This is going to be a bit of a nitpick (I'm sorry!), but my sense is that LeGuin would object to the concept of noblesse oblige in that context, because noblesse oblige implies that one's responsibility to follow one's values stems from having additional privilege and power. But that's a hierarchical top-down relationship to power and moral responsibility, and since LeGuin was an Anarchist, she probably wouldn't accept the idea that responsibility either comes from top-down or is significantly different depending on one's power. That's where 'Solidarity' is a really useful term, because 'solidarity' in her anarchist politics is essentially an action that is horizontal: everyone is equal, acting in concert, not imposing any sort of hierarchy. I legitimately think that her thinking on Borders, and her other similar publishing/political decisions, are informed a lot more by genuine Anarchist political beliefs than vague moral or political sympathies. I do agree that a lot of 'solidarity' talk online is very vague and not informed by an actual politics, but it's still a useful term, and it's a really helpful one for people who actually do organize and act politically.
And I actually think she would still be anti big bookstore, but my only hunch for that is because most Anarchists/lefties I know are vehemently against Borders/B&N still!!
this is totally fair! I welcome nitpicks. I was not trying to attribute “noblesse oblige” to her, really—or vagueness!—I was just trying to credit her as the beginning of this chain of thought on my part. If anybody’s vague… I’m vague lol.
On the other hand I do think she makes it clear that she views this as something she’s doing because she’s unusually successful and stable, whereas I doubt she’d throw rocks at somebody like Fritz Leiber for surviving off of checks from Dungeons & Dragons.
I have always wondered why she was never credited for Avatar, and now I think I see why. It is such a clear and obvious adaptation of The Word for World is Forest (at least, that struck me at the time, twenty years ago, when I read it). And I'm a little angry for her that such a successful franchise should have been built on her works and she remains uncredited for it.
If it helps… I believe she was very open about hating Avatar: “A final note on Word for World: a high-budget, highly successful film resembled the novel in so many ways that people have often assumed I had some part in making it. Since the film completely reverses the book’s moral premise, presenting the central and unsolved problem of the book, mass violence, as a solution, I’m glad I had nothing at all to do with it.” https://reactormag.com/introduction-from-ursula-k-le-guin-the-hainish-novels-stories-volume-two/ (For the record I have not seen Avatar.)
It does - and thanks for the reference! It is a remarkable choice, but one of deep commitment to artistic integrity, I think, to see a cultural property that is so clearly derived from your own and has been so successful and to refuse credit because the moral center of the work has been corrupted.
I basically agree with all this, but there’s a stage beyond selling out that I do think goes into despicable. When I see Steph Curry doing Crypto ads or Blake Griffen doing Draft Kings ads, promoting industries that are actively harmful for the sake of adding to the millions they’ve already made, I have nothing but contempt for them. But the Replacements getting back together and doing an oldies tour to pay some bills and so Paul Westerburg could pay for his son’s college? Despite needing the money, the Thermals refused to license one of their songs for a Humvee commercial because they saw it as antithetical to their beliefs. More power to both groups.
I agree about crypto and Draft Kings—with crypto I think there was maybe a window in which celebrities could be given the benefit of the doubt but Draft Kings is inexcusable.
I have now spent too much time trying to draft a funny joke about Le Guin characters being in Smash Bros., but I have gotten too far into the weeds with trying to make a joke about something like "Genly Ai's forward smash" actually work as a metaphor for something about the character, heavily influenced by the actual mechanics of the game, and this is not a good use of anyone's time, so I'm going to stop here
The best thing I can think of is a joke about how, like, the designers shouldn't have made Estraven a dual-mode character like Pyra/Mythra or Zelda/Sheik from Melee because that was too on-the-nose
About five years ago I sat down and created what I thought of as a "workbook of practical ethics" - basically, I wrote down who I am and what I believe, and then thought through what implications those beliefs "should" have for my behavior, given who I am and the world that I live in.
I basically came to the same conclusion that you're describing here, though I used somewhat different language.
One of the important tenets to me in doing so was that, since I'm a unique individual, my ethics are likely also unique, and therefore that I should generally try not to speak about how others "should" act. But as someone with a fair amount of privilege*, this exercise made me significantly more thoughtful and compassionate.
It also helped me categorize times that felt awkward, and apply the principles that I *theoretically* hold when I don't have an instinctual direction of action. This has also made me a far better manager. (I've supervised people for five years and have not yet had anyone quit out from under me. Knock on wood.)
* I'm a cisgendered straight white man, living in a society where cis-ness, straight-ness, white-ness, and masculinity are all axes of privilege. To this I would also add that my parents were unusually kind and willing to be open with me about how to navigate bureaucracy. My dad explained lines of credit to me at like age 12. This has given me certain advantages in life.
yeah I don’t think there’s that much difference between thinking about your privilege and noblesse oblige in practice… it’s just that “privilege” often makes people defensively list all their disadvantages and problems as a protective move
In a personal and private document I was writing for myself, using privilege as a frame was helpful in order to work through my own awkwardness about discussing privilege. But in a public work, I would definitely phrase it differently.
(And there are axes where I'm disadvantaged as well, they just tend to be ones that it's *deeply annoying* to most people to go on about. "Don't annoy people" is, I think, a good goal in public writing.)
One of the things that was really foundational for me was reading Melissa Dahl's "Cringeworthy: A Theory of Awkwardness". It basically makes the case that what's considered "awkward" to talk about is a social construction that tends to entrench existing inequality; a prime example of this would be the norm that it's "awkward" to talk about finances, which enables companies to underpay anyone who's not willing to push through awkward conversations. This is a form of emotional arbitrage that is, unfortunately, very central to many systems of power in the world.
This is going to be a bit of a nitpick (I'm sorry!), but my sense is that LeGuin would object to the concept of noblesse oblige in that context, because noblesse oblige implies that one's responsibility to follow one's values stems from having additional privilege and power. But that's a hierarchical top-down relationship to power and moral responsibility, and since LeGuin was an Anarchist, she probably wouldn't accept the idea that responsibility either comes from top-down or is significantly different depending on one's power. That's where 'Solidarity' is a really useful term, because 'solidarity' in her anarchist politics is essentially an action that is horizontal: everyone is equal, acting in concert, not imposing any sort of hierarchy. I legitimately think that her thinking on Borders, and her other similar publishing/political decisions, are informed a lot more by genuine Anarchist political beliefs than vague moral or political sympathies. I do agree that a lot of 'solidarity' talk online is very vague and not informed by an actual politics, but it's still a useful term, and it's a really helpful one for people who actually do organize and act politically.
And I actually think she would still be anti big bookstore, but my only hunch for that is because most Anarchists/lefties I know are vehemently against Borders/B&N still!!
also I’m about to start reading Conquest of Bread 🫡
this is totally fair! I welcome nitpicks. I was not trying to attribute “noblesse oblige” to her, really—or vagueness!—I was just trying to credit her as the beginning of this chain of thought on my part. If anybody’s vague… I’m vague lol.
On the other hand I do think she makes it clear that she views this as something she’s doing because she’s unusually successful and stable, whereas I doubt she’d throw rocks at somebody like Fritz Leiber for surviving off of checks from Dungeons & Dragons.
I have always wondered why she was never credited for Avatar, and now I think I see why. It is such a clear and obvious adaptation of The Word for World is Forest (at least, that struck me at the time, twenty years ago, when I read it). And I'm a little angry for her that such a successful franchise should have been built on her works and she remains uncredited for it.
If it helps… I believe she was very open about hating Avatar: “A final note on Word for World: a high-budget, highly successful film resembled the novel in so many ways that people have often assumed I had some part in making it. Since the film completely reverses the book’s moral premise, presenting the central and unsolved problem of the book, mass violence, as a solution, I’m glad I had nothing at all to do with it.” https://reactormag.com/introduction-from-ursula-k-le-guin-the-hainish-novels-stories-volume-two/ (For the record I have not seen Avatar.)
It does - and thanks for the reference! It is a remarkable choice, but one of deep commitment to artistic integrity, I think, to see a cultural property that is so clearly derived from your own and has been so successful and to refuse credit because the moral center of the work has been corrupted.
I basically agree with all this, but there’s a stage beyond selling out that I do think goes into despicable. When I see Steph Curry doing Crypto ads or Blake Griffen doing Draft Kings ads, promoting industries that are actively harmful for the sake of adding to the millions they’ve already made, I have nothing but contempt for them. But the Replacements getting back together and doing an oldies tour to pay some bills and so Paul Westerburg could pay for his son’s college? Despite needing the money, the Thermals refused to license one of their songs for a Humvee commercial because they saw it as antithetical to their beliefs. More power to both groups.
I agree about crypto and Draft Kings—with crypto I think there was maybe a window in which celebrities could be given the benefit of the doubt but Draft Kings is inexcusable.
I have now spent too much time trying to draft a funny joke about Le Guin characters being in Smash Bros., but I have gotten too far into the weeds with trying to make a joke about something like "Genly Ai's forward smash" actually work as a metaphor for something about the character, heavily influenced by the actual mechanics of the game, and this is not a good use of anyone's time, so I'm going to stop here
honestly kind of impressive how I can’t think of a single useful one
The best thing I can think of is a joke about how, like, the designers shouldn't have made Estraven a dual-mode character like Pyra/Mythra or Zelda/Sheik from Melee because that was too on-the-nose
About five years ago I sat down and created what I thought of as a "workbook of practical ethics" - basically, I wrote down who I am and what I believe, and then thought through what implications those beliefs "should" have for my behavior, given who I am and the world that I live in.
I basically came to the same conclusion that you're describing here, though I used somewhat different language.
One of the important tenets to me in doing so was that, since I'm a unique individual, my ethics are likely also unique, and therefore that I should generally try not to speak about how others "should" act. But as someone with a fair amount of privilege*, this exercise made me significantly more thoughtful and compassionate.
It also helped me categorize times that felt awkward, and apply the principles that I *theoretically* hold when I don't have an instinctual direction of action. This has also made me a far better manager. (I've supervised people for five years and have not yet had anyone quit out from under me. Knock on wood.)
* I'm a cisgendered straight white man, living in a society where cis-ness, straight-ness, white-ness, and masculinity are all axes of privilege. To this I would also add that my parents were unusually kind and willing to be open with me about how to navigate bureaucracy. My dad explained lines of credit to me at like age 12. This has given me certain advantages in life.
yeah I don’t think there’s that much difference between thinking about your privilege and noblesse oblige in practice… it’s just that “privilege” often makes people defensively list all their disadvantages and problems as a protective move
100% agree with this framing.
In a personal and private document I was writing for myself, using privilege as a frame was helpful in order to work through my own awkwardness about discussing privilege. But in a public work, I would definitely phrase it differently.
(And there are axes where I'm disadvantaged as well, they just tend to be ones that it's *deeply annoying* to most people to go on about. "Don't annoy people" is, I think, a good goal in public writing.)
One of the things that was really foundational for me was reading Melissa Dahl's "Cringeworthy: A Theory of Awkwardness". It basically makes the case that what's considered "awkward" to talk about is a social construction that tends to entrench existing inequality; a prime example of this would be the norm that it's "awkward" to talk about finances, which enables companies to underpay anyone who's not willing to push through awkward conversations. This is a form of emotional arbitrage that is, unfortunately, very central to many systems of power in the world.
I am a big believer in N.O.!
and a practitioner also!