Utopian vision vs realism in fiction

[Tabouli]

No: HPFGUIDX 33374

judyserenity:
> The second thing you might be saying is that since this is fiction, it 
has no influence on real life.  I would strongly disagree with that.  
Fiction can have a huge impact on how people see the world.<

Ahaa!  It's the realism vs role model issue again!  I've tried a few times to stir a rousing debate on whether fiction should reflect the world as it is or as it should be, but alas.  Judyserenity, as specialist in gender role socialisation who has obviously given the matter some musing, any thoughts?  This may even have some bearing on the kiddiefic debate: to what degree do the authors of children's fiction have a responsibility to "set a good example", and have positive representatives of different ethnic groups, positive gay characters, strong capable female characters doing unstereotypically female things, male characters being sensitive and kind, etc.etc.??  Should they?  Should authors of adult fiction?  Should JKR?

Now.  Let me put myself in the firing line here (bullet proof vest, concrete bunker, etc.)

It could be argued (and before you start loading your e-guns I'm not saying I personally hold this view) that a book where the male Anglo-Saxon characters are the ones on centre stage with the power and the main players in the action, while the female characters display more stereotypically "feminine" behaviour and worry about their relationships and looks and children and being caring and nurturing, the gay characters are oppressed and still in the closet for fear of social rejection (and hence don't appear in the book), the non-Anglo-Saxon characters are also oppressed and less likely to play central roles and have positions of power, etc.etc. is largely quite realistic, no matter how much progressive idealists find this terrible and wish it wasn't the case (and immediately start pointing out changing social trends, exceptions to the rule, the fact that they personally have a life full of strong successful women who should be recognised more, etc.etc.)

I've read at least one article which suggests that HP is popular with little boys precisely *because* the traditional gender roles in the books are much closer to their real-life experiences than feminist era children's fiction full of impossibly capable and assertive little girls.  Very interesting.

Should authors of fiction create a utopian world where things are closer to the way they think things "should" be, in the hope that this will help it eventually become true?  (Does this work, or is it an unconvincing and transparent ploy for all but the very young?)  Or should they reflect the world as it is, "warts and all", and leave the role model and education stuff to educators and parents?  To what degree are authors of fiction educators?  Are only children's authors educators?

I'm reminded of telling my Honours supervisor (successful young female lecturer of strident feminist convictions) about David Lodge's "Nice Work", in which a strong, highly educated, intelligent, attractive young lecturer in English Literature (female) visits a factory floor with the company's managing director (male), and all of the (male) workers shout out sexist remarks, whistle, etc.  For me, as an example of what is essentially a cross-cultural encounter, I thought the situation depicted was very believable.  My supervisor, on the other hand, found the very idea offensive.  "How sexist!  What a thing to write.  I hope people treated the Managing Director like a stupid sex object somewhere in the book."  What? I thought (OK, so maybe she wasn't entirely serious, but she sounded it).  I mean, realistically, isn't what Lodge wrote more or less exactly what would happen under the circumstances?  And *isn't* it very unlikely that a middle aged male managing director would ever have the same experience as a young woman in that situation?  It's not a good or desirable thing, but it *is* realistic...

I've never totally resolved this issue for myself, as both writer and psychologist.  One thing I am sure of, though, is that if you're going to take the "utopian" route, you have to do it convincingly (for example, a lot of Hollywood's efforts at strong female characters are so badly drawn and transparently tokenistic it's just embarrassing).  I think clunky preaching can actually have the reverse of the desired effect, because it undermines the credibility of the fictional world and the author and can make the reader feel patronised and manipulated.

judyserenity:
>> Amanda Lewanski said:
>> ...What will matter to my daughter, be she ultimately gay or 
>> straight, fat or thin, tall or short, blonde or not, will be how my 
>> husband and I teach her how to perceive herself, much moreso than 
>> the gender balance in the books she reads.
>
>Amanda, I'm wondering how old your daughter is?  I think you may be 
overestimating how much influence parents have, and underestimating 
how much influence the general culture has.  I don't have children of 
my own (unfortunately), but I've closely watched my sister struggle in 
vain to overcome the media's influence on my nephews. I also have 
taught classes on gender role socialization.  I'd say that parents who 
try to oppose popular culture are usually fighting a losing battle.<

OK, I can feel myself steadily sliding OT here, but anyway, I'll finish this post.  Yes, the culture in which you live bombards people daily with messages that are almost impossible to avoid.  The media (though I'd argue more things like advertising, TV and movies and magazines than novels) and institutions in a society (schools, governments, laws, religious bodies) are constantly teaching us what the "rules" are.  What's "right" and "wrong", "attractive" and "unattractive", "cool" and "uncool".  I agree with judy that the best willed parent in the world would find it very hard indeed to isolate their children from messages like "girls have to be pretty" and "boys have to be brave" and "it's bad to be fat" and "it's cool to rebel" and so on, however undesirable they believe these messages to be.  They've done studies showing kids as young as 2 or 3 already know what the "appropriate" behaviour is for their sex.  By the time people reach their teens they're usually hyper aware of the social norms of their society and the penalties for not living up to them (hence many Western teenagers being very embarrassed by their parents' behaviour: at their age, such cluelessness about how to apply the rules is punishable by complete loserdom!).

However...

I wouldn't underestimate the importance of the parents' role either.  There are two parts to the process.  One is learning the rules (very hard for the parents to control), the other is deciding where you stand on them.  Which ones you endorse, and how much, which ones you reject.  *This* is where the parents have a very important role to play.  It's the role model factor: they are your first and most salient examples of how an adult of your sex thinks and behaves.  They are living illustrations of particular positions on the rules.  They are the ones who teach, both directly and indirectly, which rules are the most important ones.  Sure, after about 12 many Western kids go out of their way to rebel against and reject their parents' views (=individualist culture's message on forging your independence) and concentrate on their peers, but this doesn't mean those views haven't sunk in somewhere: after all, they're still defining themselves by them by rebelling against them!  Certainly what your parents tell you you're like stays with you, like it or not.

Take me for example: from day one I was told I was smart by my parents.  It was just taken for granted.  *I* took it for granted.  Even though I got all society's messages about women being ornamental and less smart than men, glass ceiling, sexism, etc., I never, ever doubted that I was smart, and got very offended indeed if anyone tried to imply I wasn't (but offended without feeling threatened: I just went into Hermione "prove I'm not a dunderhead" mode, I *knew* I was smart).  If anything, the cultural messages influenced me in another, though equally undesirable way: as a child I developed this social split, where I talked to women about fashions and relationships and reserved "intellectual" discussions for male company (and considered these superior).

If I had a daughter, I don't think I'd be too worried about them reading Harry Potter and picking up dire traditional gender roles: once she's old enough to read a book this complex, she's probably old enough to talk to about these issues, at least in a simple way.  I would, however, keep a fairly close eye on the television she watched, especially when very young, (discreetly ensuring that she had some non-stereotyped female characters in TV and books), and try to lead by example.  Arrange for at least one of her dentist and GP to be female.  Talk to her as if I assumed she'd have a life of her own and career (as my father did with me), not as if her only true mission in life was to get married.  Be comfortable and matter of fact about sex, in the hope that she'll later feel comfortable talking to me about it (I wish my parents had done this).  *Not* showing by my own comments and behaviour that being thin and pretty and having a man is the most important thing in the world (providing real-life evidence to counteract what the media will tell her).  And so on.  Sure, once she hit 13 or 14 she'd probably jump on all those bandwagons herself with her peers (and see listening to me as about as uncool as it gets) but I still think there's a very important window of opportunity before then to lay down a foundation.

Of course, this is all hypothetical: I have no children and don't see myself having any in the near future, so arguably I am in no position to comment!  All the same, from my own musings on parents and culture, these are my conclusions so far...

Tabouli (prone to long analytical posts)


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]