A week ago, fish posted an excerpt from an SEK LGM post lambasting the film Avatar for having a racist narrative logic, along with a critique of SEK’s argument. The burden of fish’s argument, being of a sort to cause strange colors in shorebirds, led to an exchange of comments (which starts here) and eventually to the slab o’ text making up the main part of this post.
[In 3D where available]
For immediate context, I provide the comment by fish that I’m directly responding to. However, for everything to make sense, it is necessary to also read my previous comment and fish’s post.
The relevant point is not that the Na’vi don’t exist, but that the audience does. There is a pre-existing pool of cultural narratives and attitudes, and a science fictional narrative will interact with the wider culture just like any other.
I can see where you are coming from with this argument, but I don’t fully agree with it. The main danger I see is the PT Barnum effect. The Na’vi are Native Americans because they live in the woods and like nature. Ferengi are Jews because they focus on commerce. I find it really problematic to assign intention like this based on widely held cultural stereotypes. Sure people are allowed to react like this, but I refuse to. It restricts an artist’s ability to create.
At some level it is the same process that denies artistic validity to rap. They say horrible things so they must be horrible people. Satire or cultural exploration are denied to the artist.
One of the things that bugs me with SEK’s argument is that it smacks of posturing for superiority by being able to recognize insults to other cultures (that you are not a part of). It is the tiny seed of truth in some “liberals” that wingnuts exploit to act like completely racist shits.
fish:
1) If someone is making statements that are vague enough qualify as Barnum statements, they are almost certainly doing bad cultural analysis.
For example, if someone were actually asserting “The Na’vi are Native Americans because they live in the woods and like nature,” it would not be a credible analysis. Tolkien’s elves in Lothlórien could be described that way. Like the Na’vi, they even live in a big tree. No one, even those harshly critical of Tolkien, thinks they reinforce cultural narratives about Native Americans. No one thinks of Gordon Gekko or Alex Keaton as Jewish stereotypes, despite their focus on commerce. The pattern needs to be more detailed and specific.
2) For someone who cares about the cultural effects of their work, creating a narrative work carries a certain responsibility to be aware of the context of one’s culture, and to do the requisite labor not to reinforce those cultural narratives one opposes.
This is not a restriction on creativity, and indeed can be the opposite. You can put any elements you want into your narrative piece, you just have to use those elements creatively enough that you don’t engender subtexts you don’t want.
3) Suppose someone were to say s/he had written a story where a main character was a rape victim who believed that she deserved to be raped. Chances are, with no other information, many would assume the story proceeded in an overtly sexist fashion.
Suppose this person then said that, in the story, the woman overcomes this feeling and discovers a new freedom. Then many might assume the story was likely a feminist tale of liberation.
However, suppose the author further notes that the woman finds this freedom by adopting a religious faith which includes submitting to her husband. Now we’re likely back to assuming sexism.
I hope it is clear, however, that the character described above could occur in the work of the worst patriarchal hack, the most radical of feminists, or anyone in between. It all depends on how the character is used in the narrative.
4) Here are the negative examples you’ve provided:
The Na’vi are Native Americans because they live in the woods and like nature.
Ferengi are Jews because they focus on commerce.
Note that these are static descriptions — there is no narrative logic included.
Whatever else SEK may or may not be doing (and whether or not he’s correct), he refers his argument to a fairly concrete narrative pattern — he is at least making his point about his sense of Cameron’s narrative logic, not about a simple choice of elements.
5) SEK misuses the word racism at least once: “the noble savages (who are also racists)”. Under any meaningful institutional analysis of racism, it is impossible for the Na’vi to be racists toward the humans. To the degree SEK is identifying something meaningful (and I think that, beyond the errant terminology, the statement is too categorical), the Na’vi are probably much better described as xenophobic and tribalistic.
For that matter, it is hard to describe the humans as racist toward the Na’vi in any normal sense either. Racist logic in general depends on asserting a (false) biological dichotomy between different groups of humans. The biological dichotomy between Humans and Na’vi is not at issue. Possibly more to the point: the situation on Pandora just does not appear to correspond to the institutional analysis of racism.
Also, I don’t remember any of the villains using racist logic to justify their actions. IIRC, they don’t really seem to regard the Na’vi as intrinsically inferior just backward, culturally obtuse, and in the way. That’s colonialist logic, not racist per se.
6) Nothing in the preceding point conflicts with there being racist logic in the narrative — narrative logic needs to be considered in relation to the audience not just the characters.
That said, I’m puzzled over SEK’s use of “racist”. For some reason I think it’s not the right term for what he’s using it for, but I can’t figure out why.
Possibly because the most apropos word may be “dehumanizing”, which is a little strange to use in a context involving non-humans — though it should be clear enough in context.
7) I do think that the narrative trope of the “white man saves the natives” is something that needs to be called out.
That’s one reason why I suggested the interpretation I did in my previous comment. One thing that dehumanizing narrative tropes tend to do is remove agency from targeted group.
Under the interpretation I suggested, the narrative moves from being a “saving the natives”/messiah narrative (recall that “avatar” was originally a Hindu term for a divine incarnation). To being an “alien planet entity coopts human to defend itself and its sentient offshoots” narrative. In other words, agency is moved from largely residing in Sully to largely residing in Pandora itself. If Sully gets to do things most Na’vi don’t, that’s because the planet wants him to for its purposes.
Though one is still left with a fairly stereotyped (or clichéd, if you prefer) portrayal of a tribal/animist-type culture.
8) I do agree that the attitude on display in the excerpt from SEK comes off as the kind of thing that originally led leftists to invent the term PC in order to poke fun at themselves.
9) So, I agree with you that it’s easy for people to complain about narrative tropes in useless ways. I don’t, however, think this makes the task of dealing with cultural narratives that reinforce unjust practices go away. Real cultural critique is not simple. It’s also not pure — undercutting some narratives almost always entails leaving others in place just in order to be comprehensible. Getting completely outside one’s culture — whatever that means, and presuming it were even possible — would turn one into a cipher.
So yes, there are elements of Avatar worth calling out, but in the end the real question for a cultural product like Avatar is: what is the effect? That’s usually much harder to determine, and almost impossible to predict. Influencing that effect is also part of the point of calling attention to the problems, but this, in turn, seems to require that righteousness be used judiciously enough to minimize the chance one is just recruiting for the other side.
10) A side note: Cameron has said that Dances with Wolves was a big influence on Avatar. I even noticed a couple of lines in it that are rather transparent reworkings of lines from DwW.
SEK had his followup posted minutes/hours? ago. Also see comments at fishwagons.
Very strange, I started reading this and We the people who are darker than blue by Curtis Mayfield started playing. iPid Genius is starting to freak me out.
As I said in the neutral carols thread, I saw Avatar last night. I enjoyed it, and of course agreed with a good chunk of the message. Despite the problems. And there were problems. White Boy Saves The Day Yet Again was probably the biggest one, and worse, White Boy Saves The Day BUT ONLY AFTER HE UNDERSTANDS THE NATURE-LOVING SAVAGE. Yes, there are hooks in the plot to excuse it, but it’s still a big theme.
But, perhaps it was the teaspoon of sugar to let the medicine go down, a character to which the target audience could relate. And as I said, I enjoyed it despite the flaws, and was willing to give James Cameron the money, and may yet again.
8) I do agree that the attitude on display in the excerpt from SEK comes off as the kind of thing that originally led leftists to invent the term PC in order to poke fun at themselves.
Which is why the story is hard to explain without referring to the Washington Redskins, the Dallas Cowgirls, and the Super Bowl. And such as.
~
At least I have read enough biology geeks saying something similar that I don’t have to worry I’m the only person who was bothered by the morphological divergence between the Na’vi and every other vertebrate-analog on Pandora (the most obvious difference being everything else has two sets of forelimbs).
Note that the fact that it is possible to bothered by the evo-devo implications of Na’vi morphology is most likely a testament to how well designed the rest of the fauna is.
*
Just as a point of clarification: the above post is organized as a) a discussion of the theory of narrative implied in fish’s post and comments and b) a response to fish’s comment quoted above. It does not include my overall assessment of either the movie or the excerpt from SEK, only fragments.
*
Mandos:
I enjoyed many things about the movie, and also agree with some version of the apparent message. However, I tend to doubt that this kind of message can have the kind of effect it needs to until there is an established frame for it that does not reproduce (inverted) colonialist narratives and noble savage bs.
I also enjoyed it, predictability and annoying subtexts aside; although as a zombie, the reliance on living things was a bit tiresome.
I do, however, think Roger Dean needs to contact New York Law Firm to commence proceedings against the production design team.
Or at least the entire soundtrack should be modified to consist entirely of Yessongs.
what’s Avatar?
</joke>
the morphological divergence between the Na’vi and every other vertebrate-analog on Pandora
The Weta design crew would argue, I suspect, that they had in mind a background like Le Guin’s Hainish cycle, wherein some vanished space-travelling culture visited Pandora and Earth a few million years ago (and presumably other planets as well), seeding each one with humanoids adapted for the local environment. Hence the compatibility of DNA, as well as the Na’vi having placental umbilici and boobies and lips for suckling and identical facial expressions to humans.
But you are all missing the forest for the symbiotic interconnected trees. The whole fillum is clearly an attempt to present the Gnostic fallacy in cinematographic terms. The sleeping soul, drawn down from the realm of the Archons and finding itself trapped in a false reality, becomes convinced that this large blue body is its real one.
It’s all in the Nag Hammadi library people!
herr doktor:
Under that theory the evo-devo problem doesn’t go away:
First, why do the Na’vi have UFB cables and carbon-fiber reinforced bones if they didn’t evolve on Pandora?
If the answer to that is that the seeders provided them, then why aren’t the Na’vi as homologous to the fauna on Pandora as humans are to Earth fauna? (And indeed, why are the Na’vi homologous to Earth mammals?)
Why should one accept that a technology capable of producing human ancestors that are biologically indistinguishable by all current measures from an evolved Earth primate could not have produced Na’vi ancestors that were indistinguishable from an evolved Pandoran primate-analog on at least those same measures?
If one posits that all the seeded humanoids were derived from an Earth fauna base, that raises the question: why would it be an easier problem to change Earth mammalian developmental patterns to produce a Pandoran UFB cable, than to add to a Pandoran primate-analog whatever qualities they added to an Earth primate?
/Nerdy McNerdpants
You got your demiurge in my monism!
BRB
Nonono, Eywa had anticipated the coming of humans through some massive simulation experiment, and thus created (remember, it’s interconnected and can plan like a giant brain) a sufficiently human-like species to lure a human into their midst and help them fight off the rest of the humans.
Did anyone notice that the Na’vi-translation subtitles were in an “exotic” font? Because primitive pantsless jungle-aliens do not speak in Times New Roman.
I actually thought Avatar might bomb just based on the cheesy font. Apparently the European release does not have that font or perhaps the non 3D. All I know is that Comic Sans is about the only thing worse.
BRB
*sigh*
I warned me.
If someone is making statements that are vague enough qualify as Barnum statements, they are almost certainly doing bad cultural analysis.
I meant that people are picking up on generalizations and forcing them to fit into their desired narrative. Subjective validation. Perhaps I am agreeing with you and thus would argue that SEK is doing bad cultural analysis. Perhaps I am missing the point.
2) For someone who cares about the cultural effects of their work, creating a narrative work carries a certain responsibility to be aware of the context of one’s culture, and to do the requisite labor not to reinforce those cultural narratives one opposes.
This is not a restriction on creativity, and indeed can be the opposite. You can put any elements you want into your narrative piece, you just have to use those elements creatively enough that you don’t engender subtexts you don’t want.
3) Suppose someone were to say s/he had written a story where a main character was a rape victim who believed that she deserved to be raped. Chances are, with no other information, many would assume the story proceeded in an overtly sexist fashion.
Suppose this person then said that, in the story, the woman overcomes this feeling and discovers a new freedom. Then many might assume the story was likely a feminist tale of liberation.
However, suppose the author further notes that the woman finds this freedom by adopting a religious faith which includes submitting to her husband. Now we’re likely back to assuming sexism.
I hope it is clear, however, that the character described above could occur in the work of the worst patriarchal hack, the most radical of feminists, or anyone in between. It all depends on how the character is used in the narrative.
I really don’t like these arguments and I think it gets to the heart of my objections. Taken as a whole, what is really being endorsed here is the desire to categorize art as effective or ineffective propaganda. In particular I want to address this:
Suppose someone were to say s/he had written a story where a main character was a rape victim who believed that she deserved to be raped. Chances are, with no other information, many would assume the story proceeded in an overtly sexist fashion.
Suppose this person then said that, in the story, the woman overcomes this feeling and discovers a new freedom. Then many might assume the story was likely a feminist tale of liberation.
However, suppose the author further notes that the woman finds this freedom by adopting a religious faith which includes submitting to her husband. Now we’re likely back to assuming sexism.
I hope it is clear, however, that the character described above could occur in the work of the worst patriarchal hack, the most radical of feminists, or anyone in between. It all depends on how the character is used in the narrative.
You use this as an example of how creativity is thus not restricted. I disagree. Lolita generated a great deal of controversy because people couldn’t conceive that Humbert Humbert was not necessarily Nabokov, nor was he even reliable in describing the events of the book accurately. The concept of “unreliable narration” is important and thus, intentionalism does need to be taken into account. I deeply believe that you can have a rape victim that believes she deserves it, have no other explanation in the book, and it is important to not immediately go to an interpretation of overt sexism. Intentions of the author do matter.
To prevent the risk of being placed into a position where I am perceived to be equating Cameron with Nabokov, I’m not. My guess (still not having seen the movie) is that Cameron is a hack and a bad story teller, and criticisms based on vapid 2D characters (in 3D!), clunky dialog and predictable outcomes are probably right on. White Savior racism arguments will fall flat with me because Cameron should be allowed to invent a situation where this can happen (even if it is predictable and boring) and does not indicate racism.
Of course, the revelation that Cameron was pulling from Dances with Wolves severely undercuts my assertions, but again, the Na’vi are imaginary so Cameron should get to do it where Costner maybe can’t (not without a legitimate criticism hurled in his direction). Even then, I am not sure why he can’t, but maybe it is just because I don’t think he is smart enough to realize what he is saying. Not really a fair way to judge, but there you go.
That’s one reason why I suggested the interpretation I did in my previous comment.
I am sure your story would be much more interesting than Cameron’s.
SEK misuses the word racism at least once…
…For that matter, it is hard to describe the humans as racist toward the Na’vi in any normal sense either.
I think some of my initial irritation came from this misuse, but my arguments kind of went off on a tangent after that.
So yes, there are elements of Avatar worth calling out, but in the end the real question for a cultural product like Avatar is: what is the effect?
Again, I would argue against this assertion. That results in filtering art through a purely propagandistic lens. Does it deliver the acceptable message? Is it fitting with my political inclinations? etc. Art should be allowed to be judged both inside and outside cultural significance. That is why it is so difficult to critique art successfully. Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar, sometimes it is a 10 ft long penis. Sometimes it is both.
Sometimes a critic is seeing a phantom penis menace.
This shit is complicated.
yes, Cameron should have just remade Zardoz
in 3-d.
ZRM- I noticed that Zardoz is on Cinemax right now… We’ve reanimated it with all of the Zardozy vibes we been tossing out there willy nilly.
Dear. Gawd. What have we done?!?!
3-D Zardoz… horribly awesome.
Before p-love drops the hammer, I still want to reiterate that I believe there is no way Cameron is operating in some free floating detached alternate reality. Part of having his “other” be similar to a usual “other” for western audiences is that it is easy for them to consider these aliens as alien but not too alien. He could have had aliens be an amorphous cloaca beast and the avatars also as such and then they could still fall in love with each other but amorphous cloaca beast love does not sell tickets because the audience cannot relate. So being able to allow the audience to relate in an easy way is to tap into cultural and racial tropes. Perhaps the racism is in the density of the ham hand.
He could have had aliens be an amorphous cloaca beast
It’s a good point. Even the budget and time strapped original Star Trek had real aliens like the Horta….
We’ve reanimated it </I.
yep. It now also shows up on Netflix.
Imma gonna be a purist though, and wait for it to show up an AMC so I can DVR it for my enjoyment FOREVER!!