More on taking offense …
So, the whole taking-offense thing. Y’all kind of felt I sprung that on you out of nowhere, didn’t you? I could tell by the comments. Here’s a little more context for it, in terms of what I’ve been reading and thinking and talking with friends about:
1. The national conversation around bullying. The woman who wrote the essay I posted on Monday is a friend of mine from very long ago, and it is likely that I would have had much worse bullying-induced psychological problems than I already did had I not been friends with her. She managed to make being an outcast feel like being an outlaw. So when she writes “I think self-empowerment, for some people, is a daily struggle,” I remember when it was, for both of us.
2. The question of empowerment versus entitlement. This is a distinction I came up with last week, and that I’m writing about in a November column. Here’s the key parts:
How about, instead of feeling entitled, feeling empowered instead? Entitled people believe they deserve certain things, and if they don’t get them, they lash out, or withdraw, or complain. Empowered people believe they deserve certain things, and if they don’t get them, they do something about it.
All the world’s a stage. When an actor flubs a line in a play, his scene partner doesn’t just stand there, waiting for him to get it right, because she is entitled to get her correct cue. She jumps in and improvises, because she is empowered to do that by her skills and training. That’s what etiquette is for: not teaching us what we are entitled to get, but teaching us how we are empowered to get it.
That’s the kind of thing that when it occurs to you, it’s going to occupy your head for a while.
3. The Evelyn Evelyn controversy. Keeping this as simple as possible, “Evelyn Evelyn” is a musical act/band/character created by Amanda Palmer and Jason Webley. Evelyn Evelyn are supposedly conjoined twins (played by Amanda and Jason in a specially-constructed dress and matching wigs) with a lurid backstory. They performed at this year’s Ig Nobels, which is how I found out about all this.
Anyway, a lot of people are very upset about Evelyn Evelyn, and about Amanda’s response to them when they told her how upset they were. It’s a complicated story, and that’s as basic yet honest as I can make it; start with the linkspam and follow the trail from there, if you’re interested.
And I find that, somehow, an impossible conversation. There’s no doubt when you read the words of the people who are offended by Evelyn Evelyn that they are genuinely hurt. And Amanda is saying, in essence, “I realize what I’m doing is hurting you, and I’m going to continue doing it anyway.” You can frame the discussion in lots of ways, but on a basic human level, that is the conversation being had. (And because of the nature of the internet and Amanda Palmer’s fanbase, it is very much a conversation: this isn’t a question of an artist creating a work and a dispassionate critic analyzing it for their own audience.)
I had a conversation like that myself in the past year, a relationship-ending one, because a friend was often hurt by the things I wrote about, and I kept writing about them (although I censored myself more than I realized).
***
Anyway, those are some of the things that have been floating around my mind regarding the whole concept of taking offense. When people talk/write about taking offense, they usually focus on the nature of the offense. Is endorsing a religious prohibition against homosexuality a personal moral choice, or a public affront? Is Evelyn Evelyn really ableist or not? Is it rude to ask a woman if she colors her hair, Miss Conduct?
I’d like to look away from the question of the offenses themselves, and more at the process of taking offense. How can you do it in a way that leaves you feeling empowered? How do you make the call whether to take your offense public or not? What do you do when you hit a brick wall in discourse? What do you do when you are the offender?
Filed under Uncategorized | Comments (12)
12 Responses to “More on taking offense …”
Leave a Reply
Subscribe
My word. Such vitriol on the linkspam site.
I didn’t see a single post in favour or even in defence of free speech.
Having watched Evelyn and Eveleyn at the igNobels (on YouTube), I just saw it as a humourous and clever musical act. But then I am not one to particularly judge others, or to look for offence. Am I therefore empowered?
(The first time I saw Webley, he was fund-raising for a Burning Man installation involving parking and locking your girlfriend (as though she were a bike) while you went off and did interesting things. Sometimes, the best way to assault The Way Things Are is to make them more so.)
Robin, I like your distinction between empowerment and privilege (and think a lot of people get the two mixed up). The thing about empowerment is that what you do about it, and the results you get are not guaranteed to be exactly what you want. I am empowered to say “that if offensive to me”, but I am not necessarily entitled to make the offender stop doing THAT, whatever it was.
I generally think that the only thing one ALWAYS has the power to change is one’s own attitude. I think we as a culture need to build towards a point where the other person understanding (not necessarily agreeing) is the point of empowerment. Sometimes you aren’t going to get an apology and change in behavior, but (if the person really gets what you are saying)“I realize what I’m doing is hurting you, and I’m going to continue doing it anyway.” is still better than “you are full of shit and I’m going to continue doing what I’m doing”. Of course, there are all kinds of stages in between, along with the “oh, I didn’t mean that at all, what I meant was. ..” which, one hopes, leads to the person phrasing themselves more clearly (and possibly offending a different group of folks).
This all meets up sideways with something I’ve been thinking of a lot (mostly in terms of consensus vs. democratic organizations): the difference between everyone being happy with an outcome and no one being unhappy with it (and the general reality, under majority rule, that some people are very happy with something that makes others unhappy). It’s made me wonder if it isn’t better to decrease unhappiness than to increase happiness. And then I get caught up in how does one do that without also decreasing the voices that say unhappy-making things, which is not good.
I’m still in knots here.
Wait, I checked back after a day expecting you to be overwhelmed with Evelyn Evelyn comments of all types, and it hasn’t happened? I’m relieved for you but surprised!
Anyways, I think that if you are going to do a big art project about a person or group who is not like you (e.g. conjoined twins) then perhaps you should talk to some of them before embarking on said project. Esp. if they have less privilege than you. And if you can’t be bothered to do your research, maybe you should find a different project. IMO.
No time to catch up on the Evelyn/Evelyn controversy, but can I throw out a few thoughts on the empowerment/entitlement issue? First of all, brilliant! Thank you, Robin, for taking the time to put these thoughts into words and posting for all the world to see. I’m finding it a very fruitful, paradigm-expanding concept (like when the equal marriage movement described, correctly, the marriage system we have in this country as the state regulating civil marriage, and the church handling holy matrimony; once this distinction was put into words, honest debate and real change became possible).
But in the back of my mind tumble anxious thoughts about the unintended consequences of the “there’s nothing you can change but your attitude” mantra. Particularly for women, who face constant pressure to be agreeable and likeable, even by the most disagreeable and unlikeable among us. The fact is, there is plenty that is factually, objectively, completely awful out there in the world that we have an obligation to name and work to change. So maybe there’s nothing you can do about your brother-in-law’s racist or homophobic comments at Thanksgiving dinner each year, but if he’s a police officer or a school teacher or a judge or even just a father, shouldn’t you try?
The point I’m trying to make, I guess, is that yes, I agree that it makes no sense to live in a state of constant agitation because others aren’t living up to your standards, but it it also an abdication of our responsibility as members of the human race not to confront wrong when we see it and have a chance to do something about it. I have always believed that if something has hurt or offended me, it has most likely hurt or offended someone else as well, and it is at least worth trying to make it right.
I have heard young professional women say, with great confidence, that they do not expect to experience sex discrimination in their lives, and that if they do not achieve their dreams, they have only themselves to blame. This breaks my heart, because this and many forms of discrimination are alive and well, and will never disappear if we all think that we just need an attitude adjustment to survive and are never willing to risk being rude or offending others.
So how do we know when we have the power to change something and when we don’t?
I don’t think it’s so much that the only thing you can change is your attitude, so much as that is the only thing that is ALWAYS yours. This doesn’t mean that you shouldn’t try and change the things you don’t like about the world or the way it treats you or others. No reason your attitude can’t include not liking something and wanting to work on improving the situation.
In this realm, though, I think it is useful (both individually and for the greater society) to have an empowered, I’m going to do something about it, attitude, rather than just being angry about it.
I think a not quite being discussed issue here is where you do your energy and what is really important (to you and for the sake of larger society). You can’t fight every fight. And some things are more self-limiting than others. (Example, the extent to which I jump on racist/sexist/etc. jokes depends on the age person making them –I’m less likely to convince someone who thought this way for 80 years and besides he’s not going to be around long, although I’d make an exception for someone with a public forum.) And some things are going to fix themselves (like all the young women who haven’t yet experienced, or realized they are experiencing, discrimination; when they have to deal with it they will learn what it’s like and learn to fight it).
And everyone gets to choose her own fights, and therefore her own attitude about those (and other issues).
All of the above aside, and back to the original issue about who is responsible for bruised sensitivities, the insensitives or the over-sensitives, there is also a certain amount of paying attention to scale and intent. I can’t tell you the number of people I have known who haven’t worked out that “Jew him down” is offensive (which I usually handle with a quiet private word because A) it is pretty offensive and B) they really didn’t mean to be, just hadn’t thought). On the other hand, I am personally equally offended by the phrase “Judeo-Christian Tradition” (at least when it means, as it usually does, all those things that are Christian but not Jewish, and all things that are Christian AND Jewish, but not those things that are Jewish and not Christian) but I don’t bring it up often at all because I get that most people are at least trying here.
I find the entitled/empowered distinction particularly fruitful.
My experience of the road to empowerment includes, however, times when lashing out, complaining, or withdrawing were useful tools in the kit. The key was not getting stuck there, paying attention to the results, if any, and having a plan B.
Also, for what it’s worth, you have stirred me to notice–other people actually are entitled to some things, from me: my mother is entitled to my respectful attention; my employer is entitled to my hard work and honesty (though not my free time…); my partner is entitled to be spared my crankiest moods; and so on.
As others have said, I don’t think one should ignore larger patterns in place (e.g., systems of oppression) when discussing taking offense, because it puts a larger burden on oppressed people to lighten up/change their attitude/work as an unpaid round-the-clock educator/moderate their tone than on non-oppressed people, and I don’t think that’s ethical, fair, or right.
For me, a large part of “changing my attitude” in the face of someone being offensive has been finding my voice and *saying* something rather than pretending it doesn’t bother me. I do, for the most part, try to say something politely, honestly, and compassionately, but I do think it’s important to speak up rather than swallow anger. Anger’s job is to let us know our boundaries or rights have been violated, and the way to remedy that is to speak up and ask the offender to stop it. (Standing around hoping someone will notice they’re standing on your foot doesn’t work all that well, and tends to breed passive-aggressive resentment.)
Speaking up honestly and compassionately about one’s feelings is rarely a bad thing. You can’t, of course, expect all other people to care or to change their behavior based on your requests, but you can then modify your own expectations or behavior based on that information, too. Even if that process is painful or awkward, though, I think it’s strongly preferable to suffering in silence or assuming that everything you do or say is so wonderful that you should never be questioned on it.
Also, for what it’s worth, you have stirred me to notice–other people actually are entitled to some things, from me: my mother is entitled to my respectful attention; my employer is entitled to my hard work and honesty (though not my free time…); my partner is entitled to be spared my crankiest moods; and so on.
For me, this is key. *I* feel they are entitled to it, not that *they* feel they are entitled to it.
This is fascinating stuff, everyone. I hope to be able to write more this weekend about it. Please keep in mind that in all this, I’m really NOT talking about racial/ethnic slurs or that kind of thing. We’re talking about mentioning your diet at work, referring to the “Judeo-Christian tradition” (hate that one too, Shulamuth!), or similar things.
FWIW, the LW who spurred me to discover the distinction was upset because the hosts of a child’s birthday party did not immediately introduce themselves to her. This was the great insult to her entitlement.
The wise comments that followed mine helped bring into focus one of the difficulties in sorting out the taking offense issue: whether it’s something most people would agree isn’t worth getting exercised about (the lack of prompt introductions at a child’s birthday party) or most would agree does warrant a stronger reaction of some kind (demeaning comments on one’s work or dress by a sexist boss), in both cases, invariably SOMEONE will say “forget it! He/she/they are just rude/thoughtless/inconsiderate/too old to change/treat everyone that way/having a bad day/didn’t mean it/some of their best friends are women,” etc. So there’s not always a clear line between the two, and when one is on the receiving end of the inappropriate or insulting comment or conduct, it often registers first as simply rudeness, sometimes extreme or shocking, but rudeness nonethless. Then our automatic pilot response to rudeness kicks in and carries us through the moment, and the cultural or political analysis comes later. I just don’t want to focus so much on our individual responses that we lose the ability to see the greater cultural and political forces at work when they are at work. When we choose how we wish to respond, it should be a completely informed choice, after all!
As much as we’d like to think we are all judged on our individual merits, people still feel more free to talk to, touch, interrupt and criticize women (both women they know and complete strangers) than men; to voice offensive opinions about some religious beliefs more than others; to provide better or worse service based on skin color; and so on. These truths are already so easily obscured that I would hate for any discussion about taking offense to make it worse, or make people feel crazy for thinking there’s something wrong with the world when often, there really is something wrong with the world.
Looking forward to your next post on this topic, Robin!
I think that a lot of the distinction, especially when it comes to offended/offensive, is in how any discussion is interpreted. You described the problem with the Evelyn/Evelyn issue perfectly; the problem was in the dismissive way she responded, rather than the initial offense.
If I tell someone that I think what they’ve said is something that contributes to the continued marginalization of a particular group in society, that’s not feeling personally offended, that’s being empowered to try and be an agent of change to get rid of something negative we all deal with. If that person then responds that it’s an interesting perspective and they’ll think about it, even if they decide they think I’m wrong and will continue to do it, then I still feel that my actions were valid and useful by getting them to consider that angle. I’m not entitled to demand they hew to my view, but I’m empowered by them hearing me out regardless of the outcome.
However, if they respond that they don’t care what I think and that’s stupid and of course they’re going to do it anyway and I’m trying to be all pc police on them, then I’m hurt because what they’ve really done is dismiss me and that idea as not even being worthy of consideration. They’re responding with the same entitlement that they think I had in asking about it.
Apart from wording every encounter very, very carefully, I’m not sure how that obstacle can be easily overcome.
Good point. There is a controversy in science fiction fandom right now, involving the writer Elizabeth Moon, some unfortunate things she said about Muslims on Live Journal, and Wiscon, the convention that has uninvited her to be guest of honor as a result. About 500 responses after her post she froze and disappeared all comments and said she refused to listen any more. This refusal to engage and listens seems to be what’s REALLY pissing people off, rather than her original post, which was more insensitive and uninformed that screamingly offensive.
JP Gal’s comment about “make [ing] people feel crazy for thinking there’s something wrong with the world when often, there really is something wrong with the world” triggered into my mind the difference between thinking you are crazy for thinking there is something wrong, and making yourself crazy because something IS wrong. For me one of the issues here is staying “unoffended” enough that you don’t end up doing crazy-loops (and nothing else) and sputter at whatever was done, but rather do something about it. This is as much tactics as it is a philosophy about offense, but I do not that I’ve had a lot fewer ulcers since I decide on that path. (I HOPE I have also done more to actually change things, too.)
Off topic — how do I italicize things here?