Since I discussed ethnicity and culture in the last Daredevil post, maybe this is a good time to go back to the Silverberg/Jemisin issue that played out after the events of WorldCon 2018. For anyone who’s been under a rock and missed the whole thing, Silverberg was displeased by Jemisin’s acceptance speech for her 3rd Best Novel win. In a discussion group he thought was private, he commented that he thought her conduct at the ceremony had been graceless and offensively political. He was immediately attacked as a sexist and racist. He made various attempts to defend himself against these charges, which were labeled just more evidence that he didn’t recognize his own shortcomings.
This is a fairly common occurrence these days, where someone makes a comment they think is a reasonable opinion, or even a private one in this case, and then is mercilessly attacked. I’ve commented before that the accuracy of the charges doesn’t really seem to be a question, only that it’s taken as an opportunity to attack, generally by the enforcers of a particular political agenda. I’m not going to fall into the trap of trying to say who’s right in the Silverberg/Jemisin fuss. What I want to look at is the cultural conflict that’s playing out behind this kind of conversation.
Because cultural norms and expectations are permanently in the process of negotiation, researchers consider them to be a contested zone. Culture is something that moves and changes, sometimes very quickly and sometimes hardly at all. It can be based on specific locale, with different norms just a few miles down the road, or it can be based on group membership, when a person’s expectations about how other people should behave is defined by social groupings within their culture. This means that when Silverberg, a past award winner, complained about Jemisin’s speech at the Hugo Awards ceremony, it meant she hadn’t met his expectations about how an award winner ought to behave. In particular, he seemed to be complaining about the political content of her speech.
Presumably if Jemisin had said something supportive of the SFF community’s history and values, praised its elders, etc., everything would have been just fine. However, she apparently considers herself a political activist and uses her speaking opportunities to attack institutions for their shortcomings, rather than saying things that show her support of the group—in this case she accused the SFF community of grudging acceptance of minority aspirations, i.e. racism. This tactic is meant to be provocative, as Jemisin is calling attention to the fact that the community doesn’t meet her standards. Her comments did trigger a conversation of sorts, but basically a disruptive one that generated hard feelings all around.
Actually, the reception for Jemisin’s speech seemed to be fairly warm at the time, and folks like Silverberg who were offended remained polite about it. It was only later when he thought he was in a private venue that he revealed his offense. So, were her comments appropriate? There’s where the question of culture and the “contested zone” comes in. It’s been fairly common in recent years for award winners to take an opportunity for political statements. See the Academy Awards, for example. However, there is always a backlash. This tactic is a matter of trying to force cultural change, rather than encouraging it. Why not have a conversation about solidarity instead?
thephantom182
Jan 04, 2019 @ 00:43:57
“He made various attempts to defend himself against these charges, which were labeled just more evidence that he didn’t recognize his own shortcomings.”
Mr. Silverberg made the mistake of thinking his age and fame made it safe for him to express a reasonable opinion in a private setting. Oops.
“So, were her comments appropriate?”
Her comments, as I recall, boiled down to accusing the WorldCon of treating her like a Diversity hire, suggested that the Hugos were insufficiently respectful of her Blackness, and generally calling everybody in the place a racist.
This after the scrapping of the entire program 2 weeks before the con, and re-doing everything to be more Woke.
I’m of two minds on the issue. I think that WorldCon is run by and has a membership that is overwhelmingly white American Liberals. I think they’re lying about pretty much everything they say, because when you turn the sound off, their actions don’t match what comes out of their mouths.
So in that sense, I personally think she’s inadvertently saying the truth. They are racists, pretending not to be as hard as they can. NK Jemisin got the Hugo three years in a row because of Leftist politics, aka skin colour.
But but on the other hand, she’s one of them. She’s a member of the WorldCon Faction. Her speech was a slap in the face to all those fellow travelers who bent over backwards and groveled and crawled on their knees to give her every single thing she said she wanted, on a silver platter. Mr. Silverberg quite rightly responded negatively, because nobody likes getting their face slapped.
It will be oh-so very interesting to see if Robert Silverberg is -allowed- to visit this year’s Worldcon, or if he will be joining Jon Del Arroz under the bus.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Lela E. Buis
Jan 04, 2019 @ 00:59:21
Ah. Hmm. I seem to have tapped into an ongoing issue.
LikeLiked by 1 person
thephantom182
Jan 04, 2019 @ 14:57:51
All part of the ever-accelerating WorldCon purity spiral, Lela.
Recall the woman who’s trying to get John W. Campbell’s name removed from the Campbell award? Somebody somewhere is planning a “ban Silverberg” campaign.
2016, Larry Correia. 2017, John Ringo. 2018, Jon DelArroz. 2019, Robert Silverberg and John W. Campbell. How long before Hugo Gernsback is problematic? I’m going to go out on a limb and say 2020.
Time will tell if I’m wrong. And I would like to be wrong. It would be nice to see these predictions fail. But I’m probably only wrong on speed, not direction.
LikeLiked by 1 person
steve davidson
Jan 04, 2019 @ 07:28:07
Seemingly minor in the greater scheme of things is that “someone” violated a trust by making Silverberg’s private comments public. I don’t know if having done so to support a political agenda makes it any worse.
To a person, we all have thoughts and feelings that run counter to those of the people we like/want to associate with. Most of us have a handful of confidants we’ve come to trust that we share such thoughts with, and even though we have such thoughts, most of us recognize that airing them publicly is inappropriate for a variety of reasons, and so we confine ourselves to expressing them privately.
I think of how Silverberg’s statements make me question him, while also realizing that, so far as I am aware, his public face has been supportive of the genre as a whole, his positive contributions widely influential and I try to reconcile the two.
Would any of us survive a complete and open airing of all of our private thoughts? I don’t think so.
In regards to Jemisin’s speech: I was in the audience and participated in the standing ovation she received throughout. Other comments here provide what can only best be called a slanted summary. The entire thing can be read here https://www.barnesandnoble.com/blog/sci-fi-fantasy/read-n-k-jemisins-historic-hugo-speech/ and watched here https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8lFybhRxoVM (if anyone really wants to discuss it, they need to both read and watch the actual event first.)
Did she say anything “…supportive of the SFF community’s history and values…”? Yes.
“I look to science fiction and fantasy as the aspirational drive of the Zeitgeist: we creators are the engineers of possibility. And as this genre finally, however grudgingly, acknowledges that the dreams of the marginalized matter and that all of us have a future, so will go the world.”
LikeLike
Lela E. Buis
Jan 04, 2019 @ 08:04:20
Steve, thanks for the comment. I actually linked to the video of Jemisin’s speech in the blog post so readers can form their own opinions, judge her expressions, etc. As a member of WorldCon, do you think Jemisin’s award was given “grudgingly”?
LikeLike
greghullender
Jan 04, 2019 @ 11:29:58
As I listened to the speech, I remember thinking it was a bit too political, but on reading it again, I don’t really see the problem. Most objectionable might be “And as this genre finally, however grudgingly, acknowledges that the dreams of the marginalized matter and that all of us have a future, so will go the world,” since that does (sort of) attack the audience, but that’s about it. Overall, I thought it was a powerful, effective speech.
I can understand Silverberg’s objections to the speech, even if I disagree with them. I’d far rather hear a fiery speech than a dull one that merely thanks 20 people I’ve never heard of. What troubles me is the people who seem to feel that he’s simply not entitled to have an opinion different from theirs, and that anyone who does express such an opinion is a bad person.
Every time they do this, I keep hoping that people start to stand up to them, but it never happens, partly because doing so means you yourself get attacked.
LikeLike
thephantom182
Jan 04, 2019 @ 15:49:17
“Every time they do this, I keep hoping that people start to stand up to them, but it never happens, partly because doing so means you yourself get attacked.”
There’s no way to win a ShirtStorm, Greg. Once the mob targets you, its over.
You can’t counter-attack against a swarm of ants. No matter how many you squash, there are always more. All you can do is stand there with both middle fingers raised and get bitten, or lie down and get bitten.
The path of freedom is to ignore them. They’re ants. Who cares what they think?
LikeLike
greghullender
Jan 04, 2019 @ 16:05:34
You don’t have fire ants up in Canada do you? 🙂
LikeLiked by 1 person
thephantom182
Jan 04, 2019 @ 17:19:28
No, we don’t. I met some of those in Arizona. Boiling water works great on them. After I stewed a few thousand, the survivors seemed to learn not to hang out on the patio anymore.
What’s needed is a way to pour boiling water on Twitter. The best candidate is shunning. If you don’t go on Twitter, ever, then you don’t care what they say there. Works great.
Eventually I’m sure people will realize that most ShirtStorms are really a few dozen manic/depressives with many sockpuppet accounts. When that happens, all their sting will be gone.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Shadowdancer Duskstar / Cutelildrow
Jan 07, 2019 @ 17:20:33
In the Philippines, we have these big red ants that build nests in trees like mango trees, out of the tree’s leaves and well, something that is a lot like spider silk. Once colonized, the only way to get them out of a tree is to use a lot of smoke (daily), or to burn out the leaves of the tree. In some cases it requires not just a leaf burning but a severe pruning of the tree.
LikeLiked by 1 person
thephantom182
Jan 07, 2019 @ 22:45:33
Those are some tough ants. Philippines has all kinds of diabolical insects, don’t they?
Still, gotta say that plain old carpenter ants will eventually eat your whole barn if you don’t get them out. Give them 20 years and they’ll take the floor joists right out of it.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Anonymous
Jan 09, 2019 @ 12:29:23
im gonna say the …
(Oops, redacted. Regardless of the controversy, outright slurs are unacceptable. LB)
LikeLike