WHO SOCKS HIS GOURD? 8 Feb 92
The moderator said,
> ...it was unclear to me as a reader just who was the target of
his criticism or exactly what it was he was saying - but it had
and still has a tone of abruptness and hostility that disturb me.
It may be that what he is trying to say is that he prefers
articles which talk about specific issues to those which express
doubts about the authenticity of particular people
who represent themselves as Native people and
who claim in whatever sense to speak on behalf of those people,
or at least permit such an inference, and
about their negative feelings about what may feel like an
expropriation or unfair exploitation of a culture.
Apparently, there is something about what is said or the way it
is said that makes Jim feel that such sentiments are inconsistent
with a genuine knowledge of the real needs and feelings of
indigenous peoples...
It is clear to me (as both a reader and a poster) that either this
marvelous medium of electronic communication does not have as wide a
bandwidth -- or that we ourselves are not as fluent in expressing
ourselves -- as we imagine. By the first, I mean that it conveys
almost no portion of the emotional spectrum except the extremes: anger
being the most definitely identifiable. While (I hope |)) humor also
occasionally comes across, the majority of articles read as
dis-affective: emotional blank spots. -]
By the second hypothesis, I mean the the all-too-common inability
of folks to express themselves clearly in any medium. (Are we just
hasty, or are we forgetting how to write? Even in ordinary English
there are some 20,000 words to choose from.)
Put the two together, and you have the kind of situation in which
any moderator begins to wonder about hys sanity. "Did A mean what he
said?" we say; what we mean is, "*In what sense* did A mean what he
said?" Likewise, "Did B respond to what A said, (as against what B
thought A said)?" stands for "Is B responding *to the sense* of A's
message?" Even when both A and B are of exceptional ability in
expressing themselves, these are not easy questions to answer;
lawsuits - not to mention academic arguments - go on for years on just
these points.
Whether to post or not to post, that is the question. I don't
know if there is an answer. In Moyer's "Hate on Trial" piece the other
day, one of the panelists said, "You get in a real bog if you start to
censor yourself." In a discussion similar to this on another list,
one alternative that was proposed was simply to 'send it back;' advise
the writer that whatever his point, it isn't clear to you, and, by
your privilege as moderator, therefore you assume it will not be clear
to others. This is not censorship; its editing. A discussion in which
it's clear what the topic is is a lot more interesting to follow than
one which keeps churning amongst garbled red (whoops) herrings (and
metaphors @;-)).
More specifically, I have been concerned to see the way phrases
(thanks for collecting them in one place, Gary) such as:
> authenticity of particular people
who represent themselves as Native people
who claim (in whatever sense) to speak on behalf of..
at least permit such an inference..
expropriation or unfair exploitation of a culture
have been used in speaking of spiritual matters. I wasn't going to
debate it on the list; who knows but that some coherent philosophy may
emerge which will give meaning to the phrases. But GST asked for
comments:
As far as I can tell, these are rhetorical *metaphors*; there
is no substance to any of these phrases (not even "claim").
There has certainly been no unanimity or even enduring agreement on
what "authenticity" should be, across several thousand years and
every cultural context. When the polemicists die down for lack of
buzzwords to conjure with, an adept moderator might be able to get
people to focus on what they <<really mean>> to say with regard to
myn and society.
[ I assume Kerry's word "myn" is intended to represent the androgynous
idea of men/women. --Gary ]
For instance, if we were talking about *adopting* a culture, we
(no not everyone of course) would generally think we knew what was
meant. But (even as a metaphor) it makes a *lot* more sense to say the
culture adopts us. Does this inversion apply to exploitation? No.
(The economy, now is another matter... |)) And how one could
conceivably expropropriate culture baffles me, honestly; either you
have it because its yours or you have something else, don't you?
Representation and claims to speak, of course, are precisely what
the first amendment addresses. Whatever faults it may ultimately be
determined to have, it is a damned good approximation to a rule of
moral law by which we can easily measure* ourselves, and our relation
to others. We are "representing ourselves" all the time, figuratively
and literally, and claiming to speak on behalf of others, real and
imagined, every chance we get. If we want the right not to be harassed
in doing so, we'd better cut some slack for others.
The alternative is the sort of Personhood Checkers Council that
has been mooted in NatNet: let some statute/ prescription/ board/
agency decide -- in short, give your right as a rational and self-
aware individual to judge a claim wisely to the govermint. Best of
luck.
The fundamental question is, whose ox is gored? If the complaint
is that someone's group is being misrepresented, what consequences
flow from that misrepresentation? If the complaint is that, while the
representation is accurate enough, the speaker is not entitled to
enunciate it, on whom does the harm fall? It seems to me that the
temptation to have it both ways is not unknown amongst native
americans.
I now naively suggest an alternative to stringing such speakers
up by their thumbs on an international network show. Might it not be
conceivable that *if* A has the limelight and is "claiming to speak on
behalf of" B, and *if* B wants to have his point of view expressed
accurately, that *either* B put up a second candidate, C, to compete
for the limelight,*or* that B work to educate A, so that he does a
better job of representation. If this latter
involves inducting A into the group (comprised of B and C, evidently
|), then so be it. If being accurately represented (and if that is not
an oxymoron in any case) is important to you, then bite the arrow, and
quit whingeing.
I have been waiting patiently for Peter D'Errico to expound
further on the "authentic ethnic" dilemma. In the meantime, I append a
note drawn from another discussion which has paralleled the one here
on spirituality, if from a more abstract perspective:
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
[Re: Craftsperson/ reaction]
This [trend] seems very similar to the kind of "egocentrism" T. Lidz
describes in The Origin and Treatment of Schizophrenic Disorders. The
affective components become so strong that every experience is
relevant, and all can be rationalized. I can't recall which writer on
the subject commented that it is very characteristic of paranoid
schizophrenics that their logic is intact. The overall delusion is
crazy, but the pieces all fit together in compelling ways--if you buy
the delusion. In the final analysis, it is the affect which makes the
leap of faith (or delusion) possible.
Lidz describes a young pre-schizophrenic who was programming wild duck
migration patterns as part of his masters degree. He was under
intense stress from a variety of personal problems, and suddenly the
data in the program began to make sense. He began to feed into
personal questions. Should I marry Barbara? Answer: .5 million
ducks in the Mississipi Flyway. So it was clear that the marriage
would be a disaster. Beneath that conclusion is an equivalency of
ducks to relationship that is as tight as any mathematical
formula in a math graduate student's final exam.
At the opposite extreme is the excessive psychological distance in
which nothing is affectively significant. Here we find a pure logic
in which human empathy is turned off for the sake of action --
physicians need this sort of distance to stay sane in an environment
continual death and pain. At the extreme, we get Auschwitz, and what
R. J. Lifton describes as the "Auschwitz self" of camp personnel, who
develop a "split-off self" to deal with what they must do.
I wonder if the human psyche (and human history [and email
discussions]) swings between these two extremes -- something like the
extreme Romantic/paranoid schizophrenic on the one hand, and the
extreme Neoclassic/ depersonalized schizoid on the other.
In any case, I'd move the pendulum a bit [away from] where the
experienced [i.e. overloaded] affect is able to justify censorship as
weeding, and sentimentality is so extreme that virtually any comment
can be referenced as an affront to someone.
Most of the people I know -- you know, the "diverse ones" -- are too
robust to enjoy such kid-glove treatment.
Yours for a tougher, rougher society.
Bill
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Finally, let it be known by these presents, that I, the
undersigned, now and for the indefinite future, permit any and all
readers to draw whatever inferences they wish. I have better things to
do than hassling people who don't understand what "self-aware" and
"rational" mean.
|{hm kerry miller <ASTINGSH@KSUVM.KSU.EDU>