You use that word a lot...
Jan. 7th, 2006 02:49 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
branchandrootInteresting. And also this.
Reading through the first post and its comments I'm struck once again by the fact that one of the greatest barriers to communication is language. Or, more precisely, the barrier is the assumption that language is a simple, clear tool with which to precisely convey one's thoughts to others. You don't need to read any semiotic theory to see that this is ridiculous on the face of it, but the wistful notion of language as some kind of solid, specific thing persists.
And so we get these debates. Terms like "nice", "mean", "polite", "honest", "courteous", etc... they get thrown around very freely, but no one seems to take much time to actually define what they mean by those catch-all terms, and so wind up having circular conversations with other people who think they are in disagreement when, in fact, they agree quite firmly. They just use the words in different ways, as pointers to different concept groups.
Of course, another great barrier appears to be the basic tendency to make sweeping, general statements that are not, in all or even most circumstances, true for the speaker. I do not find it surprising that this leads to much confusion and more circular arguments, wherein respondents say "But that's not right!" and the poster insists that it is until someone points out the sweeping generality of the original statement and the poster is reduced to saying "But that's not what I meant!". (Happily, this does not apply to the above posts, but certainly does to a few of their interrogators and interrogatees.)
Anyone who thinks language is a transparent medium for communication, or that words have stable, obvious, singular meanings should really sit down and read some fandom exchanges for a while.
Having said this, let me put my money where my mouth is and attempt, as a spiritual exercise, to achieve precision myself.
My first resort in these situations is often to the dictionary. American Heritage is a dear, old friend.
Nice. 1. Pleasing and agreeable in nature: had a nice time. 2. Having a pleasant or attractive appearance: a nice dress; a nice face. 3. Exhibiting courtesy and politeness: a nice gesture. 4. Of good character and reputation; respectable. 5. Overdelicate or fastidious; fussy. 6. Showing or requiring great precision or sensitive discernment; subtle: a nice distinction; a nice sense of style. 7. Done with delicacy and skill: a nice bit of craft. 8. Used as an intensive with and: nice and warm.
I find it interesting that those who object to the "Cult of Nice" seem to elide 1 and 2 with 5. To be pleasing and agreeable, in that equation, demands exaggerated delicacy.
I can see where this perception could arise, given how touchy and attracted to extreme expressions fans in general tend to be. But the proponents of niceness, at least the ones who actually exist and write publicly, often seem to mean more numbers 3, 4 and 6. Let us, therefore, look at a more specific word, which more closely approximates what is most frequently encouraged.
Courteous. Characterized by gracious consideration toward others.
Really, I fail to see what's objectionable about this concept. Consideration, to be sure, requires a bit of effort, but to be gracious instantly puts one into a social one-up position. I'd think this would appeal broadly. It's certainly the approach the I favor, myself, and encourage in others.
I would also point out that courtesy is not necessarily either nice or kind. It is simply the polite expression of one's position and opinions.
Polite. 1. Marked by or showing consideration for others, tact, and observance of accepted social usage. 2. Refined; elegant: polite society.
Accepted social usage, of course, is often the hard one to figure out. But it's worth the effort. Accepted social usage at fandom_wank, for example, differs markedly from accepted social usage on a friend's personal journal--at least in most circles. Knowing, at the most basic, that there is a difference, and that you can almost always find somewhere to say anything your heart desires in whatever manner you please is the first step to saying it there instead of somewhere it is not considered acceptable.
That's where the tact and consideration parts come in, of course, and I have, indeed, seen the arguments that these things are every sort of disagreeable from inconvenient to un-American.
What total bullshit.
Tact and consideration, as opposed to the firm application of big sticks, are how cultures have managed themselves for many thousands of years. (Inter-cultural disputes, of course, still tend heavily toward the big-stick method but it's at least starting to be frowned upon--when it isn't one's own stick in question, at any rate.) Insistence that one is somehow exempt from this basic aspect of socialization because one is in a virtual environment, or a fan-environment, is childish.
No, it's worse than childish. It's bratty. Whiny. It's all the way past immature and into the realm of the contemptible, the deliberately and spitefully destructive.
This brings us to mean. 1a. Selfish in a petty way; unkind. b. Cruel, spiteful, or malicious. 2. Ignoble; base: a mean motive. 3. Miserly; stingy. 4a. Low in quality or grade; inferior. b. Low in value or amount; paltry: paid no mean amount for the new shoes. 5. Common or poor in appearance; shabby: “The rowhouses had been darkened by the rain and looked meaner and grimmer than ever” (Anne Tyler). 6. Low in social status; of humble origins. 7. Humiliated or ashamed. 8. In poor physical condition; sick or debilitated. 9. Extremely unpleasant or disagreeable: The meanest storm in years. 10. Informal Ill-tempered. 11. Slang a. Hard to cope with; difficult or troublesome: He throws a mean fast ball. b. Excellent; skillful: She plays a mean game of bridge.
I fail entirely to see why this is considered a valuable approach to any aspect of life or communication. What is attractive about being petty, base and inferior?
What I do see a good deal of is the assertion that honesty is often mean, and that, as honesty is a good thing, the meanness is excusable.
Honest. 1. Marked by or displaying integrity; upright: an honest lawyer. 2. Not deceptive or fraudulent; genuine: honest weight. 3. Equitable; fair: honest wages for an honest day's work. 4a. Characterized by truth; not false: honest reporting. b. Sincere; frank: an honest critique. 5a. Of good repute; respectable. b. Without affectation; plain: honest folk. 6. Virtuous; chaste.
The aspect called on, here, is undoubtedly 4b.
Sincerity and frankness, however, are intimate things. They aren't something that just any stranger has a right to express, according to most Western social contracts. This is precisely because frankness, and especially frank critique, can be uncomfortable and even painful, and is most likely to be acceptable and useful from someone who already has a certain amount of credit with the recipient--someone the recipient trusts is not speaking out of spite, malice or other base and ignoble motives.
While meanness is not, by any stretch, some kind of synonym for honesty, it is certainly true that presuming the intimacy to make a frank critique merely because one doesn't want to take the trouble of a little basic consideration for others is extremely selfish in a petty way.
I do not, therefore, find it surprising in the least that those who wish to discourage such behavior recommend that we all attempt to be kind. 1. Of a friendly, generous, or warm-hearted nature. 2. Showing sympathy or understanding; charitable: a kind word. 3. Humane; considerate: kind to animals. 4. Forbearing; tolerant: Our neighbor was very kind about the window we broke. 5. Generous; liberal: kind words of praise. 6. Agreeable; beneficial: a dry climate kind to asthmatics.
This is most assuredly the antonym, or perhaps antidote, to the behavior outlined just above. And if it requires that honesty be blunted, in order to be kind, what of it? Honesty is an admirable thing; so is kindness. The latter requires at least as much strength of character, mind and will as the former, so the repeated implication that kindness is wishy-washy simply isn't going to wash.
What the debate posts appear to be losing a grip on, though the protestations in comments show that people do still recall it clearly, is that no single response is right for every situation.
Someone asked to beta read a story or essay should, indeed, be stringently honest. This is both a privilege and a significant burden. Complete honesty is not an easy thing to achieve, in the first place, or to write down, in the second. It far more becomes a casual reader of no acquaintance to an author to default to kindness, especially when in disagreement. These are fairly extreme and clearcut situations, and in-between situations will, obviously, require negotiation among the possible responses.
I will continue to hold, however, that courtesy is appropriate in all cases relating to fandom productions and responses to them, and that meanness is not appropriate to any.
Reading through the first post and its comments I'm struck once again by the fact that one of the greatest barriers to communication is language. Or, more precisely, the barrier is the assumption that language is a simple, clear tool with which to precisely convey one's thoughts to others. You don't need to read any semiotic theory to see that this is ridiculous on the face of it, but the wistful notion of language as some kind of solid, specific thing persists.
And so we get these debates. Terms like "nice", "mean", "polite", "honest", "courteous", etc... they get thrown around very freely, but no one seems to take much time to actually define what they mean by those catch-all terms, and so wind up having circular conversations with other people who think they are in disagreement when, in fact, they agree quite firmly. They just use the words in different ways, as pointers to different concept groups.
Of course, another great barrier appears to be the basic tendency to make sweeping, general statements that are not, in all or even most circumstances, true for the speaker. I do not find it surprising that this leads to much confusion and more circular arguments, wherein respondents say "But that's not right!" and the poster insists that it is until someone points out the sweeping generality of the original statement and the poster is reduced to saying "But that's not what I meant!". (Happily, this does not apply to the above posts, but certainly does to a few of their interrogators and interrogatees.)
Anyone who thinks language is a transparent medium for communication, or that words have stable, obvious, singular meanings should really sit down and read some fandom exchanges for a while.
Having said this, let me put my money where my mouth is and attempt, as a spiritual exercise, to achieve precision myself.
My first resort in these situations is often to the dictionary. American Heritage is a dear, old friend.
Nice. 1. Pleasing and agreeable in nature: had a nice time. 2. Having a pleasant or attractive appearance: a nice dress; a nice face. 3. Exhibiting courtesy and politeness: a nice gesture. 4. Of good character and reputation; respectable. 5. Overdelicate or fastidious; fussy. 6. Showing or requiring great precision or sensitive discernment; subtle: a nice distinction; a nice sense of style. 7. Done with delicacy and skill: a nice bit of craft. 8. Used as an intensive with and: nice and warm.
I find it interesting that those who object to the "Cult of Nice" seem to elide 1 and 2 with 5. To be pleasing and agreeable, in that equation, demands exaggerated delicacy.
I can see where this perception could arise, given how touchy and attracted to extreme expressions fans in general tend to be. But the proponents of niceness, at least the ones who actually exist and write publicly, often seem to mean more numbers 3, 4 and 6. Let us, therefore, look at a more specific word, which more closely approximates what is most frequently encouraged.
Courteous. Characterized by gracious consideration toward others.
Really, I fail to see what's objectionable about this concept. Consideration, to be sure, requires a bit of effort, but to be gracious instantly puts one into a social one-up position. I'd think this would appeal broadly. It's certainly the approach the I favor, myself, and encourage in others.
I would also point out that courtesy is not necessarily either nice or kind. It is simply the polite expression of one's position and opinions.
Polite. 1. Marked by or showing consideration for others, tact, and observance of accepted social usage. 2. Refined; elegant: polite society.
Accepted social usage, of course, is often the hard one to figure out. But it's worth the effort. Accepted social usage at fandom_wank, for example, differs markedly from accepted social usage on a friend's personal journal--at least in most circles. Knowing, at the most basic, that there is a difference, and that you can almost always find somewhere to say anything your heart desires in whatever manner you please is the first step to saying it there instead of somewhere it is not considered acceptable.
That's where the tact and consideration parts come in, of course, and I have, indeed, seen the arguments that these things are every sort of disagreeable from inconvenient to un-American.
What total bullshit.
Tact and consideration, as opposed to the firm application of big sticks, are how cultures have managed themselves for many thousands of years. (Inter-cultural disputes, of course, still tend heavily toward the big-stick method but it's at least starting to be frowned upon--when it isn't one's own stick in question, at any rate.) Insistence that one is somehow exempt from this basic aspect of socialization because one is in a virtual environment, or a fan-environment, is childish.
No, it's worse than childish. It's bratty. Whiny. It's all the way past immature and into the realm of the contemptible, the deliberately and spitefully destructive.
This brings us to mean. 1a. Selfish in a petty way; unkind. b. Cruel, spiteful, or malicious. 2. Ignoble; base: a mean motive. 3. Miserly; stingy. 4a. Low in quality or grade; inferior. b. Low in value or amount; paltry: paid no mean amount for the new shoes. 5. Common or poor in appearance; shabby: “The rowhouses had been darkened by the rain and looked meaner and grimmer than ever” (Anne Tyler). 6. Low in social status; of humble origins. 7. Humiliated or ashamed. 8. In poor physical condition; sick or debilitated. 9. Extremely unpleasant or disagreeable: The meanest storm in years. 10. Informal Ill-tempered. 11. Slang a. Hard to cope with; difficult or troublesome: He throws a mean fast ball. b. Excellent; skillful: She plays a mean game of bridge.
I fail entirely to see why this is considered a valuable approach to any aspect of life or communication. What is attractive about being petty, base and inferior?
What I do see a good deal of is the assertion that honesty is often mean, and that, as honesty is a good thing, the meanness is excusable.
Honest. 1. Marked by or displaying integrity; upright: an honest lawyer. 2. Not deceptive or fraudulent; genuine: honest weight. 3. Equitable; fair: honest wages for an honest day's work. 4a. Characterized by truth; not false: honest reporting. b. Sincere; frank: an honest critique. 5a. Of good repute; respectable. b. Without affectation; plain: honest folk. 6. Virtuous; chaste.
The aspect called on, here, is undoubtedly 4b.
Sincerity and frankness, however, are intimate things. They aren't something that just any stranger has a right to express, according to most Western social contracts. This is precisely because frankness, and especially frank critique, can be uncomfortable and even painful, and is most likely to be acceptable and useful from someone who already has a certain amount of credit with the recipient--someone the recipient trusts is not speaking out of spite, malice or other base and ignoble motives.
While meanness is not, by any stretch, some kind of synonym for honesty, it is certainly true that presuming the intimacy to make a frank critique merely because one doesn't want to take the trouble of a little basic consideration for others is extremely selfish in a petty way.
I do not, therefore, find it surprising in the least that those who wish to discourage such behavior recommend that we all attempt to be kind. 1. Of a friendly, generous, or warm-hearted nature. 2. Showing sympathy or understanding; charitable: a kind word. 3. Humane; considerate: kind to animals. 4. Forbearing; tolerant: Our neighbor was very kind about the window we broke. 5. Generous; liberal: kind words of praise. 6. Agreeable; beneficial: a dry climate kind to asthmatics.
This is most assuredly the antonym, or perhaps antidote, to the behavior outlined just above. And if it requires that honesty be blunted, in order to be kind, what of it? Honesty is an admirable thing; so is kindness. The latter requires at least as much strength of character, mind and will as the former, so the repeated implication that kindness is wishy-washy simply isn't going to wash.
What the debate posts appear to be losing a grip on, though the protestations in comments show that people do still recall it clearly, is that no single response is right for every situation.
Someone asked to beta read a story or essay should, indeed, be stringently honest. This is both a privilege and a significant burden. Complete honesty is not an easy thing to achieve, in the first place, or to write down, in the second. It far more becomes a casual reader of no acquaintance to an author to default to kindness, especially when in disagreement. These are fairly extreme and clearcut situations, and in-between situations will, obviously, require negotiation among the possible responses.
I will continue to hold, however, that courtesy is appropriate in all cases relating to fandom productions and responses to them, and that meanness is not appropriate to any.
