listening

[piranha]

so apparently there was a panel at wiscon about cultural appropriation, which has set off a firestorm of LJ commentary, which has transmogrified into various posts on my flist talking about privilege and racism (as well as feminism thrown in because the subject wasn't complex enough i guess :).  i've been working my way backwards, and the actual cultural appropriation discussions are quite interesting, and i'll probably read more of them tomorrow.  but before i get to that, i need to deal with this proposed bit:  that white people (and men) should just shut up and listen.  if in a discussion of racism initiated by a person of colour they reply with anything other than active and skilled listening, they're recasting the conversation.  if they defend themselves or ask too many questions, they are making it all about themselves.

*whew*.  well, i feel i can't freely say much in reply to those posts because i've just been exhorted to shut up, and if i say anything that's not directly supportive it's gonna make that conversation all about me.  i don't really care to derail it, even if i think the rails are running into an abyss.

but in my LJ, i am gonna talk about myself without guilt.  not because it's all about me, but because i am the only person about whom i can speak knowledgeably, with authority, and without presumption.  this is, btw, also what informs my preference for the pronoun "i" and those infamous weasel words such as "i believe", "i think", "in my experience", "in my opinion".   it's not to elevate me as all-important, but it's to limit what i say to my experience, and to avoid speaking for anyone else.  anyone who knows me at all knows that generalizations are my biggest pet peeve, and that it irks me when people say "we" and include others in their group by default because of some superficial trait they appear to have in common.  i constantly ask people to please speak for themselves, and not for all of humanity, all {wo}men, all <nationality>.  really, generalizations are much more than a peeve to me:  i consider them to be the root of much evil.  sloppy generalizations (and that would be the vast majority of them) are paving a broad pathway to the hell of stereotypes, racism, sexism, ageism, homophobia...

somebody just outed me as "white" in another LJ because zie has met me, and i looked white to zir.  did zie ask me about my ancestry?  nope.  zie assumed.  and apparently looking white must mean that i've not experienced racism, and that i have nothing worthwhile to contribute to a discussion about it because i am privileged.  did zie ask me about my experiences?  nope.  zie assumed.  now, for one, i am not american.  the vast majority of people in these discussions are talking as if american WASP culture were the de facto white culture of the world, period, and as if the racism said culture engages in against african-americans and other people of colour were the only racism in existence.  it's parochial to assume that.  (and it's not even particularly observant within the US itself -- i think racism against blacks is a different thing from racism against asians, frex).  even liberal white american guilt, however worthy it may be, needs to generalize less, please.

i am 0 (zero) part american WASP.  i am however 1/8th roma.  if my birth family had not carefully hidden that part of the family history, i would very likely never have been born because my mother would have died in hitler's camps.  but the family hid it long before the nazis came to power, they hid it out of shame and disgust; they hated those thieving gypsies.  they felt the family blood had been tainted.  i grew up as a dark child (in every sense of the world) in a lightskinned and fairhaired family.  no, i don't know what it is like to grow up black in america.  but i know a bit about growing up as an outsider, disrespected and distrusted for my appearance.  no, i am not claiming this is the same.  just that i did not live a pampered, sheltered, ever-so-privileged life as a child, and the life i did live has left scars i've been working long and hard to erase.  yes, i am privileged in some ways -- after escaping my family i could blend into society; i do look white.  did that white look-alike privilege make up for having a clinically insane mother, and the sexual abuse?  i don't know -- how can one even measure that?  in any case, i grappled with a form of racism very early on, though i didn't call it that, and it was a different form than institutionalized racism such as in the US.  it doesn't make me black.  but it gives me empathy for people who got dealt an outsider hand in the birth sweepstakes -- nothing more, but also nothing less.  and for the record, i don't self-identify as white, and i never check the "caucasian" checkmark in surveys (i write in "human"  or check "mixed race").  my relationship with my own racial background is complicated and personal -- and it's not even in the same ballpark as that of most americans.

listening is good, ya know.  i am all for listening.  i can even shut up for lengthy periods of time.  heck, i am an introvert, offline i shut up much more than i yap, unless with close friends.  i am known as a good listener; people come to me with their troubles, and usually leave feeling a little better.  yup, i am greatly in favour of listening.  people should definitely practice it, it's a special skillset, and i keep learning new things about it.

yes, we should listen, but not because we're white, or men, no.  because we're individuals.  because we don't know it all.  because we don't live in a vacuum.  because every single person's story is worth listening to, with attention, with care.  because only if we listen carefully to each other in turn, do we learn how differently we perceive things, do we experience how strange and interesting our respective worlds are, do we hear the pain each one of us suffers, do we have a chance to develop true empathy, will we overcome the devil that lies in the details.

Comments

[necturus.livejournal.com]

white people (and men) should just shut up and listen.

Why should I listen to anyone who won't listen to me?

[telophase.livejournal.com]

In the posts on this topic that have been appearing on my friendlist, the irritation is because the topic invariably turns away from minorities' current experience of disenfranchisement and prejudice in the U.S. to either a historical perspective with the various European immigrant groups, or the current disenfranchisement/prejudice of various groups of whatever hue in other countries. I'm pretty sure this is because everyone wants to bring their own personal experience to the table, and when you're a member of majority culture, your personal experience is naturally going to be different, based in a different historical or social context than that of the people who initiated the conversation.

Basically, the poeple I've been reading are trying to focus the conversation on one section of the topic that they feel doesn't get enough attention, and the people they're irritated with keep coming in and sidetracking the conversation, and they're seeing that it pretty much divides neatly down minority/majority lines.

[necturus.livejournal.com]

In other words, they don't want to hear anybody's views but their own.

I think I'll give them their wish, and not participate.

[telophase.livejournal.com]

No, that's not the point. They want to discuss something that does not get discussed. They want to talk about their views because they are not allowed to talk about their views because the subject keeps changing.

When Person A says "I have experienced this sort of behavior towards myself and it makes me feel like a second-class citizen," and Person B says "You know, the Irish were considered second-class citizens for a good part of American history," that is a change of subject, not an opposing view, because A wants to make B understand A's current experience, not to discuss it in a historical context.

*That* is the sort of thing that's frustrating them.

[pir-anha.livejournal.com]

i have no doubt that this happens, happens a lot, and that it is frustrating. there are difficult currents at play in the discussion of any heavily loaded subject. however, "other views" does by no means equate to "opposing views"; casting the conversation immediately as controversial is not productive. furthermore, throwing in a historical example of people who might've felt similar to you isn't a change of subject in and of itself; who says you have to go down the path just because a gate has been opened? and railing against something that is a normal and deeply engrained part of how people communicate in this society (offering their own experience/knowledge), is like fighting with windmills. telling everyone of race X to shut up is bordering on racism itself; it certainly shows that one has strong stereotypes. i can guarantee you it won't lead to people of colour feeling heard. instead it'll lead to further alienation of people who're actually allies.

there are ways around feeling that one's not heard which are IMO more useful. one is to restrict the audience, and to set rules of order (possibly using a facilitator if the discussion needs to happen at a level above the watercooler). another is to not let somebody else's experience take over the conversation, but to either acknowledge it ("yes, that's true about the irish") and walk past that opening ("but i don't want to discuss the issue of racism in a historical context right now") or refocus ("but i want to just talk about my personal experience right now"), or use it to underline and contrast one's own experience. one can also ask the individual whose contributions grate to please just listen for the time being (and then give them the floor when you're done, or at another set time). oh, and if it happens in one's LJ, ban shit stirrers and trolls without making a fuss about it (the fuss and general engagement with such people is what really derails the conversation).

[telophase.livejournal.com]

who says you have to go down the path just because a gate has been opened?

The problem is that the gate is opened every. single. time. and the conversation always heads that way despite the best efforts of all Person As, which is what the entire problem is about - that's what subtle marginalization is, in discourse, in media, in culture: that's exactly what they're complaining about - the ways that dominant people manage to push the conversation even when they're not intending to. (I'm more familiar with this through gender studies than ethnic studies - if you look at the patterns in male and female conversation, and patterns of conversation between people of different status in the workplace, you can see how the higher-status individual tends to guide the conversation.)

In the blogs I've been reading, the discussion *has* been nice - "I understand what you're trying to say, but I'd like to address this instead," and so forth, exactly what you're saying in the second paragraph. The problem the Person As are complaining about is that whenever they say that, person B either removes themselves from the conversation entirely so you're left with just a bunch of A's talking to each other with none of the Bs left to listen, or B complains that A's not listening to what B wants to say, despite the fact that A really wants to discuss the subject *they're* interested in, and it's in A's journal to boot.

[pir-anha.livejournal.com]

The problem is that the gate is opened every. single. time.

i understand that. i share the experience (though not actually every.single.time; i've had good conversations where that didn't happen -- albeit not on LJ. i think the venue matters. as does the familiarity of the participants. and the tone i set; i can't seem to find the right tone for LJ.)

but that's just ... life. it happens to everyone who's not firmly in the dominant culture, and that trickles down through all levels of subculture. if you discuss a difficult subject with random strangers, you will run into the very same initial lack of understanding over and over and over again. this should not come as a surprise, being as we're several billions too many people on this planet, and language, even if we're speaking the same one, is such an imperfect medium. i admit to occasional bogglement that it works at all.

complaining about it is understandable. but it's, aside from blowing off steam, largely a waste of time. shouting at the "other" to shut up is also not useful.

sometimes breaking down and crying can break through that, because it shows the pain instead of telling about it. it's worked on me to immediately focus on the other person, and forget all about myself. which is the same skill as active listening requires -- to empty one's mind of everything that's not helping focus on the other.

but overall what has worked best for me is to not make pronouncements with vast generalizations in public fora. i'm able to talk about my own experiences pretty well if i refrain from tarring lots of other people with negative brushstrokes.

question: if B's are told that they should be quiet and listen (in a courteous way), how do you know those who stop talking are not doing exactly that? after all, there is no feedback online that says so, or indicates that they're gone. i know from longtime net use that listeners vastly outnumber talkers. i know that i myself listen a lot more online than i write, and that's even more true for LJ than for usenet. if i am unfamiliar with a subject and an initial question is greeted with "im not here to teach you about this" (which is a legitimate response), i will usually not say anything further at all, but i'll go and read up on it. some time, often weeks or months later, i might have something to add, but man, on LJ discussions are dead after a few days; nobody ever comes back to them. this holds especially true for discussions of racism in america -- i've never so much as mentioned my own racial background in one of those; i tend to just sit and listen.

[saluqi.livejournal.com]

Weeell, sometimes.

If the views being put forward are reflective of the dominant culture/s in which those people were raised, then they are very familiar with those views already, and a reiteration of them is a subject changer that doesn't add anything new, rather than being an exchange of information that does add something new.

From what I have observed, you are very careful about not doing this, and you generally always come up with something I have not known about before in those types of discussions. That's another thing that often gets missed in these debates, personal style and approach is a significant part of reading what is going on.

[pir-anha.livejournal.com]

yes, exactly -- framing one's wish for being heard as this sort of demand is just not gonna improve the level of the conversation, and will distance people who're not the ones one actually wants to distance.