Agreed, in general. The tremendous bad faith and sophistry turn me off, though. - Edit 1
Before modification by Dan at 29/01/2012 09:32:36 PM
I really hate the whole "privilege" meme that's been going around online, lately. I can't disagree with the substance of their issues, but their conceptual frameworks and the prescriptive stances they take from it are just so fucking dishonest.
The major objection I have to this is the semantic slight of hand revolving around the notion of racism. Namely, that it's now an institutional and cultural structure, i.e. "prejudice and power", and that by participating in it unknowingly, unwillingly, and unconsciously, we are now "racist". Granted, some people make the pro forma distinction that one's statements or actions are racist, but it quickly dissolves into yelling and accusations. The fact is, they are exchanging one definition of racism for another, very different definition, and but using the rhetorical force of the former definition to gain traction in argument.
They delight in decrying people as "racist", seeing them scramble and apologize, and expect all right-thinking people to conduct their bile at them, but most of this comes from the older connotation of racism that involves the conscious and deliberate belief in race, racial inequality, and furthering that inequality. Their invective would gain significantly less traction if they made it clear that people were insensitively and unconsciously participating in a cultural structure or worldview that was prejudiced. When people who haven't been made privy of this paradigm shift to being called racist, they are of course branded as evil privilege mongers who Deny Racism, despite the fact that they object to an entirely different concept, all the while utilizing the leverage that the baggage of the term supplies in the argument.
I think at heart though most of the people advocating this worldview identify the two concepts. Intention and conscious deliberation have no role any longer, and it's all about they system one participates in. It's very, very similar to original sin in this way. I find that particularly amusing, since this was Foucault's reduction of Derrida, and god knows that the above worldview reeks of the worst of post-modernism.
Not a huge fan of her tone at times (at other points I do find the blunt comments justified, though), and the Twitter convos she links to are hardly something to be proud of. Writing that "The neckbeards of today likewise think of themselves as progressive, liberal, and open to gay marriage – but spend your time in the company of any neckbeard and you quickly realize they are some of the most regressive people you’ll find outside of an Aryan Nation meeting" is fairly nonsensical.
That there are racist and sexist messages in Tolkien is difficult to deny; and the former aspect at least is almost inevitably copied into any Tolkienesque "high fantasy" (the sexism often as well). Still, it's important to note a passage like the one with Sam and the Easterling, or the ones where Galadriel's importance is underlined, in order to make clear that the racism and sexism are side-effects of Tolkien's nostalgia (as so often with nostalgia, one could say nostalgic to a past that never existed), rather than intentional propagations of his beliefs. Judging by the above-quoted comment, the blog author doesn't think the distinction is one worth making, but I certainly do. If you make a three-line summary of LotR, odds are it will sound like neo-Nazi propaganda; it's certainly important to point out that it's really not.
Her point about how the human-Elven couples in Tolkien all have Elven women and human men was new to me, though... I'd never really considered that before, that there are no men giving up their immortality for a mortal woman, or even just marrying one for the duration of her life. That said, Lúthien is the only one who does give up her immortality, and I do think she (like Galadriel) should count as a valid strong female character. Eowyn is admittedly a different story, and Arwen gets too little "screentime" to make any meaningful analysis.
The major objection I have to this is the semantic slight of hand revolving around the notion of racism. Namely, that it's now an institutional and cultural structure, i.e. "prejudice and power", and that by participating in it unknowingly, unwillingly, and unconsciously, we are now "racist". Granted, some people make the pro forma distinction that one's statements or actions are racist, but it quickly dissolves into yelling and accusations. The fact is, they are exchanging one definition of racism for another, very different definition, and but using the rhetorical force of the former definition to gain traction in argument.
They delight in decrying people as "racist", seeing them scramble and apologize, and expect all right-thinking people to conduct their bile at them, but most of this comes from the older connotation of racism that involves the conscious and deliberate belief in race, racial inequality, and furthering that inequality. Their invective would gain significantly less traction if they made it clear that people were insensitively and unconsciously participating in a cultural structure or worldview that was prejudiced. When people who haven't been made privy of this paradigm shift to being called racist, they are of course branded as evil privilege mongers who Deny Racism, despite the fact that they object to an entirely different concept, all the while utilizing the leverage that the baggage of the term supplies in the argument.
I think at heart though most of the people advocating this worldview identify the two concepts. Intention and conscious deliberation have no role any longer, and it's all about they system one participates in. It's very, very similar to original sin in this way. I find that particularly amusing, since this was Foucault's reduction of Derrida, and god knows that the above worldview reeks of the worst of post-modernism.
Requires Only That You Hate (one of my favorite blogs to read when I need a different perspective on the social/gender/racial issues found in SF/F fiction) has a thought-provoking article up on the racist and sexist elements in Tolkien's writing that addresses some of the usual defenses of his work. I thought this might be of interest to some here, so the link is below.
Not a huge fan of her tone at times (at other points I do find the blunt comments justified, though), and the Twitter convos she links to are hardly something to be proud of. Writing that "The neckbeards of today likewise think of themselves as progressive, liberal, and open to gay marriage – but spend your time in the company of any neckbeard and you quickly realize they are some of the most regressive people you’ll find outside of an Aryan Nation meeting" is fairly nonsensical.
That there are racist and sexist messages in Tolkien is difficult to deny; and the former aspect at least is almost inevitably copied into any Tolkienesque "high fantasy" (the sexism often as well). Still, it's important to note a passage like the one with Sam and the Easterling, or the ones where Galadriel's importance is underlined, in order to make clear that the racism and sexism are side-effects of Tolkien's nostalgia (as so often with nostalgia, one could say nostalgic to a past that never existed), rather than intentional propagations of his beliefs. Judging by the above-quoted comment, the blog author doesn't think the distinction is one worth making, but I certainly do. If you make a three-line summary of LotR, odds are it will sound like neo-Nazi propaganda; it's certainly important to point out that it's really not.
Her point about how the human-Elven couples in Tolkien all have Elven women and human men was new to me, though... I'd never really considered that before, that there are no men giving up their immortality for a mortal woman, or even just marrying one for the duration of her life. That said, Lúthien is the only one who does give up her immortality, and I do think she (like Galadriel) should count as a valid strong female character. Eowyn is admittedly a different story, and Arwen gets too little "screentime" to make any meaningful analysis.