Calling out in transit
April 3, 2018 11:57 PM Subscribe
Zero Books is a leader in publishing current critical theory, radical philosophy, aesthetics, film theory, experimental fiction, and the avant-garde. They "aim to publish books that make our readers uncomfortable, books that require authors go beyond hot takes and received opinions. Zer0 Books is on the left and wants to reinvent the left." Zero Squared
is a philosophy podcast from Zero Books. The latest guest is Shaun Scott, a Seattle-based writer, historian, and filmmaker who wrote a column entitled "In Defense of Call-out Culture." Unrelated but loosely connected on topic is 'The problem of hyper-liberalism'.
And Sam Harris' latest experience of "this atmosphere wherein many otherwise sane and ethical people reliably become obscurantists and attack anyone who demurs as an enemy, fit only to be silenced.' Plenty of material for comments.
Oh, and back with Zero Squared, in case you missed Douglas Lain's interview with Slavoj Zizek.
And Sam Harris' latest experience of "this atmosphere wherein many otherwise sane and ethical people reliably become obscurantists and attack anyone who demurs as an enemy, fit only to be silenced.' Plenty of material for comments.
Oh, and back with Zero Squared, in case you missed Douglas Lain's interview with Slavoj Zizek.
It's not surprising that some young people sometimes take things way too far in the backdrop of a (important and necessary) broader movement. However, I think Scott has a point when writing:
[C]ritiques of call-out culture seem less like a mechanism for improving the Left and more like a way of pivoting to the center.
In rather cynical moments I wonder how many of the well-known and well-off left-ish intelligentsia who complain about kids on campus or online are secretly uncomfortable with the notion of a new radicalism that does not centre around them or their specific vision of the how things ought to be.
In extremely cynical moments I wonder how many of them are responding to their publishers' demands for more buzz before the upcoming speaking tour. Nothing gets the outrage clicks like laments about how much outrage there is out there.
posted by Freelance Demiurge at 2:47 AM on April 4, 2018 [9 favorites]
[C]ritiques of call-out culture seem less like a mechanism for improving the Left and more like a way of pivoting to the center.
In rather cynical moments I wonder how many of the well-known and well-off left-ish intelligentsia who complain about kids on campus or online are secretly uncomfortable with the notion of a new radicalism that does not centre around them or their specific vision of the how things ought to be.
In extremely cynical moments I wonder how many of them are responding to their publishers' demands for more buzz before the upcoming speaking tour. Nothing gets the outrage clicks like laments about how much outrage there is out there.
posted by Freelance Demiurge at 2:47 AM on April 4, 2018 [9 favorites]
Huh. Looks like Zero Books is primarily an academic imprint, and some of their titles look interesting. But not "The Founding Fathers of Feminism". Really? Really?! Sure, studying the circumstances around male allies in feminist struggle seems useful and helpful. That's not how this book is framed, though. In fact, in all of their selections on feminism, they... certainly do seem to be applying that stated goal of attempting a redefinition, yup. In other hot takes from a relatively uninformed perspective: they also seem to be like the Chapo Trap House of a certain type of academic leftism - a number of good points, but stuck on the idea that cultural disruption and outrage is necessarily leftist or necessary for leftism, without worrying too much about which part of the culture they are disrupting or who they are causing outrage for.
posted by eviemath at 4:03 AM on April 4, 2018 [7 favorites]
posted by eviemath at 4:03 AM on April 4, 2018 [7 favorites]
What's the R.E.M. connection?
posted by thelonius at 4:17 AM on April 4, 2018 [2 favorites]
posted by thelonius at 4:17 AM on April 4, 2018 [2 favorites]
Sam Harris makes some very dubious arguments that seem based in a desire to find genetic components for things:
"Among the many uncontroversial facts that the Vox paper elides is that once we make environments truly equivalent (equally enriched, stable, motivating, etc.) ANY difference we notice between people (or between groups) will be due to genes."
Or it could be due to circumstance. Or differing values - equally enriched and stable and motivating does not necessarily mean prioritising or valuing the same things, in an individual or group (cultural) level. Environment is pernicious - it seeps in everywhere and is effectively all but impossible to control for in this kind of experiment. That there are observable differences between groups might be uncontroversial - jumping from there to "and therefore it's obviously genetic" is not.
posted by Dysk at 4:28 AM on April 4, 2018 [7 favorites]
"Among the many uncontroversial facts that the Vox paper elides is that once we make environments truly equivalent (equally enriched, stable, motivating, etc.) ANY difference we notice between people (or between groups) will be due to genes."
Or it could be due to circumstance. Or differing values - equally enriched and stable and motivating does not necessarily mean prioritising or valuing the same things, in an individual or group (cultural) level. Environment is pernicious - it seeps in everywhere and is effectively all but impossible to control for in this kind of experiment. That there are observable differences between groups might be uncontroversial - jumping from there to "and therefore it's obviously genetic" is not.
posted by Dysk at 4:28 AM on April 4, 2018 [7 favorites]
the articles he cites offer numerous examples of toxic behavior that falls well outside his summary.
No. The Sacco example was someone who lost her job, and I think the proper way to work out a reading of piece is to use that to set the bar, i.e. making an equivalence. All the other examples are basically the same issue.
This piece's overall conclusion was that those critics are also misidentifying or misattributing toxicity. It's patriarchy that's toxic and the reason these things happen is because toxicity is contagious and gets internalized.
And the next step I'd take is to point out that if people took 'toxic contagion' seriously, then isn't it cognitive dissonance on the part of those authors to complain about criticism: i.e., somebody has to be the first to break this deadlock. And connecting back to this piece it's those authors' self-serving, privileged conflict of interest that breaks the symmetry (of determining who should be first).
This line of reasoning by the author is valuable because there is an ongoing backlash to a perceived picture of "calling-out", and there's a lot of parts to sort out (of which this article makes a contribution), but AFAIK nobody has a good theory account of it.
posted by polymodus at 4:31 AM on April 4, 2018 [3 favorites]
No. The Sacco example was someone who lost her job, and I think the proper way to work out a reading of piece is to use that to set the bar, i.e. making an equivalence. All the other examples are basically the same issue.
This piece's overall conclusion was that those critics are also misidentifying or misattributing toxicity. It's patriarchy that's toxic and the reason these things happen is because toxicity is contagious and gets internalized.
And the next step I'd take is to point out that if people took 'toxic contagion' seriously, then isn't it cognitive dissonance on the part of those authors to complain about criticism: i.e., somebody has to be the first to break this deadlock. And connecting back to this piece it's those authors' self-serving, privileged conflict of interest that breaks the symmetry (of determining who should be first).
This line of reasoning by the author is valuable because there is an ongoing backlash to a perceived picture of "calling-out", and there's a lot of parts to sort out (of which this article makes a contribution), but AFAIK nobody has a good theory account of it.
posted by polymodus at 4:31 AM on April 4, 2018 [3 favorites]
At this point when Zizek is the most prominent eminence attached to something I basically dismiss it. Pack up your accelerationism and whataboutism and take a hike. People are going to die while you brush crumbs off your shirt and insult the students you're ostensibly paid to teach.
posted by snuffleupagus at 5:19 AM on April 4, 2018 [10 favorites]
posted by snuffleupagus at 5:19 AM on April 4, 2018 [10 favorites]
I think the point of call-out culture if generously read is that it is not so much policing + watching for (as Scott quotes) a "fatal slip up" as using those slip ups as ways into showing how some people are systemically biased and/or toxic
snuffleupagus, the international journal of zizek studies has a hilarious CFP about why zizek has been rejected by leftists because... why not?
posted by ahundredjarsofsky at 6:00 AM on April 4, 2018 [3 favorites]
snuffleupagus, the international journal of zizek studies has a hilarious CFP about why zizek has been rejected by leftists because... why not?
posted by ahundredjarsofsky at 6:00 AM on April 4, 2018 [3 favorites]
Maybe he’s a “you can’t make an omelette without breaking a few eggs” type of guy but I don’t want to be on a team with such a person if I can help it. I tend to agree with MLK that a revolution contains within its own methods the future it will create.
summoning Dr. King to defend the push against ethical accountability for white moderates is a shade or two shy of reprehensible. Dr. King was an 'egg-breaker' in his time especially regarding the white moderates Scott positions as the target of being called-in; a Twitter-shaming is a few degrees more conservative than the active civil disobedience of, for example, committing the felony of marching on a highway. resistance in Dr. King's era meant a near-death experience in the South. it was many degrees more radical than call-out culture, and many, many more compared to the police-friendly protests of today
don't confuse your white-washed, defanged understanding of Dr. King with his actual politics; whatever ethic you think you're following doesn't exist outside of a white surpremacist historiography
posted by runt at 7:05 AM on April 4, 2018 [14 favorites]
summoning Dr. King to defend the push against ethical accountability for white moderates is a shade or two shy of reprehensible. Dr. King was an 'egg-breaker' in his time especially regarding the white moderates Scott positions as the target of being called-in; a Twitter-shaming is a few degrees more conservative than the active civil disobedience of, for example, committing the felony of marching on a highway. resistance in Dr. King's era meant a near-death experience in the South. it was many degrees more radical than call-out culture, and many, many more compared to the police-friendly protests of today
don't confuse your white-washed, defanged understanding of Dr. King with his actual politics; whatever ethic you think you're following doesn't exist outside of a white surpremacist historiography
posted by runt at 7:05 AM on April 4, 2018 [14 favorites]
summoning Dr. King to defend the push against ethical accountability for white moderates
Huh? Nobody’s doing that, except maybe in your head. King’s civil disobedience and even the criticism in his writings, sermons and speeches of white moderates has pretty much nothing in common with the kind of personal attacks and bigotry described in Frost’s essay. If you can’t see the difference between stating in a speech that white moderates might be worse for the movement than white conservatives and, say, one person of color telling another they’re “too white,” then it makes sense to call my concern the behavior Frost describes “white-washed” or “defanged.”
Of course, immediately jumping to calling one’s interlocutors racist is move number one in the call-out playbook, so perhaps you’re eager to defend such reprehensible behavior because it’s clearly your favorite tool.
posted by eustacescrubb at 8:03 AM on April 4, 2018 [9 favorites]
Huh? Nobody’s doing that, except maybe in your head. King’s civil disobedience and even the criticism in his writings, sermons and speeches of white moderates has pretty much nothing in common with the kind of personal attacks and bigotry described in Frost’s essay. If you can’t see the difference between stating in a speech that white moderates might be worse for the movement than white conservatives and, say, one person of color telling another they’re “too white,” then it makes sense to call my concern the behavior Frost describes “white-washed” or “defanged.”
Of course, immediately jumping to calling one’s interlocutors racist is move number one in the call-out playbook, so perhaps you’re eager to defend such reprehensible behavior because it’s clearly your favorite tool.
posted by eustacescrubb at 8:03 AM on April 4, 2018 [9 favorites]
"Kill All Normies," published by Zero, is the worst-edited book I've ever read. It had an unbelievable number of typos and generally read like an unedited first draft. I enjoyed the book overall but they are not doing their authors much of a service.
posted by The Lamplighter at 8:14 AM on April 4, 2018 [3 favorites]
posted by The Lamplighter at 8:14 AM on April 4, 2018 [3 favorites]
Here’s a great place to start on Dr. King and his concern with he methodology of resistance. It’s short and worth a read.
I’ll quote him at length, because of how vastly different his perspective is to the typical practitioners of call out culture, especially the kind of behavior cited by Frost:
“A second basic fact that characterizes nonviolence is that it does not seek to defeat or humiliate the opponent, but to win his friendship and understanding. The nonviolent resister must often express his protest through noncooperation or boycotts, but he realizes that these are not ends themselves; they are merely means to awaken a sense of moral shame in the opponent … The aftermath of nonviolence is the creation of the beloved community, while the aftermath of violence is tragic bitterness.”
Yes, Dr. King was far more radical in his politics than is popularly portrayed. Yes, many of his views were nearly socialist. Yes, he believed moderate and liberal white people often hold progress back by asking oppressed people to wait on a system that changes too slowly. But the critiques of call out culture offered by Frost, et al, and misrepresented and dismissed by Scott have much in common with King’s commitment to nonviolence in both action and spirit. Pointing that out isn’t “defanging” King’s politics, which are inseparable from his methodology. Ignoring his teachings on nonviolence is a defanging and whitewashing, though, since they were central to his politics.
posted by eustacescrubb at 8:30 AM on April 4, 2018 [7 favorites]
I’ll quote him at length, because of how vastly different his perspective is to the typical practitioners of call out culture, especially the kind of behavior cited by Frost:
“A second basic fact that characterizes nonviolence is that it does not seek to defeat or humiliate the opponent, but to win his friendship and understanding. The nonviolent resister must often express his protest through noncooperation or boycotts, but he realizes that these are not ends themselves; they are merely means to awaken a sense of moral shame in the opponent … The aftermath of nonviolence is the creation of the beloved community, while the aftermath of violence is tragic bitterness.”
Yes, Dr. King was far more radical in his politics than is popularly portrayed. Yes, many of his views were nearly socialist. Yes, he believed moderate and liberal white people often hold progress back by asking oppressed people to wait on a system that changes too slowly. But the critiques of call out culture offered by Frost, et al, and misrepresented and dismissed by Scott have much in common with King’s commitment to nonviolence in both action and spirit. Pointing that out isn’t “defanging” King’s politics, which are inseparable from his methodology. Ignoring his teachings on nonviolence is a defanging and whitewashing, though, since they were central to his politics.
posted by eustacescrubb at 8:30 AM on April 4, 2018 [7 favorites]
Ah, Zero Books, the publisher and podcast for people that think that Jacobin is socialist.
posted by Yowser at 8:56 AM on April 4, 2018 [3 favorites]
posted by Yowser at 8:56 AM on April 4, 2018 [3 favorites]
immediately jumping to calling one’s interlocutors racist is move number one in the call-out playbook, so perhaps you’re eager to defend such reprehensible behavior because it’s clearly your favorite tool.
this is a perspective that can only exist in a reality where you either don't believe that racism is systemic and white supremacy a default or with an ego that assumes that you're somehow a saint among lessers, magically above the influences of the society you live in. assuming you're complicit in white supremacy is the same as assuming even the most socially conscious men are complicit in the patriarchy - it's not an attack on your identity less than an acknowledgement of the shitty world we live in. you want to call it 'call-out culture' for me to approach the world in this way, you do you; but it's not going to make that perspective any less legitimate
for what it's worth, I don't practice call-out culture in the form of surface-level identity policing - but there's a difference between painting overzealous college students as harbingers of a future doom and understanding them as idealistic kids whose dogma needs tempering.
the third rail you are touching is less commonly the obviously extreme example of ousting a bi-racial trans member of your LGBT club for being too white-passing and far more commonly the appearance of white, middle-class 'activists' on the scene whose primary argument is one of incrementalism, whose actions say 'we're fine, we can take our time with this, the stakes are not very high' and the actions of more radical activists who say 'some of my family has died from this, I am afraid of others dying from this, this needs to happen now no matter how this happens', the ones who argue and tone-police and question the foundation of the organizing people have been doing for decades even as they are so new and fresh to the scene and yet so unwilling to give up their authority and privilege
there are entire guides dedicated to understanding the emotional labor that's spent by PoC to explain to newbie white folks their anger, to make it so that white folks aren't burdens in the space, to ensure that white folks aren't taking over and co-opting spaces and allowing non-white spaces to exist for PoC to talk about their own issues. and it's not represented, whatsoever, by the singularly shitty incident Frost posits that you're extrapolating to represent the entirety of this culture
the critiques of call out culture offered by Frost, et al, and misrepresented and dismissed by Scott
'call-out culture' is not one thing; Scott's ideation of it is not Frost's ideation of it. there's a difference between calling out and identity-policing. to confuse the latter for the former is to make a political statement that the most naive and toxic of the movement is representative of the entire movement - exactly the mistake you're accusing Scott of making
posted by runt at 9:01 AM on April 4, 2018 [4 favorites]
this is a perspective that can only exist in a reality where you either don't believe that racism is systemic and white supremacy a default or with an ego that assumes that you're somehow a saint among lessers, magically above the influences of the society you live in. assuming you're complicit in white supremacy is the same as assuming even the most socially conscious men are complicit in the patriarchy - it's not an attack on your identity less than an acknowledgement of the shitty world we live in. you want to call it 'call-out culture' for me to approach the world in this way, you do you; but it's not going to make that perspective any less legitimate
for what it's worth, I don't practice call-out culture in the form of surface-level identity policing - but there's a difference between painting overzealous college students as harbingers of a future doom and understanding them as idealistic kids whose dogma needs tempering.
the third rail you are touching is less commonly the obviously extreme example of ousting a bi-racial trans member of your LGBT club for being too white-passing and far more commonly the appearance of white, middle-class 'activists' on the scene whose primary argument is one of incrementalism, whose actions say 'we're fine, we can take our time with this, the stakes are not very high' and the actions of more radical activists who say 'some of my family has died from this, I am afraid of others dying from this, this needs to happen now no matter how this happens', the ones who argue and tone-police and question the foundation of the organizing people have been doing for decades even as they are so new and fresh to the scene and yet so unwilling to give up their authority and privilege
there are entire guides dedicated to understanding the emotional labor that's spent by PoC to explain to newbie white folks their anger, to make it so that white folks aren't burdens in the space, to ensure that white folks aren't taking over and co-opting spaces and allowing non-white spaces to exist for PoC to talk about their own issues. and it's not represented, whatsoever, by the singularly shitty incident Frost posits that you're extrapolating to represent the entirety of this culture
the critiques of call out culture offered by Frost, et al, and misrepresented and dismissed by Scott
'call-out culture' is not one thing; Scott's ideation of it is not Frost's ideation of it. there's a difference between calling out and identity-policing. to confuse the latter for the former is to make a political statement that the most naive and toxic of the movement is representative of the entire movement - exactly the mistake you're accusing Scott of making
posted by runt at 9:01 AM on April 4, 2018 [4 favorites]
There's a difference between calling out and identity-policing. to confuse the latter for the former is to make a political statement that the most naive and toxic of the movement is representative of the entire movement
This seems like a convenient "No True Scotsman" defense that lets you ignore any examples that you don't find flattering to what you want the definition to be.
posted by Sangermaine at 9:07 AM on April 4, 2018 [6 favorites]
This seems like a convenient "No True Scotsman" defense that lets you ignore any examples that you don't find flattering to what you want the definition to be.
posted by Sangermaine at 9:07 AM on April 4, 2018 [6 favorites]
This seems like a convenient "No True Scotsman" defense that lets you ignore any examples that you don't find flattering to what you want the definition to be.
my personal experience in the organizing space is there are pro-social organizers who are overtly inclusive who engage with power upfront and anti-social organizers whose groups tend to implode from toxicity because they tend to pedantically criticize each other about minor decisions that are, on the surface, about ethics and morals but are, in reality, about power and who controls it and who is able to wield it
the number of times I've patiently sat through inane, thoughtless bullshit in order to keep the group I organize together is a practical decision; but, if you don't get paid for this shit, sitting through thoughtless bullshit takes a toll, especially in groups where you don't expect to be micro-aggressed at, especially in groups that you organized from the ground-up and have been a part of for years, that you've intentionally made an effort to limit your own authority in
it's not for nothing that people get really heated about this. that's why I find it especially galling that folks without the chops demand that they are the true arbiters of the proper social etiquette in organizing scenes when all they've experienced is the subjective experiences of individual writers, and whose political lean is towards sustaining the existing, fucked-up power dynamics of the socially normative world that demands extra and more from PoC
posted by runt at 9:16 AM on April 4, 2018 [5 favorites]
my personal experience in the organizing space is there are pro-social organizers who are overtly inclusive who engage with power upfront and anti-social organizers whose groups tend to implode from toxicity because they tend to pedantically criticize each other about minor decisions that are, on the surface, about ethics and morals but are, in reality, about power and who controls it and who is able to wield it
the number of times I've patiently sat through inane, thoughtless bullshit in order to keep the group I organize together is a practical decision; but, if you don't get paid for this shit, sitting through thoughtless bullshit takes a toll, especially in groups where you don't expect to be micro-aggressed at, especially in groups that you organized from the ground-up and have been a part of for years, that you've intentionally made an effort to limit your own authority in
it's not for nothing that people get really heated about this. that's why I find it especially galling that folks without the chops demand that they are the true arbiters of the proper social etiquette in organizing scenes when all they've experienced is the subjective experiences of individual writers, and whose political lean is towards sustaining the existing, fucked-up power dynamics of the socially normative world that demands extra and more from PoC
posted by runt at 9:16 AM on April 4, 2018 [5 favorites]
assuming you're complicit in white supremacy is the same as assuming even the most socially conscious men are complicit in the patriarchy
I don’t disagree with any of this - I know both to be true, but I’m truly at a loss as to how that applies at all here. Maybe you read that I quoted Dr. King and went to the place you go when people quote Dr. King without really reading what I wrote in any of my comments. And maybe you didn’t read Frost’s article all the way through? There are numerous examples, not just “a singularly shitty” one. I’m not sure at this point.
you want to call it 'call-out culture' for me to approach the world in this way
I do? I don’t remember saying that. I do remeber saying that coming out of the gate with accusations of racism is a typical move for call-out culture.
I don’t agree with you that the methods of call out culture outweigh their costs. I get that a lot of people are deeply wounded and frustrated and they reach for what tools are available in trying to express that. That doesn’t, for me, change the fact that if left-leaning folks don’t have as their goal the end result of King’s “beloved community” then we’re going to all turn on each other, hurt each other and ruin each other’s lives needlessly. I’m not here for that.
In that spirit; I’m pretty sure you’ll have a reply, and I’ll read it, but I’m probably done in this thread.
posted by eustacescrubb at 9:25 AM on April 4, 2018 [3 favorites]
I don’t disagree with any of this - I know both to be true, but I’m truly at a loss as to how that applies at all here. Maybe you read that I quoted Dr. King and went to the place you go when people quote Dr. King without really reading what I wrote in any of my comments. And maybe you didn’t read Frost’s article all the way through? There are numerous examples, not just “a singularly shitty” one. I’m not sure at this point.
you want to call it 'call-out culture' for me to approach the world in this way
I do? I don’t remember saying that. I do remeber saying that coming out of the gate with accusations of racism is a typical move for call-out culture.
I don’t agree with you that the methods of call out culture outweigh their costs. I get that a lot of people are deeply wounded and frustrated and they reach for what tools are available in trying to express that. That doesn’t, for me, change the fact that if left-leaning folks don’t have as their goal the end result of King’s “beloved community” then we’re going to all turn on each other, hurt each other and ruin each other’s lives needlessly. I’m not here for that.
In that spirit; I’m pretty sure you’ll have a reply, and I’ll read it, but I’m probably done in this thread.
posted by eustacescrubb at 9:25 AM on April 4, 2018 [3 favorites]
I know very little about Zero Books, but Chris O'Leary's Rebel Rebel is worth the price. (And I don't recall that the editing was any worse that your average book these days.)
posted by octobersurprise at 9:30 AM on April 4, 2018 [1 favorite]
posted by octobersurprise at 9:30 AM on April 4, 2018 [1 favorite]
if left-leaning folks don’t have as their goal the end result of King’s “beloved community” then we’re going to all turn on each other, hurt each other and ruin each other’s lives needlessly. I’m not here for that.
if I have a contention it's just that you define call-out culture wrong and that A'lee's link to that much-contentious Exit from a Vampire Castle was a point too large for the article she wrote. call-out culture is what brought about Times Up and it's helped push a lot of terrible people out of positions of power - and it's wholly distinct from the sophomoric group dynamics of individuals who haven't yet figured out what durability looks like from the standpoint of organizing. and if all of the examples provided are of overeager college students flexing their authority in irresponsible ways then ascribing 'call-out culture' to that is to mischaracterize it
coming out of the gate with accusations of racism is a typical move for call-out culture.
I tried to engage with this in good faith here but I never called you racist. I said your perspective is one related to white supremacy as is the act of summoning Dr. King to denounce any part of the anti-racist movement. denounce it for its specific toxicity, it's a strong enough argument; you absolutely did not need to start with summoning his name in order to chastise some college students
posted by runt at 9:41 AM on April 4, 2018 [2 favorites]
if I have a contention it's just that you define call-out culture wrong and that A'lee's link to that much-contentious Exit from a Vampire Castle was a point too large for the article she wrote. call-out culture is what brought about Times Up and it's helped push a lot of terrible people out of positions of power - and it's wholly distinct from the sophomoric group dynamics of individuals who haven't yet figured out what durability looks like from the standpoint of organizing. and if all of the examples provided are of overeager college students flexing their authority in irresponsible ways then ascribing 'call-out culture' to that is to mischaracterize it
coming out of the gate with accusations of racism is a typical move for call-out culture.
I tried to engage with this in good faith here but I never called you racist. I said your perspective is one related to white supremacy as is the act of summoning Dr. King to denounce any part of the anti-racist movement. denounce it for its specific toxicity, it's a strong enough argument; you absolutely did not need to start with summoning his name in order to chastise some college students
posted by runt at 9:41 AM on April 4, 2018 [2 favorites]
Wait where does Sam Harris come into this? Are they discussing that exchange somewhere? It sounded to me like even a lot of people who like Sam Harris thought he didn't come out looking so good in that one.
posted by atoxyl at 9:51 AM on April 4, 2018 [1 favorite]
posted by atoxyl at 9:51 AM on April 4, 2018 [1 favorite]
as is the act of summoning Dr. King to denounce any part of the anti-racist movement
I didn’t (and don’t) think I “denounced the anti-racist movement.” I certainly hope “calling out” isn’t suddenly a requirement for anti-racist activism. If it is, we’re in bigger trouble than we were already.
posted by eustacescrubb at 9:57 AM on April 4, 2018 [3 favorites]
I didn’t (and don’t) think I “denounced the anti-racist movement.” I certainly hope “calling out” isn’t suddenly a requirement for anti-racist activism. If it is, we’re in bigger trouble than we were already.
posted by eustacescrubb at 9:57 AM on April 4, 2018 [3 favorites]
I'm a clueless white boy and I've definitely said racist things that were very hurtful to my friends at times. How do we get to a "beloved community" if calling me out is considered suspect. Do you just expected them to hurt?
And, yes, there's a major definition problem. Racists are politically motivated to tar everything with the same brush and point to the worst of the bullies and label anyone who speaks up against racism as part of the same "call out culture." And likewise, there's a reaction to dismiss the bullying behavior as "not me."
So you know what, if you want to criticize the bullying side of things, just using the phrase "call out culture" isn't very useful. Define exactly what behavior you're on about, maybe don't even use the phrase. Definitely don't pretend like your definition is the right one. Because there isn't a 'right' one - jut what people hear. My experience with the phrase is going to lead me to believe that you've been drinking the alt-right koolaid if you just jump into a rant about call out culture. Other people might read it differently. On a touchy issue like this, it pays to be clear.
posted by Zalzidrax at 10:26 AM on April 4, 2018 [4 favorites]
And, yes, there's a major definition problem. Racists are politically motivated to tar everything with the same brush and point to the worst of the bullies and label anyone who speaks up against racism as part of the same "call out culture." And likewise, there's a reaction to dismiss the bullying behavior as "not me."
So you know what, if you want to criticize the bullying side of things, just using the phrase "call out culture" isn't very useful. Define exactly what behavior you're on about, maybe don't even use the phrase. Definitely don't pretend like your definition is the right one. Because there isn't a 'right' one - jut what people hear. My experience with the phrase is going to lead me to believe that you've been drinking the alt-right koolaid if you just jump into a rant about call out culture. Other people might read it differently. On a touchy issue like this, it pays to be clear.
posted by Zalzidrax at 10:26 AM on April 4, 2018 [4 favorites]
I didn’t (and don’t) think I “denounced the anti-racist movement.” I certainly hope “calling out” isn’t suddenly a requirement for anti-racist activism. If it is, we’re in bigger trouble than we were already.
that's far from what I'm saying - my point is very much that call-out culture is a small piece of the movement and the toxic elements of that culture even smaller. there's a toolbox and different people use different tools in different ways and some are more skilled than others, a difference I would ascribe to an understanding of power especially at different levels of social interaction (individual vs communal, institutional vs cultural, etc)
public Twitter shaming is call out culture. it's useful. calling people out, making them uncomfortable, is very often a necessary component to raising social consciousness because everyone, and I mean everyone, assumes they can't possibly be complicit in things like the patriarchy or white supremacy, that they're just too conscious for. but really, you're never conscious enough, normalized oppression is too complicated and invisible for that, and valid criticisms that push you into dissonance should be accepted and internalized, not lambasted for being too harsh or the audience too big or the methods not pro-social enough
if you've been called out and you didn't grow from that experience but rather doubled-down on your pre-existing biases then that's not activism, that's complicity
posted by runt at 11:27 AM on April 4, 2018 [1 favorite]
that's far from what I'm saying - my point is very much that call-out culture is a small piece of the movement and the toxic elements of that culture even smaller. there's a toolbox and different people use different tools in different ways and some are more skilled than others, a difference I would ascribe to an understanding of power especially at different levels of social interaction (individual vs communal, institutional vs cultural, etc)
public Twitter shaming is call out culture. it's useful. calling people out, making them uncomfortable, is very often a necessary component to raising social consciousness because everyone, and I mean everyone, assumes they can't possibly be complicit in things like the patriarchy or white supremacy, that they're just too conscious for. but really, you're never conscious enough, normalized oppression is too complicated and invisible for that, and valid criticisms that push you into dissonance should be accepted and internalized, not lambasted for being too harsh or the audience too big or the methods not pro-social enough
if you've been called out and you didn't grow from that experience but rather doubled-down on your pre-existing biases then that's not activism, that's complicity
posted by runt at 11:27 AM on April 4, 2018 [1 favorite]
Saying that someone quoting one of history's great thinkers, writers, and humanists is borderline "reprehensible" (as done above) isn't a humane or helpful way to cultivate allies. That's my problem with the "call out" mindset, whether on college campuses, on Twitter, or in any conversation elsewhere in public. And claiming that "call out" efforts are what led to #MeToo is conflating two different things - #MeToo is explicit criticism of abusive behavior, while plublicly trying to shame someone's imperfect support for or participation in social justice efforts is counterproductive and violates what Dr. King advocated, as quoted above.
posted by PhineasGage at 11:42 AM on April 4, 2018 [4 favorites]
posted by PhineasGage at 11:42 AM on April 4, 2018 [4 favorites]
I agree that our methods of struggle shape the outcomes - that if the outcome we want is a compassionate community that includes everyone equitably, then we need to care about our social interactions or cultures within our organizing groups; and that we need to be planning ahead to at least eventually extend that to those opposed, when our opposition is a significant chunk of society.
I also agree with Scott in one of the links in this post that if being called out on something changes your opinion on the fundamental underlying social justice principles (not just on the particular individual or social network participating in the call out), then you weren't really an ally to begin with.
I understood "call out culture" to refer specifically to the sort of internet pile-on described in whatever the original article calling out call out culture was, or as described in the Black Girl Dangerous post on calling in as another tool alongside calling out, and on strategies for use of these tools. I can see though that the definition has expanded and is now a bit more fuzzy. I do think the Black Girl Dangerous post is at least an important and large component of the analysis that we need.
Anyway, it seems clear that we're not all operating with quite the same definition here, so it might be useful to step back a moment and clarify more carefully what definitions we are each using. And first respond with questions if someone's definition is unclear, before continuing with critique and analysis?
(I was recently debating the definition of "the left" on a friend's Facebook wall. Or, at least, I was debating the definition. I don't think the other person fully realised that was my point, and I think he was debating his original point (a critique of a specific component of "the left", which I mostly agreed with, suitably restricted, though didn't think applied to a broader definition of "the left"). Perusing the Zero Books web site, they seem to have a similarly restricted (though slightly different in the particulars) definition of "the left". I find it frustrating when people don't even acknowledge or consider that their particular definition of such a broad term might not be universal, though.)
posted by eviemath at 2:19 PM on April 4, 2018 [3 favorites]
I also agree with Scott in one of the links in this post that if being called out on something changes your opinion on the fundamental underlying social justice principles (not just on the particular individual or social network participating in the call out), then you weren't really an ally to begin with.
I understood "call out culture" to refer specifically to the sort of internet pile-on described in whatever the original article calling out call out culture was, or as described in the Black Girl Dangerous post on calling in as another tool alongside calling out, and on strategies for use of these tools. I can see though that the definition has expanded and is now a bit more fuzzy. I do think the Black Girl Dangerous post is at least an important and large component of the analysis that we need.
Anyway, it seems clear that we're not all operating with quite the same definition here, so it might be useful to step back a moment and clarify more carefully what definitions we are each using. And first respond with questions if someone's definition is unclear, before continuing with critique and analysis?
(I was recently debating the definition of "the left" on a friend's Facebook wall. Or, at least, I was debating the definition. I don't think the other person fully realised that was my point, and I think he was debating his original point (a critique of a specific component of "the left", which I mostly agreed with, suitably restricted, though didn't think applied to a broader definition of "the left"). Perusing the Zero Books web site, they seem to have a similarly restricted (though slightly different in the particulars) definition of "the left". I find it frustrating when people don't even acknowledge or consider that their particular definition of such a broad term might not be universal, though.)
posted by eviemath at 2:19 PM on April 4, 2018 [3 favorites]
My definition would emphasize a cognizance that "call-out culture" is a pejorative term in the way "social justice warrior" is made a taboo concept by some right-wing value systems. I'd draw attention to how these sorts of phrases get made "real" so that this loaded-ness is obscured. This is what thwarts the possibility of good-faith discussion—that idealized picture of people talking and debating on equal footing must be questioned too.
So instead of ceding to that, what we need is facility with multiple meanings. We want to be able to talk about people not calling out but speaking out about injustice, for that is what call-outs basically aspire to. Marginalized people denied voice, and then reclaiming their voices. Is this process of individual change going to be problematic? Like, why should that be surprising? I would like people whenever occupying the role of ally to be more deliberately tolerant and empathic of that, in turn. That this is not the case is not a personal failing, though; it's an opportunity to gain a better, shared understanding.
posted by polymodus at 2:55 PM on April 4, 2018 [5 favorites]
So instead of ceding to that, what we need is facility with multiple meanings. We want to be able to talk about people not calling out but speaking out about injustice, for that is what call-outs basically aspire to. Marginalized people denied voice, and then reclaiming their voices. Is this process of individual change going to be problematic? Like, why should that be surprising? I would like people whenever occupying the role of ally to be more deliberately tolerant and empathic of that, in turn. That this is not the case is not a personal failing, though; it's an opportunity to gain a better, shared understanding.
posted by polymodus at 2:55 PM on April 4, 2018 [5 favorites]
We want to be able to talk about people not calling out but speaking out about injustice, for that is what call-outs basically aspire to.
I'm curious to know, polymodus, runt, and anyone else : what does this distinction look like? I'm all for speaking out but my personal experience and current understanding suggests to me calling happens much more frequently than speaking. I'm also curious to know if anyone feels the ideal response as described by Scott happens very often. Again, I don't see it happening often. Watching people tear each other apart drove me off social media. Were the activists in my feeds just the worst examples? I'd love to see some data that suggests I've seen an abnormally negative side of things.
posted by eustacescrubb at 6:20 AM on April 6, 2018 [1 favorite]
I'm curious to know, polymodus, runt, and anyone else : what does this distinction look like? I'm all for speaking out but my personal experience and current understanding suggests to me calling happens much more frequently than speaking. I'm also curious to know if anyone feels the ideal response as described by Scott happens very often. Again, I don't see it happening often. Watching people tear each other apart drove me off social media. Were the activists in my feeds just the worst examples? I'd love to see some data that suggests I've seen an abnormally negative side of things.
posted by eustacescrubb at 6:20 AM on April 6, 2018 [1 favorite]
I understood "call out culture" to refer specifically to the sort of internet pile-on described in whatever the original article calling out call out culture was, or as described in the Black Girl Dangerous post on calling in as another tool alongside calling out, and on strategies for use of these tools. I can see though that the definition has expanded and is now a bit more fuzzy. I do think the Black Girl Dangerous post is at least an important and large component of the analysis that we need.
Is there more of that post somewhere? The read more link just takes me to the blogger's book.
BGD seems like an awesome site, though one with some odd ideas about fair use.
posted by snuffleupagus at 8:20 AM on April 6, 2018
Is there more of that post somewhere? The read more link just takes me to the blogger's book.
BGD seems like an awesome site, though one with some odd ideas about fair use.
posted by snuffleupagus at 8:20 AM on April 6, 2018
snuffleupagus, I get a chunk of the post, then a "READ MORE" that I have to click in order to read the rest of it?
posted by eviemath at 8:45 AM on April 6, 2018
posted by eviemath at 8:45 AM on April 6, 2018
For me the that link is to the Amazon page for McKenzie's Solidarity Struggle anthology. I tried turning off my scriptblockers and etc, but that doesn't seem to be it....nor does looking at the page source show anything but READ MORE linking to amazon.
posted by snuffleupagus at 8:55 AM on April 6, 2018
posted by snuffleupagus at 8:55 AM on April 6, 2018
Popup maybe? Here's the full text of the url:
https://www.bgdblog.org/2013/12/calling-less-disposable-way-holding-accountable/
posted by eviemath at 12:02 PM on April 6, 2018
https://www.bgdblog.org/2013/12/calling-less-disposable-way-holding-accountable/
posted by eviemath at 12:02 PM on April 6, 2018
« Older Coloradans are too optimistic to live in a prison... | Mongosity Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
“Among other things, we have had biracial students called “too white” to participate in person-of-color student groups. Our LGBT student group attempted to kick out trans people who could pass and were only interested in people of the opposite gender (these people were “basically straight,” the consensus went—and supposedly not oppressed enough to participate). We also had non-East Asian students successfully get a campus martial arts class cancelled for being culturally appropriative.“
That’s deeply different than racists being shamed on Twitter.
Also Scott writes howlers like “In a sense, progressive whites were “called out” in 1968.”
No, dude, they so totally weren’t, unless you totally change the meaning of “call out” to mean “were faced with a confluence of political forces that required them to reasses their positions and allegiances” and yeah I guess if we’re redefining what call out culture actually is then Scott has a valid point.
Otherwise he’s positioned himself defending toxic behavior that hurts real human beings regularly and needlessly. Maybe he’s a “you can’t make an omelette without breaking a few eggs” type of guy but I don’t want to be on a team with such a person if I can help it. I tend to agree with MLK that a revolution contains within its own methods the future it will create.
posted by eustacescrubb at 1:59 AM on April 4, 2018 [10 favorites]