A Non-Defense of the Organization for Transformative Works

[alixtii]

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 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 PENis and 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.

Some 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.

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 Strikethrough2007 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.

Comments

[alixtii.livejournal.com]

Rest assured, I had outlined this post long before reading yours. And I want to reiterate that the further marginalization of marginalized peoples is a moral evil and I don't doubt that you've felt that, and I am sorry for it.

I think you're right that OTW excludes people who are not part of its fannish history, and I agree with you that that's not in itself problematic. I don't see where they are trying to represent people beyond that, though. I particularly remember the discussions over "media fandom" which especially showed the commitment was to a particular community with a particular documented history rather than trying to embrace everyone who had ever tried to do something fannish. Not to mention ComRel's (top-level post) statrement here: "The OTW of course does not represent all of fandom, as no one entity can make that claim. But we hope that many of you will find enough common ground with these goals to continue to support and participate in the OTW."

[alchemia.livejournal.com]

OK, cool. I only guessed because I hadn't seen many posts that were not pro-otw. I don't suppose you could point me to some of the others that prompted your post?

I don't see where they are trying to represent people beyond that, though. I particularly remember the discussions over "media fandom" which especially showed the commitment was to a particular community...

Media fandom is only mentioned in one place on the OTW site: in Francesca Coppa's bio. The only other use of media (not counting where it's used talking about the outside press etc) is here: "We value transformative fanworks and the innovative communities from which they have arisen, including media, real person fiction, anime, comics, music and vidding." Its not clear to me how its meant here. Do they value "media" as something fan's do or create (the way "vidding" is), in which case- what exactly is a fan creating/doing when they "media"? Or do they mean media as the original source material a fandom springs up around, in which case a. what original source does "vidding" refer to and b. when did anime and comics become predominantly female communities with a female history? I'm also not clear on if book fandoms are covered, like HP or LotR, which are unquestionably huge fandoms but developed independently of the historically female dominated media fandoms.

There was something about being "inclusive" of all fen's identities i believe on the website, but now I'm searching for it and can't find it. Either I've confused where this was said or it was taken out.

On the "about" page, phrases like this: "OTW was created to work toward a future in which all fannish works are recognized as... and to preserve our fannish economy, values, and way of life [etc]..., while providing the broadest possible access to fannish activity for all fans." and that they'll be "...preserving the history of fanworks and fan culture in its myriad forms" Or on the wiki page "Authorship of the wiki will be encouraged from any and all fans"

So all those things together give me me a mixed message of intending to be inclusive of ALL fen and fandoms, and excluding of those that don't share their female history or identities.

[alixtii.livejournal.com]

But those uses of "all" don't imply representation. 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. Every instance of "all" you citye can easily be followed by some form of "not just ours"/"not just us."

There have been many pro-OTW posts in the last week, as the result of a coordinated (if you can call it that) effort, but I was responding mainly to older posts from December, and to the conversation which took place in the comments of various otw_news posts. It seemed to me like there were very many voices accusing OTW of sexism or of excluding men.

[alchemia.livejournal.com]

Since a number of people are getting a different impression, maybe they should clarify on the website who they represent and serve.

I was responding mainly to older posts from December...

Oh ok, I wasn't thinking back far enough.

[alixtii.livejournal.com]

I still think it's fairly clear, although you'rew right of course people seem to be misunderstanding. But they serve everyone and they represent those who share their vision (just like the ACLU)....

Some of the "is OTW subversive enough?" came as a reaction to ethrosdemon's and dkompare's posts (and the comments thereto) as well, which are more recent.

[alias_sqbr]

I tend to have the same problems as alchemia with what I see as ambiguous and contradictory definitions of who exactly they are and represent (I asked a question about it on their community, unfortunately I worded it so badly I'm not sure they'll bother responding :( (*)).

There's a big difference between OTW being made up of female fanficcers but supporting male machina makers and the ACLU being made up of liberals but supporting conservative Christians. Namely, conservative Christians are by their nature the kind of people who are likely to object to any organization which defends civil liberties, but there is absolutely no reason why machina makers would object to an organisation which supported transformative works(**). In fact, I imagine many of them would be interested in joining and maybe being on the board. Would they be allowed to be?

I'm possible missing something, but the way I see it there are three ways OTW could go:
1) Be about all transformative works, including all the ones which are not historically related to fanfic etc or female dominated. This means losing the references to female spaces etc, and probably ending up with a board and membership which is at least 50% male.
2) Only be about certain types of transformative works ie fanfic, fanart, fanvids etc, with a clear definition so that those who are excluded know where they stand. Possibly be open to forming alliances with any groups who arise to fill in the gaps ie "The Organisation for Machina Makers" or "The Society for Stained Glass Icons of Soccer Players" etc. Femaleness stays.
3) Have some parts of the organisation be of type (1) (like the legal defense part) with others just of type 2 (like the archive). Make this distinction clear.

Having an unstated "Them vs Us" attitude seems awfully condescending, like other sorts of fans aren't smart or motivated enough to even want to be on the board, and that their opinions wouldn't be worth listening to if they did. If they were starting out as type 2 with the intention of branching into type 1 that would be ok, I guess, but the "female space" thing implies otherwise.

Anyway, an interesting post regardless, and on the whole I agree with you. Ish :) I do think the people getting narky about the archive are being silly: it's open source software designed for hosting fanfic, how is that not a good thing?

(*)I have the same worry about this comment. I've been having a strong of stupid-brain days recently...
(**)Well, no more than female fanfic writers, who as we've seen do object about it sometimes :)

[alixtii.livejournal.com]

conservative Christians are by their nature the kind of people who are likely to object to any organization which defends civil liberties

I'm not so sure. If they're the type of evangelical who acts like they want to set up a theocracy, then maybe. But I think the concservative Christian movement (in America) is more diverse than that, and there would be plenty of need to defend civil liberties, if not perhaps with the ACLU's exact emphases (gay/lesbian rights wouldn' be high on the list). And certainly neocons and libertarians and other types of conservatives might also see the importance of an organization which defends civil liberities. Indeed, they do, and there are such conservatives actively supporting the ACLU, even if they don't fit in with the percieved liberal mindset of the organization, or its conception of the role of big government, or its method of constitutional interpretation, or whatever.

Have some parts of the organisation be of type (1) (like the legal defense part) with others just of type 2 (like the archive). Make this distinction clear.

I would think the Archive as well would be of type 1; anyone can use it regardless of gender, and once vids are allowed, I think it would be an administrative nightmare to disallow machinima. Obviously parodies couldn't be forbidden either, as female fen write them too, if not as much a significant part of their output. The wiki and the journal might lean more towards #2, since it is that history/culture they are documenting; but I get the sense, from the people involved, that the journal at least would more than happily publish an essay on machinima (as Kristina and Karen do in their book), and is, after all, called Transformative Works and Cultures, with culture plural. The makeup of the Board will of course depend on who gets elected in by dues-paying members, but to play Nostradamus I do not see the makeup changing considerably.

In other words, I expect the female meta/fanfiction community to remain at the center of the org, but for it to be open and welcoming to everybody, and to serve everybody.

[alias_sqbr]

Indeed, they do, and there are such conservatives actively supporting the ACLU, even if they don't fit in with the percieved liberal mindset of the organization

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. skeletor_hordak). As far as I can tell, that makes me a second class citizen in the OTW hierarchy, but in a really passive vague "Oh of course you're welcome..but not really" sort of way, and I'd rather know where I stood.

[alixtii.livejournal.com]

The ACLU is not as simple as "defending civil liberties." For example, the right to bear arms is built into the U.S. Constitution, but the ACLU is not anti-gun control. It's not just that that a lot of ACLU members are liberal, but that a liberal ethos (it can be argued) informs ACLU's ideas of what civil liberties are, and its overarching plan of action. Nonetheless, there is a significant number of conservatives who have made peace with this liberal ethos enough to support the organization. They might not embrace the liberal vision which dominates the current ACLU, but they are nonetheless made welcome as full members and allow to affect policy.

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.

[alias_sqbr]

Huh, ok, I get your metaphor now. Which is (I think) that an organisation which works for "everyone" can still have a particular focus. And I guess if the ACLU tried to defend ALL civil liberties equally it would end up fracturing along "liberals who can't stand guns" vs "conservatives who can't stand porn" etc lines, and there are organisations like the NRA to fill in the gaps.

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 :)

[tacky-tramp.livejournal.com]

I think you raise a good point here. OTW's definition of "fandom" and "fanworks" is unclear, and at this point, I think, much narrower than they're letting on. It's very fic- and LJ-centric, when there are apparently a great number of other sorts of transformative works outside that milieu that aren't being included.

I bet the board would want to include communities they haven't thought of if it were brought to their attention. And if they didn't, we'd at least get more fun on metafandom. XD

[alias_sqbr]

I don't know, I'm sure they'd be at least tangentially aware of these places already, they're pretty cluey people.

But I asked about it a while ago, hopefully at some point they'll answer. I feel a bit bad bagging them for what I assume they're going to do, I'm sure it'll all become a lot clearer over time.

[alixtii.livejournal.com]

And I know there was language discussed in which the OTW was being deliberately excludive in order to exclude conventional soccer fans, but I can't find it now.