BARBELITH underground
 

Subcultural engagement for the 21st Century...
Barbelith is a new kind of community (find out more)...
You can login or register.


Underground > Head Shop >

Experience and empathy

  
 
Cat Chant
14:13 / 23.08.06
This thread has a short-term aim and a longer-term aim. In the short term, I'm responding to a request from paranoidwriter in the 'What exactly does get you banned?' thread in the Policy to clarify why I took exception to some of the things he said in the discussion of the possible banning of 33. I'm starting a new thread because I'm angry about the Policy thread turning, in my view, into a long discussion about the importance of protecting the rights of straight, white, m-i posters to talk about homophobia and racism - which, as I said in the thread, is not in my view a terribly urgent aim. (I'm strongly reminded here of Persephone's glorious post here, on discussions about when one can use offensive terminology, in which she says I always feel... that the underlying assumption, or objective, is to preserve the conditions wherein one might use the word in question.)

Which brings me to my longer-term aim, which is that this thread should be an 'overspill' thread, to which we will move when certain question, arguments and debates threaten to rot other threads: questions about exclusionary or silencing tactics; arguments about what we feel the value of experience is; and debates about how empathy, knowledge, experience, and so on frame our participation in discussion.

So first I'm going to set up the context within which the disagreement between paranoidwriter and me arose, and respond to his request for clarification, and then I'm going to try and formulate some more open questions which might make for interesting discussion.

The original exchange between Haus and paranoidwriter is here, and the exchange between paranoidwriter and myself begins here.


Haus: I don't generally find myself on the receiving end of insults on the grounds of my gender, my race or my sexuality. As such, I might listen carefully to those who do before deciding whether 33 should be here if he does not understand why he should not be insulting people based on etc.

Paranoidwriter: Very good point.

My ugly face, body, voice, and "breeding" have come in for a fair amount of stick over the years. But then, if I wanted to, I suppose I could have surgery and other costly procedures to make me blend in with teh sh23ple and so make life easier and less painful for myself and everyone else.

But many, if not the majority of people in RL face such unjust judgements with far more immediacy and intensity than I do every day. I feel very fortunate, therefore, that I don't have to face such extreme negativity on a daily basis, and would dearly love us all to share in this privileged position.

So how do we start? How does one solve a problem like the one we've had with 33? With more ignorance and self-protectionism, or with even more understanding and patience?

Me: As someone who has also got stick for her ugly face, body, voice and 'breeding' over the years, and also been the target of homophobia and misogyny, I really think there's a qualitative difference between the two. This statement feels to me as though you are using your own experience as the template for experiences that you have not had. And I don't think that's helpful, especially when (as Haus points out), you then say that your behaviour should be taken as a model by people who do not share in your privilege. You talk about a desire for queer (nonwhite, female, otherwise oppressed) people to be 'lucky enough' to react with the 'privilege' of detachment; but that demand for 'detachment' actually, in my view, constitutes a demand to shut up about important tranches of our own experience and identity. It reads to me like a very familiar practice of defining reason, detachment, etc, on the basis of the exclusion of certain voices and experiences.

Paranoidwriter: Deva, could you show me where I said that I believe one can understand "more" about someone else's personal experience than they do themselves? And please remember, at present you know little about me or my own experiences, as I know little about you and yours. Surely, all we have to go on is the specific information we each provide (e.g."I am XXXXX"), our own powers of reasoning (based on education and experience), and trust.

I should probably say upfront, paranoidwriter, that I am irritated by two things: firstly, by the fact that you have moved from agreeing with Haus that perhaps you should listen to the experience of others, to stating your experience with the explicit acknowledgement that it is not the experience of other people, to trying to establish the conditions under which you have the right to speak. I'm also irritated by the fact that I have tried to account for my reading of your words two or three times now; that Haus has made some similar moves in his readings of the same post; and that you have not, as far as I can see, made any attempt to clarify what, in fact, you did mean by this slightly elliptical set of juxtapositions:

(1) Good point (I should indeed listen to people who have been the target of homophobia);

(2) I have been called names;

(3) Some people have it worse than me;

(4) Should we be nice to 33, or should we act from self-protectionism?

The connections between these four bits of your post are pretty obscure to me, and the only way I can see any kind of flow from one sentence/paragraph to the next is as follows:

1. I should indeed listen to people who have been the target of homophobia [and I will be able to do so, because I can understand their experience on the basis that]

2. I have been called names;

3. Some people have it worse than me [because being the target of homophobia is being the object of 'judgement', much the same as being called names, but more intense'];

4. Should we be nice to 33 [as I am privileged enough to be able to do, because my experience of being judged has been less intense than some people's], or should we act out of self-protectionism [as people who self-identify as feeling attacked by him do]?

So you're not saying that you understand 'more' about the experience of homophobia, but the only way I can make your post make sense - not just be four randomly juxtaposed points with no internal coherence - is by reading it as saying that the experience of homophobia disqualifies people from the correct, empathic response, because their minds have been warped by the intense negativity to which they have been subjected, leading to 'self-protectionism'. If those connections are not the correct ones, could you please clarify to me what, in fact, you did mean?

(The thing that really strikes me as I write this, actually, is that you seem to start off by saying that you should listen to people who have more experience in this than you, and end up by emphasizing the value of empathy, but somewhere along the way there's this weird shift where you end up modelling the empathy that we should be extending to 33. What seems to be getting cut out is the bit where you listen to other people, and use your empathy with them to question your own experiences, rather than using your experiences to question other people's empathetic abilities.)

As for the thing about me making assumptions about your experiences: we've had this fight before, and I don't have a great deal of respect for your position. It seems to me to be a way of refusing to listen to other people's experience, by always responding to such arguments with well, for all you know I've had that experience too! And maybe you have. But I don't really care. I care about the argument I'm advancing on the basis of my experience, and saying that I don't know what your experiences have been is completely irrelevant to the point that, on my view, name-calling is qualitatively different from homophobic oppression.

Paranoidwriter went on to ask some questions which might be useful for the longer term in this thread:

1) Does empathy really help one to gain a valuable understanding of another person's experiences?

2) Is one person's experience of (say) pain more relevant / valuable to a discussion about pain than another's experience of pain? (and I mean a general discourse about pain, not one discussion about a pain in the neck and another about a pain in the arse).

3) If empathy is an effective tool for understanding one another, how do we encourage empathy and mutual understanding?

I'd like to add: what status do arguments based on experience have on Barbelith? Do certain experiences 'qualify' people as more knowledgeable than others on certain topics? Is that even the right way to frame it?
 
 
Cat Chant
14:25 / 23.08.06
What seems to be getting cut out is the bit where you listen to other people

Sorry for double post. I just read this back, and also what's getting cut out is the bit where you empathize with the victims of homophobia, rather than its perpetrators. Perhaps you're making an argument along the lines of:

(1) The victims of homophobia are asking me to empathize with them;
(2) Therefore empathy is a good thing;
(3) Therefore they should agree that we should empathize with 33.

Do you see what you've skipped there? Perhaps you think it should go without saying that you're committed to empathizing with, and struggling for the rights of, the victims of homophobia. But, in my view, until you've done a bit more explicit work on the missing (1a) ('Therefore I do empathize with the victims of homophobia'), you haven't earned (3).
 
 
paranoidwriter waves hello
17:25 / 23.08.06
Deva, thanks for starting this thread; although (and I may be being paranoid here, but) it seems very much targeted at me and fuelled by your irritation with me; which is fair enough and may prove to be justified, and which I'm sincerely trying to understand and move on from, but....

But I need more time to read, consider, and respond to all this. However, I would like to briefly point out I have not told you my race, sexuality, or anything else really. I've indicated that there's a certain amount of (erm?) Irishness in my past, and I've also said in other threads that I find some women attractive (e.g. 'The alternative attraction list' thread). Indeed, as far as I remember, I've never told anyone here if I'm straight, gay, bi, or whatever; and to be honest, I personally try not to identify myself as any of these categories as I find them constrictive and limiting. You also have no idea if I have a relative, lover, or even a child of any of these categories (gender, race, sexuality, class, etc), and I'm not going to tell you online either. (or at least I try not to). Of course, you can choose to identify yourself in this space however you want to, but please give others the same credit and benefit of the doubt.

Also, my "I've been called things too..." type of point was trying to reiterate that people should of course listen to each other and each other's experiences, but that valuing these is very difficult and problematic. Indeed, personally, I am still working out the best way of doing this (using Barbelith and other means).

And Deva, my intention is not to irritate you or be a "poker playing squirrel", or some such tricky, nasty, selfish intention. I admit when I'm wrong and I do really value everything everyone has to say on this board. I assure you I do re-read what people have said.

You may also wish to track the whole discussion back a bit further and note my first response to 33, in the 'Extinct Clothing Thread'


I will probably come back later and try to answer your questions in a more detailed and specific way, etc. However, like I typed, for as long as I can I'm going to try and take a back seat in all this and get to grips with everything that everyone has said and will say. I just want to try and insure that people don't mistakenly think I'm being ignorant and rude or (even) prejudiced, especially in respect of this particular thread.

But I'm probably just making things worse, again, aren't I?.... Sorry if that's so....'Twas not my intention... Honest...
 
 
Cat Chant
09:06 / 24.08.06
I apologize for saying 'straight, white, m-i posters' when what I meant was 'posters who are not arguing on the basis of their experience of homophobia, racism or misogyny'. I agree that I have no idea whether or not you have had those experiences. Whether you have or not, I strongly disagree with the way you persistently exclude queer experience (your own and other people's) from discussion, and instead argue on the basis of vaguely-defined concepts like 'empathy' and 'pain'. I disagree with this on the basis of its political and ethical implications, not because of your sexuality, race or gender.
 
 
Cat Chant
09:35 / 24.08.06
And another double-post, this time to separate my ongoing argument with paranoidwriter from some more general things I've been thinking about experience. This is the position I've come to, and I'd be grateful for other people's thoughts on the subject. Again, this arises from the 'what exactly does get you banned' thread, where the resistible rise of reidcourchie wrote:

you and Haus seem to be making exactly the same argument, that the opinions in this matter of white, heterosexual and male posters... are not as valued on this matter. Now I will be the first to put my hand up and say that the white male heterosexual has a privilidged position in the world at large but how then do we engage in this thread if our opinions are less valid?

I think I resolved my this particular instance with reidcourchie, but I feel like it's a good example of something that I do feel happens on this board, and I'd like to unpick what I think about it. (If nothing else, the unpicking might make me able to react with something other than rage next time I see it.)

What this move feels like to me - and this is echoing Persephone's point in the post I linked to above - is saying 'But if you are valuing opinions based on the experience of being queer, doesn't that mean my opinion is less worthy because I haven't had those experiences? And how can I manage this strange new feeling of my opinion being worth less than other people's? So the important question is: how can we manage this thread so that I can continue to say whatever I like in it, as I am entitled to?'

Like Persephone, I blink a bit when I see that sentiment, for several reasons: firstly, because the idea that I might be entitled to go anywhere and say anything I like is so foreign to me that I feel taken aback (and, possibly, resentful) when I see someone so amazed at the thought that there might be constraints on hir freedom of speech and/or movement.

The other reason is that, to me, experience is one of the ways that we know things. It's analogous to, say, reading a book. So I know, for example, that homophobia and name-calling are not simply two examples of 'unjust judgements' because I have experienced both, and in my experience they are very different phenomena with very different physical and emotional effects. Now, Reidcourchie's response suggests that, because he has not had the same experience as me, he cannot evaluate my argument and his contribution to the discussion will be worth less than mine.

I'd say that while the second part of that is partly true, the first part is not. Here's an analogy: I have read very little Foucault and even less Marx, and I am fully aware that Mister Disco and Jackie Susann (among many others here) have read a great deal more than me and, as a consequence, know a lot more about their theories than I do. If someone starts a thread on the relationship between Foucault's notion of 'biopower' and Marx's conception of 'productivity' and class consciousness, I am able to contribute to it because I know roughly what Foucault and Marx have said, even without reading them, from reading secondary sources which allude to them, and from listening to people who have read them. I am also able to contribute to it because Foucault and Marx are trying to explain the way we understand ourselves and the world we live in through the categories 'biopower', 'class' and 'productivity', and I can ask more-or-less intelligent questions, and make contributions, based on my own experience of what I understand those categories to be describing, and based on my own understanding of the theories as they are explained by people who have read Foucault and Marx. I can also learn a lot about biopower, productivity and class consciousness from listening to those people.

But I still haven't read Foucault or Marx. So what I can't do is tell JS or MD that I know more about Foucault and Marx - or even about biopower, productivity, and class consciousness - than they do. It doesn't silence me, it doesn't exclude me, it just means that I don't share the same level of knowledge as they do. (And if I have in fact read Foucault and Marx, but I do not want to disclose that fact on the board, I will also have to accept that, in order to protect my privacy, I am going to have to surrender my 'mastery' in this instance and act as if JS and MD know more about it than me, since they are able to back up their arguments with references to the source of their knowledge and I have chosen not to do so.)

It seems to me that I can participate in the thread very happily on that basis, and it might mean that both sides learn from each other (I might pose a question that someone who had read Marx wouldn't think to pose; I might learn something about biopower that only someone who had read Foucault could teach me).

It also seems to me that I should not post in the thread saying But I haven't read any Foucault or Marx! And I can't get hold of them! Does that mean my opinion is less valuable? What am I supposed to do? Tell me how I can continue to express my opinions!

I don't see how experience is any different from that.

The other thing, also arising from reidcourchie's point, is that there's a slippage from experience to identity - from 'I haven't had that experience, so I don't know as much about it as you' to 'I am [a particular identity] and I am being excluded on that basis'. The relationship between experience and identity is very tricksy, and (as in my last post!) I'm as guilty as anyone of using identity categories as a shorthand for experience-based categories, but I think it is very useful not to do that, since it clearly breeds resentment and anger. I haven't got very far with this line of thinking yet though.
 
 
ONLY NICE THINGS
10:08 / 24.08.06
Hmmm. I think that when you say:

However, I would like to briefly point out I have not told you my race, sexuality, or anything else really.

PW, I think you might mean that you haven't declared your race, sexuality or anything else, really. That's kind of different. It's particularly different if one is seeking to advise other people, who have declared their race, sexuality (and gender) about how to react to attacks on people of or for their race, sexuality and gender.

To put it another way - if you don't want to declare your sexuality, in this case, online, that's fine, naturally. On the other hand, I think it's unavoidable that if you choose not to do that, but only talk about your experience of attraction to and indeed sex with people of the opposite sex, you will be read as straight. One can certainly then say "don't read me as straight", but if one does so but still claims straight privilege - which, paradoxically, usually includes the privilege of not having one's sexually subjected to critical examination - then things get a bit tricky.

Hooever. I think the key issue here is the link between the original statements, and in particular statements (3) and (4). I've looked at it from a bunch of angles, and I remain unsure what the exact connection is. Summarising, we have the two elements.

There are people who suffer from discrimination far greater than the discrimination from which I suffer.

So, should we response to 33 (in this case) with patience and understanding, or with ignorance and self-protectionism?

The most convincing way to break those down that I have found so far is, I think, which is a bit of a development from my previous thinking about it in the Policy:

There are people who suffer from discrimination far greater than the discrimination from which I suffer. These people, as a result of that experience, are likely to tend towards "self-protectionism" (a term which I think requires examination, but which I take as equivalent to protectionism by a state, but with a self - so, limiting imports from the outside, primarily) and ignorance when dealing with (for example_ 33. This approach can be antithesised with an approach based on patience and understanding.

This may not be what's being said - as I say, I don't follow the argument entirely. If it is what's being said, then I think it's highly problematic. One reason why I find it problematic is that it does edge towards the idea that people without experience of prejudice are better equipped to decide how to deal with prejudice. Another reason, as mentioned, is that it characterises responses in terms of abstract concepts without really looking at methodology. In this case, the issue is probably whether to ban 33 (ignorance, self-protectionism) or not ban 33 (patience, understanding), but we're starting with the abstract qualities and presupposing the application.

Hmmm. So, I think that when you said there:

Deva, could you show me where I said that I believe one can understand "more" about someone else's personal experience than they do themselves?

I theeenk perhaps you were asking to be shown something that Deva hadn't said you had said. It's not about knowing more about someone else's personal experience, but rather feeling more able to determine a) what the best thing is to do about somebody who is expressing -isms than the people who are actually in the groups subject to those -isms and b) the motivations behind those proposed actions (put another way, how likely is it that somebody arguing to ban 33, in this case, would state their aims in that banning as "ignorance and self-protectionism"?).

But, at the heart of this is the connection between experience of name-calling, experience of discriminiation and the link between them and responding to the latter, with and without experience thereof.

Hoom.
 
 
ONLY NICE THINGS
10:10 / 24.08.06
Sorry - interpost. Things may have moved on.
 
 
Lurid Archive
11:54 / 24.08.06
I largely agree with you, Deva, about the value of firsthand experience with prejudice in a discussion on banning, and more broadly. But, starting from that, I'd like to complicate what you say a little.

For a start, while in discussions of homophobia or sexism, say, I agree that more weight should be given to people who have experienced these things, it is also impractical and probably undesireable to limit the conversion *solely* to those people. There are probably exceptions, but this seems fairly clear to me in a discussion on banning and other situations as well. (I'm not suggesting anyone is disagreeing with this, I just wanted to make it explicit.)

One problem that springs to mind, in this set up, is that the opinions of women, say, won't generally be absolutely uniform. There may well be disagreement, and so respecting the opinions of women when it comes to talking about sexism isn't clear and can be used to, paradoxically, reduce the voices of *some* women. I did wonder whether this was the case in the case of ShadowSax, where I got an impression that this sort of argument about listening to women oversimplified the range of female opinion.

And from this point of view, I can understand something of pw's discomfort in what can seem like the essentialism of valuing a poster's opinions based on their identity. The book analogy was useful to me Deva, since it also allows one to see the possibility of denying the overriding relevance of Marx, say, in a particular discussion. That is, we all have opinions, and the fact that people of a particular identity aren't in total agreement means that those of us who don't share that identity *do*, ultimately, have to understand and assess the issues ourselves. Part of that is listening to people with relevant experience, sure, but it seems like only *one* part to me. Uncontroversially so, if you think about the reaction people have to charges of anti-semitism.
 
 
ONLY NICE THINGS
12:55 / 24.08.06
The book analogy was useful to me Deva, since it also allows one to see the possibility of denying the overriding relevance of Marx, say, in a particular discussion.

In a particular discussion, yes - for example, a discussion of how to fix a car might involve Marx only tangentially. But Deva was talking about a discussion of a concept that one would understand by reading books by and about Marx, which is a bit of a different case.
 
 
Cat Chant
13:25 / 24.08.06
it is also impractical and probably undesirable to limit the conversation *solely* to those people.

Absolutely, and I'm sorry if I wasn't clear about that. However, with the sole exception of the 'woman-centred Barbelith' thread,* I think the idea that white straight men (wsm) risk being excluded from conversations is rather a red herring: from my memory, I have only ever seen this fear raised in contexts like the reidcourchie example above, as a potentially undesirable consequence of accepting and valuing knowledge born from experience (and hence, potentially - and this is why I worry and get angry about it - as a way of undermining that knowledge itself). I think there's an important difference between saying 'You cannot have an opinion on homophobia because you have not experienced it', and saying 'From my experience - which you do not happen to share - your opinion on homophobia is wrongly formulated and/or incorrect'. I don't think I've ever seen anyone say the former on Barbelith, and I think the latter is a perfectly valid way of arguing, in the same way as 'From my reading of Marx - ditto - your opinion on class is ditto'. That doesn't put the Marx-reader's opinion outside or beyond discussion and disagreement, but it does mean that the non-reading respondent is going to be hampered in hir ability to respond fully to all the nuances of the Marx-reader's argument, and at some points will just have to take hir word for it.

I think in the book analogy in particular, I'm trying to decouple experience from identity, and to say that it is possible to respect each other's experience, to acknowledge that certain people have had experiences which mean they know more about a particular topic, and still have everyone participating in discussion.

*which, as I understand it, is a different case anyway, in that it wasn't declared women-only on the basis that only women were qualified to talk about the topics under consideration in the thread, but on the basis that a women-only space was needed in and for itself.
 
 
paranoidwriter waves hello
14:42 / 24.08.06
Deva, thanks for you're apology. That means a lot (sincerely). Oh, and I just realised you have posted again since I typed this, so some of the following may be irrelevant now, etc. I will re-read and post again, if need be.

Deva and Haus, I suggest that although one may have extra information on and more personal experience with (e.g) homosexuality and homophobia, that doesn't mean one has more of a "right" to talk about "homesexuality and homophobia" than someone else. Equal rights for all, remember?

(Please note: I've recently asked, here, whether we need to address and solidify a "Universal Declaration of Members Rights", to better understand each other and what our "rights" actually are.)

For example, it took me repeated and (I believe) patient and considerate attempts to get Deva to see that I may not identify the way Deva had chosen to identify me. Indeed, when I read Deva's Marx and Foucalt discussion analogy, and specifically the part which ze says...

"But I still haven't read Foucault or Marx. So what I can't do is tell JS or MD that I know more about Foucault and Marx - or even about biopower, productivity, and class consciousness - than they do. It doesn't silence me, it doesn't exclude me, it just means that I don't share the same level of knowledge as they do."

...I feel like doing reminding y'all again about the problems with assumed identity, and need also ask you (again) the same question I did in the "What exactly does get you banned on Barbelith?" thread:

"Deva, could you show me where I said that I believe one can understand "more" about someone else's personal experience than they do themselves?"

Similarly, this will now be my second attempt at trying to point some people in the direction of (at least) one example where my response to homophobia has been clearly declared. However, if it helps, let me re-restate my position on prejudice of any kind: it hurts me and those I care about, and divides and conquers humanity as a whole; I don't like it.

Indeed, I think my point is that people (esp. online) should be less reflexive and quick to judge, and more patient and open when communicating with others: no matter what (oppressed) demographic one may (choose) to belong to. I haven't "declared" my sexuality (etc) on this board because I can see that people from all sections of the community like to use such declarations to form assumed and sometimes false opinions on another's character and opinions. Which is wrong.

Haus, I would thus re-write your re-write of my position as follows:

There are people who suffer from discrimination far greater than the discrimination from which I suffer. However, we are all likely to face prejudice of one form or annother, and we all naturally tend towards "self-protectionism" and ignorance when coping with such prejudice and oppression. This reflex reaction is understandable and may be tempered buy a universal approach based on patience and mutual understanding, which might help us all to undertstand each other better. Personally, I would like to discuss this and see whether it is true / possible, or otherwise.

So therefore, Haus, when you say...

One reason why I find it problematic is that it does edge towards the idea that people without experience of prejudice are better equipped to decide how to deal with prejudice.

I would answer that is not what I'm saying. I can think of nobody in my RL that has not experienced prejudice of one form or another; nobody who hasn't been oppressed by what I see to be an imagined and false "norm". And therefore to quantify who knows "better" about prejudice is a misleading exercise.

For example, a black indentified poster may say "The white man's got a God complex" and their experiences of a dominant white society may have shown them that this is, in a way, true. However, what if in response a white (and maybe even also [e.g] gay and disabled) person were to say, "I'm pretty sure I haven't got a God complex, and surely there must be some egotistical black people out there who are arrogant enough to believe that they have an omnipotent abillity to see the whole world, how it operates, and how they believe it should operate?"

Now, of course, nobody in this exchange is denying history or the reality that racism exists to the detriment of humanity; the problem (as far as I can see) is that the black person's opinion on "the white man" has become (to the white person they're talking to, at least) as illogical, generalised, and assumptive as those the society which is oppressing black people. If the black person then responds to hir white counterpart by saying, "You're white, I'm black, I think I know more about prejudice and oppression than you do, OK?"; is this really helpful, and would it be their "right" to try and shut out the knowledge and experience of another person as having no, or less value?

[NB) I'm not talking about someone knowing "more" or "better" than another's experiences than they do themselves; this is (as far as I can tell) impossible. One might know something else relating to someone's experience, but never more. Non?]
 
 
ONLY NICE THINGS
14:49 / 24.08.06
and need also ask you (again) the same question I did in the "What exactly does get you banned on Barbelith?" thread:

Paranoidwriter, could I suggest that you reread this thread quite carefully before proceeding? For starters, the bit where I explained at some length why that question was not actually reflective of what Deva said might be worth a look. In fact, I really don't know where to start, here. Will come back when feeling stronger.
 
 
paranoidwriter waves hello
15:00 / 24.08.06
Certainly, Haus.
 
 
Lurid Archive
15:11 / 24.08.06
But Deva was talking about a discussion of a concept that one would understand by reading books by and about Marx, which is a bit of a different case. - Haus

Deva's example of class pins down more or less what I meant there. The discussion needn't be one where Marx was irrelevant.

Absolutely, and I'm sorry if I wasn't clear about that. - Deva

Sorry, I didn't mean to suggest that you weren't clear. I just wanted to emphasise a certain point so that what I said would make more sense.

I think the idea that white straight men (wsm) risk being excluded from conversations is rather a red herring

Absolutely. But then it also depends what you mean by excluded, since it is hard to imagine anyone's opinion being *excluded* here on Barbelith, short of a ban. I have no problem admitting that you know a lot more about homophobia than me, Deva, and I would respect your assessment of any instance of it which would in part inform my own. But this is a complex process, in which I don't simply bow to your own knowledge since in most discussions (like those on banning) where there is an application of that knowledge to a particular situation.

I feel a bit silly saying all this, because I don't really disagree with you very much here Deva and I do think that pw is being extremely defensive. But I also think you are trying to take a short cut, since you are imagining the kinds of experience you are talking about coming from the disempowered and being directed towards a point which you find politically agreeable. But it needn't be so - though it will almost certainly always be so on Barbelith. I'm making a (probably annoying) logical nitpick and thinking of pro-life mothers, and Melanie Philips condemnation of media anti-semitism as well as the sorts of things you are probably thinking about. I also want to be honest about what I *do* think when someone presents me with experience, and that never involves simply accepting the conclusions the person might want me to.
 
 
paranoidwriter waves hello
16:38 / 24.08.06
Haus you meant this bit, right?:

"I theeenk perhaps you were asking to be shown something that Deva hadn't said you had said. It's not about knowing more about someone else's personal experience, but rather feeling more able to determine a) what the best thing is to do about somebody who is expressing -isms than the people who are actually in the groups subject to those -isms and b) the motivations behind those proposed actions (put another way, how likely is it that somebody arguing to ban 33, in this case, would state their aims in that banning as "ignorance and self-protectionism"?).

But, at the heart of this is the connection between experience of name-calling, experience of discriminiation and the link between them and responding to the latter, with and without experience thereof."

If this is the bit you mean, then, well, I believe you're wrong when you say "It's not about knowing more about someone else's personal experience", which is what I'm (admittedly) struggling to illustrate in these posts.

Therefore, my replies to a) and b) are:


"a) what the best thing is to do about somebody who is expressing -isms than the people who are actually in the groups subject to those -isms"

I thought I'd made my postion reasonably clear. Also, I thought that the "best thing is to do" is what we're all presently trying to do, i.e. work out how to deal with prejudice (etc) of all flavours and how / whether to ban members; isn't it?...


"b) the motivations behind those proposed actions (put another way, how likely is it that somebody arguing to ban 33, in this case, would state their aims in that banning as "ignorance and self-protectionism"?"

Very unlikely. But then why should they, especially if they don't think this is how they're (re)acting? Indeed, I understand (so much as is possible anyway) the motivation behind these proposed "ban hir" actions as much as I can by reading, re-reading, and questioning everything, and I will no doubt continue to learn more in the future by applying this methodology. So, do you understand the motivation behind myactions yet?


To explain further: maybe I'm wrong (I'm prepared to be), but both you (Haus) and Deva don't seem to be aknowledging or accepting my point that one cannot know better or more than someone else about their own personal experiences. I say this because, for example, Deva in an earlier post in the banning thread stated quite categorically and still hasn't (to my mind) readdressed:

"What I meant to do was explain that PW's words read to me as though he was claiming to have a better grasp on homophobia, and a more humane and helpful reaction to homophobic abuse, than someone in a less privileged position, because he had been called ugly in the past; and to say that I thought that was unhelpful. I'm sorry if that wasn't clear, and I did not mean to imply that white straight m-i posters should not have an opinion on the banning or otherwise of 33." [my italics]

Plus, Haus, earlier in this thread in regards to my language and argument, you said...

" This may not be what's being said - as I say, I don't follow the argument entirely."

...but then also said:

"... One reason why I find it problematic is that it does edge towards the idea that people without experience of prejudice are better equipped to decide how to deal with prejudice." [my italics]


So, to spiral back to Deva's original take on my point about empathy and experience:

"This statement feels to me as though you are using your own experience as the template for experiences that you have not had. And I don't think that's helpful, especially when (as Haus points out), you then say that your behaviour should be taken as a model by people who do not share in your privilege."

I want to try an reassure that I'm not saying I'm an angel or that my "behaviour should be taken as a model by people who do not share in your privilege". I just think "using your own experience as the template for experiences that you have not" can possibly be helpful, to everyone. Indeed, I believe that it is what we all do in some way every waking moment, especially when we empathise with another's albeit different experiences. I just think we might be able use this to benefit us all, especially when trying to show another how their behaviour is prejudiced (e.g. 33). For of course, one's experience is never superior to another's (that's entirely relative). However, empathy and tolerance can help you understand where another is coming from, if you try to undertsand their experiences carefully and try not discount them as invalid: mine, 33's, Deva's, Haus', Lurid's, etc. But also, as Lurid points out:

"I have no problem admitting that you know a lot more about homophobia than me, Deva, and I would respect your assessment of any instance of it which would in part inform my own. But this is a complex process, in which I don't simply bow to your own knowledge since in most discussions (like those on banning) where there is an application of that knowledge to a particular situation."

Indeed, Lurid, thanks for your contributions to this thread, you are really helping me understand the positions of Haus and Deva and myself, etc. However, I promise you, all I'm defending is a position of mutual respect, patience, and tolerance, and the potential value of empathy in understanding each other's experiences. Honest. I'm working through all this the same as anyone else here, I believe, and my aim is that we all win (so much as this is possibly, anyway). If in doing so, my points are proven incorrect or contrary to the position I want to advocate, I will happily back down and admit where and why I've gone wrong, and reassess. I expect we will all do likewise, non?

Deva, sorry, I'll try and address your last post specifically as soon as possible; but unfortunately I got side-tracked just, and I'd like to take a momentary break from this thread for reasons of perspective, and also to start thinking about how best to start a thread on the "Universal Declaration of Member's Rights" which I mentioned previously. In the meantime, please be patient and bear with my slow witted brain, and please therefore consider these words as me taking another step back for the good of the whole.
 
 
ONLY NICE THINGS
17:05 / 24.08.06
So, do you understand the motivation behind myactions yet?

Well, that's part of the problem. How about if I say that I understand your motivations to be ignorance and self-protectionism? Ignorance, let's say, of the experience of discrimination based on race, gender or sexuality - or, if you'd rather, a decision not to bring that experience to the discussion for your own reasons , that is to simulate that ignorance in your online persona - and protectionism of your status as representative of the dominant discourse and thus desire to demand that your voice is given equal weight even in matters where you do not know as much as other people? I don't, but if you're saying that you can look at the motivations of people who don't agree with you, and coincidentally they happen to appear to be motivated by ignorance and self-protectionism, a term the meaning of which I remain unclear about, where's the incentive for others to do otherwise?

To explain further: maybe I'm wrong (I'm prepared to be), but both you (Haus) and Deva don't seem to be aknowledging or accepting my point that one cannot know better or more than someone else about their own personal experiences.

Yeah. I don't think anyone has said that they can. At any point. That's the thing. You keep asking Deva to prove something that she hasn't said, and now me, and I don't understand why. I mean, I don't have a problem with the idea that one cannot know better or more than someone else ablout their own personal experience. I'd be surprised if you could find me a place where anyone has said otherwise. I'd be interested to hear whether Deva thinks that she has said this. I am quite clear that I haven't.

As such, I'm a bit confused about where to go with it, you know?
 
 
paranoidwriter waves hello
17:14 / 24.08.06
Erm.. Well, as I see it, Deva misinterpreted me in such a way that suggested I believe I can know more about someone else's experience than they do themselves. I never posited this idea, but it's one that seems to keep coming back in critisim of my points (see my last post for more details), and so I have tried repeatedly to address this falsehood.

If you agree that one cannot "know more about someone else's experience than they do themselves", and that I never said this, then I think we should move on with the general Empathy and Experience discussion we're trying to have.

Cool?

(I really am rying to step back, by the way; but, you know, 'tis difficult when you're being addressed directly as it can appear rude or ignorant to not reply; and well I like you all enough to be concerned about all this.)
 
 
Cat Chant
20:23 / 24.08.06
Deva doesn't seem to be aknowledging or accepting my point that one cannot know better or more than someone else about their own personal experiences. I say this because, for example, Deva in an earlier post in the banning thread stated quite categorically and still hasn't (to my mind) readdressed:

"What I meant to do was explain that PW's words read to me as though he was claiming to have a better grasp on homophobia, and a more humane and helpful reaction to homophobic abuse, than someone in a less privileged position"

Okay, I have a few things to say, but I just want to clear this up. What I said, as you can see from your own quotation of it, was not that you claimed to know more about someone else's experience, but that you claimed to know more about homophobia. Experience is one of the sources from which we gain knowledge about the thing, homophobia. I don't understand where this misreading came from (how can you cut-and-paste a thing saying 'you know more about homophobia' and claim that it says 'you know more about other people's experience'? That's a genuine question, by the way: I presume some kind of conceptual miscommunication is going on here, otherwise this misreading of what I said wouldn't have persisted for so long, or become so important to you.)

One cannot have access to another person's experience except in mediated form, and one cannot know more about it than that person does.* The problem that I have with your stance, paranoidwriter, is that you seem still to be convinced that you can know more about homophobia, and deal with it more effectively, from analogy with your own experience of other 'prejudices' than from listening to people who have experienced homophobia, specifically. (Again, whether or not you have, in fact, experienced homophobia, you have chosen not to argue on that basis, but on the basis of other forms of 'prejudice' and 'oppression' you have suffered.)

So when you say:

using your own experience as the template for experiences that you have not had" can possibly be helpful, to everyone.

I disagree, again, very strongly. What would be more helpful to everyone would be if we all tried to modify our 'templates' by the real, hard work of empathy and listening to people who have had the experiences we are struggling to comprehend.

Just to finish: yes, I agree that one cannot "know more about someone else's experience than they do themselves", and that I [paranoidwriter] never said this, and indeed I [Deva] never said it either, and nor did Haus, and that's my last word on that particular point.

*though if that's true, what am I paying my counsellor for?
 
 
paranoidwriter waves hello
00:14 / 25.08.06
Deva, sorry, I REALLY don't want to wind you up. However, I've read and re-read this thread a nuumber of times (and the others), and maybe I'm being web-blind again, but:

"What I said, as you can see from your own quotation of it, was not that you claimed to know more about someone else's experience, but that you claimed to know more about homophobia ... " [my italics]

Please show me where I've said this. Maybe use quotes or a link? I still sincerely and with no malice think you are still misreading me. Either that, or something in me is making me not see that I've said what you said I've said in some round about way or another. Seriously, I don't want to annoy or offend you, I'm trying to better understand the rights and wrongs of all this (including my own behaviour).

e.g. Was it the following sentence in my comment in the "We need to talk about 33 thread?"?

PW: " I feel very fortunate, therefore, that I don't have to face such extreme negativity on a daily basis, and would dearly love us all to share in this privileged position"

If it was, I can undertsand your misinterpretation. However, please note, as far as I can see I never said I know "more" about anything than somebody else (apart from my own personal experience, of course).

Help? (sincerely)
 
 
paranoidwriter waves hello
00:31 / 25.08.06
Ahh.... Or was it the next few sentences from that post:

So how do we start? How does one solve a problem like the one we've had with 33? With more ignorance and self-protectionism, or with even more understanding and patience?

If so, I assure you I wasn't saying I am more ignorant, self-protecting, understanding and / or patient than anyone else. It was a question about how should "we" respond to potential cases of banning. Honest.

Hope this post (and my previous ones) helps clear this up and that they don't screw up the topic of this thread up even more than I've done already. And, Deva, Haus, Lurid, 33, etc: I'm sending you my sincerest best wishes as I type this.
 
  
Add Your Reply