Social Responsiblity and the Artist
This started out because of a discussion of sexist stereotyping in children's
books, specifically Harry Potter.
Lyn Millett, my Evil Triplet, of Medley fame, has asked on occasion,
"Does greater influence necessarily imply greater responsibility?"
This is my first attempt at an answer.
Let's consider the specific example of Harry Potter novels.
Rowlings didn't plan on having this great influence when she wrote this, and she was just as influenced by everything she's read as anyone else is. On the one hand she wrote what she wrote because she wanted to, and none of us should tell her to do different, and on the other hand, she wrote what she wrote as a socialized woman of particular literary heritage who probably didn't notice she was perpetuating sexist stereotypes.
Would I hold her to higher standard for works written after she realized herself to be of great influence? Yes, I would. Would I blast her for not changing her writing style to minimize certain stereotypes? Probably not -- because I know my response as an author: my responsibility is to the story I'm telling, and if some 'you' wants it different, you'd best get on to writing it yourself. Would I share my disappointment about the lack of positive role models for girls in her books? Yes. Publicly?
Yes. Would I expect her to change for me? No.
This is a specific example of discussing the greater influence &/or responsibility of a creative artist. Is there a general case? All of us are role models for someone, and should be cognizant of that as a result. So, my nutshell answer is yes, greater influence does require greater responsiblity, with the caveat that the world is rarely a straightforward enough one that nutshell answers have real merit.
Here's the poser:
Looking at the specific situation of a creative artist: what is the social responsibility of the artist? To what must an artist have their first loyalty?
© Sidra Vitale, Jan 2000.
All rights reserved.
No comments:
Post a Comment