Why you can't trust your values

[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

[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.