Culture wars, identity politics, and artistic freedom

[CivCube]

I think the gist of your post I agree with but I have this objection: there is no such a thing as "white perspective"; its cultural not racial issue. When you say "white perspective" I immediately know your perspective has already been appropriated to some ideology.

What are your thoughts about "There is no such a thing as "white perspective"; its cultural not racial issue." ?

 

[Terxpahseyton]

Well that woman is plainly mad.
Funnily enough, I don't think she is wrong, necessarily. But she is only seeing one piece of the puzzle of potential consequences, the whole picture does not even interest her. She cares only for this one angle, and that makes her quit mad.

Sure, assuming other identities carries a risk. Everything carries some risk in this complex world. But she cares only for one risk, and because other things don't exist to her, this one risk seems like the world to her, so she is accordingly dramatic. Very mad.

 

[inthesomeday]

Well that woman is plainly mad.
Funnily enough, I don't think she is wrong, necessarily. But she is only seeing one piece of the puzzle of potential consequences, the whole picture does not even interest her. She cares only for this one angle, and that makes her quit mad.

Sure, assuming other identities carries a risk. Everything carries some risk in this complex world. But she cares only for one risk, and because other things don't exist to her, this one risk seems like the world to her, so she is accordingly dramatic. Very mad.

So, what you're saying is, her perspective is limited to her own experience, making her ability to communicate or even understand things outside of her own experiences impossible?

 

[Terxpahseyton]

Not experience. Frame of Mind.

 

[inthesomeday]

Not experience. Frame of Mind.

Your problem is you don't see how the latter exists only as a product of the former

 

[Terxpahseyton]

You are being semantic.
Shall we first discuss how one can not know anything, perhaps?
Or weather there is objective reality?

 

[inthesomeday]

Not at all! Instead, you should recognize that the very complaint you are making about her analysis is the entire basis of opposition to cultural appropriation and advocacy of representation in media.

 

[inthesomeday]

Also:

Not experience. Frame of Mind.

You are being semantic.

 

[Ryika]

I think we also can also take responsibility for ourselves as readers and watchers. I know I need to do a better job of consuming more material by women, PoC, and people from other cultures in general. It sucks that we often get other cultures filtered through white, male perspectives when we see so little representation as it is from creators who aren't both white and male.

But that's on me when it comes to my side of the discourse as well. If I'm not bringing up interesting new material from diverse creators, the cycle continues. So I'll just leave this essay on a woman of color's reading life here. More viewpoints are always interesting!

Boy, this is the very essence of bourgeoisie mentality.

 

[Mechanicalsalvation]

What are your thoughts about "There is no such a thing as "white perspective"; its cultural not racial issue." ?

Let me tell you first that you are right if you recognise that your sources may be too one-sided. Female, non-western, non-mainstream, etc. sources are likely underrepresented. BUT if you are adding element of racism into your selection its quite obvious that you are little missing the point.
The best result of your endeavour you achieve with quality AND diversity not with bringing in and judging things by some generalising one-sided ideology AND not with diversity alone. Becouse what is worth the diversity of one-sided unauthentic ideologies? Not much.
I dont think "white people" are some non-diverse monolith holding one single perspective. Using word "culture" is more precise and doesnt cloud the issue with unnecessary element of prejudice

 

[CivCube]

Let me tell you first that you are right if you recognise that your sources may be too one-sided. Female, non-western, non-mainstream, etc. sources are likely underrepresented. BUT if you are adding element of racism into your selection its quite obvious that you are little missing the point.
The best result of your endeavour you achieve with quality AND diversity not with bringing in and judging things by some generalising one-sided ideology AND not with diversity alone. Becouse what is worth the diversity of one-sided unauthentic ideologies? Not much.
I dont think "white people" are some non-diverse monolith holding one single perspective. Using word "culture" is more precise and doesnt cloud the issue with unnecessary element of prejudice

I use "white" in reference to a privileged effect that some people get to have based on background. I don't think the use of this word is itself racist, as opposed to, say, "Caucasian", which does refer to pseudoscientific attempts to classify some people according to a 19th century construct. I'm also not a big believer in the idea of reverse-racism, where attempts to change systemic racism are seen by some as also discriminatory (but that can be a whole other thread). But feel free to explain further with more resources that might be helpful.

 

[Kyriakos]

I use "white" in reference to a privileged effect that some people get to have based on background. I don't think the use of this word is itself racist, as opposed to, say, "Caucasian", which does refer to pseudoscientific attempts to classify some people according to a 19th century construct. I'm also not a big believer in the idea of reverse-racism, where attempts to change systemic racism are seen by some as also discriminatory (but that can be a whole other thread). But feel free to explain further with more resources that might be helpful.

Fiction isn't quite as set as science (where it would be more readily obvious that one shouldn't bother with politics, but with the presented work), yet it should be abundantly clear that if a work of fiction has worth it isn't a result of political traits, either in it or examined from whatever point of view as tied to it.
I mean... there are literally no people in Kafka's work who aren't 'white', other than passing references in (literally) three stories which are very brief (gave an account of that in an older thread). Wouldn't that sort of be a ridiculous reason to claim that his work is of no value? Or - equally ridiculous- of no value to people who aren't 'white'?
Art isn't politics, and even if ties can be noticed it still would be very problematic to attempt to identify worth of art through such a point of view. I fear that there is an effect for some people in which all kinds of inherently different actions or works get fused into one, and now fiction somehow is examined as if it is a statement by some journalist or tv personality.

It may be a bit of a generalization, but i think that in this particular and bad fusion the US is largely to blame, with its pop-art phenomenon following ww2. There is a bit of a difference between the satirical work of Jonathan Swift, Lucian of Samosata, and Colbert. One of the three is not really art in any logical way

 

[Valka D'Ur]

Art isn't politics, and even if ties can be noticed it still would be very problematic to attempt to identify worth of art through such a point of view.

There are plenty of works of art that were commissioned or offered either in order to curry political favor or to send a political message to the people who see it.

 

[inthesomeday]

Are you seriously trying to claim that Kafka's work is apolitical? There are more things in politics than race, you know. I think the point is more that white people writing ABOUT RACE from the POV of a person of color, and how it is limiting and ultimately counterintuitive to discussions of race.

 

[Kyriakos]

Are you seriously trying to claim that Kafka's work is apolitical? There are more things in politics than race, you know. I think the point is more that white people writing ABOUT RACE from the POV of a person of color, and how it is limiting and ultimately counterintuitive to discussions of race.

Not seeing how this was what i said. Furthermore, are you familiar with Kafka's work and his diaries in which he himself describes what he is trying to achieve? If you were you would shy away from presenting him as intentionally political.

There are plenty of works of art that were commissioned or offered either in order to curry political favor or to send a political message to the people who see it.

Usually satirical works, as with Animal Farm. Yet those works exist as art due to artistic merit, not because they are vessels of politics as well, no?

 

[inthesomeday]

Not seeing how this was what i said. Furthermore, are you familiar with Kafka's work and his diaries in which he himself describes what he is trying to achieve? If you were you would shy away from presenting him as intentionally political.

I haven't read his diaries, but I am familiar with his work. Apparently, you and I disagree on what the word political means, although you are the Kafka expert here obviously, so you're probably better qualified to actually apply our respective definitions. Though perhaps not intentionally political, wouldn't you say the portrayal of harsh bureaucratic chaos in order is certainly motivated by a politicized point of view given Kafka's environment?

 

[Kyriakos]

I haven't read his diaries, but I am familiar with his work. Apparently, you and I disagree on what the word political means, although you are the Kafka expert here obviously, so you're probably better qualified to actually apply our respective definitions. Though perhaps not intentionally political, wouldn't you say the portrayal of harsh bureaucratic chaos in order is certainly motivated by a politicized point of view given Kafka's environment?

It is an important issue, and yes, i have written articles about this. My view is firmly that any political elements in Kafka - and it is easy to pick up a number of things as political, including the bureaucracy you mentioned - are apparently used as allegories of internal strife, and are thus psychological and not about external reality.
Kafka is a person who even wrote in his diary that the onset of ww1 may be the time to get his reward for having been so indifferent/estranged to the world, cause he can still work while the world around him is collapsing.

 

[Mechanicalsalvation]

I use "white" in reference to a privileged effect that some people get to have based on background. I don't think the use of this word is itself racist, as opposed to, say, "Caucasian", which does refer to pseudoscientific attempts to classify some people according to a 19th century construct. I'm also not a big believer in the idea of reverse-racism, where attempts ange systemic racism are seen by some as also discriminatory (but that can be a whole other thread). But feel free to explain further with more resources that might be helpful.

I am sorry but there is no such a thing as "white privilege". Its an ideological construct based in racism. The idea of privilege is fair but if you transfer it to a group of people based on a racial characteristics you are introducing element of prejudice into human psychology in scale and scope for which there is no justification. Sure it can be a good tool for manipulation but I suppose thats not what you want.
I think you can say that certain nationals/cultural group or even phenotypes have certain advantages over others but talking about white privilege is misleading since there is no wide conspiracy or even trace of some innate superiority of "white people" over any other group.

Let me know if I understand correctly what you mean.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

Usually satirical works, as with Animal Farm. Yet those works exist as art due to artistic merit, not because they are vessels of politics as well, no?

Well, no.

As has already been said, a very large fraction of art exists pretty much strictly because an artist created it for the express purpose of pleasing their patron...who was usually among the powerful at the time and thus "political."

 

[Kyriakos]

Well, no.

As has already been said, a very large fraction of art exists pretty much strictly because an artist created it for the express purpose of pleasing their patron...who was usually among the powerful at the time and thus "political."

"exist as art" meant "are deemed as art", not "they exist (as art)"

Eg think of the various statues in Florence; they were paid for by the rulers of Florence, yet one would have to be insane to not view the following (or others) as art: