![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
A Non-Defense of the Organization for Transformative Works
This is not a post defending the Organization for Transformative Works (a fan-run pro-fanfic nonprofit organization, if you're out of the loop). The OTW should be quite thankful about that fact, because frankly the OTW doesn't want me (or, more accurately, shouldn't want me) defending them. I'm a crap apologist, because I'm an intellectual radical and I can't hide that fact to save my life, even if I'm arguing with my brother over who should do the dishes, because the reason he can't see why he should do them is totally because he's operating under a correspondence theory of truth (without knowing it) when he should be going for standpoint epistemology, or some such. A conversation about evangelical Christianity's stance on homosexuality inevitably becomes one about whether there was a historical Jesus of Nazareth. And so on.
And God help me, I hadn't even finished the first paragraph of this post and I've already invoked Sandra Harding. Other than the fact that I am male, I am in some ways exactly the sort of academic (though, truly, I'm not really, as I'm only a grad student, and a just starting one at that) that OTW's critics see lurking behind every corner of the org. So the OTW really shouldn't want me defending them.
So I'm not going to defend the OTW. I'm not even sure I want to; if you go to the original post(s?) in![[livejournal.com profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/external/lj-userinfo.gif)
astolat's journal, you'll find me there (naturally), offering up criticisms of the project from the get-go and providing my reservations. (I will say that what comforts me more than anything else is the knowledge that the new archive will be run on open-source software. The OTW's goal is not to hegemonize and never was--and if they end up deciding they can't or won't host chan, somebody else will be able to use the code to do so. Same for having underaged readers.)
Okay, I've gone on for three paragraphs about what I'm not doing, and this is the fourth. What I will do in this post is respond to certain elements of the discussion that has arisen over the Organization for Transformative works and give my perspective on a couple of issues and why I think my view is the correct one.
No one who knows me will be surprised that the main conversation with which I'm concerned is the one over the gender issue--the claim, seemingly based on a single line in its mission statement, "We value our identity as a predominantly female community with a rich history of creativity and commentary"--that the OTW is sexist, excludes men, or cetera. Now the org has been remarkably (and to me, frustratingly) inclusive in its response to said criticism. The official part line on the "female identity" line is that it is a reference to a historically true fact which is thus ideologically neutral.
The OTW has not trotted out feminist theory and explained in those terms why its positions are correct and necessary, which you would think thy would do if the entire project is composed only of acafans (as some have claimed). Instead, it has done its best to present its mission statement in a way which would be palatable to people who hold a number of differing ideologies, even if some of those ideologies are from a certain perspective (i.e., mine) wrong. They'd make very good Episcopalians, I think.
I told you I'm a crap apologist; I can't leave it at that. Maybe the line in the mission statement is ideologically neutral, maybe it isn't. I don't think it matters, because there is a correct ideological position from which perspective the line is appropriate.
If we remember back to the major race discussions which took place a few months ago originating in the Stargate Atlantis fandom and then spreading like wildfire through my flist, we'll rememberhederahelix's eloquent advocacy of the definition of systemic injustice as the intersection of discrimination and power:
The question is not, cannot be, "Would this be just in an already just society?" Putting Supergirl in a short skirt, or giving Powergirl big breasts, would be neutral acts in an already just society: some women wear short skirts and some have big breasts, and that's okay. But we don't live in a just society, and asking what we would do then blinds us to the pattern of oppression these facts form into today. Similarly, some actions are called for today as reactionary measures which would not be appropriate in a feminist utopia. Fandom's female identity is one of these things.
That's the argument OTW doesn't want to make, because not everyone agrees with it, and which of course it doesn't have to make, because they're not excluding men. They're not catering to men, of course, and in a world of rampant male privilege that might be felt as exclusion, ascereta documents in her post Fandom and Male Privilege. And I know firsthand what that feels like, being male, and it's not fun, especially not at first. But it's not exclusion. The OTW has male members working on its volunteer staff, serving on committees. Its mission statement states that:
I believe in what Helene Cixous called the laugh of the Medusa: the radical, revisionary possibilities of a community of women writing, especially about sex. I believe that whatcupidsbow calls "amazing outpouring of female talent" in How Fanfiction Makes Us Poor has the power to change the world and is valuable from a feminist perspective. In her post Is Medusa Still Laughing?, kbusse writes:
If you disagree with me on this, I think you're wrong, but I love you anyway. I have had very productive discussions with people on my flist who disagree with me on the role of power in human society. And OTW may still be for you--as I've said, it is way more inclusive of differing points of view that I am, and as in one of my good moods I recognize an organization should and must be if it is going to function. Even if you disagree with the importance of privileging fandom's female identity doesn't take change the coolness of a new archive, journal, or wiki.
This sort of brings me to my second issue, which is the relationship between radical theory (e.g., my feminism) and liberal activism (An Archive of Our Own). For the people who believe that the OTW as an organization is in some ways a betrayal of the anarchic ethos of fandom, I am profoundly sympathetic. Liberalism and radicalism always tend to exist in an uneasy tension with each other, and my temperament is to be a radical. (If for no other reason than that I am still young.) And yet for all that I am a radical--my brand of feminism is not the "liberal feminism" of the ERA brand (that's my mother's feminism)--I can see the good work that liberal feminism has done: suffrage, anti-discrimination laws, assurance of basic rights like holding property and not being raped. So too can I see the compromises with authority which brought about these reforms, and problematize them--and problematize them I do! But that does not change the fact that the plight of women is better than it was 100 years ago, for all the fact that the feminist movement consisted for much of that time of middle-class white (heterosexual) women who, no, did not speak for all women.
Liberalism is necessary for concrete change, but radicalism is the vision which both motivates it and critiques it. And, oddly enough, it is the theoreticians and acafans who are keeping that vision alive. The OTW is in the not-so-strange spot of being attacked from both the left and the right: it is being attacked for being comprised of acafan who think fandom is subversive, and also by fans who do not think the OTW is subversive enough, as it tries to use the master's tools to tear down the master's house.
The goals of the OTW are not as ambitious as those of 20th-century liberal feminism, but they are concrete and useful: an archive, a journal, a defense fund, a wiki. In all of the discussions over the motivating ideologies of the org, these concrete tasks--which all really the only thing the org has in common (two fans, three opinions)--keep getting lost. The criticisms of the OTW most often appear to rest on what it appears to be, to think, to want--and not on what it is doing. (Not much yet. Give it a few months.) This is, I think, a mistake, confusing the radical vision with the liberal nature of an organization. The OTW is not some massive machine which thinks and desires in unison, but a group of people united around a (mostly concrete) set of goals.
I think I was the first person to make the comparison to the ACLU, in December, here, althhough I've seen it made since. The ACLU is an organization which is commonly understood to be motivated by a certain type of ideological agenda, but it is not a "Living Document Constitutional Interpretation Club" or some such. Instead, its members are united in their support of the concrete work that the ACLU does, to the point that people who do not share the perceived ideology can and do support the organization, and the organization (famously) serves even those who do not share the organization's perspectives. And even within the group of people who do share the dominant ideology, there are differences in emphasis. I care much more about free speech (it wasStrikethrough2007 that encouraged me to send my dues off for the first time) and gay/lesbian rights than I do supporting affirmative actions or opposing the death penalty; another ACLU member's priorities will be different.
I think the OTW is going to be a lot like that. I'm not defending them, mind you; I'm just calling it like I see it.
And God help me, I hadn't even finished the first paragraph of this post and I've already invoked Sandra Harding. Other than the fact that I am male, I am in some ways exactly the sort of academic (though, truly, I'm not really, as I'm only a grad student, and a just starting one at that) that OTW's critics see lurking behind every corner of the org. So the OTW really shouldn't want me defending them.
So I'm not going to defend the OTW. I'm not even sure I want to; if you go to the original post(s?) in
astolat's journal, you'll find me there (naturally), offering up criticisms of the project from the get-go and providing my reservations. (I will say that what comforts me more than anything else is the knowledge that the new archive will be run on open-source software. The OTW's goal is not to hegemonize and never was--and if they end up deciding they can't or won't host chan, somebody else will be able to use the code to do so. Same for having underaged readers.)Okay, I've gone on for three paragraphs about what I'm not doing, and this is the fourth. What I will do in this post is respond to certain elements of the discussion that has arisen over the Organization for Transformative works and give my perspective on a couple of issues and why I think my view is the correct one.
No one who knows me will be surprised that the main conversation with which I'm concerned is the one over the gender issue--the claim, seemingly based on a single line in its mission statement, "We value our identity as a predominantly female community with a rich history of creativity and commentary"--that the OTW is sexist, excludes men, or cetera. Now the org has been remarkably (and to me, frustratingly) inclusive in its response to said criticism. The official part line on the "female identity" line is that it is a reference to a historically true fact which is thus ideologically neutral.
The OTW has not trotted out feminist theory and explained in those terms why its positions are correct and necessary, which you would think thy would do if the entire project is composed only of acafans (as some have claimed). Instead, it has done its best to present its mission statement in a way which would be palatable to people who hold a number of differing ideologies, even if some of those ideologies are from a certain perspective (i.e., mine) wrong. They'd make very good Episcopalians, I think.
I told you I'm a crap apologist; I can't leave it at that. Maybe the line in the mission statement is ideologically neutral, maybe it isn't. I don't think it matters, because there is a correct ideological position from which perspective the line is appropriate.
If we remember back to the major race discussions which took place a few months ago originating in the Stargate Atlantis fandom and then spreading like wildfire through my flist, we'll remember
hederahelix's eloquent advocacy of the definition of systemic injustice as the intersection of discrimination and power: Any personal dislike that gets elevated to an oppression (with a capital O) is never just the action of a handful of individuals. It is a prejudice that gets writ large into society as a whole. Racism gets woven into the very fabric of life in the United States. Sexism permeates the very air we breathe. Homophobia becomes so pervasive and insidious that it becomes like background noise to everything else. Metaphors that reveal abilityism become so commonplace that it’s like being in a room with a smell for too long; when that happens, our nerves that sense a scent overload and refuse to notice them anymore. Anti-Semitism plays into stereotypes in such subtle ways that if you didn’t know what to look for, you’d never even notice it (Watto in The Phantom Menace for example, replicates anti-Semitism in his manners and his speech patterns.)Sexism is a systemic superstructure of male privilege, and it exists in the world. I have been the recipient of that privilege, and fandom has helped me to understand in some small part what it feels to not have it (something for which I am eternally grateful). Resistant measures intended to combat the overarching superstructure are not sexist. Thus the OTW could be excluding men and that would be okay.
The question is not, cannot be, "Would this be just in an already just society?" Putting Supergirl in a short skirt, or giving Powergirl big breasts, would be neutral acts in an already just society: some women wear short skirts and some have big breasts, and that's okay. But we don't live in a just society, and asking what we would do then blinds us to the pattern of oppression these facts form into today. Similarly, some actions are called for today as reactionary measures which would not be appropriate in a feminist utopia. Fandom's female identity is one of these things.
That's the argument OTW doesn't want to make, because not everyone agrees with it, and which of course it doesn't have to make, because they're not excluding men. They're not catering to men, of course, and in a world of rampant male privilege that might be felt as exclusion, as
cereta documents in her post Fandom and Male Privilege. And I know firsthand what that feels like, being male, and it's not fun, especially not at first. But it's not exclusion. The OTW has male members working on its volunteer staff, serving on committees. Its mission statement states that:"We value infinite diversity in infinite combinations. We value all fans engaged in transformative work: fans of any race, gender, culture, sexual identity, or ability. We value the unhindered cross-pollination and exchange of fannish ideas and cultures while seeking to avoid the homogenization or centralization of fandom."While men are certainly welcome (and again, I can say this firsthand), it is simply recognize that in a world where everything else is run by men for men's purposes, this is a female space.
I believe in what Helene Cixous called the laugh of the Medusa: the radical, revisionary possibilities of a community of women writing, especially about sex. I believe that what
cupidsbow calls "amazing outpouring of female talent" in How Fanfiction Makes Us Poor has the power to change the world and is valuable from a feminist perspective. In her post Is Medusa Still Laughing?, kbusse writes:There clearly is a long tradition of connecting male AUTHORity with its ever-present tool of the PENSome might argue that OTW shouldn't be a feminist organization. I disagree. I think that every organization should be a feminist organization, and that the OTW is not feminist enough. (This is not a defense, remember?) The Roman Catholic Church should be a feminist organization, although it sadly isn't. The Cato Institute should be a feminist organization. The only reason NAMBLA shouldn't be a feminist organization is that it probably shouldn't exist at all in the first place. There are normative ethics at work here; I am not a relativist.isand the history of female reading pleasure and sexuality has long been explored (see, for example, Lacqeur’s fascinating Solitary Sex, which discusses the assumed dangers of novel reading as mastubatory practice). While media fan studies has avoided the “slash is subversive” argument since Jones at least, I’m wondering whether we’ve dismissed it too eagerly after all. Because women writing their desires, writing their bodies, writing for their bodies, might not be as acceptable as we tend to assume it is at this point in time within the fanfic community.
If you disagree with me on this, I think you're wrong, but I love you anyway. I have had very productive discussions with people on my flist who disagree with me on the role of power in human society. And OTW may still be for you--as I've said, it is way more inclusive of differing points of view that I am, and as in one of my good moods I recognize an organization should and must be if it is going to function. Even if you disagree with the importance of privileging fandom's female identity doesn't take change the coolness of a new archive, journal, or wiki.
This sort of brings me to my second issue, which is the relationship between radical theory (e.g., my feminism) and liberal activism (An Archive of Our Own). For the people who believe that the OTW as an organization is in some ways a betrayal of the anarchic ethos of fandom, I am profoundly sympathetic. Liberalism and radicalism always tend to exist in an uneasy tension with each other, and my temperament is to be a radical. (If for no other reason than that I am still young.) And yet for all that I am a radical--my brand of feminism is not the "liberal feminism" of the ERA brand (that's my mother's feminism)--I can see the good work that liberal feminism has done: suffrage, anti-discrimination laws, assurance of basic rights like holding property and not being raped. So too can I see the compromises with authority which brought about these reforms, and problematize them--and problematize them I do! But that does not change the fact that the plight of women is better than it was 100 years ago, for all the fact that the feminist movement consisted for much of that time of middle-class white (heterosexual) women who, no, did not speak for all women.
Liberalism is necessary for concrete change, but radicalism is the vision which both motivates it and critiques it. And, oddly enough, it is the theoreticians and acafans who are keeping that vision alive. The OTW is in the not-so-strange spot of being attacked from both the left and the right: it is being attacked for being comprised of acafan who think fandom is subversive, and also by fans who do not think the OTW is subversive enough, as it tries to use the master's tools to tear down the master's house.
The goals of the OTW are not as ambitious as those of 20th-century liberal feminism, but they are concrete and useful: an archive, a journal, a defense fund, a wiki. In all of the discussions over the motivating ideologies of the org, these concrete tasks--which all really the only thing the org has in common (two fans, three opinions)--keep getting lost. The criticisms of the OTW most often appear to rest on what it appears to be, to think, to want--and not on what it is doing. (Not much yet. Give it a few months.) This is, I think, a mistake, confusing the radical vision with the liberal nature of an organization. The OTW is not some massive machine which thinks and desires in unison, but a group of people united around a (mostly concrete) set of goals.
I think I was the first person to make the comparison to the ACLU, in December, here, althhough I've seen it made since. The ACLU is an organization which is commonly understood to be motivated by a certain type of ideological agenda, but it is not a "Living Document Constitutional Interpretation Club" or some such. Instead, its members are united in their support of the concrete work that the ACLU does, to the point that people who do not share the perceived ideology can and do support the organization, and the organization (famously) serves even those who do not share the organization's perspectives. And even within the group of people who do share the dominant ideology, there are differences in emphasis. I care much more about free speech (it was
I think the OTW is going to be a lot like that. I'm not defending them, mind you; I'm just calling it like I see it.
no subject
I'm not sure how that fits with:
The ACLU perhaps only "represents" a certain liberal mentality, but it serves "all" American citizens, e.g. it has defended conservative Christians in court, based on the ideals it does represent
(To put this in context: I'm not american. My understanding of both the ALCU and your local brand of conservatives is based mostly on tv and metafandom etc, so I have probably just missed your point :))
As far as I can tell: The ALCU defends civil liberties. Anyone who agrees with that stance is welcome to join and get involved, whether or not they are otherwise liberal. But since most of the people who are in favour of civil liberties in general (rather than just their own) are liberals, the organisation has a fairly liberal slant.
In contrast: OTW defends transformative works. Anyone who agrees with that stance is welcome to join and get involved, whether or not they are into fanfic etc as long as they see fandom as a female space. Most of the people who have started the OTW are female and into fanfic, so it has a female/fanfic focus, even though transformative fandoms in general are not primarily female and fanfic is just one of many types of transformative work.
I expect the female meta/fanfiction community to remain at the center of the org
Why? If this is the organisation for all transformative works, why can't (possibly male) people from very-far-from-fanfic-fandom end up dominating? There's an awful lot of them. And if they are explicitly made second class citizens, how is that fair? Why do fanfic writers get more power than AMV makers? What about male fanfic writers and female AMV makers? Do they have to pretend that AMV making is a "female space" to be allowed in?
See, the organisation being feminist I am 100% behind, even if 90% of it's membership end up being male, because like you I think every organisation should be feminist. But that's not the same as being a female space, and that phrase to me has implications which are only tangentially related to gender.
The reason this matters to me is that while I may read fanfic and hang about with fanfic/metafandomy types, pretty much all of the "transformative works" I create are not part of this fanficcy community, and mostly come from male dominated places (e.g.
no subject
Similarly, everyone will be welcomed as OTW members (as I understand it) even if they reservations as to the vision which motivates. It is certainly possible that enough people who don't share the vision will become members as to radically change it from what is now; I don't expect it to happen, but it's not impossible.
Everybody will be allowed to use the archive. Anyone who pays $10 will be a member. At least, that's how it was explained to me.
no subject
Still, I wonder how civil liberty loving conservative gun owners feel about this organisation for "everyone" not really speaking for them(*). And does the ACLU charter have anything directly implying the whole civil-liberties-does-not-mean-less-gun-laws thing, or is it just an organic growth of the focus of the organisation? Does it say, in effect, "We value our identity as a predominantly liberal community"?
I think I'm going to have to ponder this whole OTW thing some more. Hmm. Still, afaict the ALCU's choices seemed based on ideology, while a lot of OTWs feel more like cliquishness and "If I don't find it interesting it doesn't count". But I may be reading too much into things.
(*)It feels odd to try to put myself in the mindset of a civil liberty loving conservative gun owner but such exercises are good for the mind :)