Living in a Venn Diagram

[bcholmes]

Some time ago, it occurred to me that I live simultaneously in two very different worlds. At the time, I was working at a client site, and I was taking part in a Christmas potluck lunch. Most of the people brought stuff that they'd bought from nearby businesses. Plates of sushi, Kentucky Fried Chicken and the like.

In this environment, it was an accomplishment for people to have taken part. Workplace apathy being what it was, to go out and buy a plate of sushi was a phenomenal exercise in giving a shit.

By contrast, in various communities that I hang out in, potlucks usually involved more responsibility. To arrive at a potluck with a dish was not enough. People of good character would additionally bring signs with them that would describe the ingredients of the dish. If this item might have come in contact with nuts, that'd be noted. If it was vegetarian- or vegan-friendly, that was important. This was the standard of being a good member of the community.

I chatted about this, briefly, with one of my co-workers at the time. He didn't really get it. Signs with your potluck dish? Gatherings that considered day care? What were these crazy hippy places that I was talking about?

Now, one could assert that the difference is that in the one case, I'm hanging out in my chosen community whereas in the other case, the only thing I shared with the people around me was that we all arrived at the same building every day.

Okay, I can see that argument. Except that it seems like most people I meet seem to act as if the workplace norms were society's norms. Relatives, ferrinstance, more often behaved like my cow-orkers than like the sf geeks and newsgroup members. Me, I find myself much more attracted to fannish spaces where people want to participate in helping folks avoid food that could kill them.

I think, sometimes, about the fact that the standard in those fannish spaces are more stringent than the standards in conventional spaces. And I've certainly seen any number of people bristle when they've been challenged on failure to adhere to a fannish standard. Often, it seems like some frustration emerges: they say, "in most spaces, people don't care about X; why am I being challenged on failure to do X when so many people don't even think about it." I understand what they're saying, but to be honest, if I controlled the universe, fannish standards would be so much more broadly adopted.

Here's an interesting set of behaviour standards that I quite like: Teh Portly Dyke's "How to Fuck Up" instructions. I think that this is great advice for people who transgress. I don't know for sure, but I think it's aimed at people who don't quite live up to their desired ally behaviour. Regardless, this is, for me, an excellent measure of good character.

I guess I started thinking about this because of the recent Beverly Oda announcement on food aid to Haiti (and other places). Particularly the idea that the Conservative government is untying food aid so that the food doesn't have to come from Canadian sources. I should look at this and think, this is a Good Thing, no? I mean, if Haiti gets food and gets more because the aid agencies can buy from cheaper sources, then that's good, no? Fewer starving people equals good. No?

But I'm not satisfied. Partially, I'm a bit suspicious of what this "untying" business is going to look like. Is it just a whitewash effort? Partially I just lack faith in the idea that the Conservatives will do anything truly helpful for Haiti. But I think that a big part of what sticks in my craw is the governments failure to follow the "How to Fuck Up" formula. I believe that the Canadian government is horrifically complicit in the overthrow of the Aristide government in 2004. I think we fucked up with The Ottawa Initiative, and with MINUSTAH and the interim Latortue government. I think we're channeling money through agencies like CIDA and FOCAL toward business-friendly political parties whose goals for Haiti are directly opposed to the will of the majority of the country. But Canada doesn't acknowledge that. Doesn't apologize for that. The government doesn't feel obliged to account for any of that stuff, and would probably be confused by a suggestion that they should brush up on the wisdom of Teh Portly Dyke.

But I'm supposed to feel good that the government has done a little thing that's good? I... I don't know that I can. And I do get the message from lots and lots of people that the government is in the other circle of the Venn diagram. The fannish rules don't apply.

And I'm aware that this is the sort of thinking that leads the left to constantly turn on itself, and to divide. The HRC sucks because they're failing to include trans folk. Shouldn't Clinton and Obama suck equally? No, at least they're kind of left, and we can accept them as the best of a bad bunch. They're in the other part of the Venn diagram. But, man. That thinking is really wearing me out.

Comments

[hellsop.livejournal.com]

I thing the "untying" sounds... wary-making. Part of the reason that food seems to be expensive is that North America is sucking it into ethanol, which means cheaper food must be coming from other places. That is, not North American. Which is, actually, once of the places that *isn't* suffering from actual shortages, only meta shortages of stuff from places that already cut exports. So instead of buying expensive and overpriced North American food, the program will be buying less-overpriced food from places where it's probably already scarce, driving the prices up *there*.

[redbird]

There's started to be some attention to this sort of thing at my work: at the last party-type event, they brought food in from, I think, Whole Foods, and various different plates were labeled as gluten-free, nut-free, dairy-free, and kosher for Passover. My boss was pleased, because often there's nothing she can eat from such spreads (she has celiac disease).

And my family of origin is at least willing to listen to relevant requests, though they don't ask up front or label things. Then again, you don't need to label so much with a few people and a sit-down meal, because it's easier to ask. (Making this work was easy this last time out, since the main concern for Adrian was no dairy, and my aunt followed tradition and had the seder catered by a kosher meat restaurant, so nothing had dairy in it.) Nobody there has life-threatening allergies, or even ones that will make them severely uncomfortable for a day or week, but the concept is understood and recognized.

[hobbitbabe.livejournal.com]

This evening I attended a quilt guild meeting, where many announcements were made about volunteering to help set up the big show in two weeks. "Husbands, with 6 foot ladders, wire cutters, and gloves" were needed. They kept saying "husbands" - never anything more inclusive like "family members who want to help" or "we particularly need people who are tall/comfortable with tools/whatever" or "partners" - this grated on me particularly because I don't spend time in any other group where this would pass without murmurs or stronger immediate comment.

Wanna come see my work in a show, anyway?

[beable]

I prefer fannish potluck culture too. But it isn't even just fannish. My "mainstream" friends follow the same conventions.

The fact that my workplace not only doesn't but doesn't even understand why anyone else would bother drives me crazy sometimes.

It isn't workplace apathy - people often cook food - it's a cultural difference.

The same cultural difference seems to be in place for male/female friendships. I wouldn't blink at spending an evening hanging out with one of my married male friends - he's my friend. But I wouldn't dream of asking one of my married male co-workers to do anything - even if a shared interest is involved. Because that would be "weird".

[wild-irises.livejournal.com]

Mmmmmm. Lots of food for thought here.

One thing that comes to mind is what a government in the fannish circle of the Venn diagram might look like.

Another is who in the workplace is being excluded or marginalized because of the culture? Is anyone in the fannish circle also being excluded or marginalized?

And also noting with interest that food for Haiti is being discussed in the context of food-sharing practices.

[laura-seabrook.livejournal.com]

Missing something here - fans of what?

Untying

[didactic-cudgel.livejournal.com]

The context I have heard of untying aid is with the USAID program and the proposal to untie 25% of it. The reason it is a "good thing" is that the savings come not from the cost of American food, but from not having to *transport* American food (to Africa). The proposal stipulates buying locally to the AID source, thus providing more incentive to grow locally. For so long, USAID has simply dumped cheap surplus American food that was only grown to excess because of an overabundance of farm surplus. Dumping all of this food removed any incentive and value in the locally grown food and so many farmers simply couldn't survive because they couldn't compete with the American leftovers. It is a *good thing* to encourage and reincentivize the local populace to grow locally. It also reduces the use of fossil fuels from their food consumption - another *good thing* right?
Who cares about the motive as long as the action is a good one? If a bad person does a good deed, does that make the deed *not good*? If someone you don't like does something you do like for their own reasons (regardless of your agreement) isn't it still, objectively, something you like?

Re: Untying

[didactic-cudgel.livejournal.com]

"overabundance of farm surplus" SHOULD BE "overabundance of farm SUBSIDIES"

Re: Untying

[bcholmes.livejournal.com]

Who cares about the motive as long as the action is a good one?

I care about both the motive and the action. I don't think I need to choose just one of those things to care about.

if a bad person does a good deed, does that make the deed *not good*?

That's a binary view of things. It could be good. If could be not good. It could be good, but not as good as it could have been. It could be mostly good with some bad side-effects.

As I tried to indicate, I want to see how the announcement plays out; I'm wary of it.

[bcholmes.livejournal.com]

Wanna come see my work in a show, anyway?

Depending on when it is, sure. I confess that I am stupid in the ways of quilting, so there's that.

[bcholmes.livejournal.com]

"Fannish" generally refers to science fiction and fantasy fandom. But it's not really so much about "what" they're fans of as it is that fannish culture has a very particular culture.

[the-siobhan.livejournal.com]

My male partner & I work in the same place. It boggles the people we work with that we frequently go on vacations seperately.

A co-worker once spotted him kissing me goodbye and then getting into a car with another woman. (They were going out of town for the weekend.) Of couse the gossip instantly flies around the office and the co-workers kept asking me over and over again why I hadn't asked for the weekend off work so I could go with them. I kept saying because I didn't want to go, but co-workers just couldn't wrap their heads around that.

It was really weird. Like we were speaking different languages or something.

Re: Untying

[didactic-cudgel.livejournal.com]

wariness is good. I don't know enough about it to judge.

As for the other stuff, I know you deplore binariness (and with good reason) but I tend to view actions as separate from motive. Motive can inform action, but if a psychopathic serial murderer saved a child from being hit by a car, the child is just as saved and alive as if a fully law- and fannish-standard-abiding citizen. Good deed as a good deed, not a good deed as done by a bad person.

[laura-seabrook.livejournal.com]

(http://furry.wikia.com/wiki/Vootie)

I used to think that too, and thought of Fandom with capital F. But then I also used be involved in Games/Wargames Fandom, Comics Fandom, Furry Fandom (which apparently has a separate life from sf/fantasy fandom - Vootie!), and specific media fandoms of Trek and Dr Who.

While there was indeed a strong overlap between all of these, they aren't all mutually inclusive. Trekkers for example might have clashes of fans of other media shows like Galatica and also attend TrekCons but not SF cons.

And standards of food and healthcare were virtually non-existent in most of these fandoms, especially the Australian SF/Fantasy fandoms. But then again, I think potluck as a custom isn't very prevalent here either. Food specifications seldom go beyond vegetarian and meat dishes.

I don't recall much in the way of general manners in fandom either. Cliques developed and if you weren't associated with them tough luck! Mind you, I also left sf/fantasy fandom for good back in 1996, after being mostly rejected by it's local inhabitants after transition, and feeling suicidal while attending a Swancon (http://hunter.apana.org.au/~gallae/QueerStuff/emotions/suswancon.htm). Last faanish event I went to was AussieCon III in Melbourne in 1999, and that was only because I'd already paid for it.

Re: Untying

[beable]

But if I cure cancer by taking 10000 people hostage, and injecting them with all sorts of chemicals until one of the chemical cocktails proves fruitful (and the rest all cause the subjects agonizing deaths) - have I done a good thing?

I mean, I cured cancer, right?

Re: Untying

[didactic-cudgel.livejournal.com]

That's a false premise. You present an example clearly at odds with my questions. I asked if a good deed done by a bad person is not still a good deed in and of itself (an objective view) as compared to my interpretation of bc's premise - that a good deed done with impure motives is somehow lesser, a not-quite-as-good deed (a subjective view). I thought this an interesting philosophical question.

You ask if a horrific atrocity committed with a "good" result is a good deed, or you misrepresent my premise as being so. Clearly capturing and experimenting on 10000 people (or, for that matter, one) is a horrible crime and completely disregards all human rights. I never asked, nor implied, that bad deeds with favorable outcomes justifies a good deed (or outcome). I've always intended the question as an examination of deed and motive, not deed and method.

As I said, if someone who routinely murders people because he enjoys it, pulls a kid out of the path of an oncoming car, even if it is because he hopes one day the child will grow into a future victim of his (i.e. preventing the driver from stealing his kill) and lets the kid go on his merry way, is the child less alive, less safe than if Dudley Do-Right, upright citizen, had saved him? Is the deed any less good? If the objective view is chosen, then the deed is equally good because someone chose to save a life. If the subjective view is chosen, then the act of saving the life is invalidated or discounted depending on the thoughts and intentions of the actor. I suspect if you ask the child though, he won't care and will be just as happy to be alive, regardless of motive.

Probably best to end the discussion there (at least from me) because the next logical point of this discussion of motive and action is the idea and validity of hate crime legislation.

As for relating this back to untying, as I said, I don't know enough about the implementation of the untying, nor about the actual effects of it to be able to say that it really is a good deed or not, regardless of the intentions.