Thursday, May 1, 2014

Culturally Generic/Neutral?

Several years ago, a Korean American colleague of ours was in the CCBC reading the latest picture book by Yumi Heo. She was laughing aloud with nearly every page turn.  "Oh, these pictures!" she said. "They're so Korean and so funny!" We loved the book ourselves but hadn't found the illustrations to be particularly funny. Or, for that matter, particularly Korean.


And that's the point. We're not Korean so we couldn't see it.

So that's why I find it a bit unsettling that School Library Journal's diversity issue includes Culturally Diverse Books Selected by SLJ’s Review Editors as a list that's divided into two sections: Culturally Specific and Culturally Generic/Neutral. The latter is defined by them as  "... books ... in which the main character(s) 'just happen' to be a member of a non-white, non-mainstream cultural group. These stories, rather than informing readers about individual cultures, emphasize cultural common ground."

Culturally Generic?
My first response was to ask: whose cultural common ground are we standing on?  Would a Japanese-American reader of Cynthia Kadohata's novel The Thing about Luck likely see something in the book that a non-Japanese-American reader would miss, just as I missed the Korean humor in Yumi Heo's illustrations?  Did Meg Medina's Yaqui Delgado Wants to Kick Your Ass have a cultural resonance for the members of the Pura Belpré Award Committee that led them to choose it as a book that "...best portrays, affirms, and celebrates the Latino cultural experience" rather than as a culturally generic/neutral novel selected by SLJ's review team? 

My second response is to wonder why the books in the Culturally  Generic/Neutral category need to be separated from the Culturally Specific category, which is defined as books featuring  "...authentic and positive portrayals of people from diverse ethnic, racial, and religious backgrounds, as well as characters who identify as LGBTQ or are from underrepresented socioeconomic groups." Really? Then why is Matt De La Peña's The Living in the Generic/Neutral category? It's been a while since I read it, but what I remember most about it is that the main character was a working class Chicano kid, and his class, gender, and cultural identity played an important part in how he interacted with other people and how they interacted with him. Oh, and there was that tsunami.

In fact, it's interesting that ten of the thirteen books in the Generic/Neutral category were actually written by people who belong to the culture about which they are writing, while only seven of the thirteen Culturally Specific books were. The only book on the list with Native American characters was written by a white author.  It was classed as "Culturally Specific." It makes me wonder how If I Ever Get out of Here by Eric Gansworth would have been classified if it had been included on the list. Would it have landed on the Generic side because the main character likes The Beatles?

Even more interesting is to look at how the stars fall on this list. Of the twenty-six books included, eleven are starred -- eight in the Culturally Specific category. Of these eight, five are written by white authors, outsiders to the cultures about which they are writing.

Culturally Generic?
Perhaps this suggests that Culturally Specific is really defined here as Otherness, and that this sense of Otherness is best depicted by those who are outsiders to the culture. But when Kwame Alexander or Varian Johnson write about African American boys, their characters are viewed as Culturally Generic.  That may be because they are writing their characters from the inside, more Us than Other.  They have invited readers to stand on their own bit of cultural common ground for a while. For African-American readers, that may be a familiar, comfortable place, and for those readers who are not African-American themselves, they will find that it's a common ground after all. And when it comes to cultural diversity, that will likely be more illuminating than finding out what exotic thing the character ate for breakfast.

10 comments:

  1. Thank you for this outstanding analysis. When I looked at the list this morning, I was so furious that all I could do was throw the F bomb all over twitter. Once I calmed down, I did a short blog post focusing on my specific concern: http://americanindiansinchildrensliterature.blogspot.com/2014/05/sljs-diversity-booklist-in-may-issue.html

    ReplyDelete
  2. Excellent essay, KT. I was also wondering how the hell and why the hell they came up with "culturally specific" (e.g., what/how the PoC characters are eating, singing, dancing, wearing and speaking, as compared to what/how an "average" white person would be eating, singing, dancing, wearing and speaking) vs. "culturally generic" (e.g., "just like us white people").

    ReplyDelete
  3. Reading the lists, I thought they must want librarians/teachers to have books they could recommend by saying "But it isn't about being Chinese! It's just about kids being kids!" And that made me sad. It seems like a ham-handed response to the "we need diverse books" calls for "being Latina is about more than breaking pinatas" (which also made me sad, because it felt like a slam on books like Confetti Girl). But I don't think there was a need for two lists. It might have been more useful to have them divided into historical and contemporary, or something like that.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I agree that Contemporary / Historical would have been a better way to categorize.

      Delete
  4. This seems like they are responding to the common cry of "we want books that have diverse characters because nonwhite people are still people, and we do more than just respond to racism or remember the Holocaust," which is great, but they are going about it in all the wrong ways. Thank you for this great response.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Replies
    1. Durable Goods, you don't know us very well, do you?

      Delete
  6. "Durable Goods" -- has visited my site from time to time.

    ReplyDelete
  7. These categories and Junot Diaz's essay in the New Yorker (about MFA programs and the whitewashing process they put people through) reminds me of the boarding schools that sought to "kill the Indian and save the man." "The man" was/is the White man. "Neutral" is white. MFA programs trying to teach how-to-write-the-right way? Also, white. Wondering if all of this attention to whiteness will mark a turning point?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. You're exactly right, Debbie. If the basis for "culturally neutral" is always "white," as if "white" is the norm and "other" is something exotic, it only makes it that much clearer why we desperately need diverse books.

      Delete