(Update: at editor request, Iâm anonymizing the critic to whom I am responding. They have been renamed âJohn Doeâ for purposes of this post.)
(Because this is a very long grinding point-by-point reply, I have also posted a more readable summary. Unless youâre interested in the gory details of this blogfight, or you really like my writing style when I ramble, you should probably read that summary rather than this. But since John took the time to summarize the controversy I thought he deserved a detailed response.)
Dear John Doe:
Dear Tom Swiss, Unlike Jason [Mankey, Patheos Pagan channel editor] I do not believe that we live in a country of âfree speech.â If that were true, we could yell âfireâ in a packed movie theater, and âfaggotâ when a punch is thrown, and Westboro Baptist Church could picket fallen soldiers funerals, and it be âfree speech.â In truth the First Amendment about free speech applies to legislative bodies and to the press, and we see overwhelmingly how that is often wrangled.
Thank you for starting off honestly with a declaration that you do not believe in the value of free speech. I have to admit that it does take some courage to reject a fundamental Constitutional value of the nation in which you live. It puts the rest of our dialog in a clear focus: you have taken a stance in opposition to one of my own core values, something for which I might be willing to give my life.
Almost twenty years ago I wrote, âIf the only thing that sets us apart from the other apes is an advanced capacity for language and communication, than any attempt to reduce our communication can only be seen as an attempt at forcible de-evolution.â I still believe that.
That suggests that you and I are unlikely to find rapprochement, and at best might come to regard each other as worthy adversaries. I think we both identify with the political âleftâ as we understand it, but yours is apparently an authoritarian left and mine a libertarian left. (A small-l libertarian, as in âcivil libertarianâ, not related to the sophomoric âLibertarian Partyâ in the U.S.)
Thatâs a large gap, and so any answers I give are unlikely to satisfy you. I suspect we both realize that we are mostly âplaying to the galleryâ here.
But I would suggest that you research Schenck v. United_States and how the âfire in a crowded theaterâ line comes from an argument used to convict anti-draft protesters during World War I. I donât think youâll want to use that phrase once you understand its history â and perhaps that will prompt you to reconsider some other things about freedom. We can, in fact, yell fire in a crowded theater. If there is a fire and we warn others about it, doing so can be heroic.
And thank you for giving me a clear set of points to address, for effectively summarizing the controversy. I will try to take them one by one.
These posts (this one and the summary) plus the original and my first reply will make about 10,000 words from me on the topic over the past week or so. So I think Iâve taken up enough of the air in the room for now. Rather than continue to repeat the same points over and over, once these are up I donât plan to make any further public comment on the subject for at least the next two weeks.
I do hope that this controversy might inspire useful dialogue about how we can respect other cultures, deal with racial injustice, and promote the rights of all people; how we can build a genuinely inclusive and inviting movement for social justice and liberation, rather than a machine for personal criticism. Part of the reason Iâm going to step back for a moment is to make space for that dialogue happen, rather than feeding that personal criticism machine â be it targeted at me, or at John Doe. Letâs yell at each other about ideas, not about people.
Iâve done what my Great and Good Lady Eris Discordia requires of me, and thrown the Golden Apple into the room; itâs up to the rest of the folks who care about this to decide who is the prettiest one.
Maybe Iâll move on to a nice safe topic. Like gun rights.
(A side note to the gallery: I donât usually do this, but since my personal reputation is being sullied by baseless accusations Iâm going to explicitly ask that if you find merit in this post, you share it on the social media platform of your choice.)
The right to question definitions and theories
1: Why do you feel you have the right to redefine what Cultural Appropriation is from noted scholars and marginalized and oppressed people?
I have to admit to being baffled by the premise of this question. I didnât give any definition of âcultural appropriationâ, so Iâm not sure how I redefined it. Also Iâm not aware that marginalized and oppressed people have all come together and agreed on a definition for this neologism, or that itâs a useful way to talk about the problems they face.
Hereâs a useful definition quoted in Bruce Ziff and Pratima V. Raoâs Borrowed Power: Essays on Cultural Appropriation: âthe taking â from a culture that is not oneâs own â of intellectual property, cultural expressions or artifacts, history and ways of knowingâ.
But as already discussed, âintellectual propertyâ is viewed by many as a null concept. We donât need a new word to describe taking artifacts, âtheftâ is quite sufficient. The idea that one can âtakeâ history or ways of knowing away from someone else is questionable at best; if I learn the history of a different culture, it does not prevent a member of that culture from knowing that same information. So this definition illustrates the hodge-podge of problematic concepts in play.
Some scholars do believe that it is a useful theoretical construct, certainly. Some critics disagree. (You donât think itâs just me, do you?) In fact, even as they seek to explore the idea, Ziff and Rao note âThis simple description bristles with uncertainty.â
As for what gives me the ârightâ to question this or any idea, I find arguments from authority unmotivating. I believe we need to actually examine ideas themselves, that anyone has the right to challenge an idea and to have their arguments assessed through critical inquiry, not on status or authority. Yes, I will sometimes fall short of this aspiration (you might even catch me doing so here!), and there are practical limitations because we canât hear everyone at once. We certainly need to do a better job of making sure people from marginalized cultures â and we need to include not just race and religion but class there â have the ability to hear their arguments heard! But my goal when doing philosophy or politics is equality for all before the processes of logic.
Now, with that comes the responsibility of everyone to make reasoned arguments, and not to claim to be exempt because of status â either high status or low status. Whether you are rich and powerful or marginalized and oppressed, if you make a bad argument it is still a bad argument. (Again, yes, I will sometimes fail to put this into practice.)
In short: I have the right to question the definitions and theories put forward by others because I am a human being, and all humans have that right, regardless of their status or the status of the one proposing the theory.
Not a helpful movement
And in doing so do you not see how this de-validates the entire foundation of a movement in the process and the work being done? Do you not see the impact that how being a public Pagan on Patheos directly affects the wider community.
First, I think that you are greatly overestimating the importance of Patheos Pagan. (Sorry, Jason!) Itâs great and all and Iâm happy to be here, but as a place to stand to move the worldâŚletâs face it, I donât think it has a lot of leverage. I suspect that vast majority of Pagans donât even know we exist, much less read any of our blogs with any regularity.
More importantly I think you are overestimating the size and relevance of the âmovementâ of which you speak. I donât think you realize that outside of the âsocial justiceâ (scare quotes intentional) blogosphere and the softer parts of academia, the term cultural appropriation is often something mentioned ironically, with a shake of the head.
And I donât mean by reactionary conservatives, I mean by people with a genuine concern for justice and equality. I mean by people who understand and are ready to work against things like police violence and mass incarceration, the systemic racism in the âcriminal justiceâ system (scare quotes intentional), voter ID law shenanigans that would make Nixonâs dirty tricks squad blush, the grinding poverty on Native American reservations, the way in which tribal governments have been cheated by the federal governmentâŚI could go on, there is certainly no shortage of real problems with a racial component.
But what these people see from your movement is bloggers shaking their finger at white people over personal choices that are irrelevant or at best minor sins. Yes, some of those real problems are cultural or have cultural roots, but yelling at a hippie over their hairstyle is not going to fix them.
Iâm sorry but from here this does not look like much of a âmovementâ. If youâre trying to found a social justice movement on a shaky theory, itâs unlikely to get far.
And let me be clear â I want a movement that will help free the oppressed, lift up the downtrodden, and let all sentient beings live to their limits.
I donât claim to be much of an activist, but Iâve gotten up from my comfy chair a few times. I demonstrated against Gulf Wars I and II, I risked arrest at Occupy Baltimore the night the police-announced deadline ran out, I broke federal law and engaged in civil disobedience when they passed the âCommunications Decency Actâ in 1996 (okay, youâre not concerned about free speech so maybe that one doesnât matter to you), and this spring I marched for justice for Freddie Gray and other victims of police violence in front of the machine-gun-toting troops occupying Baltimore.
Iâm sure as hell not in the vanguard. I know too many real activists to confuse these little actions with the real thing! But I am ready for a movement that will inspire America to be angelic, and Iâd be willing to take a bit of risk for one, to do more than click and retweet, to get up on my feet.
But this ainât that movement.
If anything, this gets in the way of it.
I believe that accurate and precise language is a precondition of useful work. (When weâre doing politics or philosophy, that is. In poetry and mysticism, of course, artful vagueness, clouds and water, the thrill of the moon half-hidden by treesâŚyou know.) By confusing culture with property, the term âcultural appropriationâ is not accurate. By displacing more specific terms like âmisrepresentationâ or âplagiarismâ, it is not precise. So using this concept obfuscates things.
But more than that, thereâs the way in which the sort of outrage storm weâre seeing here degrades communication. People are not joining your movement because they donât want to be subjected to this sort of treatment.
I know that at least two Patheos Pagan writers found at least some iota of merit in my argument, but cancelled posts they were planning for fear of fanning the outrage. Making people keep silent out of fear of being yelled at is a poor recruiting tactic.
In short: in my humble opinion, youâre not helping.
Diversity of opinions
2: That in doing this act, you seemingly have taken no care or consideration for the marginalized population of readers and seekers?
Iâve found that people coming from marginalized backgrounds have a diversity of opinions. (Ahem. Take Ben Carson. Please.) That seems to be something missing from your considerations.
I presume that a reader from a marginalized background can understand something that I wrote and can form their opinion of my ideas, can say âThis guyâs got a pointâ or âAssholeâ and click the back button, just the same as someone from a privileged background.
Iâm not sure what additional âcare or considerationâ you want for such readers. Perhaps it relates to your ideas about âdismissalâ and âinjuryâ, which weâll get to below.
3: Have you considered how these writings effect colleagues/peers and the social implication of this, colleagues who not only share blog space with you, but are also fellow writers with you in other platforms. Both Crystal Blanton and I, as well as others, write for Immanion.
Did I expect this to go viral, and sit down and ask myself ahead of time âGee, I wonder how this will affect other Patheos or Immanion writers?â Of course not. Asking the question nowâŚunless you think that either company has built a market based on some narrow ideological focus, why do you think it has any effect?
Every publisher of significant size has writers whose opinions are at odds with each other. Jeez, have you looked at whatâs on the other Patheos channels? We share a site with Bristol frickinâ Palin!
It seems odd to me that youâve got no problem sharing a site or a publisher with people with radically different views about religion, but if someone disagrees with you about how to conceive of and discuss the problems of racism and oppression, that is somehow ruinous.
There seems to be in your questions a blankness regarding the fact that people have a diversity of opinion about these things. It seems as if youâre almost shocked to encounter someone not in lockstep and assume they must be evil.
âCalling outâ, idiots, dismissal, and due process
4: When a rather aggressive article calls out something you wrote, instead of reaching out, say to me with âhey manâŚI think we have a misunderstanding?â lets connectâ Instead you write another article. One that dismissed the marginalized population even further, and calls your colleagues âidiotsâ.
My second article was not directed at you or at any specific person.
And letâs please retire the phrase âcall you outâ. Call my bluff, by all means, if you think I donât have the winning cards in my hand, but âcalling someone outâ is what precedes a gunfight in a Western. The common usage of this phrase in the âsocial justiceâ blogosphere is curious and concerning.
That said, I think you may need to re-read what I wrote about âidiotsâ:
But first: anyone who somehow read into that article some justification of bigotry, anyone saying âSee? Racism isnât really a problem!â â youâre being an idiot, and you may please leave nowâŚ. And on the other hand, anyone who thinks itâs acceptable to throw around baseless charges of racism? Anyone who thinks that if someone questions the best way to understand and fight the problem of racism and comes up with a different answer than you, they must be racist? You are also being an idiot, and you may please leave now.
Unless someone is either saying that âRacism isnât really a problem!â, or thinks itâs acceptable to throw around baseless charges of racism, this does not apply to them. Unfortunately some commenters do seem to fall into those categories, and I wanted to express my extreme disappointment with that. It was not directed at any specific person or persons.
I hope and expect that it would not apply to any of my colleagues. But if it does? Bluntly, colleague or not, âidiotâ is not strong enough censure.
In the original piece I called for the rebuke of misrepresentation, plagiarism, and insult directed at non-dominant cultures. I took swipes at imperialism, slavery, and people who think Confederate flags are cool. I honestly do not understand how you read into that âdismiss[ing] the marginalized population.â
Now, sometimes a specific complaint may be dismissed. In criminal law we donât simply accept an accuserâs complaint that theyâve been a victim of a crime â we donât let a complainant determine if a crime has been committed and its nature and its punishment and the guilt of the accused. Rather, we have a system of laws and courts (however deeply, deeply flawed!) to assess the complaint.
We do this because we care about the accused as well as the complainant. We understand that convicting an innocent person is a horrible thing.
Just so, we shouldnât simply accept the complaint of someone saying they are a victim of a âsocial crimeâ, if you will: we should hear their complaint but carefully consider what constitutes such a crime and whether the accused in any given case is guilty. And sometimes that means the complaint will be judged not valid.
We need to understand that while someone may genuinely and honestly feel offended, that does not mean that an actual offense has been committed against them. That applies to, for example, religious conservatives who feel offended by gay marriage; it also applies to, for example, an African-American who feels offended by a white guy playing a Leadbelly tune.
And thatâs not dismissing a person or a population. That is due process. I hope thatâs a value you share â though I do find some on the authoritarian left to be willing to jettison it, and thatâs scary.
âAgencyâ and obligation to reply
5: Several of your colleagues, reached out to you? Cat, Niki publicly in Disqus thread wanted an answer? Wanted some form of agency and were received with hostility or ignoring. Even Jason publicly was dismissed.
You are using the word âagencyâ very strangely. I donât think it includes making someone reply quickly and agreeably to your comments. (If I write a note to a lady on OKCupid and she doesnât respond as quickly as I want, can I claim she is denying me agency?)
One thing that I did learn from this is that when one is in the middle of a shitstorm of comments and counter-posts and people yelling for your head, it is difficult not just to find the things worth replying to, but also to find your calm center where you can decide what those are, and write your replies in a useful manner. It takes time to digest. Small bites are required. (Small bites of the shitstorm? Yeah, that is actually sort of apt.)
Now, as far as I know there is no rule of internet etiquette that says that someone who writes something you donât like is obligated to read and respond to your criticisms at all, much less to do so in a certain time frame. I am replying because I do want to be as clear as possible about this, and I want to minimize any âbad bloodâ within Patheos Pagan. It seems that my timeline for this hasnât been to your satisfaction, so let me detail it a bit:
I donât follow every thread on Disqus or Facebook. (Your list of questions, the one to which Iâm replying, jumped out at me only because you tagged me.) It wasnât clear (to me, anyway) what a storm this was until Tuesday. At that time it seemed, from the small bites Iâd taken, that some people might be misunderstanding the post because I hadnât fully developed the thesis â Iâd only linked to, rather than discussed, Stallmanâs argument about so-called âintellectual propertyâ. And also that some of the commenting was downright execrable â i.e., the âidiotsâ referenced above.
And yes, I also found â and still find â the whole response, the agreement and the attacks, wondrous and bemusing, inspiring many head-shakes and face-palms, and I took the opportunity to vent about that. So my writing time on Wednesday was spent on that second post. As I said therein, I planned to undertake a review of comments and counter-posts to find the useful ones and reply individually. It was my plan to start that Thursday night.
But I got a note from Jason that night about the behind-the-scenes situation at Patheos. After some discussion this more direct questioning format seemed the best way to proceed (and I do thank you for providing this set of questions), and I started this reply Friday.
And Iâm taking my time with it, in an effort to be complete and accurate.
I know the web has made instant gratification the norm, and sometimes I do pop up quick pieces, but thoughtful writing takes time. Thatâs even more true when one is eating a shitstorm in small bites.
I at no point âpubliclyâŚdismissedâ Jason. Thatâs just inaccurate.
Confusing âYou said something about racism that (I think) is wrongâ with âYou are racistâ
You might feel I âattackedâ you. You might feel I called you a racist?
Were you the one who posted under the title âTom Swiss, Are You A Racistâ? If that was you (Iâm asking honestly, I saw the title but to save my blood pressure did not read it (yet) and I donât remember which thumbnail was next to it) then I would think I was justified in feeling that you called me a racist, yes. Or perhaps you did so elsewhere. I havenât read everything youâve written, after all.
I certainly attacked a white power thesis that leads to racism, which was evidenced by the comments from people is appallingly true.
I donât disagree that some of the comments are leaning a bit racist. (I havenât read them all, some of them may be appallingly so.) Thatâs why I made the first part of that âidiotsâ comment, to make sure it was 100% clear that bigots will find no support from me.
But labeling anything Iâve ever said or written a âwhite power thesisâ is simply absurd. I request that you publicly retract that assertion.
If you want to say that what Iâve written is unclear and could be twisted by âwhite powerâ dingbats, or has factual errors about racism, or is poorly reasoned, or is insufficiently critical of the roots of oppression, okay, we could have a legitimate â if heated â debate about that. But using the phrase âwhite power thesisâ here is, to be blunt, shockingly contemptible.
It seems as if youâve confused âYou said something about racism that (I think) is wrongâ with âYou are racistâ. Thatâs a very serious confusion and I urge you to resolve it.
Right to autonomy, and remorse
What you donât know is that up until your brouhaha piece, I supported your right to autonomy and agency to publish.
âŚ
As I was writing my last piece, I had a section that stated as muchâŚbut you have yet to show any remorse.
SoâŚnow you donât support my right to autonomy? Is that really what youâre saying, that ideological violators should lose their right to autonomy? Iâm not sure what to make of that.
As far as the ideas in question here, no, I do not regret having or expressing those ideas. I do regret some failures of craft in the writing that seem to have led to confusion â though plenty of people seem to have grasped the point immediately. I certainly would have moderated the title a bit if Iâd known how many people would, apparently, read only that and not the piece itself! Maybe something like âDeconstructing Cultural Appropriationâ. (At least I didnât go with my first thought for a title: âWhen I Hear the Word âCultural Appropriationâ, I Reach For My Revolver.â That little joke would not have gone over well at all.)
Charges of âcapitalizingâ and âdeflectionâ
Instead you took the opportunity to capitalize and write about compassion through the lens of white people being shot in a school. I see that as deflection.
The race of the Umpqua shooter or any of the victims hadnât made the news when I wrote that â and actually I still have no idea the racial makeup of the shooting victims. And if thatâs really one of your top concerns about the incidentâŚI can only shake my head sadly.
And capitalize? Do you really think that my reaction on hearing about a mass murder was, âoh, I can get some blog hits out of this. Woo-hoo, here comes a penny from Patheos!â?
(Iâd like to point out that to date, my income from writing for Patheos is $0.00. Iâm doing a lousy job of capitalizing! Though I think I get a tiny check from them this month for all these pageviews â a click-count fueled in part by all the outrage.)
As I said, I do a mediation lecture every month. (Some past ones can be found at my too-infrequently-updated karate blog, Sky Hand Road.) Writing that was not part of some plot to âdeflectâ the discussion, it was me going on with my life.
This reads as if you are upset that this blogfight is not consuming all of my heart and mind, that I took time away from it to respond to the world. Iâm sorry to say this, but if thatâs the case it actually, genuinely makes me sad and I think you might want to check your relationship with blogging. I hope Iâve misunderstood.
Conflating âinjuredâ with âupsetâ
No accountability to the marginalized people you have injured.
John, the heart of the problem is this strange â indeed, twisted â use of language. This is about a blog post by somebody (yours truly) that almost nobody had heard of before all this, and who will fade back into obscurity when the outrage machine moves on. I didnât punch anyone in the nose. I did not defraud or defame anyone. I attacked an idea, not a person. (Though I have since then attacked extreme and ignorant commenters, but not specifically by name, only by the ideas that they hold.)
âInjuredâ doesnât come anywhere near whatâs happened here.
If my post fulfills its intent, if it leads to clearer thinking and better discussion of misrepresentation, plagiarism, and insult, then we all will benefit as those behaviors decrease and people who are not actually doing anything wrong are not inaccurately accused of social crimes. I would expect that any such success would be marginal, of course; it would depend on someone much more influential than I picking up the idea.
But if I completely fucked up and it doesnât accomplish that goal at all, it is not going to make things worse. No one will be injured. I am just not that powerful.
You seem to be conflating âinjuredâ with âupsetâ. Yes, a number of people read the article and became upset, thatâs certainly true! Some of them misunderstood what I intended to say; as with any such misunderstanding, some of it is due to what readers bring, but some is due to poor craft on my part, and I genuinely regret that.
Others are upset because they understood it but disagree with it. But there is a hell of a difference between âI read something I disagree with and it upset meâ and âI have been injured.â It is very problematic and disturbing that some people seem bent on erasing this distinction. (Cf. the whole âtrigger warningâ discussion.)
Disagreement about most everything
Even Jason brokering these messages, giving you his âseal of approval that you are a good person with a [libertarian] bentâ is about catering to you, the privilegedâŚwhile the oppressed still read hate and racism on posts about how they donât matter.
Jasonâs job is to corral his writers. He would be giving his âseal of approvalâ to any Patheos Pagan writer who was being targeted for criticism. I got a chuckle out of how his wording implies that valuing liberty is a character flaw â he and I have had a few political arguments over the years. But he really is someone who bears ill will to none and tries to put the best face on all of us.
Iâve never posted that oppressed people donât matter. Iâve specifically said that people putting comments on my posts along those lines are idiots. In the original post I explicitly called for people to âspeak out against [intellectual laziness, dishonesty, and plagarism in dealing with ideas from cultures other than our own], encourage [their] friends to avoid the mild versions of such failures and roundly castigate social and political leaders who commit serious versions of themâ and very plainly stated that those failings are ânot okâŚnot cool.â
Iâd love to get rid of hate and racism. Iâm trying to do that the best I know how, by calling on people to denounce actual instances of them, by promoting clear thinking and clear communication, by saying that we need to kick unhelpful concepts to the curb.
I think the ideas youâre promoting donât help solve the problem and actually might make it worse. You think the ideas Iâm promoting donât help solve the problem and actually might make it worse.
And so, John, I think we find ourselves in disagreement about most everything relevant to this conversation.
I do thank you for giving a good example of the sort of thinking I set out to criticize in my original post, and for helping me clarify my thinking.
With thanks,
Tom Swiss
You can keep up with âThe Zen Paganâ by subscribing via RSS or e-mail.
If you do Facebook, you might choose to join a group on âZen Paganismâ Iâve set up there. And donât forget to âlikeâ Patheos Pagan and/or The Zen Pagan over there,
too.