#Culteralappropriation identity politics, political correctness, Lionel Shriver The Well Beloved!

I have something I want to say about the way our society is moving. It has been bubbling away in my mind for ages. Like many I find myself railing against (at least in my head) over weening political correctness, the virtue signalling promoted by some liberal elites, the petulance of identity politics, snowflakery, the gorging on and promotion of victim mentalities, being "offended", the lazy naivety of left wing politics and worst of all what seems to me really scary - an erosion of freedom of speech as a bi product or consequence.

Reflect - am I a dinosaur? Certainly I am in many commentators sights - white male - baby boomer - pro Brexit - gammon - racist - nationalist - ha!

Dinosaur or not I am in the mood to try and articulate what I am thinking in the mix of social commentary. So here goes - not sure where this is heading and as usual what I am exactly going to say! An exploration - ha!

First of all the trigger point for this blog. My daughter mentioned in a casual WhatsApp conversation she was reading a novel written by Lionel Shriver. She asked me what I was reading - which happened to be The Well Beloved - you might recognise as a lesser known Thomas Hardy novel.

Lionel Shriver was known to me - (but not well known.) She is a successful novelists, a journalist and social commentator. When Vicky mentioned her name it reminded me how previously I had listened to Lionel Shriver and well regarded her contributions - not least on Brexit. Anyway out of interest I googled Lionel Shriver and ended up watching an interview of her by Mark Steyn (someone else of whom I have high regard) - on the topic of "Cultural Appropriation".

What is cultural appropriation? Appropriate - take something for your own use without permission. Cultural appropriation taking or using or assuming someone else's culture which is not your culture?

I enjoyed the discussion which resonated with me and have subsequently felt it was something I could hang my hat on - so to speak. It gave me a structure to voice my grievances on - as per my opening paragraph - ha!

At this point the best thing you could do is to listen to the interview - here is the link.

https://www.bing.com/videos/search?q=lionel+shriver&&view=detail&mid=358DDF6D2F72D2C6957C358DDF6D2F72D2C6957C&&FORM=VRDGAR

For my purposes I am going to precis the interview below and use it for my additional commentary and use bullet points :

• Mark Steyn opens his programme. Cultural Appropriation - "do you have to be Mexican to wear a sombrero - can white men sing the blues or are they being offensive as cultural appropriators ?"
• Lionel Shriver explained she was invited to open a Brisbane Book Festival by making a speech in which she believed she made some anodyne and self evident remarks about the concept of cultural appropriation as it affected her occupation as a novelist.
• Her address caused a storm as "offensive". She was accused of putting on a sombrero. It promoted a heated discussion and she was vilified by many - castigated.
• Lionel states she has no time for the concept of cultural appropriation in novel writing and thinks it is ridiculous - demeaning to even have the discussion. Mark Steyn agrees with her and they probe further.
• Lionel defines the challenge from the concept of cultural appropriation accusers. They say "you do not have the right to assume that you know what it is to be like to be someone other than yourself."
• Mark explains that the concept of the recent "offence" of Cultural Appropriation has it origin in a non literary field. Ottawa University cancelled a Yoga Class - because Yoga belongs to India and should therefore only be run by someone from India. (Lionel points out they subsequently restarted the class as Mindful Stretching!).
• This logic quickly made its way to literature. Lionel as a white woman is challenged that she cannot write black characters, or transgender characters - or as a man! She says with mirth "if you follow their argument logically all I would be left to write as a novelist would be my autobiography".
• Mark and Lionel agree this idea is taking political correctness to the absurd. It is utterly self evident fiction writers have to be allowed to write fiction. One of them says - Shakespeare was not The Prince of Denmark or a Moorish General!
• Mark made the point - Kipling wrote about India, so did Rushdie and Seth! You pay your money - you make your choice. It yours and their freedom.
• Lionel says despite the vitriol she received from those that promote the concept of cultural appropriation she admits to finding the idea so ludicrous that it is almost funny. She cites taking their thinking into other areas - say food. In the UK do we have to go back to only cooking fish and chips and roast beef. The irony is those that promote multi culturalism often use one of their selling points how diverse our food offer has become. Every pub serves a curry and a pizza!
• Lionel says it is totalitarian to insist people can only write in a particular way.
• She said despite the detractors she has also received much support for her position - especially from men. Mark said that is interesting - why do think that is?
• They talked around it. One said - it is increasingly hard for a white man to say anything about anything these days before someone refers to the stench of privilege and they get shouted down. Lionel speculated maybe men feel it is easier to allow someone else - especially a woman to make their point.
• Mark and Lionel agreed that historically it was the "right" - who were conservatives - who were the advocates of conformity - who required people to tow the line.
• But now it is the "left" who are trying to force conformity and the morals you must have, the language you are permitted to use and what you are supposed to think. 
• They observe increasingly it is not about conversation but you have to think that and if you do not think that it is an arrestable offence! You no longer have a right to have a difference of opinion.
• Mark cited he had got into trouble in Canada with the Human Rights lobby. His offence reviewing (reading) a book and therefore promoting a view (contained in the book) that the lobby found offensive.
• Lionel and Mark specifically observe discussion is more and more being constrained by personal rather than discussion about ideas. Discussion is couched in 1st personal emotional experience - to disagree with someone becomes injurious to them - they claim hurt - offence - and it results in end of discourse. You arrive at the ridiculous position where discourse can on take place between people who agree with each other otherwise participants claim personal hurt - and being offended!
• Of course this thinking - I am personally offended - you are hurting me with your opinions is wrapped up in what is described as "identity politics". I have taken a definition from Wikipedia and copied below -

The term identity politics in common usage refers to a tendency of people sharing a particular racial, religious, ethnic, social, or cultural identity to form exclusive political alliances, instead of engaging in traditional broad-based party politics, or promote their particular interests without regard for interests of a larger political group. In academic usage, the term has been used to refer to a wide range of political activities and theoretical analysis rooted in experiences of injustice shared by different social groups. In this usage, identity politics typically aim to reclaim greater self-determination and political freedom for marginalized groups through understanding their distinctive nature and challenging externally imposed characterizations, instead of organizing solely around belief systems or party affiliations. Identity is used as a tool to articulate political claims, promote political ideologies, and guide political action with the aim of asserting group distinctiveness and gaining power and recognition in the context of perceived inequality or injustice.
The term identity politics has been in use in various forms since the 1960s or 1970s, but has been applied with, at times, radically different meanings by different populations. It has gained currency with the emergence of social movements such as the women's movement, the civil rights movement in the U.S., the LGBTQ movement, as well as nationalist and postcolonial movements.
Examples include identity politics based on age, religion, social class or caste, culture, deaf hood, dialect, disability, education, ethnicity, language, nationality, sex, gender identity, generation, occupation, profession, race, political party affiliation, sexual orientation, settlement, urban and rural habitation, and veteran status. 

• Lionel talks about her novel Big Brother which was largely about the life of her oldest brother Greg - who was obese. - which she says was sympathetically written. NAAFA - the National Association to Advance Fat Acceptance gave her a very hard time claiming she did not have the pedigree (as a non fat person) to comment on fat issues from a fat persons perspective - only they could - fat people.
• Eventually they go full circle and get back to the notion of the sin of cultural appropriation in novel writing and how ridiculous it is. Novels almost always have to have conflict between characters in the novel to work- tensions between characters. This is the way a novelist can deal with - challenge complex issues. It does not mean the author necessarily agrees with the opinion of the character the novelist has created. A novelist has to be able to claim freedom of expression. Lionel does admit with a smile she can allow her characters to say things she would not dare say herself!

I have been rambling on. The blog now looks unwieldy. The point I am trying to make is we must resist overt political correctness - limiting freedom of speech. We must resist pressure increasingly from left leaning identity politics if they try and shut us down if we do not agree with them (as they claim to be the only group that have the legitimacy to express an opinion.). The right of freedom of speech, of thought, of expression is in practical terms under pressure. We are being closed down. It must be resisted.

So to wrap up - back to the Thomas Hardy novel I was reading - the Well-beloved (in pursuit of). The main protagonist Jocelyn Pierston continues to seek perfection in the woman to marry - and is fickle - breaks hearts on the journey (although he takes no satisfaction in that - indeed the opposite). His friend Somers has the opposite view - his advice on women and marriage - take the first nice woman you meet. They are all alike.

As Lionel explains she often hides behind the view of her characters. Which view did. Thomas Hardy hold. Which view would I admit to (or none)  - ha!