Last July, Andrea Skinner, the youngest daughter of the late short-story writer Alice Munro, published an account in a major Canadian newspaper of having been sexually abused by her stepfather from the age of nine.
Sooo much to talk about and learn from you dear friend- about history, fascism, the decline if the American empire - and the morality/politics intersection… in the case of Spain the boycott and ostracism came too late- once Franco had already won, and only lasted till the US recognised him as a valuable anti-communist cold-war ally. By the 60s beaches and bikinis won out over politics, while the executions of anarchists and other rebels continued. History lessons worth remembering
Very interesting points about boycotts and their purpose regarding individual creators--writers, filmmakers, etc. My question would be, What exactly does boycotting Alice Munro--or Woody Allen or Bill Cosby--have to do with mass organized action to fight patriarchy? I am not scorning it, just wondering about its meaning beyond an emotional recoiling. The boycott is a tactic, and can be used effectively, or not, for many purposes. The great grape boycott in the US in the 70s was a key part of the successful campaign to unionize farm workers, for instance. Boycotting French fries or Chinese cars originates in very different sources.
Boycotts are collective action, but based on the relatively weak connection we have as consumers, rather than on stronger connections such as working for the same company or living in the same neighborhood--or being part of the same mass movement that is calling for the boycott. I think they can be effective accompanied by other forms of organized pressure and with a clear purpose leading to consciousness raising. Boycotting Amazon as a form of solidarity with the workers organizing there makes a lot of sense. I think the question of writers boycotting Amazon, or Microsoft, or any of the immense companies that control so much of our terrain of work, is a complex question. Personally, I am cogitating about how to get away from Microsoft, don't use Google search, and avoid ordering purchases from Amazon, but will I refrain from listing my upcoming novel there? I'm not sure. I'd have to carefully consider what that would accomplish. Individually extricating oneself from this cruel, corrupt system is complex and problematic, whether it's through avoiding tainted people and products, or going off-grid.
Thanks for sparking my thinking on this! Additionally, your article gave me food for thought on the specific role(s) of engaged writing in movement building.
Thanks for your thoughts, Juliana. I think we're in agreement with the "boycotting" of individual authors. That kind of action is a not a boycott in the traditional sense of the term, but these things are getting blurred in the age of online culture. Some people claim that "cancelling" is a kind of cultural boycott, but give that it's usually aimed at an individual, not an institution, and is often spontaneous, reactive, rather than collective and planned, makes it different from, say the BDS cultural boycott which is super well organised and explained. I chose Amazon as an example where there are multiple calls to boycott, for different reasons, but because it seems to have become a bit of a rallying cry. I also wanted to push back against the endless circular debates about freedom of speech. I think writers are sometimes too precious about our words and lose sight of the bigger picture (which you've outlined very well!).
Surely the individual boycott is the stance one take on issues of importance. Ergo the foundation of taking effective collaborative action, n'est-ce pas? Maurice
Merci Maurice. I should have differentiated between different uses of “individual”. Yes as individuals we have agency to join collective boycotts we deem of importance. But when we decide not to read certain books or individual authors as a stance against their views or behaviours we’re not necessarily acting as part of a collective movement for change, and/or the aims of such actions are not always clear (one problem with so-called call-out culture). Thanks for reading!
Wonderfully written. This made me think again about how boycotts have devolved to individuated action, when it began, and probably only effective, as applied by an already existing community in response to oppression. I suppose that raises the question of whether it is conceived primarily as moral or political action - both naturally justified, but also materially different. The Canadian action reminds me of the early antiGerman boycotts of the 1930s. Had they been linked to support for the Spanish republic and revolution, perhaps it could have been a platform for resistance. In isolation it did little to stop it.
Very interesting points about boycotts and their purpose regarding individual creators--writers, filmmakers, etc. My question would be, How is boycotting Alice Munro--or Woody Allen or Bill Cosby--related to mass organized action to fight patriarchy or, more narrowly, sexual misconduct? I am not scorning it, just wondering about its meaning beyond individual choice--which of course is perfectly reasonable--I get to choose to stay away from writers who I don't like, for whatever reason. On a wider scale, however, with mass and social media in the mix, this can start to slide in a confusing way towards banning, shunning, and other such questionable practices.
The boycott is a tactic, and can be used effectively, or not, for many purposes within social justice struggle and organizing. The great grape boycott in the US in the 70s was a key part of the successful campaign to unionize farm workers, for instance. But boycotts of French fries or Chinese cars have quite different origins and purposes.
Boycotts are collective action, but based on the relatively weak connection we have as consumers, rather than on stronger connections such as working for the same company or living in the same neighborhood--or being part of the same mass movement that is calling for the boycott. I think they can be effective accompanied by other forms of organized pressure and with a clear purpose leading to consciousness raising.
Not ordering from Amazon as a form of solidarity with the workers organizing there makes a lot of sense, especially if they call for this. On the other hand, I think the question of writers boycotting Amazon or Microsoft Word or Google Docs, etc. as writing and publishing platforms is more complex. Personally, I am cogitating about how to get away from Microsoft because of its connection to the IDF, don't use Google search for similar reasons, and avoid ordering purchases from Amazon, but will I refrain from listing my upcoming novel there? I'm not sure. I'd have to carefully consider what that would accomplish v. how it might hurt my ability to reach out to people. Or, in the case of Google Docs, collaborate with people.
Individually extricating oneself from this cruel, corrupt system, whether through avoiding tainted people and products or going off-grid, is a major undertaking I expect will always be incomplete and ongoing.
Thanks for sparking my thinking on this! Additionally, your article gave me food for thought on the specific role(s) of engaged writing in movement building.
Sooo much to talk about and learn from you dear friend- about history, fascism, the decline if the American empire - and the morality/politics intersection… in the case of Spain the boycott and ostracism came too late- once Franco had already won, and only lasted till the US recognised him as a valuable anti-communist cold-war ally. By the 60s beaches and bikinis won out over politics, while the executions of anarchists and other rebels continued. History lessons worth remembering
Very interesting points about boycotts and their purpose regarding individual creators--writers, filmmakers, etc. My question would be, What exactly does boycotting Alice Munro--or Woody Allen or Bill Cosby--have to do with mass organized action to fight patriarchy? I am not scorning it, just wondering about its meaning beyond an emotional recoiling. The boycott is a tactic, and can be used effectively, or not, for many purposes. The great grape boycott in the US in the 70s was a key part of the successful campaign to unionize farm workers, for instance. Boycotting French fries or Chinese cars originates in very different sources.
Boycotts are collective action, but based on the relatively weak connection we have as consumers, rather than on stronger connections such as working for the same company or living in the same neighborhood--or being part of the same mass movement that is calling for the boycott. I think they can be effective accompanied by other forms of organized pressure and with a clear purpose leading to consciousness raising. Boycotting Amazon as a form of solidarity with the workers organizing there makes a lot of sense. I think the question of writers boycotting Amazon, or Microsoft, or any of the immense companies that control so much of our terrain of work, is a complex question. Personally, I am cogitating about how to get away from Microsoft, don't use Google search, and avoid ordering purchases from Amazon, but will I refrain from listing my upcoming novel there? I'm not sure. I'd have to carefully consider what that would accomplish. Individually extricating oneself from this cruel, corrupt system is complex and problematic, whether it's through avoiding tainted people and products, or going off-grid.
Thanks for sparking my thinking on this! Additionally, your article gave me food for thought on the specific role(s) of engaged writing in movement building.
Thanks for your thoughts, Juliana. I think we're in agreement with the "boycotting" of individual authors. That kind of action is a not a boycott in the traditional sense of the term, but these things are getting blurred in the age of online culture. Some people claim that "cancelling" is a kind of cultural boycott, but give that it's usually aimed at an individual, not an institution, and is often spontaneous, reactive, rather than collective and planned, makes it different from, say the BDS cultural boycott which is super well organised and explained. I chose Amazon as an example where there are multiple calls to boycott, for different reasons, but because it seems to have become a bit of a rallying cry. I also wanted to push back against the endless circular debates about freedom of speech. I think writers are sometimes too precious about our words and lose sight of the bigger picture (which you've outlined very well!).
Agreed, Carrie! Freedom of speech needs to be as grounded in reality, like everything else. (I don't know why my remarks posted twice!!)
Surely the individual boycott is the stance one take on issues of importance. Ergo the foundation of taking effective collaborative action, n'est-ce pas? Maurice
Merci Maurice. I should have differentiated between different uses of “individual”. Yes as individuals we have agency to join collective boycotts we deem of importance. But when we decide not to read certain books or individual authors as a stance against their views or behaviours we’re not necessarily acting as part of a collective movement for change, and/or the aims of such actions are not always clear (one problem with so-called call-out culture). Thanks for reading!
Wonderfully written. This made me think again about how boycotts have devolved to individuated action, when it began, and probably only effective, as applied by an already existing community in response to oppression. I suppose that raises the question of whether it is conceived primarily as moral or political action - both naturally justified, but also materially different. The Canadian action reminds me of the early antiGerman boycotts of the 1930s. Had they been linked to support for the Spanish republic and revolution, perhaps it could have been a platform for resistance. In isolation it did little to stop it.
Very interesting points about boycotts and their purpose regarding individual creators--writers, filmmakers, etc. My question would be, How is boycotting Alice Munro--or Woody Allen or Bill Cosby--related to mass organized action to fight patriarchy or, more narrowly, sexual misconduct? I am not scorning it, just wondering about its meaning beyond individual choice--which of course is perfectly reasonable--I get to choose to stay away from writers who I don't like, for whatever reason. On a wider scale, however, with mass and social media in the mix, this can start to slide in a confusing way towards banning, shunning, and other such questionable practices.
The boycott is a tactic, and can be used effectively, or not, for many purposes within social justice struggle and organizing. The great grape boycott in the US in the 70s was a key part of the successful campaign to unionize farm workers, for instance. But boycotts of French fries or Chinese cars have quite different origins and purposes.
Boycotts are collective action, but based on the relatively weak connection we have as consumers, rather than on stronger connections such as working for the same company or living in the same neighborhood--or being part of the same mass movement that is calling for the boycott. I think they can be effective accompanied by other forms of organized pressure and with a clear purpose leading to consciousness raising.
Not ordering from Amazon as a form of solidarity with the workers organizing there makes a lot of sense, especially if they call for this. On the other hand, I think the question of writers boycotting Amazon or Microsoft Word or Google Docs, etc. as writing and publishing platforms is more complex. Personally, I am cogitating about how to get away from Microsoft because of its connection to the IDF, don't use Google search for similar reasons, and avoid ordering purchases from Amazon, but will I refrain from listing my upcoming novel there? I'm not sure. I'd have to carefully consider what that would accomplish v. how it might hurt my ability to reach out to people. Or, in the case of Google Docs, collaborate with people.
Individually extricating oneself from this cruel, corrupt system, whether through avoiding tainted people and products or going off-grid, is a major undertaking I expect will always be incomplete and ongoing.
Thanks for sparking my thinking on this! Additionally, your article gave me food for thought on the specific role(s) of engaged writing in movement building.