alixtii | Classism and Realism

There's some metafandom-ed posts about Supernatural and class, and at least one flocked post on my flist thinking about it in the abstract, and it's gotten me to revisit my thoughts, because class really does color the way I view fictional characters quite deeply. Well, maybe not class per se, since I've said things like that in the past and been forced to take them back, but classed markers certainly, even as I'm still not at all sure the distinction makes any sense. (Not gender per se but gendered markers? Not race but racialized markers? What are gender, race, and class except a set of markers? Is there such a thing as class essentialism?) Education, idiolect, certain values, cultural capital--things like that--with the archetypal example being high-school student Buffy Summer's ability to make topical allusions to Arthur Miller or Samuel Beckett. (So admittedly it is a very narrow set of classed--and raced and gendered, but especially classed and raced--markers that make me interested in a fictional character.)

Now, the thing I'm still struggling with is how problematic that fact is. It seems acceptable to say "I'm not interested in watching a show about working-class characters" in a way it would never be to say "I'm not interested in watching a show about women" or "I'm not interested in watching a show about characters of color." But as a person of immense privilege, the fact that it seems acceptable may be no more than an indicator of how far I still have to go--the way that replacing "white" and "black" for "men" and "women" in a certain situation can make it much clearer how problematic it is, as in this comment to a

languagelog post:

In general, though, I would say there is clearly much more public tolerance in the US for prejudice against women and misogynistic speech than there is tolerance for racist speech. This was most clearly illustrated to me in a story a professor of mine in University told of an administrative meeting he attended where one of the speakers was discussing a vote that had taken place and in relation to that made a joke about how giving women the right to vote had been a mistake, and was met with genuine laughter. He noted, truthfully I think, that this would have been met with awkward incredulity if it were instead about African Americans or some other racial group.

Of course, the degree to which this works will depend on just how "real" one considers sexual difference to be, as evidenced by all the people who disagree with me on whether there will be gender-segregated bathrooms in the feminist utopia. (Of course, insofar as the point of gender-segregated bathrooms is to keep the other sex out, I'd argue there's something hugely heterosexist as well as sexist going on there.) (And if we look at the way racial difference went from seeming quite real to the idea being almost absurd, I don't see why the same process couldn't play out wrt gender.)

Still, it seems to be natural and unproblematic to say "it's better to be rich than to be poor" (even though what I'm really interested and invested in has nothing to do with income except insofar as hip-hop music has something to do with race or skirts have to do with gender) in a way one can't even say, say, "it's better to see than to be blind." (Not that I'd want to say the latter, mind you--I've learned better--but I think it's still intuitive for a lot of people.) And I can only doubt my privilege so much.

In the end, I suppose it comes down to the fact that while the "reality" of sexuality difference is more or less irrelevant to gender inequality (by which I mean that having a penis doesn't convey in itself any real power), and thus the semiotic power of gendered markers are able to function more or less independently of that reality, and the reality of racial difference (none at all chromosomally) is in some ways more and some ways less divorced from racial inequality, Not having a penis is only a lack once you've read Lacan. Similarly with not being white. Not having money, on the other hand--well, obviously this too is a lack which is in large part semiotic, since currency doesn't have any intrinsic value, as you can't eat or drink it--not having the stuff which money can buy to satisfy one's needs and wants, however, represents a real imbalance in power which is not present in the raced or gendered scenarios. And "classism" as a superstructural system of injustice where the rich think the poor are ignorant trash and the working-class think the upper class are pretentious twits sort of operates above this base.

Except that now I sound like some cross between a Lacanian, a classical Marxist, and a metaphysical realist (what is this "real" of which I speak?) and--perish the thought. And ultimately, this distinction does seem to be bogus. The phenomenology of women's lived experience under systemic injustice is that of a "real" lack, no more or less than the one that comes from not having money to spend. All the money in the world won't help you if your boyfriend won't let you out of the house to spend it.

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only

I thought of the example of Torchwood - creating a pretend world where everyone is bisexual and thus allowing the exploration of all sorts of ideas beyond what is normally possible when portraying minority sexualities. However I think it is important that that is fiction. I suspect the pretence of equality where research is telling us there is no equality is best confined to fiction. That gives the best of both worlds - sticking with reality and the challenges it presents in the real world, whilst allowing fictional worlds to imagine the unrealistic and maybe find new solutions in the process.

I think you're right on here.

Jumping in here from

metafandom . . .

I've always thought the Torchwood example re: this was weak at best. Not so much b/c it's not a fictional ideal - it is, I agree w/you there - but b/c I think it could be argued that the characters' tendencies to disregard sexual orientation may have more to do w/their line of work than any deeply ingrained sense that they have been bisexual all along or have those leanings. Once you throw aliens into the mix (not to mention Jack Harkness), terms such as 'hetrosexual', 'bisexual', 'homosexual', etc. become a bit redundant, I think.

Also, I do think it's interesting to note that in both Gwen's case w/Cerys and Tosh's w/Mary, both Cerys and Mary were also aliens (well Cerys was human, but possessed by an alien) and that may/may not have had something to do w/it. They certainly seem reluctant to fully explore the homosexual/bisexual dynamic outside Jack and Ianto and that has been reduced to nothing more than them being shown having it off in the hub for a laugh.

I think it is a bit like them having a pet pterodactyl - it works best as just a thing that is part of the story, not as something one analyses too closely. I know that as a bisexual I find it relaxing to have an imaginary world where everyone is bisexual, but yes, the illusion does break down if examined up close. Hence I tend just not to examine it :oD I think fiction can achieve useful things that way. I'm not sure if RTD knows that he has created a 'safe haven' for sexual minorities, or if he feels an obligation to preserve it by how he treats the Jack/Ianto relationship. He probably is aware because he seems very conscious of fan reactions, but he may not feel any obligation towards the situation. I have heard him comment on the burden of a writer having to represent any minority he happens to belong to, so he may feel he wants to break the requirement. It is after all rather a restriction on any writer to have to service their audience's socio-political expectations, he would probably rather concentrate on such minor matters as plot, character etc!

As much as I like Torchwood, the fact that *everyone* seems to be bi just makes me think "Aren't they pandering just a bit here?"

But if Captain Jack is doing the recruting, I can imagine all the heterosexuals' CVs going directly into the bin.

Warning: The Torchwood Institute is NOT an equal opportunity employer.

I think they probably were pandering in the first season. Which was fun if you happened to be one of the people being pandered to! But yes, it doesn't make much logical sense - like so much in Torchwood.

That's part of what bugs me. Torchwood has very smart writing most of the time. So they really don't need to pander.

One way to read that as not pandering is to assume a sort of Adrienne Rich reading, wherein Jack's created a climate of non-compulsory heterosexuality, which allows all of his people to explore their identity (sexual and otherwise), at will, in a work environment that essentially encompasses their non-work environment as well (as Gwen's learned, TW people are never off the clock).

Or it could just be the writers playing up "Sex sells."

Well, the two explanations work on different levels; the extra-diegetic Doylist explanation doesn't deny the diegetic Watsonian reading--or the need for the Watsonian reading, either. And the Watsonian explanations tend to be richer and more interesting, in my experience.

I like good ol' Occam's Razar.

But if invoking the author when looking for an in-universe explanation counts as a least hypothesis, then the answer to all questions of science should be "God say so" or some such. The point isn't that one type of explanation is better than the other, but that they explain different things, and having one doesn't eliminate the need for the other.

Classism and Realism

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

coming in late from metafandom

Re: coming in late from metafandom

Re: coming in late from metafandom

Re: coming in late from metafandom

Re: coming in late from metafandom