Links and thinks on exceptionalism in fiction

[sqbr]

Another link I am too sleepy to poke at much:
Competing Purities

I think it's important, then, to distinguish between: 1) Racism as it occurs in interpersonal transactions, more or less unintentionally, particularly when neither party has power over the body or livelihood of the other party and 2) Racism as system/institution/tool of material oppression. Problem 1), I'd say, is one outgrowth of, and one of many phenomena that help sustain, problem 2); so that someone who's insouciant about problem 1) is gonna be perceived as an element of problem 2), and someone who's accused of having problem 1) will wonder if s/he's being perceived as knowingly contributing to problem 2)

What specifically struck me was a quote from Jonathan Arac:

Yet in wholly omitting from his representation of Huck's America any of the rhetorical, political, or more broadly social resources that supported resistance to the slave power in Huck's time and to Bourbon restoration in Twain's own time, Huckleberry Finn defines no place that citizens can work together in resistance. This is not the worst possible compromise, but it is a great diminishment for the possibilities of freedom, and it has rarely been acknowledged as one of the costs of Twain's achievement.

Once again, as in the links on protagonist privilege: exceptionalism. Every good person reaches their goodness alone, every successful oppressed person throws off their oppression alone or with the help of the unoppressed. When I wrote about Toph from Avatar the Last Airbender inventing Braille, I decided she had to do it in concert with other disabled (and specifically, blind) characters, and it changed the dynamic quite a bit.

Comments

[ex_peasant441]

One of the things you seem to believe in a very deep-down fundamental way is that:
communal endeavour = good, virtuous, makes important changes
individual endeavour = bad, selfish, maintains the status-quo (which is itself bad)

I don't know how much that is your personal thing and how much a general left wing thing but it has been a fascinating discovery for me to realise that mode of thinking exists.

I'd say that by contrast I never assign much of a moral value to the method, only judging the moral value by the end result. Which isn't quite the same as saying the end justifies the means, since if the means has bad effects along the way, those count as part of the end. But I would certainly always prefer to justify the means by the end than have to justify the end by the means. And I believe both individual and communal can be either good or bad depending on the circumstances.

[sqbr]

Nooooo, not quite. And I'm making a few different points in this post which got a bit smooshed together.

I think communal endeavour tends to be more effective than individuals working off their own bat without consulting others, but that doesn't make individual works bad. And an educated individual who pays attention to what other people are doing and alters their actions accordingly can be very effective (of course the line between that and communal action can be blurry). The moral aspect with regards to the narratives people tell about social change is that by ignoring communal changes you're (a)Being inaccurate and (b)Encouraging less effective methods.

It's like: there's a tendency for people to act like Rosa Parks brought down bus segregation all by herself by refusing to move to the back of the bus almost on a whim. But, as I have learned recently, her actions were part of a long term decided on by the civil rights group she was a part of, and as a group they decided she should be the one to take a stand since the public would be more sympathetic to her.

I think perpetuating the "She was just a lone individual who took a stand" narrative does harm, and is an insult to her and her group. But if she HAD been a lone individual taking a stand that wouldn't be immoral, that would be awesome, especially since it would be a bigger achievement to do so much by yourself. But she didn't. *hopes the distinction is clear*

What I don't like is the idea that social justice etc is good as a vague goal, and taking a stand is ok if you do it as an individual based on specific personally experienced injustices (like Batman becoming a vigilante because his parents were killed by criminals, to give an extreme example), but thinking about the broader social patterns and working with others and forming a longterm strategy to change society is bad. Because for the most part that's how most social justice actually happens. And it means people can simultaneously agree that it is a Good Thing that slavery was abolished and women got the vote etc and think that our society is still sexist and racist, yet find the idea of modern civil rights or feminist movements, or the idea that to facilitate social change themselves they might have to educate themselves and work in concert with others, scary and threatening and unnecessary. Because they like to imagine that social change happens when individuals say "Hey, this kind of sucks" and do what feels natural and right without having to think too hard or challenge themselves or give up power or be One Of Those Activist People.

Which is not to say individuals can't make a difference, they can. And I think social justice movements can get stagnant and ineffective and in need of people working outside their own subcultural mainstream with a fresh perspective. But you need both, and fetishizing individualism to the total exclusion of communal endeavour is bad.

[aquaeri]

Oh Dear. I want to shake someone, hard. That's a fairly pointless level of nitpicking So Whitey Doesn't Have To Feel Bad, there.

[sqbr]

You mean Neil Gaiman's fans? Yeah, more of the same old excuses :/

[aquaeri]

I meant the very careful distinction between 1) and 2), as though 2) isn't a product of collective 1)s, and when someone is criticised for their 1), yes, they are supposed to think about what it's contributing to the 2).

It makes me want to shout very loudly "grow up and accept your responsibility for the contributions you make to society, by virtue of your precious individual actions, because that's all there is, that's what the entire social consensus is made of".

(and I'm afraid I think peasant is doing more of this evasion and I won't reply directly because I'm likely to get (more) ranty.)

[sqbr]

Ah, that, yes. Indeed.

(I don't want to poke at peasant's motivations in particular, though, since it's a weird mix of behind their back and right in front of their face, if that makes any sense)

[aquaeri]

Oh yes, absolutely.