BARBELITH underground
 

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


Underground > Temple >

Huggle A Muggle

  
  

Page: 123(4)

 
 
Glenn Close But No Cigar
09:37 / 21.12.06
Ember, I think it might be worth reading (or re-reading, if you already have done so) Said's book. He's not exactly writing about guidebooks to Japan...

That aside, I find it curious that you persist in hanging onto the use of the word 'mundane', especially after several people here (all of whom, I think, have treated you with sympathy) have pointed out that it's at best an unwise word to employ to refer to what you perceive to be those-who-are-not-you-and-your-mates.

Fen is a culture, sure, but in the same way the art world is, or sports fandom is, or Emo is, or whatever. What it is not is a systematically oppressed or persecuted culture, however much you or anyone else may wish for it to be so. It is an opt-in culture. Individual X does not choose to be Native American, individual Y does not choose to be gay, but individual Z does choose to be Fen. You yourself go some way to prove this when you speak about the 'standard range' of hair colours not including green dreadlocks. Well no it doesn't. One has to opt to have green dreadlocks - it is an aesthetic decision, much as wearing Nikes is, or wearing an 'I'm with Stupid' t-shirt, or wearing faithfully recreated Renaissance britches.

Now, from what I know Fen is a culture that seeks to quite strictly taxonomise its members / non-members, so that one might be a 'Neo' (neophyte, or new fan), a 'Media' (derogatory term for a fan who prefers non-literary forms), BNF (Big Name Fan), SMOF (Secret Master of Fandom) etc. What I'd like to draw your attention to here is the emphasis in this language on rank and by extension exclusion, and your use of 'mundane' is absolutely of a piece with that culture. Maybe it's worth reflecting what role ranking and excluding serves in any given culture, other than as a technology of control.

Now, I'm not going to identify 'mundane' as hate-speech, because the power relations involved are not sufficient to give it that weight, but it is, in its unserious way, problematic, not least of all for you. You've written earlier in this thread that 'mundane' culture is something that you in some unspecified way wish to connect to. I'd say that one of the best ways of doing this is to drop the false barriers you've erected between 'Fen' and 'mundane', and enlarge your notion of the 'standard range' to encompass a wider spectrum of human behaviours. If you're unable to do this, I'd perhaps suggest it's because you are attracted to an opt-in (and hence false) 'outsider' position because you fine a certain glamour therein.
 
 
EmberLeo
10:18 / 21.12.06
and enlarge your notion of the 'standard range' to encompass a wider spectrum of human behaviours.

It's not my idea of what's normal or not that gets me into trouble from the outside in. I am told by people that I am not normal, and if I was, then I wouldn't make various mistakes of whatever kind.

As for the rest: Resistant or otherwise, I thought one of the points brought up is that we are here to explore the idea thoroughly. I am being as thorough as possible in exploring how I use "Mundane" and why I'm reluctant to stop - even if, intellectually, I may see reason for it.

Are you calling me to task for not giving in sooner to all these sympathetic people?

--Ember--
 
 
EmberLeo
10:23 / 21.12.06
It is an opt-in culture. Individual X does not choose to be Native American, individual Y does not choose to be gay, but individual Z does choose to be Fen.

Hmm, this is correct to an extent, but not entirely.

First of all, Fandom as a culture (as opposed to the shared hobbies that prompted it's establishment) tends to attract a particular kind of person because they already have the social tendancies I'm referring to. As such, those tendancies are not chosen. Secondly, I know people who are third-generation Fen, and I'm Second gen. It's arguable that we didn't choose our cultural context, or the resulting consequences.

--Ember--
 
 
EmberLeo
11:14 / 21.12.06
enlarge your notion of the 'standard range' to encompass a wider spectrum of human behaviours. If you're unable to do this, I'd perhaps suggest it's because you are attracted to an opt-in (and hence false) 'outsider' position because you fine a certain glamour therein.

I think you're not understanding that the "standard range" I'm referring to is the sort used by professional psychologists to define normative vs. maladaptive behavior and cognition. It's not up to me to define that range.

I tried to go to sleep, but I was pondering how I could possibly opt out of Fandom, and the scope of what that would do to my life was kind of daunting. I think it's safe to say that 90% of my social life is with fannish people, and a great deal of my connection to my own mother is in our shared Fannish traits and persuits.

If I opted into anything in my life right now, it's my religion and my love life. I suppose that's ironic. While I could live without Polyamory (unlike others I know), I wouldn't want to try and stop being Pagan.

So I'm trying to figure - are you not in a position to see what I'm seeing, and are making an assumption that because the concept of Fandom starts with hobbies, it's optional for everyone involved, or are you actually well aware of the nature of Fandom, and discounting it?

I think it might be worth reading (or re-reading, if you already have done so) Said's book. He's not exactly writing about guidebooks to Japan...

I didn't say he was. I said Okay, and fair enough. But is every book about Japanese culture written for a Western audience for this purpose? Should books not be written that explore the culture on behalf of those who aren't a part of it, because that's too much emphasis on the differences between people, and it's better if we don't look too hard at them? What if I am planning a trip to Japan soon, and need to know how to handle myself while I'm there?

individual Z does choose to be Fen. ... one might be a 'Neo' (neophyte, or new fan), a 'Media' (derogatory term for a fan who prefers non-literary forms), BNF (Big Name Fan), SMOF (Secret Master of Fandom) etc

[pedantic slang nitpick] "Fen" is the plural of "Fan" as far as I've ever heard or used. Individuals choose to be Fannish - or are raised to be Fannish, or discover that they're Fannish because Fandom is the only community they have access to that will accept them. (No, I'm not exaggerating, although I'm not saying everyone in Fandom has that much trouble.)

BNFs and SMOFs are familiar to me. I've never heard anyone called a "Neo" around here, but maybe it just hasn't reached me yet. I've heard pure Media Cons - especially those run by industry professionals, rather than the volunteer fan base - distained by traditionalists, but I've not heard people labelled as such. That attitude has faded somewhat as more good Sci-Fi has been on television and more good Fantasy has reached Hollywood to attract more Media fans.[/PSN]

--Ember--
 
 
Glenn Close But No Cigar
12:48 / 21.12.06
Ember, thanks for your response. I've taken your observations / corrections about fandom as you experience it on board, and I think it's time to do some unpacking.

Fandom is a culture, I agree, that's at times above and beyond hobbyism. So is Sports Fandom. I know third generation supporters of a football team, for example. They have shared references (knowledge of the team's history), a shared aesthetic (they wear the team's colours, or particular 'casual' brands that have become identified with the team), define themselves against other teams ('I am a Liverpool fan because I hate Everton') and have a passion for their team / sport that - although I find it hard to share - extends beyond mere hobbyism and into the realms of deep emotional response. They'd find it hard, I think, to opt out of supporting team x, especially considering their father and grandfather's likely negative response to this, and that of their friends. None of this, however, gives them any right at all to use derogatory language against supporters of other teams, or those with not interest in football. I'll also say that it's still a whole lot easier to opt-out of fandom, or of supporting a football team, than to opt out of one's race or sexuality.

Nobody is asking you to opt out of fandom, and it's hard to tell whether you want to do this or not (you appear to be quite conflicted on this matter, and I hope it's not making you unhappy). All anybody is suggesting you do is to drop the derogatory term 'mundane', not least because it may open up a little more of the world for you.

Anecdotally, I know it to be true that fandom does attract some individuals who for whatever reason feel that they are not accepted by 'mainstream' culture, and for them it is feels like a safe place, which is in its limited way a positive thing. I don't think, however, that it necessarily follows that they were always at heart 'fannish', and that fandom has allowed them to explore their 'inner-fan', because no such thing exists, just as there is no such thing as a 'mundane'. If it's raining I might take shelter in a cave, but that doesn't mean there aren't other, perhaps more healthier-in-the-long-term places to shelter, and it certainly doesn't mean I'm a troglodyte.

Ember, it's very clear that this is an important issue for you, and moreover a personal one. I have no disrespect for you or your culture, and equally I hope you have no disrespect for me. As you may have gathered, I am not involved in fandom. Does that make me a 'mundane', and if so would you explain exactly what you mean by that, and why I should be content for you to use that derogatory word to describe me, or anybody else?
 
 
EmberLeo
20:10 / 21.12.06
None of this, however, gives them any right at all to use derogatory language against supporters of other teams, or those with not interest in football. I'll also say that it's still a whole lot easier to opt-out of fandom, or of supporting a football team, than to opt out of one's race or sexuality.

You are absoloutely correct, and I never dissagreed. My argument has never been that it's okay to use deliberately derogatory language. I had two main arguments that were basically in the form of questions: 1) Does "Mundane" (used as a noun) have to be derogatory, or is it a function of context? and 2) What then can I call the concept in my head that I'm trying to address that wouldn't be considered derogatory?

Neither of those is intended to ask permission to look down on people.

(you appear to be quite conflicted on this matter, and I hope it's not making you unhappy)

Oh it's definitely making me unhappy. I come from a very mixed family racially and sexually speaking, so I have it very thoroughly drilled into my psyche that PREJUDICE IS VERY VERY BAD AND ONLY BAD PEOPLE ARE PREJUDICED. Capitals and all. However, I'm not upset with folk for bringing it up, I'm upset at the prospect that I've been unintentionally intolerant all this time out of a stupid habit that's going to be a difficult to break.

because no such thing exists, just as there is no such thing as a 'mundane'.

I'm realizing that "Mundane" is a sort of Archetype to me, or something - not a god, more of a Platonic Ideal of American Mainstream Behavior (or whatever it should be called). I have always known that no one person is perfectly Mundane. As such it is easy to acknowledge that there are no true Mundanes.

I recognise that the only people who seem Mundane to me (whether I call them that or not) are:
1: Those who choose to call themselves such because they are close to Fandom and feel a need to differentiate themselves (my sister, my student's husband)
2: People where I have such a limited context for them, and it's a common public context, (like a restaurant, or the DMV) and they don't exhibit any fannish behaviors or difficulty getting along in that context (i.e. "normal" people).
and (here's the troubling bit)
3: Those who explain to me that my behavior is not normal, and should more closely resemble theirs or their expectations (usually in a "Mundane" context like school or an office.) Those are the kinds of folks who say things like "Don't pretend you don't know what I'm talking about - it's common sense!" and "If you were normal, this wouldn't confuse you. You need therapy" and "You're a Computer Geek, so you will never really understand art. Everybody else gets it, so you should just accept that I'm right and stop asking questions.")

I know that the third category is what creates the problem, and also that prompts me to categorize and try to observe the second category in an effort to figure out how they do it better than I do. I particularly admire people I percieve as Fannish who are able to completely hide it and "Masquerade Mundane" to get along happily in the world. I have a handfull of friends I have been trying to learn this from for over 10 years now, and they have contributed significantly to my maturity, but I seem to have limits (including Hypersensitivity, a mild symptom of Autism.)

I know that because "Mundane" is a model, not a person, I never really expect anybody to fully embody the concept. I can't recall ever refusing to get to know somebody because I percieved them as Mundane. I can recall being afraid to interact with a group of people I percieved as Mundane, because I was certain I would offend them by accident even if I carefully monitored my behavior, never brought up my hobbies, and never used any Fannish slang. That comes primarily from the fact that I have experienced that pattern repeatedly over the years. I am learning, however, that the kind of person who reacts particularly poorly to me, although they consider themselves "normal" isn't actually representative of the archetype I've constructed and am trying to grok.

Does this make any sense?

I have no disrespect for you or your culture, and equally I hope you have no disrespect for me.

I'm pretty much reciprocal in this regard - I have no disrespect for folks who give me no reason to disrespect them. (Alas, the nature and display of respect is another thing I've been banging my head against most of my life. I have very clear ideas, philosophically, about what "respect" and "admiration" signify, but I get called to task regularly for not displaying respectful behavior enough in contexts where I percieve their expectations as disrespectful to myself. *Sigh* But that's another thread.)

If you have no issue with me, then I have no issue with you, and it's all good. I'm just afraid that I come across as a horrible person because I'm wrestling with this one thing when it's not typical of my overall behavior to have labels like this that I won't let go, you know?

All that said, I think I've done all I can here to explore and explain what's going on in my psyche on this subject. The rest is up to me to finish wrestling and choose a course of action.

--Ember--
 
 
calgodot
16:52 / 24.12.06
Anyone who uses the term "muggle" in any but a humorous context is very mundane.

There may indeed be a human need to classify, categorize, and then objectify everything in the universe. Such a need is obviously "common," and therefore "mundane."

Bigotry (regarding oneself as superior to some group, or some group as inferior to another) is ordinary and unimaginative; therefore "mundane." If you're seeing others being "mundane," and feel driven to call them "mundanes," then you are (as others have pointed out) yourself being "mundane," and thus "a mundane," no matter how many Crowley books sit on your shelf.

What do I call people who don't study or practice magic? "People."
 
 
Char Aina
17:17 / 24.12.06
My argument has never been that it's okay to use deliberately derogatory language.

why do you think you added a 'deliberately'?
the original that you quoted said None of this, however, gives them any right at all to use derogatory language.

did you know you were changing the meaning like that?
 
 
Unconditional Love
07:04 / 25.12.06
Land of the dead, is a good movie all about the process of othering, amongst other things, Zzzzzombies!
 
  

Page: 123(4)

 
  
Add Your Reply