Definitions
Oct. 13th, 2021 04:30 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
writerkitAnytime a social justice thing starts trying to merge multiple axes of oppression into one already-existing word, you're treading in a danger zone.
Specifically, this book that I am currently reading is defining "whiteness" as "encompassing, not just what we mean when we say racially white, but also all that is heterosexual, capitalist, and middle class."
And... no. Words mean things. Words meaning things is the essence of communication. PoC can be heterosexual, capitalist, and middle class. White people can be none of those things and still have racial privilege. If you want a different word that means all those things, by all means, coin one.
But then, if you did that, you'd have to actually engage with the complexity of the thing and not just say that all of the ways the institution of the library is unjust come down to race. Which, by the by, I'm not denying that libraries often have problems with systemic racism! The profession is incredibly white, ALA keeps doing explicitly racist things, and we've done nothing as a profession to grapple with the history of segregation in libraries. (And while I come down very strongly on the intellectual freedom side, I also don't deny that there are people on that side, making those arguments loudly, who seem more interested in promoting unfortunate material than ensuring a broad spectrum of availability-- I just don't think the presence of those people automatically discredits intellectual freedom as a cause.) But if you want to discuss the things that are not race alongside the things that are race, you can't do it by just going "Ah, yes, everything is whiteness." That only works if you only want to discuss race. (Which is a perfectly valid thing to do in a book, but if you're trying to use that definition of whiteness, it's not what you're doing.)
Am I the only one who sees stuff like this and thinks it's the same road that gave us political lesbians and the radfems? Once you start trying to say that all oppression is caused by one oppression, you stop being able to discuss it in a way that acknowledges all the complexities. You stop being able to acknowledge the complexities at all.
I'd far rather see more specific language used, and more specific language is also less likely to alienate people who you want on your side. Someone reading this book who isn't already steeping in social justice discussion is going to see that and immediately dismiss anything that challenges them as more of the same. It's not a Discourse book; it's aimed at the kind of people who have never really considered that the profession might have a racism problem. Which means you can't write from an assumption that they're going to look at that stuff the way I look at it and go "Yup, Discourse is redefining words again" and then engage with the actual argument. They aren't; they're just going to set the book down. (Am I engaging with the actual argument? Yes, but I mostly agree with the actual argument, I don't find it in any way groundbreaking, new, or anything that hasn't been said a thousand times before, and the assumption that most people are keeping up with Discourse Talk is one of my buttons. Also I've just realized the political lesbians connection and I want y'all's thoughts on the subject.)
Specifically, this book that I am currently reading is defining "whiteness" as "encompassing, not just what we mean when we say racially white, but also all that is heterosexual, capitalist, and middle class."
And... no. Words mean things. Words meaning things is the essence of communication. PoC can be heterosexual, capitalist, and middle class. White people can be none of those things and still have racial privilege. If you want a different word that means all those things, by all means, coin one.
But then, if you did that, you'd have to actually engage with the complexity of the thing and not just say that all of the ways the institution of the library is unjust come down to race. Which, by the by, I'm not denying that libraries often have problems with systemic racism! The profession is incredibly white, ALA keeps doing explicitly racist things, and we've done nothing as a profession to grapple with the history of segregation in libraries. (And while I come down very strongly on the intellectual freedom side, I also don't deny that there are people on that side, making those arguments loudly, who seem more interested in promoting unfortunate material than ensuring a broad spectrum of availability-- I just don't think the presence of those people automatically discredits intellectual freedom as a cause.) But if you want to discuss the things that are not race alongside the things that are race, you can't do it by just going "Ah, yes, everything is whiteness." That only works if you only want to discuss race. (Which is a perfectly valid thing to do in a book, but if you're trying to use that definition of whiteness, it's not what you're doing.)
Am I the only one who sees stuff like this and thinks it's the same road that gave us political lesbians and the radfems? Once you start trying to say that all oppression is caused by one oppression, you stop being able to discuss it in a way that acknowledges all the complexities. You stop being able to acknowledge the complexities at all.
I'd far rather see more specific language used, and more specific language is also less likely to alienate people who you want on your side. Someone reading this book who isn't already steeping in social justice discussion is going to see that and immediately dismiss anything that challenges them as more of the same. It's not a Discourse book; it's aimed at the kind of people who have never really considered that the profession might have a racism problem. Which means you can't write from an assumption that they're going to look at that stuff the way I look at it and go "Yup, Discourse is redefining words again" and then engage with the actual argument. They aren't; they're just going to set the book down. (Am I engaging with the actual argument? Yes, but I mostly agree with the actual argument, I don't find it in any way groundbreaking, new, or anything that hasn't been said a thousand times before, and the assumption that most people are keeping up with Discourse Talk is one of my buttons. Also I've just realized the political lesbians connection and I want y'all's thoughts on the subject.)
no subject
Date: 2021-10-13 11:50 pm (UTC)