I had forgotten about that episode of the Twilight Zone. The allegory is appropriate and the terror is very real. I have been surprised in many ways to see how deep the spiral of silence (loved Glenn Lloury's highlighting of the term) goes in the Arts. I include publishing in the Arts btw -- I am a novelist by trade.
The silencing is interesting as the Arts is supposed to be Avant Garde and therefore includes people who can speak out without fear.
And to yours! The thing to really know--and as I begin my series exposing the DEI takeover of the stage actors and stage managers' union--is that the people who are installing this ideology into my industry (and others) are in no way related to the industry. This, I believe, is intentional. They care about one principle: their definition of Equity (it is a sad reality that my union is called Actor's Equity Association and we were low hanging fruit for this takeover). Unfortunately, this broad brush ideology about equality of outcome cannot coexist with the aesthetic and artistic values of the theatre--training, experience, skill, talent, artistry--these are about MERIT.
One other thing which gets lost is the concept of universality.
One of the best books I have read on creating character was by Bandilynn Collins and it was about adapting method acting techniques to bring your characters in a novel to life. Some of this has to do with finding experiences which you can extrapolate out. She uses the example of being bothered by a fly and swatting it to being able to think like a person who will commit a murder.
To be able to write something which touches other people or indeed to create a performance which people from all walks of life can understand relies on the concept of universality -- that we have more in common than what separates us.
With DEI and Lived Experience, that gets lost. How can you write outside your own experience? How can you hold up a dark mirror to the present by delving into the past? How can you show the shadow to make the light shine more brilliantly. The brightest light is at noon when you have the deepest shadows.
How can you connect with other people if the only thing which matters is your experience?
I am really excited to read your series. I suspect there is much in common with the DEI takeover of publishing. MERIT is so important. Not all have the same gifts.
I really do think the separation is the point. "I am gender nonconforming and I use they/them pronouns" is intentionally alienating. No you're not, lady, you're a woman who likes close cropped hair and wearing pants.
Which is great! But being a woman who likes certain things and not others is too relatable, too universal. She doesn't get to be special if she does that. She doesn't get to send a signal that she expects you to tolerate her even though she's made it clear she hates you.
It's walking, talking hostility dressed up as a civil rights crusade.
Interesting take. I agree that many of the tactics employed by DEI are engineered as "loyalty pledges" or virtue signaling tests--if you don't share pronouns, you're making an "unsafe" space where those who identify differently may not feel "welcome." This justification for compelled speech, in my opinion, is obsolete and irrelevant at this juncture. Nonbinary and gender nonconforming people are ubiquitous and completely, at least on a cultural level, mainstream at this point. Preferred pronoun declarations are often corporately mandated, but where they're not, there's no imperative for everyone to make them. So, the necessity for everyone to perform the pronoun ritual out of sensitivity or consideration for the marginalized doesn't supersede, in my view, an individual's right NOT to identify in this way. We should always respect others' preferences--referring to them according to their personal identification preferences and honoring their individuality--AND THEY SHOULD RESPECT OURS.
As to your characterization of certain folks who identify as gender nonconforming, I will only say that I often feel young people have set a terrible trap for themselves by identifying the Oppressor as white, cis-gender and heterosexual (though not always, and being male makes you the devil incarnate), and the Oppressed as everything else, many of these young white kids are scrambling for some way to be OTHER so as not to be the object of the very hatred and vituperation they practice in the name of social justice (isn't it interesting how social justice presents so often as anti-social and unjust?). I often quote a line from the musical "The Fantasticks"--the ingenue, Luisa, delivers a fanciful speech about her eccentric habits and her extravagant imagination. Luisa is pretty much an ordinary, middle class white girl. She incants, intensely: "I am special. I am special. Please, God, please, don't let me be normal!"
What people sometimes forget with the whole preferred pronoun movement is that it actively discriminates against people with communication disabilities -- there are a number (for example children with autism) or people who have suffered a stroke or even people whose native language is not English.
The concept of non-binary is not a protected characteristic in the UK but someone who has a communication disability could be inadvertently discriminated against if a policy of mandatory preferred pronouns was implemented. See https://www.womensrights.network/section1-introduction for an explanation of why this might not be a good idea. Communication disabilities are often hidden disabilities and not immediately obvious to the casual observer.
And yes I agree some of this is a wish to be seen to be Special (perhaps because the person in question is not as talented as another one). It can be very much being non conformist in a very conformist manner.
I suspect the bigger problem for people in the theatre is if this desire to be Special indicates an unwillingness to behave in a collaborative fashion. Writing a novel is a solitary occupation. Being part of a play is by its very nature a team-exercise.
Ah it now makes sense.
I had forgotten about that episode of the Twilight Zone. The allegory is appropriate and the terror is very real. I have been surprised in many ways to see how deep the spiral of silence (loved Glenn Lloury's highlighting of the term) goes in the Arts. I include publishing in the Arts btw -- I am a novelist by trade.
The silencing is interesting as the Arts is supposed to be Avant Garde and therefore includes people who can speak out without fear.
More power to your pen.
And to yours! The thing to really know--and as I begin my series exposing the DEI takeover of the stage actors and stage managers' union--is that the people who are installing this ideology into my industry (and others) are in no way related to the industry. This, I believe, is intentional. They care about one principle: their definition of Equity (it is a sad reality that my union is called Actor's Equity Association and we were low hanging fruit for this takeover). Unfortunately, this broad brush ideology about equality of outcome cannot coexist with the aesthetic and artistic values of the theatre--training, experience, skill, talent, artistry--these are about MERIT.
One other thing which gets lost is the concept of universality.
One of the best books I have read on creating character was by Bandilynn Collins and it was about adapting method acting techniques to bring your characters in a novel to life. Some of this has to do with finding experiences which you can extrapolate out. She uses the example of being bothered by a fly and swatting it to being able to think like a person who will commit a murder.
To be able to write something which touches other people or indeed to create a performance which people from all walks of life can understand relies on the concept of universality -- that we have more in common than what separates us.
With DEI and Lived Experience, that gets lost. How can you write outside your own experience? How can you hold up a dark mirror to the present by delving into the past? How can you show the shadow to make the light shine more brilliantly. The brightest light is at noon when you have the deepest shadows.
How can you connect with other people if the only thing which matters is your experience?
I am really excited to read your series. I suspect there is much in common with the DEI takeover of publishing. MERIT is so important. Not all have the same gifts.
I really do think the separation is the point. "I am gender nonconforming and I use they/them pronouns" is intentionally alienating. No you're not, lady, you're a woman who likes close cropped hair and wearing pants.
Which is great! But being a woman who likes certain things and not others is too relatable, too universal. She doesn't get to be special if she does that. She doesn't get to send a signal that she expects you to tolerate her even though she's made it clear she hates you.
It's walking, talking hostility dressed up as a civil rights crusade.
Interesting take. I agree that many of the tactics employed by DEI are engineered as "loyalty pledges" or virtue signaling tests--if you don't share pronouns, you're making an "unsafe" space where those who identify differently may not feel "welcome." This justification for compelled speech, in my opinion, is obsolete and irrelevant at this juncture. Nonbinary and gender nonconforming people are ubiquitous and completely, at least on a cultural level, mainstream at this point. Preferred pronoun declarations are often corporately mandated, but where they're not, there's no imperative for everyone to make them. So, the necessity for everyone to perform the pronoun ritual out of sensitivity or consideration for the marginalized doesn't supersede, in my view, an individual's right NOT to identify in this way. We should always respect others' preferences--referring to them according to their personal identification preferences and honoring their individuality--AND THEY SHOULD RESPECT OURS.
As to your characterization of certain folks who identify as gender nonconforming, I will only say that I often feel young people have set a terrible trap for themselves by identifying the Oppressor as white, cis-gender and heterosexual (though not always, and being male makes you the devil incarnate), and the Oppressed as everything else, many of these young white kids are scrambling for some way to be OTHER so as not to be the object of the very hatred and vituperation they practice in the name of social justice (isn't it interesting how social justice presents so often as anti-social and unjust?). I often quote a line from the musical "The Fantasticks"--the ingenue, Luisa, delivers a fanciful speech about her eccentric habits and her extravagant imagination. Luisa is pretty much an ordinary, middle class white girl. She incants, intensely: "I am special. I am special. Please, God, please, don't let me be normal!"
What people sometimes forget with the whole preferred pronoun movement is that it actively discriminates against people with communication disabilities -- there are a number (for example children with autism) or people who have suffered a stroke or even people whose native language is not English.
The concept of non-binary is not a protected characteristic in the UK but someone who has a communication disability could be inadvertently discriminated against if a policy of mandatory preferred pronouns was implemented. See https://www.womensrights.network/section1-introduction for an explanation of why this might not be a good idea. Communication disabilities are often hidden disabilities and not immediately obvious to the casual observer.
And yes I agree some of this is a wish to be seen to be Special (perhaps because the person in question is not as talented as another one). It can be very much being non conformist in a very conformist manner.
I suspect the bigger problem for people in the theatre is if this desire to be Special indicates an unwillingness to behave in a collaborative fashion. Writing a novel is a solitary occupation. Being part of a play is by its very nature a team-exercise.