It’s not because I agree with them, mind you. I intentionally avoid discussing my ethnicity/gender/sexuality on this blog, but let’s just say that I am not the flavor of human that white power advocates like.
But I nonetheless love these racist blogs, how they build a rational apparatus around a definitively non-rational worldview. They take a patently discredited idea (whites are inherently biologically, morally, and intellectually superior to non-whites) and then build intricate intellectual systems around it.
In a (very specific) way, white power ideology is the same as any other critical apparatus. The biggest issue that I have with Marxist, Freudian, or even Feminist literary criticism is that they force an external apparatus onto the text, sometimes seeing things that are only there if you subscribe to a certain worldview. They are valuable as part of your critical toolkit, but can also put an obstacle between you and the text.
Sometimes a spaceship is just a spaceship |
This also applies to the critics that I personally favor – Hegel, Jung, and
Christ. They all provide me with powerful tools, but I intentionally switch
between them and others in order to examine texts from multiple, conflicting angles. By
engaging in multiple active dissections of the text, I get a better sense of it
than when I dogmatically commit to a single system.
This is
a very simple truth that is very easy to forget: more viewpoints means a better
picture. You need special cameras to make a proper 3D movie – adding 3D in Post
just doesn’t look as good.
Whatever
issues I have with Feminist criticism as a single monolithic viewpoint, it is
extremely valuable as an additional angle (unlike white power criticism, which
I use solely for novelty purposes). As much of a Jesus fan as I am, researching
the viewpoints of other religions provides a much-needed counterweight to blind
dogmatism. By opening up myself to others, I am able to see a bigger picture.
All of
this becomes more powerful when it is not located solely within the self. If
having multiple viewpoints within oneself is a valuable tool, opening yourself
up to the viewpoints of others is even better. The bigger the conversation
gets, the more unique takes we have on a given subject, and the greater the
likelihood we will arrive at a complete picture.
But there
is a difference between Value and Cachet.
I
should warn you that I am going to venture into an argument that may at first
seem like something from a white power blog. We have all encountered a version
of this argument and danced the Reverse Discrimination Tango. As
much as games criticism is in dire need of fresh, non-King of Sweden
perspectives (White Male CIS Hetero Physically Abled yada yada
yada), there is something distasteful about forcing the Kings of
Sweden out of the conversation on the basis of their skin (and yada yada yada).
This is
where this argument diverges into two forms. In one argument, conversations are
a limited resource and the mere existence of programs, blogs, or critical
spaces which give a platform exclusively to non-Kings of Sweden is a bad thing.
Every journal must be a pure Darwinian meritocracy, where only the strong shall
survive. Any attempt to encourage the formation of new voices is tantamount to
intellectual socialism. If the proverbial Black Muslim Handicapped Trans Lesbian
cannot cut it in the free market of ideas, then they deserve to fail.
This is
an argument that we can more or less reject out of hand. The free market does not
work without regulation – monopolies crowd out competition and put shackles
around the Invisible Hand. Those with hiring power tend to hire people they
relate to, people who are like themselves. If these are the ideas assigned value by the powerful, only people who
share these ideas will be given a platform.
But
there is a legitimate point buried beneath the bullshit. There is a substantive
difference between Value and Cachet. Cachet views alternate voices as an
arbitrary quota which must be numerically fulfilled without any consciousness
of how these voices improve the conversation. There are blogs and magazines
that want alternate voices only for Cachet, their ability to point to a writer
and say “Hey! We can’t be racist/sexist/intolerant/generally terrible human
beings because we have X writer on staff!”
It’s
the “Black Friend” argument, the idea that acknowledging the existence of
“The Good Ones” is incompatible with being racist. The “Black Friend” (swap out
for “Hispanic Friend,” “Gay Friend,” or “Female Friend” as necessary) is not
Valued for their unique contributions as an individual but given Cachet for how
they prop up another’s image.
“I
can’t be homophobic, I kiss everyone
when I’m drunk!”
“I
can’t be transphobic, I Liked a gender-swapped Mario cosplay on Facebook!”
“I
can’t be misogynist, I looooove them titties!"
My
magazine can’t be pushing regressive male-power fantasies, we hired a girl -
who we keep on a tight leash lest she let slip some insight into the female
condition (lol, menses joke) that angers our subscribers.
The
Kings of Sweden are right about one thing: Cachet is not the same as Value. As
much as I support publications that decide to recruit writers outside of the
white male circle jerk (lol, mental image), this has very little meaning if
these voices are muzzled. Quotas are indeed not a good thing, but not because
they go too far. The point of pursuing diversity is to get
something that you are incapable of producing yourself, not to hear your own
talking points delivered in a different accent.
So I
understand why the Kings of Sweden rage when a magazine or company hires a
sub-standard writer simply because they need to round out their minority
roster. I understand the meritocratic ideal of color-blind competition. But I
absolutely reject the claim that institutions can function as pure
meritocracies, given that humans are humans and humans are demonstrably
terrible people.
Meritocracy
is a noble theory but it only works in reality if we ignore the existence of
the Good Old Boy System, the network of contacts and favors that renders the
idea of truly free competition ludicrous. One of the best ways to combat the Good Old Boy System without imposing arbitrary quotas
is the development of alternate networks which provide similar boosts to
alternate voices (although in practice, these alternate networks have less
funding and leverage than the G.O.B.S.).
More
importantly, I refuse to confuse Cachet with Value. It is easy to prove that
Cachet is worthless, but Cachet is simply not the same thing as Value. So I
completely support the building of alternative spaces which exclude the Kings
of Sweden and give alternative voices a shot at breaking into the conversation.
Some may worry that this means less of the pie for those who “truly deserve
it.” I say it means giving everyone an equal shot to prove that they truly deserve the pie. Even better, it
forces the market to expand beyond its safety zone, meaning more pie for
everyone.
Sure,
there may be an Inuit Asexual Buddhist Southpaw out there who is an objectively
terrible writer. Alternative spaces have to make tough, market-driven decisions
too. But alternative spaces also generally understand that Cachet is not Value.
How could they not? They have to work on smaller budgets, get less access to
the industry, and are even more dependent on their supporters than the G.O.B.S.
could ever imagine. You think the market is a brutal place? It’s even more
brutal for outsiders.
Do you
oppose hiring people for their Cachet? Fine, I agree. The question is, are you
actively seeking out alternate voices for their Value? On a long enough
timeline, profits for all industries approach zero – more competitors fighting
for the same pie (even if they’re all Kings of Sweden) means less pie for all
competitors. Even if game criticism is a profit-driven business, you cannot
deny that without innovation, without intentionally reaching out for new ideas
and new markets, businesses wither up and die.
So fuck Cachet. Show me what you
Value. Prove to me that you are willing to risk short term loss in a crowded
and dying market for long term gain in new, growing markets. Prove to me that
the white male circle jerk is your worst-case scenario. Diversity should never
be an artificially imposed policy, but a rational recognition that seeing the
whole picture makes you objectively stronger.
Now if you'll excuse me, I'm going to go re-read The Turner Diaries.
No comments:
Post a Comment