![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
This is more of a rant than an essay, as these things go. As such--much as it pains me--it's going to be heavy on generalities and "I read this once somewhere" and pretty low on citations. Additions of actual citations would be quite welcome.
I'm going to start with one actual link. Go read We Have Always Fought, if you haven't already. It's about women in combat through history.
Right. Moving on.
Now, let's establish what I'm arguing against. And I want to make it perfectly clear up front that I'm not arguing against this as a Wicked Pack Of Utter Lies: I am arguing against it as a simplification trotted out at regular intervals, a sort of smug one-size-fits-all defense against any criticism. And it is basically this:
"We are so much more enlightened than people in historical periods. Everything back then was terrible and brutish and full of atrocities! Which everyone accepted as perfectly natural, of course, because it was to them. Thus, we cannot criticize anyone of those time periods for accepting these things. Furthermore, any fiction set in these periods--or imaginary worlds that look like them--should be populated entirely by people who are completely at ease with these horrible, horrible things, and to do otherwise is to be some idiot liberal who's writing modern characters with modern views in an inappropriate setting."
For simplicity's sake, let's call it the Product Of Their Times argument.
This is a bunch of hogwash.
Oh, yes, bits of it touch on the truth. People do tend to assimilate whatever their culture is already doing as natural and appropriate. Most people aren't going to seriously question their way of life and the foundation of the local economy, whether or not they benefit from it personally. There's a lot of cultural programming that convinces even people who get the short end of the stick that this is true and right and natural. ("Why do I need feminism? I want to take care of my child myself, so it's only natural that women should do all the childcare!") So it is not unusual for someone to buy into the dominant discourse of their historical/pseudo-historical culture.
But.
1) There is not one single unified Everything This Culture Believes, at least not in any of the historical cultures big enough for us to have significant records on them. Political parties arguing over what's the right thing to do aren't just some wacky invention of modern times; you can find Cicero railing against Kids These Days With Their Fancy Hair Who Want To Forgive Debts And Let Unsuitable Lower Class People Act Important. It's not just generational, either. Or class-based. Romans of the same upper class background and generation could disagree wildly on what social mores were appropriate and desirable in a given five-year stretch. The past is not a monolith. No part of the past is a monolith.
2) ...and even in areas where Almost Everyone Thought X, note the almost there. You can find text in which people of cultures built entirely on slavery, where the entire economy collapses without it, seriously question it as a concept. Not "huh, that's a bit hard on these specific people I like," but say, "is it right for people to be made slaves? doesn't this contradict the very nature of what we think humanity is?" Sure, maybe people will look at you funny (or throw rocks at you) if you say these things out loud, depending on what you're questioning and what the culture is...but people DID disagree. "Well, every kid in Germany joined the Hitler Youth during that time period--" No. Some didn't. Some of them were protesting. And that's teenagers, not even adults. There are always people who disagree with the dominant paradigm.
3) What was the dominant paradigm? Are you sure?
Remember that essay I linked to at the beginning? I lied: I'm going to give you another link. This is a joke, but it's not just a joke. It's an example of someone reading Roman comedy and extrapolating from a joke to state an entire principle of Roman society that is, on closer examination, clearly untrue.
When you say that something is ahistorical, or inappropriate for its context, how much do you actually know about that historical context? This historical figure you're defending is a Product Of Their Times, and you know because of this historical text says that what they believed was normal and standard and believed by everyone, and that historical text was...written by that person? Or their supporters? Mm. Yes. Let's think about this one. Or think about that first essay, and what we think we "know" about women in historical militaries. It is not as simple as the elementary school textbooks made it out to be. It sure as hell isn't as simple and standard and static as movies like to make it.
We often don't know as much about history as we believe. (I include myself in this "we"; I have run into contradictions of my "of course it was like this" time and again.) "Because historical accuracy!" only works if you have the facts right. And even then...
4) Just because something happened doesn't mean it was normal. Even then. There were certainly historical periods in certain places that were horrorshows of blood and torture and depravity and madness. And you know what? The people in the midst of that were deeply affected by it! And wrote about it decades later, talking about how terrible it was!
You can't take a historical record that says holy shit look at this atrocity that was terrible and use it as evidence that everyone in that time period just went "Oh, yes, using the heads of infants to play sports with, standard warfare tactic in those days, everyone expected it." We often have historical record of what was unusual and upsetting. Or being promoted as the Best Thing Ever because someone in charge needed the propaganda machine going to get all the people who disagreed to shut up and sit down. Even when historical record says "This happened," that doesn't mean everyone was for it. Or that everyone was against it. Think about who's creating that record.
...anyway.
People are products of their time and context. People are products of their own choices. These things can BOTH be true. I do not excuse Andrew Jackson of his atrocities just because ruthlessly murdering some types of people and enslaving other types were done quite a lot in his time period and environs. And if I write a fantasy setting that suspiciously mirrors 1820 South Carolina, it is not some wild Modern Views Out Of Place invention for characters in that place to disagree with what he's doing and call it monstrous, any more than it's out of place for people to agree with him.
It's a product of its time is a decent starting place, and a warning, when reading anything from history, fiction or otherwise. It's a useful reminder about cultural variation and how people may be starting from different premises. It's also a useful reminder to us that we too are products of our times. That we should think about our premises. That we should question injustice that seems standard and natural and inevitable around us.
But like fuck is it a place to stop, or a reason to shut down discussion of any character, real or fictional. Of course we're products of our environment. Our environment is full of gravity, and we still lift our feet.
I'm going to start with one actual link. Go read We Have Always Fought, if you haven't already. It's about women in combat through history.
Right. Moving on.
Now, let's establish what I'm arguing against. And I want to make it perfectly clear up front that I'm not arguing against this as a Wicked Pack Of Utter Lies: I am arguing against it as a simplification trotted out at regular intervals, a sort of smug one-size-fits-all defense against any criticism. And it is basically this:
"We are so much more enlightened than people in historical periods. Everything back then was terrible and brutish and full of atrocities! Which everyone accepted as perfectly natural, of course, because it was to them. Thus, we cannot criticize anyone of those time periods for accepting these things. Furthermore, any fiction set in these periods--or imaginary worlds that look like them--should be populated entirely by people who are completely at ease with these horrible, horrible things, and to do otherwise is to be some idiot liberal who's writing modern characters with modern views in an inappropriate setting."
For simplicity's sake, let's call it the Product Of Their Times argument.
This is a bunch of hogwash.
Oh, yes, bits of it touch on the truth. People do tend to assimilate whatever their culture is already doing as natural and appropriate. Most people aren't going to seriously question their way of life and the foundation of the local economy, whether or not they benefit from it personally. There's a lot of cultural programming that convinces even people who get the short end of the stick that this is true and right and natural. ("Why do I need feminism? I want to take care of my child myself, so it's only natural that women should do all the childcare!") So it is not unusual for someone to buy into the dominant discourse of their historical/pseudo-historical culture.
But.
1) There is not one single unified Everything This Culture Believes, at least not in any of the historical cultures big enough for us to have significant records on them. Political parties arguing over what's the right thing to do aren't just some wacky invention of modern times; you can find Cicero railing against Kids These Days With Their Fancy Hair Who Want To Forgive Debts And Let Unsuitable Lower Class People Act Important. It's not just generational, either. Or class-based. Romans of the same upper class background and generation could disagree wildly on what social mores were appropriate and desirable in a given five-year stretch. The past is not a monolith. No part of the past is a monolith.
2) ...and even in areas where Almost Everyone Thought X, note the almost there. You can find text in which people of cultures built entirely on slavery, where the entire economy collapses without it, seriously question it as a concept. Not "huh, that's a bit hard on these specific people I like," but say, "is it right for people to be made slaves? doesn't this contradict the very nature of what we think humanity is?" Sure, maybe people will look at you funny (or throw rocks at you) if you say these things out loud, depending on what you're questioning and what the culture is...but people DID disagree. "Well, every kid in Germany joined the Hitler Youth during that time period--" No. Some didn't. Some of them were protesting. And that's teenagers, not even adults. There are always people who disagree with the dominant paradigm.
3) What was the dominant paradigm? Are you sure?
Remember that essay I linked to at the beginning? I lied: I'm going to give you another link. This is a joke, but it's not just a joke. It's an example of someone reading Roman comedy and extrapolating from a joke to state an entire principle of Roman society that is, on closer examination, clearly untrue.
When you say that something is ahistorical, or inappropriate for its context, how much do you actually know about that historical context? This historical figure you're defending is a Product Of Their Times, and you know because of this historical text says that what they believed was normal and standard and believed by everyone, and that historical text was...written by that person? Or their supporters? Mm. Yes. Let's think about this one. Or think about that first essay, and what we think we "know" about women in historical militaries. It is not as simple as the elementary school textbooks made it out to be. It sure as hell isn't as simple and standard and static as movies like to make it.
We often don't know as much about history as we believe. (I include myself in this "we"; I have run into contradictions of my "of course it was like this" time and again.) "Because historical accuracy!" only works if you have the facts right. And even then...
4) Just because something happened doesn't mean it was normal. Even then. There were certainly historical periods in certain places that were horrorshows of blood and torture and depravity and madness. And you know what? The people in the midst of that were deeply affected by it! And wrote about it decades later, talking about how terrible it was!
You can't take a historical record that says holy shit look at this atrocity that was terrible and use it as evidence that everyone in that time period just went "Oh, yes, using the heads of infants to play sports with, standard warfare tactic in those days, everyone expected it." We often have historical record of what was unusual and upsetting. Or being promoted as the Best Thing Ever because someone in charge needed the propaganda machine going to get all the people who disagreed to shut up and sit down. Even when historical record says "This happened," that doesn't mean everyone was for it. Or that everyone was against it. Think about who's creating that record.
...anyway.
People are products of their time and context. People are products of their own choices. These things can BOTH be true. I do not excuse Andrew Jackson of his atrocities just because ruthlessly murdering some types of people and enslaving other types were done quite a lot in his time period and environs. And if I write a fantasy setting that suspiciously mirrors 1820 South Carolina, it is not some wild Modern Views Out Of Place invention for characters in that place to disagree with what he's doing and call it monstrous, any more than it's out of place for people to agree with him.
It's a product of its time is a decent starting place, and a warning, when reading anything from history, fiction or otherwise. It's a useful reminder about cultural variation and how people may be starting from different premises. It's also a useful reminder to us that we too are products of our times. That we should think about our premises. That we should question injustice that seems standard and natural and inevitable around us.
But like fuck is it a place to stop, or a reason to shut down discussion of any character, real or fictional. Of course we're products of our environment. Our environment is full of gravity, and we still lift our feet.
From:
no subject