Even if you had a magic bullet, you'd need a means of delivery, and accurate targeting

[oursin]

Reading these very thought-provoking posts by oyceter and coffeeandink I was struck by the underlying notion that they are arguing against, that there is a quick fix for [problem] in the form of a magic bullet or set of rules or clearly labelled boxes to put things in, and once you've got that sorted, [problem] is no longer a problem because you just follow the

Comments

[shiv5468]

Interesting.

I thought the link to the appropriation of cultures was especially interesting in the light of the recent dust up I had about portrayals of Native American culture.

There was such a massive failure of engagement, and I still don't know what to think about it.

I do wonder whether some sort of magic bullet "settlement" of the issue of racism in other people's heads might play a part - if you don't call people nigger, then you aren't racist, and if you aren't racist, then there couldn't be a problem. And that stifles engagement.

But on the other hand a set of agreed rules about what is or is not acceptable does stop the most offensive behaviour.

[oursin]

On the one hand yes, a set of codes of good practice does help minimise offensiveness. On the other, just saying 'oh, I obey all those rules and therefore I am so totally not racist' is stopping where thinking should start.

[oursin]

Yes, things can be improved, but there's an enormous tendency of people to think 'okay, that's been Done, there are no longer any problems' rather than that change is an ongoing process that has to be worked at. This tendency came up in the Rathbone bio I mentioned earlier this week - immediately the very limited suffrage had been granted in 1918, commentators were tagging women who said 'lots more to be done here' as hysterical, what on earth were they complaining about, we've given them the vote, haven't we, what have they got to keep whingeing on about.

And yes, 'laziness' was in my mind when writing this.

[legionseagle]

Or, as it was succinctly put by Tom Robinson in one of the mid-80s versions of "Glad to Be Gay":

"The buggers are legal now/what more are they after?"

[going_not_gone]

however complicated the system of rules, it's still a lot more simple than having to judge everything on its merits and what is the right thing in any particular situation.

This is why I am violently allergic to 'scripture' and to the type of belief system that states that the answer to every single question can be found in the Ancient Sacred Infallible Big Book o'God. It leads to oversimplification and the chronic refusal to even try to judge a situation on its own merits. It's so much easier, so much less threatening, to find a close-enough-to-appropriate box and stuff people and their problems into it...and cut off the parts that don't fit in the box.

Sheer moral laziness, in my opinion. Why take the trouble of thinking about big questions like right and wrong when you can let Authority do it for you?

[noveldevice]

I blame intro to philosophy classes

[wordweaverlynn]

A philosophy professor who prefes not to think? I hope he doesn't have tenure.

[ide_cyan]

they're the flower or the fruit which is the visible evidence of a complex invisible network of roots.

Christine Delphy wrote that sexism is the ideological expression of institutionalised oppression.

[oursin]

True - it's a long time since I read Delphy and this idea is so pervasive in feminist thought I'm not sure I'd had attributed to any one writer.

However, the point I was trying to make was rather different - that even the most obvious yes/no, good/bad choices, simple pleasures, etc, rest on concealed complex structures - I was thinking of Visser's wonderful Much Depends on Dinner which demonstrates the processes by which even a 'simple' meal gets onto the plate.