(no subject)

[hatman]

nicki wrote a post yesterday entitled On problematic writing. It's a good post and makes some important points. I recommend reading it. However, as I've said before and will no doubt say again, I believe it's important to consider all sides of an issue. Nicki's post presents one side - it's an address the author receiving criticism on matters of racial sensitivity. I'd like to present the other side - to those making the criticism.

Actually, first, a few opening remarks. My intention here is to present my ideas, my perspective. You may disagree with it. You may be right in disagreeing. If you have a point to make in contradiction to something I've said, I'll be interested in hearing it. I will give your ideas due consideration and respect. I hope you will show me the same courtesy.

The last time I attempted to post about an issue of this sort, I got a variety of comments. Among them was one from someone who, to the best of my knowledge, I'd never encountered before and haven't since. He came in to my territory, my journal, my home, and told me that (having read the one post out of my whole journal and knowing nothing else about me) he was about to preemptively ban me from his journal... but then he remembered that once he was blind and ignorant, too, and, with that memory in mind, he would condescend to give me a chance (however slim) to be educated. By him.

It is precisely that sort of comment that a part of this post is intended to address. I'll get to that later. But, much as I hate to start out on a hostile or negative note, I feel compelled to say here and now that, due to larger persistent RL issues, I have neither the strength nor the patience to deal with that sort of counter-productive, self-righteous wankery. (Nor the sort offered by, say, the girls who simply tossed meaningless insults at me and then high-fived each other over it.) If you behave like a mature adult, I will treat you like one and we can talk. Otherwise, save it.

I also realize that there's a good chance this whole thing will come across as a lecture. Unfortunate, but unavoidable. I'm stating my views in one long post, with comments to follow. This format doesn't allow for anything else. Understand, though, that I'm just trying to present a perspective to consider. If I can get you to see something that you otherwise wouldn't, to step outside your own perspective and see something in a new light... if what I've said here in some way helps to facilitate a better, more productive exchange of ideas... then I'll be happy.

I also want to make it clear that I'm not just speaking for myself here. I'm speaking for a side of things. A point of view to be considered. I've had some experience, as noted above, but it's not all about that, not all about me. And I have not personally felt all of the things expressed below. But they're feelings with which I can sympathize, and which I think are, for the good of all concerned, worth considering.

Finally, I don't know who (if anyone) will be reading this or how they'll approach it or what they might or might not have already thought of. So I'm going to try to be as comprehensive as I can be. Which means starting with what seems to me to be basic and obvious - because sometimes important things get overlooked, even by reasonable and intelligent people, precisely because they're so basic and obvious that they're taken for granted. Not everything here will necessarily apply to you or be intended for you, whoever you are. But maybe you'll learn something anyway. And maybe I'll learn something from you, too. That's what it's all about.

Oh, one more thing - Subconscious prejudice is an insidious problem. I'm aware of ideas and reactions in myself that were planted by others but which do not fit with how I believe one should see the world. I try to keep watch for them, I try to fight them, and I try to learn better. It's a slow process, but it's an important one. I want to be clear that I'm not saying it shouldn't be undertaken. As I said, the other side of the coin has already been well presented, and I recommend reading it. But it's something that needs to be undertaken with thought and care and restraint, or else you can end up doing more harm than good.

1. Humans are complex and fallible creatures. (See what I mean about starting with the basic and obvious?) Furthermore, reality (as distinct from neat theory) is messy and even more complex.

1a. The person you're addressing isn't perfect. No one is. But there's also a lot more to them than the one aspect that has caught your attention. Remember that. You may be writing to address a flaw, but keep in mind that it's a real person on the other end, someone with many other features and qualities you likely have yet to see.

1b. You are also imperfect. Flawed. There is always a chance that, in any specific case, you're wrong. Mistaken. Confused. Missing something. Misinformed.

1c. Your being right doesn't preclude the other person from also being right, even if you completely disagree. There's the big picture and little picture, angles, complexities, and a potentially infinite number of other factors. There are priorities and shades of gray and points of view.

2. The goal of communications is to reach the other person.

2a. Treat the other person with respect. You may disagree, but that doesn't make your opponent a bad person - or even necessarily your opponent.

2b. Tone matters. Speaking from a purely logical standpoint, it shouldn't. How you make your point shouldn't affect its validity. And you may have legitimate reason for being upset (and/or whatever else you're feeling). But the goal is to reach the other person. And if you approach with hostility the other person will naturally feel defensive. Which will mean barriers will go up. That's going to make it much harder to get your idea across and accepted. "Be calm" is good advice all around.

2c. Speaking or acting in the name of a good cause does not excuse being a jerk. (And calling someone out on being a jerk, even if they're doing so in a good cause, does not make you a whiner.)

3. Leveling an accusation of racial insensitivity does not automatically make you right (or the other person wrong). From your point of view, maybe it does. But there can be other valid perspectives from which it does not. Or you could be mistaken. Something as simple as having misread the quote or misunderstood the context can make all the difference.

3a. "You're right, I've learned, and I will mend my ways" is a good response (if true) to such an accusation, but it's not the only valid one.

3b. Defending one's self against such an accusation does not make one a bad person.

3c. Continuing to defend one's self in an ongoing discussion or against ongoing, even mounting criticism is not necessarily the wrong choice, and does not necessarily amount to whining.

ETA: 3D. Knew I was forgetting something important: Reader responsibility.

The process of communications works like this: The author/speaker comes up with an idea. That idea gets translated into words. Those words are transmitted. The audience then has to translate them into an idea. Each step is susceptible to error. Which means that author intent matters, and that the reader has a responsibility for making a good faith effort to understand what was actually meant, to read/listen with an open mind. The author is responsible for making a good faith effort, too, of course, but a miscommunication is not automatically the author's fault - it can be the fault of either party, or both, or neither.

4. There is such a thing as overdoing it.

4a. If there are already a dozen comments making the general point you want to make, it may not be necessary to add another one. On the one hand, it can make your side look stronger. On the other hand, it can make the other person feel besieged. Mobbed. Overuse of strength can start to look and feel like bullying. And that's likely to be counter-productive.

4b. Every time someone posts a story, it is not necessarily an invitation to be lectured/educated on racial sensitivity. We all have our prejudices. We all have our flaws. We all have much to learn. But there is such a thing as too much of a good thing. There is such a thing as a police state. And it can be just as harmful as being too lax. It can hurt the very cause you're trying to promote. It can build up resentments. It can devalue each instance by flooding the market. A zero tolerance policy can even make it harder to take the more major accusations seriously because people get worn out and start to feel like it's just crying wolf. That's exactly what went wrong with the 90's Political Correctness movement.

4c. There is such a thing as being silenced, or made to feel silenced. Like you can't speak up on anything even tangentially approaching a given issue without being told to sit down, shut up, and be educated. Like you can't poke your head above the sand without being told repeatedly and in no uncertain terms that you are wrong, that you are racist, and that your opinion on the subject doesn't matter anyway because you have privilege cooties. A prevailing atmosphere of overzealous enforcement which starts to become stifling. Objecting to that (or even merely trying to point it out) does not automatically make you foolish or a whiner or otherwise wrong, even if it means taking a stance against the vocal majority.

5. Telling someone that they are being racially insensitive will make you feel like you have the moral and intellectual high ground. That's only natural. Recognize that and fight it. It is not a productive or helpful stance to take. It will make it much harder to reach the other person. Because it will come through in how you speak. From the other side, it will be clear that you are looking down. And you will come off as condescending, self-righteous, egotistical, smug, patronizing, lecturing, moralizing, and/or worse. Which is not likely to make your audience receptive to your ideas.

Furthermore, being on the high ground can close you off. It makes it harder to respect the other person. Makes it harder to listen fairly. Makes it harder to see what they're actually trying to say rather than your projection.

6. If you're commenting on a story, it may pay to keep in mind the rules of constructive criticism. Most notably, the idea that you should try to start and end on a positive note. It's polite, but it's more than that. It's a matter of reaching the other person, respecting them, and trying to address them as you'd wish to be addressed. Frankly, if you can't see any redeeming qualities, it may be best just to move on.

7. Consider how things look from the other side. Try to understand the other person's point of view. It will help you reach them in a productive manner, and it might just help you see or learn something you'd otherwise have missed.

8. Deleting the post may be a bad move, but there can be reason for it. It may even be the best of a bad bunch of options. In itself, it is a simple, clear communication: "I have become overwhelmed." Perhaps that's a sign of weakness. Perhaps it's a sign of someone incapable of learning, or simply unwilling to learn. But it can also be a sign that those trying to do the teaching did so poorly. Perhaps by being overbearing, unyielding, unreceptive, disrespectful, or unwelcoming.

Now, even if that's the case, one should take measures to explain it. That's a point for the other side, and it's one that's been made, but it's a good one. But, back to item 1 - we're imperfect creatures (especially when we're upset). And there can be reason for not doing so. If you're feeling overwhelmed, if you're feeling like you're not being heard, if you're feeling like the other side isn't even considering the possibility that they're wrong or that you're right... or even just making a basic effort to listen and understand... if you're feeling stressed out, overwhelmed, and silenced... then perhaps giving up, shutting the whole thing off, and walking away without another word... perhaps that's understandable, even if it's not necessarily the best choice. Then again, if it looks like whatever you say will just invite more attacks without any progress made, perhaps it can sometimes be the best choice, after all.

In conclusion: Attacks, accusations, opponents - it's all rather confrontational. But it doesn't always have to be. Prejudice is best fought with education. And that should be a cooperative experience. Forcing it on someone who isn't prepared to be receptive isn't going to get anyone anywhere. But if we come together with respect, kindness, humility, and open minds, then there's potential for progress.

Comments

[annabtg.livejournal.com]

Well said. :)

[ksarasara.livejournal.com]

Forcing it on someone who isn't prepared to be receptive isn't going to get anyone anywhere.

I find this the most problematic of them all (which goes back to item 1, really). Let's take religion or lack thereof for example:

I'm not religious. I wasn't raised this way, and I'm not this way now. I don't ascribe to any organized or unorganized religion; in fact, I disagree/disbelieve most if not all of them. I know other people were raised this way or have found religion or switched or what have you. I can understand how the structure and belief and faith and community of an organized religion can bring piece of mind, comfort, and plenty of other things I probably don't know. I understand this and respect this... and I know I'm in the minority when it comes to this, but I wish it didn't feel this way. Item 4c -- that's me. I feel that, since I'm in the minority, I don't have the right to speak up or voice my opinion, but it hurts and angers me that some people can voice theirs. I don't know if I'm explaining myself well or not. But let's take the more specific example of what happened on Facebook Easter Day -- I have more than a few friends that posted such things as "Jesus lives!" and "He has risen!" I feel as though if I put something like, "YAY for chocolate and bunnies!" I'd be... being rude to those who DO believe. But therein lies the double-standard: why can they say it (even though it bothers me), but I don't feel that I can say what I want? Why do I feel violated of my right not to have a religion when someone says "Bless you" or worse, "God bless you"?

Simple examples, yes, but I hope they illustrate the larger point. I'm not even sure what the larger point is, actually. They're right; I'm right. But I'm not happy, and I'm sure if I voiced my opinions, they wouldn't be happy.

Anyway, I hope that made some sense. Don't get me started on those Tea Party extremists. ;)

[theblackshadow.livejournal.com]

*cough You seriously need more chocolate loving friends. *cough*

I personally made some sort of Jesus lives, Gloria post on Easter, but I fully support chocolate. And I would have also rejoiced in chocolate with you. :P

It doesn't bother me that you only want to celebrate bunnies that day. and I'm dragging it out because I also haven't figured out the larger point, but it's something about surrounding yourself with people where you can feel like you can speak up without being judged, even if you are in the minority.

Is that impossible to find in this world?

I hope not. But if it is, I fully advocate more chocolate. I've been inhaling mint patties lately.

[pgwfolc.livejournal.com]

More chocolate. Unexpected lesson, but I think it's the right one. And clearly it brings people together.

[ksarasara.livejournal.com]

Yes, more chocolate would be a good thing.

[ksarasara.livejournal.com]

You know, this is good to know! I think part of my problem is that I assume the worst in these situations, not sure why. Or maybe I'm scared as outing myself as a "heathen" and having people judge me (which is actually a deeper, more complicated emotional problem I've had for a while). I dunno. But still, good to hear your side of things. :)

Thanks for sharing your thoughts (and also for the advocacy for more choclate)!