SFMOMA: "An Unexpected Outcome"

 "Though he is not a woman or a person of color, and I understand how that may be an unexpected outcome, I believe he will materially promote the visibility and best interest of those groups based on his past performance." 

So said Pamela L. Joyner, a black woman who co-headed SFMOMA's search committee, which settled on a white male, Christopher Bedford, to head up the museum, yet another American cultural institution troubled by charges of past racism. 

Well, as a Feb. 10, 2022, New York Times story on this development noted, Bedford not long ago made waves as head of the Baltimore Musem of Art by proposing to sell of works by Brice Marden, Christopher Still and Any Warhol to finance acquisitions of art by people of color and to finance staff salary increases. He also at one point announced a year-long commitment to acquire only works by female artists.

Such is the world of American culture at the moment: just who created something is of far greater importance than what exactly got created. To be fair, however, there are few if any objective standards of what makes for a great work of art.  Generally, someone considered an authority in such matters makes a pronouncement, or perhaps the price for which something sells is viewed as a sufficient proxy for its artistic merit.

In any event, despite the fact that by his gender and the color of his skin, Bedford represents the racist, colonialist, patriarchal past that is said to underpin prevailing U.S. social conditions, he's more or less acceptable for his new post.

I say "more or less" because here's what the NYT reported Ford Foundation president Darren Walker had to say: "While I'm disappointed that a diverse candidate wasn't chosen, no museum leader is more committed to diversity than Chris Bedford." In other words, second choice despite certain merits. 

According to the newspaper report, the museum may well have had to settle on Bedford despite his gender and skin-color shortcomings because the job isn't that attractive, and demand is high for qualified women or those of color.

"A person close to the job search who spoke on the condition of anonymity because that person was not authorized to reveal its details, said that the SFMOMA position was not an easy sell to candidates, given San Francisco's comparatively low-profile contemporary art scene and tepid interest in art patronage among Silicon Valley moguls." So the NYT reported.

Nasdaq: It's OK to be a White Male if You're Gay

 Here's recent twist in the ongoing culture war here in the U.S.  Nasdaq, the world's second largest stock exchange, recently asked the Securities and Exchange Commission for permission to require companies that list their shares on the exchange to either diversity their boards of directors or explain why that can't be done.

Specifically, Nasdaq, headed by Adena Friedman, a woman with a black belt in taekwondo, wants U.S. companies to have at least one woman director and another who is either a member of an underrepresented minority group or LGBTQ in terms of sexual orientation. Foreign companies listing on Nasdaq could get by with two women on their boards.

So it seems, being a white male -- an embattled species in today's culture wars -- isn't out of the question for one of those two diversity seats as long as he isn't heterosexual. Perish the thought!   Except, of course, if one is talking about the requisite diversity seats on a foreign company that lists on Nasdaq where two woman would be needed. But perhaps a transgendered, formerly white male would qualify there.

Actually, most large U.S. companies, such as those that comprise the S&P 500 stock index, already have at least one woman on their boards. But Nasdaq reportedly believes about 75% of the over 3,200 companies that list their shares on the exchange would not be currently in compliance of the new rule, if approved.

According to the Wall Street Journal, the SEC is unlikely to grant Friedman's request as the agency is currently configured, but might if incoming President Joe Biden appoints new commissioners.

Now wouldn't it be great if corporate boards were something other than a rubber stamp for management, having been purchased as such by way of very generous compensation? Don't hold your breath even if Friedman's initiative is successful. Diversity first, good governance maybe later.

 

Metropolitan Museum Evokes "1984," "The Sympathizer"

The latest development at New York's Metropolitan Museum brings to mind books like George Orwell's dystopian novel "1984" and the equally grim tale "The Sympathizer" by Viet Thanh Nguyen. In both stories, the chief protagonist runs afoul of an authoritarian regime and as part of his punishment, must make confessions.

On Nov. 26, 2020, the New York Times ran an article in its art section that the Met had appointed its first Chief Diversity Officer, Lavita McMath Turner, a Black woman with experience in such matters, most recently at the City University of New York.  That's not a big surprise.  Many major U.S. cultural institutions have recently taken a similar step.  Moreover, as the NYT article pointed out, the NY city government informed its cultural institutions that if they didn't take steps to diversify their staffs, they might lose some of their public funding. 

What most interested me was an element of confession associated with the Met's announcement.  It came at least in part as a result of a staff letter five months ago, the NYT said, that urged the museum's leaders to acknowledge "a deeply rooted logic of white supremacy and culture of systemic racism at our institution."

The notions of white supremacy and systemic racism are key phrases and concepts in the current movement that sometimes go as far as attempting to "cancel culture" in bringing about change, much of which is arguably overdue. If one doesn't decry "white supremacy" and "systemic racism" in those terms, however, one is insufficiently "woke" and, well, might suffer the fate of Orwell's Winston Smith or Nguyen's anonymous narrator -- periods of punishment and correction.

While those advocating such a reconsideration of the very basis of U.S. society tend to paint it in terms of a moral awakening and reckoning, is also purely and simply a power struggle.

The Met's President and CEO Daniel H. Weiss and Direct Max Hollein stopped short of repeating the key phrases -- "white supremacy" and "systemic racism" -- in the institution's July 6, 2020 mea culpa. But the document made it clear that a confession along such lines is in the offing.

"Our government, policies, systems, and institutions have all contributed to perpetuating racism and injustice, and The Metropolitan Museum of Art must reflect on its past and aspire to be an agent of change," the July 6 statement said.

Along with promised reforms and new initiatives on various fronts -- hiring, staffing, collecting, exhibitions, etc. -- substantive change "will also require that we understand our past and that we accept the importance of truth-seeking as a necessary part of the process of learning and reconciliation."  

In other words, forward-looking reforms are not enough. 

"A set of commitments to anti-racism cannot begin without an honest assessment of an institution’s own history and present practices. This process will require that we investigate our own history and that we accept the importance of truth-seeking as an essential element of healing and reconciliation. We will begin this work in the coming year through an institution-wide initiative and produce a public report."

That was number one on the list of steps the Museum said it planned to take.

In writing this, I don't mean to beat up on the Met per se.  It's just that these developments are an excellent example of the nature of the culture war in which the U.S. is currently engulfed, and particularly in the arena of high-culture arts and that of academia. 

But at the same time, they give rise to an interesting question: if the Met's forthcoming self-examination concludes that the institution and thus its leadership have been complicit in preserving white supremacy and that the Met is part of systemic racism, can Weiss survive as president and CEO? It's hard to have it both ways.

 

Societal Change: The Rise of Tribalism in the U.S.

As per its title, this blog is focused on fiction, but with one or two exceptions, what I have had to say on that topic has attracted little interest.

This, one could argue, opens the door to other subjects, such as where we are in the wake of Donald Trump's election as President of the United States.

An important factor seems to be that as America's traditional white majority shrinks in size and various categories of non-whites demand seats at the country's various tables of power -- political, social and cultural -- tribalism is on the increase.

This Sunday, the New York Times magazine tackled the topic in its "First Words" column.

For most of the post-war period, and particularly in the wake of the 1965 Voting Rights Act that led to Southern conservatives switching from Democrat to Republican, the country has been pretty evenly divided between the two parties. And until recent years -- according to regular American National Election Studies surveys -- most people were not strikingly dissatisfied with the opposition party.  As a result, disputes were mainly based on policies and compromise was often possible.

More recently -- and particularly since Barack Obama was elected president -- there has been an important change: the percentage of survey respondents expressing extremely negative views of the opposition party has risen dramatically.

"In the post-war era, the coalitions that made up the Democratic and Republican Parties were haphazard and incongruous, bearing little resemblance to the tribes of today," the NYT article says.

More than any other politician -- and perhaps because he wasn't previously a seasoned politician conditioned by what went on  before -- Donald Trump has tapped into this apparent new reality. Among other things, he has clearly determined that his tribe -- very largely white -- wants everything associated with former president Obama overturned or erased. That's not so much because Obama's policies were too far left -- they weren't -- but because Obama's very ascension to the top elected office in the U.S. represented a major real or symbolic shift away from those who traditionally sat at American tables of power. Or at least that seems to be the way in which many who voted for Trump perceived it.

It is tough for partisans to say that in a straight-forward manner.  "Racist" remains a very uncomfortable label. But many can quite comfortably vent their feelings or frustrations by being opposed to immigration, particularly since unlike the past, the vast majority of those seeking to enter the U.S. now do not look like them. With something like 20 million people living illegally in the U.S. already and the possibility of terrorism ever present, many can feel comfortable backing strict border controls and in so doing hopefully slow the country's increasing racial and cultural diversity.

That seems to be where U.S. socio/political realities stand at present.

New Narratives for a New Diversity

The  May 14, 2018, issue of The New Yorker includes a short story by Edwidge Danticat entitled "Without Inspection" that can be viewed as representing a new narrative for a more diverse America.

This country has always been a nation of immigrants (after it was "discovered" by European explorers at any rate), but until relatively recently, the vast majority of the newcomers were Europeans who arrived legally.  Thus, the classic immigration story has long been one of persons, parents or grandparents who arrived from the "old world" at Ellis Island in New York harbor and after various trials and tribulations, often including discrimination, eventually achieved the American Dream, if not for themselves for their offspring.

Trump's Tactics and The Two Narratives

The current flap over whether Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY) is in some way responsible for Tuesday's apparent terrorist attack that killed eight individuals in Manhattan is illustrative of two trends I have been writing about.

The most straight forward is a salient element of President Donald Trump's modus operandi and one that his supporters love: the best defense is a strong offensive.

Reed College and the Ongoing Culture Wars

Recently, I seem to be writing more about the fact that this is a country of two different narratives, and about the associated culture wars, than about fiction.

In brief, one narrative has it that as diversity increases, in large part due to continuing, significant, non-white immigration, the country is going to change significantly, and for the better as more voices are heard and new populations acquire power, money and command of culture.

The other narrative is that America is great because it is, in effect, the culmination of European culture that traces its values and intellectual notions to ancient Greece and Rome. Certain numbers of non-white, non-Europeans are welcome, but they should accept and adapt to the long-standing white culture and political power.

Is Broadway Part of "The Problem?"

What is the problem?

In a slightly earlier post, I discussed the notion that America seems to be a nation of two narratives, and that has led to an extremely divisive political climate.

1) As a result of immigration and associated demographic shifts, whites appear to be heading toward minority status and as a result, power and culture will and should change.

2) White culture and white power should continue indefinitely, in part by curbing immigration, but also by getting rid of certain government programs and preferences for minorities such as affirmative action that are artificially and unfairly boosting such populations.

How does Broadway figure in this divide?

The U.S.: A Nation of Competing Narratives?

Instead of talking about fiction, here's a brief word about society and politics.

Like a lot of people I have been puzzling over how we got where we are and in the course of doing so, I have been reading a lot more conservative commentary than I used to.