Friday open thread: thought-provoking links

[dolorosa_12]

I'll return to people's suggested prompts in future Friday open threads, but for now I've got a prompt of my own. This one's pretty straightforward: what is something you've read recently online that made you think, that resonated with you, or that taught you something interesting.

A couple of requests: please, nothing to do with the ongoing US election shitshow (I've driven myself into a frenzy of sleepless panic worrying about the situation in specific states, and I really need to focus on something else), and if possible I would prefer whatever you share here to be written text rather than podcasts or videos. If you prefer to share videos/podcasts, that's fine, but be aware that it's extremely unlikely I'll watch/listen to them — I find them an extremely inefficient way to absorb information and if there's not a written transcript, I generally avoid them as a medium.



My link is this blog post: The Uncanny Valley of Culture. On the surface, it's about two pieces of media — an Australian film, and an Australian game, neither of which I've seen/played — but what it's really about is the kind of critical obliviousness which occurs when critics come from a hegemonic culture:

[W]hat we really truly need is for tastemakers and critics (particularly American ones) to put more effort into leading the way in championing narratives from other cultures, and to drop the assumptions that all English-speaking countries exist in a kind of bland monoculture: tastemakers’ horizons must be broadened, for everyone’s sake.

I found it very persuasive.

Comments

[author_by_night]

You need a log in! :( Any way you can quote from it a bit, maybe?

[eglantiere]

aw, i accidentally posted my app link, not the real link. here it is:

https://getpocket.com/explore/item/the-banality-of-empathy

This viewing experience finally undid for me what I have long suspected to be a meaningless platitude: the idea that art promotes empathy. This idea is particularly prevalent when it comes to those works of art described as “narrative”: stories, novels, TV shows, movies, comics. We assume that works that depict characters in action over time must make us empathize with them, or as the saying goes, “walk a mile in their shoes.” And we assume that this is a good thing. Why?

[nyctanthes]

That's a thought-provoking article. I like the use of the term "empathy vehicle." (Though I remain unclear about the difference between inhabiting the person vs the position. I was, oddly enough, thinking earlier today that many writers spend so much time trying to write what the singular position of the not-default character is that they lose sight of the person they're writing. And now I am confused. :P)

Looking forward to reading the Violet Allen story.

[cahn]

It was definitely thought-provoking! Though I found myself, like nyctanthes, often confused about what argument they are actually making, and as a result I think I agree with some of what she says and disagree with some of it (but I'm not absolutely sure).

I do get and agree with the points that "too much empathy" can be a bad thing -- when we're talking either about the "relishing of suffering by those who are safe from it" or when "empathy" becomes a way of saying "we should think alike and when we don't it means you are wrong" or "I will empathize with people who are enough like me that I can empathize with them," which I think is what she's saying in other parts of the piece.

But
Rather than virtually becoming another, she asks you to imagine using your own mind but from their position.

I have a kneejerk objection to this, because I feel like it becomes perilously close to what I heard someone recently say about homeless people, that is, something to the effect of "why don't they just get a job? That's what I would do!" That is, I can see that "well, but what if you had their family situation and circumstances and etc." which may be what Arendt may be trying to get at (more on this in a bit), but where do you draw the line on that?

Also, maybe this is just me being confused by the argument the author is making, but I don't really understand why art as empathy with people different than ourselves doesn't work for the author? As someone who grew up in an extremely conservative and homogenous environment, the only access I had to other points of view was... books where I could empathize with characters who were not like myself. I think maybe she's making the argument that generally speaking art wants us to empathize with the white male hero rather than other more diverse characters, and that's not great. Which I agree with! but I'm not really sure.

I think maybe what works for me -- and maybe this is what Arendt is saying -- is the idea that empathy does not need to mean lack of perception or accountability. For example, I adore books or media in which the villain has understandable motivations and one can -- yes -- empathize with where the villain is coming from -- but that doesn't mean it's impossible to pull back afterwards and think, yeah, that person was unambiguously a villain, even though I completely understand why they did what they did. And I think this is valuable, because if we can understand why people do what we do then a) we can stop ourselves from becoming villainous in that way, and b) perhaps we can help others who might be going down that path if we have insight into their thought processes. Speaking of empathizing with the villain of the story:

The story as a whole offers an object lesson in how empathy is beside the point when respectability politics neutralizes the kind of hero we can “relate to.”

IDK, I feel like this does not do justice to the story. Empathy is very much not beside the point, it is actually the point of the story that empathy is a good thing (otherwise the ending wouldn't pack the punch it does), it is just a hard thing.

...I think this is my problem with the entire article. "Doing empathy right is hard, so it's a bad idea." What?? (Maybe I'm misunderstanding it... but I also think it's not really a clearly written article.)

So, yeah, wow, in conclusion I guess that was very intriguing, sorry for the essay :)

[eglantiere]

what i got out of this article, which might or might not be what author had put in there, is that empathy, when applied willy-nilly, does not replace, mm, ethics? that when empathy is applied within the bigger context of oppression and injustice, turns into excuses for the oppressors and safely toothless misery porn for the oppressed. i think the short story tries to save its main character with empathy - the author keeps trying to make them more and more relatable, safe, harmless, good, engaging, pitiful, virtuous (i.e. easy to empathize with) - while it's in general not right that you should only not harm somebody if you empathize with them; you should not harm them because they're human.

[cahn]

I really like that, and definitely agree with what you're saying. I think... if the article had been called "the limits of empathy" it would have worked better for me, maybe?

[dolorosa_12]

That was really interesting. When I saw the title, I felt immediately defensive, because I'm certainly the kind of person who rather uncritically feels that empathy is a good thing, and that my preexisting capacity for empathy was enhanced and expanded by fiction. I guess what I took away from the essay is that empathy — like every other human creation — has its limits and can be misued. Seeking out misery porn as a kind of safe way to experience the real-world pain of other people is pointless unless it actually sparks actions to alleviate that pain.

[eglantiere]

from the professional standpoint, i kinda sympathize with her stance? because empathy, in itself, is neutral; empathy is simply a state of being kind up with the other's emotions. you can empathize with the spider and the fly at once, because empathy does not require and does not create ethics. for it to be, hm, useful for one's humanity, it needs to be kicked into active compassion, and that's a different cup of water altogether.

this said, it's a very angry article, and i think it set out to be purposefully angry as to not - pun intended - invite the readers to empathize with it.

[dolorosa_12]

for it to be, hm, useful for one's humanity, it needs to be kicked into active compassion, and that's a different cup of water altogether.

That's a very good point.