This is reading a lot like "Ignore the criticism, just write whatever you want!"
I find this discussion so tiring, especially because there continues to be people dropping by, without having read the actual thread, and then repeating the "write whatever the hell you want to write" line.
Tiresome.
Yes, it is exhausting. Every time someone posts a flyby post without reading the whole thread, I find it cheapens the debate and reduces it to that post saying "we don't care about your concerns, so stop voicing them". It's disrespectful and dismissive. One of the major reasons I've not bothered to respond much in this thread.
Maybe it all boils down to Ari's question:
Does or should the desire to be published supersede all other considerations, including the responsibility to get it right?
Those who say YES are the ones who believe in "Ignore the concerns of minorities! Write whatever you want!" and their concerns always revolve around THEIR well-being ("Will my book get picked up by a publisher? Will it get bad reviews?") and there is not a thought spared to actual communities they might be harming. Everything else, to them, is just "noise". And I guess I can't really argue with them, because we disagree on such a fundamental level that it's a waste of time trying to discuss any issue that stems from that very basic starting point.
While I get that people do want to write what they want, I also understand how devastating it is when the same type of people ignore the concerns of the marginalised, the minorities. It's a basic case of "me first; if I get what
I want, who cares if other people get hurt".
I don't know about anyone else, but I find that attitude hideous, selfish, and uncaring. Doesn't matter to me how accomplished someone is, or how much they contribute elsewhere, that type of sentiment gets no respect from me. In fact, such a post makes it to my ignore list.
For example, a few years back, the media highlighted the plight of Filipinas and Indonesian domestic helpers in Hong Kong. They are the larger of the marginalised cultures and peoples here. The media painted a very bleak picture, but amongst that sensationalism, there were plenty of facts and evidence: first-hand accounts, face to face interviews, court cases, factually-related stories. Research was clearly evident. And yet, the media did not tell these people's stories; instead they provided a platform for these individuals to tell their own stories.
Did the media to a really good job of it? I don't know; I just know that the media provided a
tool for these people's voices to be heard.
The stories were devastatingly horrendous. Anyone with an ounce of compassion and self-respect would have been appalled and outraged. However, the fact remained: these people told their own stories.
I guess that's one of the cases which really brought home to me about whether or not I should tell various stories. Not because I can't, or don't have the confidence or research to, but because the question is whether or not I should?
In the context of this thread: I've thought about writing about the marginalised cultures in Hong Kong (there are plenty more than just the two mentioned above). But, over the years, the more I've thought about it, the more I've realised that those stories are not mine to tell. Despite any research I might be able to do, how can I know what the individuals of these cultures face daily? Especially in a city that is hostile, amongst a culture that has -- historically -- closed itself off to any that does not speak or understand its language? Superficially, various individuals of these cultures come across as arrogant, rude, and uncouth. But what do I know? It may be a front. Or it's the norm for them, because in their native culture, their language, what they're saying and their attitude is in fact respectful.
For example, in another thread, there were call-outs regarding a child's rudeness, that there was no obvious Western-style gratitude expressed for a service rendered. However, culturally, the expressed gratitude would
not be Western-style; it would be in that culture's style. Without actually understanding the non-native culture, how can one impose one's culture on a non-native one?
This also goes back to the blanket analogy up-thread: The blanket is a symbol of what's being passed down. To revere the object itself is incorrect and is an outsider's viewpoint, not the insider's.
Greatly (grossly so?) simplified: worship of an object is very materialistic and reflects a Western sentiment, vs. reverence of the meaning behind the representative object that does
not reflect a Western sentiment.
Ergo, I can't know. At the very least, I can only guess at the actual meaning behind the symbolism. And I also know myself well enough to know that even if I were arrogant enough to attempt to tell these stories, my own prejudices and subconscious racism would get in the way, despite my best efforts.
Not everything translates universally from one culture to the next.
An example from another side of the debate, from another thread: One flyby post in an old discussion basically issued an ultimatum to writers to stop writing about a certain culture because the writers would always get it wrong, guaranteed, due to the misinformation available. That attitude irked and infuriated me. Not because I disagreed with not writing about a certain culture, but because it was a flyby post and an ultimatum that assumed all writers were arrogant and would write about that culture regardless of whether or not permission was sought or research was done. That attitude did its best to shut down even those writers who wanted to understand further as to why the misinformation was so widespread. But there was no opportunity, because it was a flyby post and the writer of it never returned.
In the same way, the "write what you want, ignore the PC 'noise'", irks, and infuriates: It shuts down those writers who want to understand more about the non-native culture.
So, assuming I was going to tell the stories that aren't mine to tell, if I can't present such stories with objectivity and empathy, without prejudice and racism, then I'm doing more harm than good, regardless of intentions and confidence in my research. Instead, I would consider myself being disrespectful and incompetent. Therefore, in this case, the best thing I can do is simply
not to tell those stories. I guess my go-to mantra for such situations is "not my story to tell". Granted, this may be an extreme way of seeing things; a reason to stay in my comfort zone. Then again, maybe this is my way of being respectful and understanding that, just because I did the research, just because I know lots of things about a minority culture, it doesn't mean I should tell that story for publication's sake. And also especially if a member of the non-native culture states that certain cultural elements are sacred, and even insiders are privileged to know the details of those elements, therefore outsiders should not write about those elements, then that is more than a good enough reason to
not write about those elements, or maybe even that culture.
On the other hand, I (still) hope that others can extend this type of consideration and courtesy to my culture, other minority communities, marginalised cultures, all cultures: Just because one has done the research does not mean one should write that story because publication.
But I am tired of all the entitled posts that advocate "write what you want, ignore the PC 'noise'". Mainly because I'm not sure these types of writers will, or even want, to consider what "PC 'noise'" really says, especially when it comes to cultural appropriation.
Yes, it is wearying. Can we say, though, that it's always about disagreement? Might it not be in large part a lack of understanding of the difference between cultural exchange and cultural appropriation? That exchange is mutually agreed upon—by invitation? That appropriation is taking? Are we explaining that less coherently than we could? Are there better ways to conceptualize for those who are open to understanding?
I'm of the opinion that the part of the problem lies in the wording: "exchange" vs "appropriation". While I think we can all agree that "exchange" means a give and take of (hopefully) equal parts, "appropriation" seems to be more vague, not as to the point. Personally, I believe it'd be better to use the term "theft" in place of "appropriation"; at least, perhaps, we might all get closer to agreeing that some writers steal from other cultures. And "steal" or "theft" means exactly that: "the taking of something that doesn't belong to oneself", and by that extension, the exploitation, "abuse" of such "stolen property".
For me, cultural theft is literally(?) someone coming over to me and taking my mobile phone then selling it to another without my permission or acknowledging that I own my phone. Perhaps that's a clearer way of looking at it? Or maybe, if that doesn't work for some, it's a bully coming over to shove one out of the way so that the bully can steal one's lunch. Or, mayhap, plagiarism on a cultural scale: one takes another's work, and passes it off as one's own, aka, one takes another's culture, and passes if off as one's own. With all the exploitation and abuse that any of these ideas imply.
At the end of which he said, "Okay, it seems obvious that there is a problem, but...actually, I think the problem lies with the PUBLISHERS. Writers are gonna write whatever they want to write, and if they get published, yay, they've done their job and earned some money for their families. But the publishers are the ones with the power. They're the ones who decide what gets published...so shouldn't the responsibility lie with them? They're the ones who actually get to affect change."
I thought it was an interesting way of looking at it, although I am of the belief that it's everyone's responsibility to avoid harm.
It is a different perspective. And interesting? Yes? Maybe.
Going back to the statistics linked in another thread, I wonder if those stats still hold true today (since the study was done a few years back, two, perhaps)? The majority of professionals in the publishing houses, according to the study, were/are white. This could explain the predominance of white writers being published more than PoC writers, regardless of the books' subject matters. Again, I think it's about comfort zones here, and the unwillingness to be risky in an already fickle market.
Publishers are a business, after all. So, it's expected that they're going to go with whatever sells. And as businesses, I understand being risk averse. Yet, if no risks are taken, then the publishers can't grow, and staying in one spot begs stagnation, which leads to a slow death. So, while profit and risk need to be balanced, it seems to me, that many of the professionals within the publishing houses default to non-risky ventures that, seemingly skew the balance to "profit first, risk later (if at all)", and seemingly inevitably, throttle the market. This blocks new voices, and ultimately PoC voices, from being read.
So, while publishing professionals have power to effect change, I don't believe that all of the power rests with them. Writers also have that power: Consciously (and eventually) respecting all other writers, especially PoCs, and allowing everyone to write their own stories, without stealing or exploiting for selfish gain, would help start the movement. And -- maybe I'm being idealistic -- at some point in the future, such mutual respect will push the publishers to publish everyone (regardless of ethnicity) equally. Of course, writing has to be up to standard. But, wouldn't that be also a benefit of this type of rounded mutual respect and mutual support? And at this point, might be a hope that we wouldn't have to deal with "cultural appropriation" and that discussions like this have become "classical references"? (Yes, I'm definitely being idealistic at this point, but I can hope.)
(Apologies for the novel.)
- - - Updated - - -
Sorry that was such a novel, by the way. Pun intended?
It was good to see. Thank you for sharing your journey.