I guess the main problem that I have with subtextual criticism is that it's revealing a symptom, and many people don't seem to realise the difference between that and positive action. From readings, we can determine that much of human society holds racist, sexist and other discriminatory views... but we already knew that. There just doesn't seem to be much point to it.

Incidentally, orcs in LOTR have grey skin. The uruk-hai have black skin in the books as well as the films, and they do all speak Black Speech, but honestly, it seems to me that anyone who sees this:



as a motif for black people is projecting pretty hard.

[alias_sqbr]

See, afaict there are two sorts of critical analysis: One sort is figuring out what the author was really saying (on purpose or by accident) in the context they were writing in, which is where you can complain about racist stereotypes etc, but you have to consider the time it was written etc very carefully. The other sort is just about "constructing a reading", says the author is dead, and makes no claim to objectivity, and afaict people doing that sort of reading don't complain about sexism etc in the text.

BUT whenever I've said this to people who've done english degrees etc they get a very pained expression, so I may be missing the point. But that's how I see it, and in this sort of context am doing the first sort of criticism :)

Certainly I don't see analysing subtext as being the be all and end all of anti-racism or what-have-you. It is, as you say, diagnosing a symptom. On the other hand, in my opinion racist messages in the media help perpetuate racism, so by complaining about them we can hopefully cut down the prevalence and change people's attitudes. And hey, the way I got into anti-racism was via a conversation about the racist subtext in "Pirates of the Caribbean: Dead Man's Chest", so it has had a positive effect on at least one person :)

Yes, the fact that orcs are light grey does make the whole thing ping as much less racist to me. And I still love the books and movies even if they are a bit racist and rather sexist. Heck, I love plenty of stuff which is quite blatantly sexist/racist etc, doesn't mean I can't criticise it, same way as I complain about bad acting or whatever.

[kadeton.livejournal.com]

My impression of the two modes of criticism was that one approaches the text from the perspective of how the writer constructed it, and the other from the perspective of how the reader (specifically the critic) might deconstruct it. This is subtly different from your impression, and the only reason I can think of for not including readings of prejudice is as part of some post-ideological perspective (which is mainly bollocks).

Interestingly, I think the second method is more relevant to your purpose of removing racist messages in the media. I must admit to a certain postmodern view on this; in that context, I think the author's intention is irrelevant compared to the reader's impression (hence "the author is dead, long live the critic"). A racist message which doesn't reach anyone is less harmful than an innocent message perceived as racial vilification.

Unfortunately, I don't believe in censorship, even if it is framed in terms of "positive action", and beyond that, criticism has no power to change mass-media content.

Obviously, you're more than welcome to criticise, I just don't see that it serves a progressive agenda. If you go and see a movie, for example, and come away thinking "That film was pretty sexist, but on the whole I liked it" and you then buy the film on DVD as a result, the production company doesn't hear "This film was okay, but make the next one less sexist", they just hear "That film sold well, make more exactly the same". Sadly, not buying the film on DVD will cause the producers to mimic the last film that sold well instead, so you can't win that way either. I feel like going into a whole postmodern rant about simulacra, but I won't. :P

[alias_sqbr]

First off: while I think criticism has it's place in making the world better etc, it's certainly not my main priority. When I criticise stuff it's generally to vent or illustrate a wider social trend (ie, as here, the blurry line between different associations with "darkness") And I'm not sure I've ever read any high-brow literary Criticism of racism etc(*), I'm thinking of places like Girls read comics or bobthehaitian.

I think it's good to make the general public aware of sexism in films etc, and it's enjoyable to discuss with likeminded people (especially if you want a forum to vent your frustration with the way your group is portrayed etc)

Does it have any effect on creators? Maybe sometimes. I dunno. Certainly you'd have to not just not buy the dvd, but send a letter of complaint saying why you weren't buying it (though a couple of letters and LOTS of boycotting would be just as good). But I think you and I have different opinions on the general effectiveness of "awareness raising" etc.

Girl wonder goes into why they do what they do in a faq.

(*)I'm not sure I've read much high-brow Criticism of much of anything unless you count highschool Lit, such writing is not really my bag.

[col-ki.livejournal.com]

I've been bitten by this.

In my old job, I had a graduate engineer under me, who is indian.

At first, I really didn't like him. He was rude, stubborn, nakedly ambitious, rushed his work, refused to admit error and avoided design responsibility and a sense of ownership like the plague. In short, he violated a lot of my values.

As we worked together, I came to understand that most of these violations (to use your terminology) were culturally based. It was about pride, a determination to make something of himself and leadership, and some of it was about being young, and in a foreign country. That didn't make me any more comfortable with the issues, but it did let me see though them to to the principled and soft-hearted man underneath.

Of course, I still think that his values are inferior to my own. They wouldn't be my values if I didn't hold them as valuable.

[alias_sqbr]

Hmm. Certainly I think it's important to understand the context of people's values, I know that as a tutor it took me a little while to get used to the tendency for south east asian overseas students to have a "Academic success at all costs!" attitude(*). On the plus side it meant they tended to have actually done their homework, which was a nice change :) I find that figuring out (and engaging with) the base personalities of people with a different cultural context is almost like translating from a different language.

Interestingly, all the indians I've known/worked with have been nothing like that guy (apart from generally being very motivated) so some of it may have just been him :D

(*)Not that some weren't just as laid back as the australian students! And I think the attitude difference is partly just because they're international students, so the cost of failure is much higher. But I guess that in and of itself is a different context, albeit not a cultural one.