IBARW: Exotification

[labellementeuse]

So, international blog against racism week! One of the things I've been seeing around this week, as I usually do during IBARW, is the exhortation to read more books by authors of colour. It doesn't appear to matter where the author is from; what their ethnicity is; what their positions and politics are. What matters to the mainly-white people I read is that they are writers of colour.

I'm taking a very good paper this year; it's about exotification, as a category of taste and as a process by which dominant cultures engage in marginalisation. This included reading a challenging but interesting extract from Graham Huggan's book The Postcolonial Exotic: Marketing the Margins. In the extracts we look at, he goes into some detail about a phenomenon he calls Bookerisation: the fetishisation of works by writers who position themselves, or are positioned, as marginal writers. That means black writers, asian writers, indian writers, maori writers. He points to the number of authors of colour who have won the Booker Prize in the last couple of decades (lots, including Salman Rushdie, Keri Hulme, Kazuo Ishiguro) to lend weight to his claim that this is a significant phenomenon: being a "marginal writer" has become important in our categorisation of taste.

Doesn't this sort of sound like a good thing? - in the context of IBARW? One person on my flist accurately identified our need to read books by authors not like us in order to change our expectations, the "default person" in our heads (who is overwhelmingly white. My default person is a young white woman - just like me, but I don't think that's why she's my default person.) But at the same time, this is an urge that marginalises even as it popularises. Our taste for stuff that we can fit into that category "exotic" - what does this mean for the stuff we put in that category? Yeah, it means Salman Rushdie sells really well. We imagine we're getting some insight into India and pat ourselves on the back. But Salman Rushdie is a Muslim indian who was educated in England through high school and university; his own father was Cambridge-educated; he lives in the UK, writes in the UK. How does his experience as Indian conform to India? What insight do we suppose we get? We universalise these authors' experiences and writings in a way we don't universalise white writers, or writers from developed countries. We don't imagine Charles de Lint's books give us a special insight into Canada, or Fiona Farrell can teach us more about the New Zealand experience than Kelly Ana Morey (♥ highly recommended.)

I don't have a good answer to the dilemma I feel I have. I recognise a fetishization of works by writers of colour on my flist, and in my culture; I recognise the packaging and marketing of these works as appealing to a taste for the exotic that marginalises, that homogenises, and that commercialises these writers, that Others them as inexorably as it popularises them. On the other hand, if I throw up my hands and say, well, when I read Salman Rushdie I'm participating in a culture that fetishizes the Other and I don't think that's good for anyone - so I'm only going to read books by white authors, where does that leave me? What do I do with that? Is my solution to say, oh well, what I'll do is, I'll read these books by writers of colour but I won't do it in a fetishizing way, I'll do it because I enjoy it? Why do I enjoy it? What does it mean that I enjoy these books (and movies) in the way I do? Am I making these cultures my consumables? Someone offer me a solution!

Comments

[bad-mushroom.livejournal.com]

Hm. I like to think that I like to explore other cultures out of pure curiosity and it doesn't really have that much to do with race. I mean, I would read an Italian author hoping to gain insight into Italian culture just as I would read an Iraqi author for insight into Iraqi culture, just as one might read Richard Russo to learn about life in Maine (HUGELY recommended, by the by), I suppose.

I dunno if I've ever seen deLint as an exploration of being Canadian. Mostly I just can't stand him :P Tell me again which book by him I'm supposed to read to convince me otherwise?

[schiarire.livejournal.com]

*waves* :)

I think Bookerisation is the PERFECT name and you're talking about something very important. But I also think that the basic issue with it is that, although you're right that we imagine Salman Rushdie as somehow representing All Of India in a way that Charles de Lint doesn't represent All Of Canada, that itself comes out of the marginalization of writers like Rushdie. (Though I think Rushdie is pretty close to busting the glass ceiling here, if he hasn't done so already.) Because the question "How does his experience as Indian conform to India?" comes out of a pattern of thinking according to which writers of color are seen as particular -- part of a sub-genre, a taste. Whereas white writers are (mostly) given the benefit of having their writing and concerns be considered universally relevant to the human experience, and not just to people-like-them. Nobody asks, "How does Ian McEwan's experience as English conform to England?" There simply are no debates over the authenticity of his Englishness, the way that there are debates over the authenticity of Kazuo Ishiguro's Englishness. And I don't mean that people conclude he isn't and can't possibly be English, because I hope they don't, but merely that the question is raised, again and again, in every review of his work that I've ever read and probably every review of his work that I will ever read. A single aspect of these writers' identities has been underlined as more important than any other aspect, and all their work is subsequently interpreted in relation to that aspect. White writers have the privilege of being considered just writers, of having their writing being considered just literature, or just SFF, or just [genre]. And as long as writers are put in a position where they, basically, have to respond to a question -- such as, "How Indian are you?" or, "How are you Indian?" -- every possible response is constrained by that original, marginalized position. I think this is especially obvious in American fiction, where we have the concept of hyphenated Americanism, which implies that African- or Asian- or Indian- or Arab-American fiction is somehow different from, separate from "American fiction."

More and more, my personal thinking is that the only practical response to Bookerisation or tokenism is saturation. If Salman Rushdie is the only Indian writer you read, then because of an acculturation according to which Julian Barnes' or Ian McEwan's world is familiar and unquestioned (normal, universal), but India is Other (particular), it's almost impossible for you not to saddle him with a heavy burden of representation. The more Indian writers you read, the less you'll be tempted to interpret Rushdie as representing India in some way, and the less exotic his writing -- and their writing -- will seem to you. It's hard to fetishize someone or something that has become part of your everyday world. At least, that's my hope.

[amarynth.livejournal.com]

I'd say that by actively promoting writers of colour you're not advocating marginalisation. I had a similar discussion to this a couple of weeks ago about the popularity of Japanese pop culture among a large section of New Zealand (and other Anglosphere) youth, and we ended up concluding it doesn't further contact between New Zealand and Japan, because its fans are generally quite proud of themselves for engaging with something marginal - the average anime fan would be horrified if Neon Genesis Evangelion started showing at 4PM every Thursday on TV3 and would spend a lot of time grumping about people "not getting it". In other words, the fan of marginalised art often really likes the fact that it's marginal since it makes them feel exotic.

So by trying to de-marginalise it, even if only in the way that a single person is capable, you're setting yourself outside that exoticising pattern of behaviour.

More specifically, I think the only people who universalise Salman Rushdie and take him as representative of large numbers of Indians aren't really paying attention to the books. He's very up-front about the exceptionalism of his characters, particularly the partly-autobiographical ones.

A final point - I think one shouldn't overemphasize the ability of writers from other cultures to challenge one's ideas, or underemphasize the ability of white writers to do so. Some of the most radical fiction I've ever read has been written by people who fit my default person, and some of the most bland and unchallenging cheerleading for western liberal-national capitalism comes from people who fit the exotic mold to a T.

[eavanmoore.livejournal.com]

The more Indian writers you read, the less you'll be tempted to interpret Rushdie as representing India in some way, and the less exotic his writing -- and their writing -- will seem to you.

I agree that this is the way to go.

[labellementeuse.livejournal.com]

I like to think that I like to explore other cultures out of pure curiosity and it doesn't really have that much to do with race.

This is going to sound a little horrible, but: yeah, I like to think that the fact that most of my close friends are white, and all of them are middle to upper class, is out of friendship, and hasn't got that much to do with race, too. But I don't think that's necessarily true. And, I mean, to an extent Italian writers in the US are almost in the same position: Italy is exotified in certain ways. There's a burden being put on Italian writers to Represent Italy. I mean, yup, reading *can* give us some insight into other ways of like, but I'm wary of placing a heavy burden on a limited number of authors just on the fact of race or country of origin, you know? And, too, my concern is that saying that an Iranian or an Iraqi writer's purpose is to illuminate people about their own country - why don't we grant that Marjane Satrapi's work is about more than Iran? that it's also about young women? And big cities? And poverty? I think there's a difficulty where this one aspect of a writer's work, their race, becomes bigger than anything else about them. And that's what I'm thinking about.

Hahah deLint. Well, you know I love him and I forget what you've read and hated. Maybe try The Blue Girl or The Onion Girl?

[labellementeuse.livejournal.com]

This comment is wonderful, and I re-read it a couple of times just because it resonated with me so much. A+, I completely agree with everything you're saying! (Also, I hope you didn't feel mentioning you made this feel like a passive aggressive argument - I've been thinking about this for awhile and everything.)

Whereas white writers are (mostly) given the benefit of having their writing and concerns be considered universally relevant to the human experience, and not just to people-like-them.

Absolutely! Yes! This is what I was trying to articulate. And your point about American, African-American literature is both funny and tellng!

You may be right as to the solution. I think you are.

[labellementeuse.livejournal.com]

its fans are generally quite proud of themselves for engaging with something marginal

This is exactly the kind of elitist sentiment I get from the litarary culture which puts people like Salman Rushdie on a pedestal, to be honest. There's a peculiar kind of literary (and fannish, although I know you're not familiar with those circles) cred gained from saying "Oh, I read X book by Y writer of colour this weekend" and being able to display your well-rounded well-readness, the same way there's the cred of being able to talk about having read Ulysses (Homer or James Joyce!)

A final point - I think one shouldn't overemphasize the ability of writers from other cultures to challenge one's ideas, or underemphasize the ability of white writers to do so.

No, indeed. However, as far as the rest of your comment goes, I feel that there's more to be gained from reading non-Western authors than anti-western capitalist sentiment!!!!

[amarynth.livejournal.com]

However, as far as the rest of your comment goes, I feel that there's more to be gained from reading non-Western authors than anti-western capitalist sentiment!!!!

I was more thinking of western anti-capitalist sentiment. But, you know, different priorities and all that.

This is exactly the kind of elitist sentiment I get from the litarary culture which puts people like Salman Rushdie on a pedestal, to be honest.

Heh, you're making me feel a bit defensive here - although I wouldn't describe myself as putting Rushdie on a pedestal (but then, who would?) he is one of my favourite authors. I dislike that book-wank culture as much as the next person and try not to skite about what I've read, but conversely it would be hard for me to agree that the only difference between something by Rushdie or Atwood or Allende and something by Tom Clancy or Stephen King is in the eye of the reader.

[bad-mushroom.livejournal.com]

Well yes, we all hope that we don't make choices based on race. Then again, perhaps you haven't had the chance to connect with people of other races/incomes? Some secret racism isn't necessarily to blame in your choice of friends. I mean, before high school most of my friends were white (well, or Native American, this was Maine) and lower to mid-middle-class like me because the town I grew up in had literally three people of color; but when I went to high school in the city, a more diverse area, I met and befriended a number of people from nonwhite backgrounds, mostly from central and south america and the middle east. One of my best friends is from Iraq, actually, and another is from Peru. There's no way I would have met any of these people if I had gone to high school in the country, though. It was just circumstance. The one bad thing is that I do feel a little bit smug when I say my best friend is from Iraq. Or, I did at first, but actually my closeness to her as she dealt with others assumptions about her really helped me realize my own prejudices/assumptions.

I'm not saying that giving insight into culture is their One True Purpose, though, I'm saying that that alternate perspective adds richness and depth to their work for readers who aren't of the same culture. Obviously Richard Russo's novels are about more than rural Maine life-- they're also about family, friendship and just good old human interaction in all its sundry forms-- but when someone who's not from Maine reads them, the thing that they learn is what life in Maine is like. The novel should also inspire them to think about human interaction, but hopefully that's something they've encountered before. You're right, asking foreign/"exotic" authors to Represent Their Culture isn't right or fair, but there's nothing wrong with using their writing as a way to put yourself in other culture's ways of thinking as long as you value the books as novels as well rather than just as A Book About Being Indian. I mean, if a book is successful it should make you connect on a more basic level anyway.

[bad-mushroom.livejournal.com]

Also, deLint: I read The Blue Girl. Or I tried. I put it down about halfway through because I couldn't stand another minute of it.

[schiarire.livejournal.com]

Oh no, I was actually flattered that you mentioned me, so I thought we could really get down and Explore Issues like friends :D

I'm sure there is a lot, a LOT of theory related to the issue of particularism/universalism, but as usual Edward Said is not a bad place to start! And it comes up quite frequently in interviews with/essays by African-American writers, from James Baldwin to Toni Morrison.

[reapermum.livejournal.com]

I'm only here from your post on ransomefans and then started reading backwards.

Have you read anything by Chinua Achebe? His first book Things Fall Apart was recced to me nearly 40 years ago and I had to agree with the rec. Anthills of the Savannah was short listed for the Booker but was the outsider and came nowhere. But I think it gives a marvellous feel of what is going on in West African politics, and explains it in a way newspapers and documentaries can't.

[labellementeuse.livejournal.com]

Heh, welcome! (I'm loving your icon. Kitties!)

I haven't read him, but he's going on the list! Thanks :)

[reapermum.livejournal.com]

I'm loving your icon

And I usually reply (as now) my name really is Death.

[labellementeuse.livejournal.com]

Not Bredon Wimsey?!

[reapermum.livejournal.com]

Wish we did have his connections, but all this branch of the Deaths came from the east end of London. Dock workers and carpenters, that sort of people.

[labellementeuse.livejournal.com]

Heh, ah well. You also don't have to deal with his relations, big plus IMO ;)