I've decided to leave Tumblr for a few reasons. Hopefully this will mean that I can split my posts between here and my education blog (which is a Tumblr platform that I don't usually use for reblogs etc.). But I think it's worth reflecting on what was going wrong with me, and with Tumblr, while I was there.
There's something about the visibility of bookmarking -- which is functionally what "liking" posts on Tumblr does -- that is unnerving as a person creating new content. For one thing, it substitutes for a more meaningful response. Imagine if you had to comment on a post by saying, "I liked this post." It would be inane. "Dear Paul Krugman, I liked your column." "Dear Jonathan Bogart, I liked your essay." This is antithetical, to me, to the whole purpose of interacting with posts, which is to promote conversations. Conversing provocatively, and offering feedback that writers can actually use, is hard. I've lost sleep over critiques of my own ideas, and have abandoned ideas on the basis of a good enough counter-argument. That's as it should be. When something's not working, my first impulse should neither be to jettison it immediately, nor should it be to continue to defend it no matter how warped my own logic becomes. Conversations help draw the distinction between things we can keep using and things we would be better off discarding (perhaps to be replaced by new things, perhaps not).
Take "privilege"; the word usually suggests that some people are better off than others in certain contexts, often through no work and/or fault of their own, which is an important thing to recognize in lots of situations, I think. But "privilege" never seems to distinguish between what kinds of "better off" are in the conversation. It can stand in variously for material wealth (or presumed material wealth); general census-style understandings of economic class; a personal sense of entitlement to wealth, comfort, perceived social status, or [insert other good thing that one shouldn't feel entitled to]; presumed or lived experiences as person of a certain race, gender, sexuality, disability, or economic class; or some perception of having power in the world not already mentioned above.
Any one of these things is probably worth talking about in a certain context. But by using the blanket word, we somehow get to invoke all of them without worrying about sorting out which one applies in which situation and why it might matter.
Another one bugging me lately is the frequent blaming irritating writing, music, or other content on things like "search engine optimization" (see also: "trollgaze") -- a general bad-faith assumption about motivations of authors (whether founded or not). This isn't to say that no one operates in bad faith or for selfish or even socially reprehensible reasons, or to deny that there are new industry standards designed to up page counts for websites for click-throughs, etc. (say). But to constantly use this as an excuse for what's going wrong in music or writing or ideas seems to infect our ability to take anything at face value -- or to contribute anything worthwhile ourselves. Instead we cynically assume that any good that something might be contributing to the world is calculated by a cabal of manipulators with purely selfish ends and leave it at that. But things that are calculated by an evil cabal can be good or bad, useful or not useful, interesting or uninteresting. Maybe the premise is true, though I think it's invoked far more often than it could conceivably be true. But in letting ourselves off the hook by invoking a corrupt institution or context, we're just making our jobs easier.
What do I mean by "making our jobs easier?" Well, I explained one of the processes through which I reblogged a quote that I now disagree with here. Tumblr functions too easily as a memory tube, where posts get overwhelmed in new content and no one can reliably return to old content to explore it. Nor is there much incentive to. The reblogging function creates an illusion that a conversation is being moved forward, but there's rarely any direct response -- just a new piece of posturing from a different user, often not engaging at all with the original point -- or picking points specifically to be able to knock down as easily as possible. Tumblr makes every strawman into a real boy, so that the thing that you hate the most is phrased in a perfectly irritating way by someone, somewhere, allowing you to flex muscles that have been developed perhaps at the expense of other more important ones.
When Buzzfeed posted reactions to young women saying that they would "let Chris Brown beat them," I was mostly appalled not at these young women, whom I knew extremely little about (aside from their Twitter profile pictures and one tweet they had ever written), but at peers who could so easily assume that these young women were in need of some kind of a "lesson." If only we could "teach" them how to behave, we wouldn't see these kinds of horrendous displays! What tends to piss me off the most is when people in my general orbit don't seem even to want to think through basic implications (or possible future applications, of which there are usually few, being so ad hoc in nature) of their own claims. As for people not in my orbit -- I usually assume that I don't really know why they say what they say, or why they believe what they seem to believe.
But on Tumblr, there were so many people saying so many "in-orbit things" that nonetheless confused or angered me that I didn't really know where to start. I got tired of the self-righteous contempt for strawmen -- it started to anger me when I heard "straight people" being talked about with the same flippancy and disrespect that seemed to be the motivation for talking in more positive and complicated ways about specific non-straight people and experiences in the first place. I got sick of "power" just sitting there as if it explained itself, as if it was merely an ugly slab of concrete to be bulldozed.
And mainly I got sick of the little mediocrities, the inconsequential stuff, that was piling up, and how dependent on trawling through it regularly I became. I can't imagine how people with iPhones handle it -- I had an iPod Touch that I recently lost and the positive impact on my general well-being was surprising. I realized that, like with the iPod, the investment in Tumblr was more about reassurance and routine than it was about communication. And I also realized (I think) that I don't want to go online primarily to be reassured and to "do my routines," even though I have them (I call it "reading my stories"). Too much reassurance and routine, too many friends, clouds my thinking. It's like being in a room with people you know somewhat well and constantly knowing there are points on which you could put the low-key friendships at risk. I couldn't lose anyone on Tumblr, even though I've lost people in conversation before, and generally this has been good for me -- understanding that not everyone wants to be in the conversations I want to be in, and that I can't expect to be happy and right at the same time. Which is to say I felt wrong a lot on Tumblr, too, in some strange and implacable way. There was some undercurrent of wrongness to nearly everything I wrote there, being satisfied with so little.
And finally I'll note that the comments sucked, and nobody used them. I had a genuine back-and-forth with becoming-wave that is now impossible to track (I may condense the responses into one post here later). I've changed my mind, sometimes radically, in comment conversations with people like Frank Kogan and Erika Villani and Tom Ewing and Mike Barthel. But I rarely changed my mind on Tumblr, and part of it was that I didn't really feel in conversation with anyone -- the stakes were too low. So for the most part, I've decided to leave the Bedbugs Tumblr, which had become too insular for me to trust, and keep the ed blog, since there are so few people in conversation with me at that blog anyway (and I do want to keep some ties to other people's content elsewhere on Tumblr).
It's a personal little paradox I guess -- the more I know who I'm in conversation with -- strengths and limitations alike -- the more I get anxious to go somewhere else. I'd be in a club that would have me for a member, but I probably wouldn't want to live there.
I don't think your point about people blaming SEO is quite fair. Most of these criticisms are coming from people actually in the online writing field who presumably know exactly what they are talking about. (It's also blaming media outlets more than writers, but that's another story.)
ReplyDeleteWell, I assume that most people who invoke SEO are doing so because they know something about search engine optimization. My point is more that this is usually an easy side argument to more important issues that come up in the writing itself. If writing for an SEO-hungry site is affecting/infecting your writing, you can't just blame the SEO (and part of my subtext here is that I feel that Tumblr was having a comparable impact on my own writing, and my ability to meaningfully engage with other people).
ReplyDeleteI mean, I agree that the way we ("we") talk about privilege and power is problematic, and that those terms too often stand in for actual explanations of ideas, but:
ReplyDelete"I got tired of the self-righteous contempt for strawmen -- it started to
anger me when I heard "straight people" being talked about with the same
flippancy and disrespect that seemed to be the motivation for talking in more positive and complicated ways about specific non-straight people and experiences in the first place. "
Ehhh. You know the posts people are always reblogging about how, if you're a white person and you get mad about the way people use the phrase "white people," most of the time (a) the problem is probably you and your whiteness, so you need to think real hard about whether you have a right to be offended, and (b) nobody here gives a shit, nor are they obligated to give a shit, about your feelings as a white person, so go find another conversation? This is how I feel about straight people being offended about the use of "straight people."
I call out "white people" myself. But I'm talking about a more earnest form of this kind of thinking, which basically shuts me (a straight white male usually sympathetic to the conversation) out of a conversation altogether categorically, as though there is no way I could ever participate in it. (F'rinstance, "hate to do this, but you're not a girl, so..." used at a point in a recent conversation when things started to get a little heated, though we ultimately got back on the same page.) I don't think the argument is ever over "the right to be offended." I always have a right to be offended by something. The question is whether or not anyone else should give a shit about my being offended, to which I'd say, fair enough. Anyway, I didn't take my ball and go home because of straight people-bashing (lord help me if I had such a thin skin), but it was something that continued to bug me about that "all 4 u" post that I've been thinking about a bit lately.
ReplyDeleteTumblr
ReplyDeletePrivilege Call-Out Culture would probably say you only
feel like you're being shut out because as a white,
straight, etc. dude you're not used to not being the
authority. I don't know if that's true -- it's up to you to spend some
time examining your reaction and figuring out whether that's the case.
But my interpretation of both those "but you're not a girl, so..."
situations wasn't that they were shutting you out of the conversation
altogether, as if there were no way you could participate in it, but
that they were pointing out that you could only participate in it in a
limited way. (Although, in the case of "all 4 u," why would it be a
problem if she were shutting you out of the conversation altogether? In
that case, she was making the first post, she was starting the
conversation, so she could set whatever parameters for it that she
wanted.) They didn't say, "You're not allowed to talk about this
anymore," they said "Your understanding of this is limited and will
always be limited."
(What I don't like about "but you're not a [whatever] so..." is the
assumption that often accompanies it on the part of the person saying
it, that because the person saying it is a [whatever], they can make
universal statements about what it's like to be a [whatever]. I mean, I
remember my response to the "but you're not a girl, so..." you're
talking about was, "Fuck off, I'm a girl and I'm nothing like what
you're describing." The [whatever]'s understanding is also always
limited, just in a different way, and that should also be acknowledged.)
And I guess I don't really understand what you're saying in this post if
you're saying exchanges like those aren't at least a part of why you
took your ball and went home -- no, you didn't ditch Tumblr specifically
because your feelings were hurt by a straight person, but you ditched
it because there were a lot of "but you're not a [whatever], so..."
conversations, right? And because your interpretation of those
conversations is that they shut out people who are not a [whatever]
altogether? In which case, (a) it might be helpful to dig into those
conversations to determine whether that's really what's going on, and
why you might feel as if that's really what's going on, and (b) I don't
understand why you would leave Tumblr. Those kinds of conversations are
going to happen everywhere -- by leaving Tumblr, you're just creating a
bubble for yourself where you have more control over the conversations,
and you don't have to participate in or be exposed to them if you don't
want to, which is kind of a douche move!
Re: your last questions about Tumblr, I'd say "not really." I'm used to having frustrating conversations. And I also don't usually mind when "you're not X, you wouldn't understand" is invoked -- I know it's TRUE in plenty of situations. My specific gripe about the kind of sanctimoniousness that can accompany this -- a sanctimoniousness that was NOT on display in the becoming-wave convo and I shouldn't have suggested in my comment that it was -- is as prevalent IRL in universities and with friends as it is online.
ReplyDeleteMy big point here is that there was something about the Tumblr environment that was preventing me from writing anything that I thought was *worth* writing. I used two fresh-in-my-mind examples, but they don't really capture what I'm talking about here. And it makes me wonder how you could interpret this:
by leaving Tumblr, you're just creating a bubble for yourself where you have more control over the conversations, and you don't have to participate in or be exposed to them if you don't want to, which is kind of a douche move!
From what I said in the post, which was:
mainly I got sick of the little mediocrities, the inconsequential stuff, that was piling up, and how dependent on trawling through it regularly I became. ...I realized that...the investment in Tumblr was more about reassurance and routine than it was about communication. ...I felt wrong a lot on Tumblr, too, in some strange and implacable way. There was some undercurrent of wrongness to nearly everything I wrote there, being satisfied with so little.
That is, I was satisfied with the very little that I was actually producing there. So yes, I think I can converse better here, partly because of format and maybe partly because of control -- but of MY writing, not everyone else's. And I don't let other people's rules stop me from commenting on what they do elsewhere. I thought that it was clear that I'm leaving Tumblr mainly because of me, and what kind of writing I found myself doing there.
I suppose I regret opening a different can of worms (that's worth opening) only half-way. I could go back into that back-and-forth w/ becoming-wave, and may do so, but my recollection was that the "you can't understand" was mostly a defensive point used at a somewhat fraught moment in the exchange, one that we for the most part moved past. That isn't to say that there aren't GAJILLIONS of things I can never really understand given my own position, but that in this instance, that was being used as a way to "get out of" the conversation rather than continue it. But even given that whole can of worms, I still figured my reasoning would be generally clear in the post.
I
ReplyDeleteguess I'm not following this. It's ostensibly a post about why you
left Tumblr, but the things you complain about in the first two-thirds
(liking without conversation, the way people talk about privilege, the
bad faith of calling everything trollgaze) are not why you left Tumblr?
Why bring them up, then? I mean, I interpreted that from your post
because that was most of your post -- and I don't really understand how
it connects to the text you pulled out as what I should have
interpreted.
What I'm saying, or trying to say, is that all of these things are things that I notice and, on Tumblr, don't feel comfortable confronting. That's partly Tumblr (it's hard to sustain a genuine conversation about these things, as we're having a conversation now) and partly me (I feel personally uncomfortable dealing with shit there specifically for whatever weird reasons).
ReplyDeleteI'm trying to own my personal reasons, but I want to at least suggest that there's something about the Tumblr interface itself that makes it particularly difficult for me to do even the rudimentary work of actually working out what bugs me on a given day. If "privilege," "liking," and "trollgaze" are big-picture "problems" on Tumblr that I see, it's Tumblr itself, and my presence there, that makes it hard for me to articulate (on Tumblr) what bugs me about these things. (I took a stab at "trollgaze" in the subsequent post. Will probably chip away at the good and bad in "privilege" for a very long time, since I don't want to be a reactionary straight white guy calling bullshit because somebody hurt my fuh-heeeelings.)