VVC and Scooby space

[hazelk]

Reading the impassioned debates currently surrounding the Vividcon policy statement I’m reminded of previous discussion about whether a person’s online journal should be considered public or private space. I think the faultline creating some (but not all) of this VVC related discord is similar. Vividcon is a conference, anyone can register, as of now it has a policy statement. In those ways it looks like a public space but in many others and to many others I think it feels more like, not private space maybe but a homely one. Not family homely, at least not biological family homely but created family maybe. Like Scooby space for lack of an existing word and because, to a child of the seventies, Scooby is a prefix that makes things sound friendly.

Since much of the anger began around issues of disability and access, I’ll use a disability related analogy. My kids go to a special school. It’s a good special school that for the last three years is housed in a purpose-built building (of the kind the current Lib-Con government is busy removing funding for the construction of). The building makes things easier for ASD and learning disabled children. The classrooms can be easily sub-divided to allow small group or one-on-one teaching. There are special rooms where students can go to chill out, there are visual timetables everywhere. For those with physical difficulties all parts of the school are fully wheelchair accessible. The space, all by itself, does a lot to make the world an easier, more navigable place for the children there.

Our house is not purpose built. We don’t have visual timetables or a chill out room or many of the other facilities they have at the school but our house is not an institution, it’s a home and where the space can’t do the work needed to make things good the people do it instead. We do it or at least we try. Similarly when visiting places if they’re public places, zoos, museums, parks, amusement parks we read the information and the policies and if they sound like there might be a problem or it’s expensive and there’s no disabled discount we don’t go. We could contact the people in charge and make personal enquires but often it’s simpler just to go somewhere else. If we’re visiting someone else’s home for a party or a barbecue or a dinner, however, we don’t research its accessibility on the internet or ask to see their policies, we talk to the hosts with the straight forward expectation that they will be hospitable. Again, in Scooby spaces people do the work that buildings and best practice recommendations do in public spaces.

So what of Vividcon, public or Scooby? I think the problem is that the answer very much depends on who’s asking. From all I’ve read of the history it began (and not so long ago, 2004?) as a very “let’s put this show on in our barn” operation, in other words totally Scooby (Mickey and Judy = Shaggy and Velma or Fred and Daffny. Dicusss). But it grew and grew and vidding has grown and grown and while some people come to Vividcon the old way, through getting to know other vidders others get to hear of its reputation long before they (virtually) meet the people. It’s become an institution without maybe feeling like one and for those who don’t feel it being judged as an institution is as discomforting and hurtful as if the OFSTED inspector were to arrive on your doorstep to tell you you were a failing home. Meanwhile the response to that probably makes those who read the policy and quite reasonably judged it on its institutional merits feel like they’re being excluded from High Table or the Senior Common Room because their face (or body) doesn’t fit and they don’t know the right people and the right people don't want to know them, which is equally hurtful and discomforting.

Comments

[laurashapiro]

Very useful observations here. Thank you.

[hazelk]

Thank you. And I completely agree with your take on warnings.

[laurashapiro]

Thanks for saying so.

[giandujakiss]

Yeah, I've been sort of reading a lot of this without commenting, and I agree with you that it seems that in the conversation there's this undercurrent of tension in the sense of VVC as both a public and private space - as a family, small, near-cliquish thing and simultaneously as the major event for at least the LJ-vidding-fannish community.

[hazelk]

Exactly, it's not the only issue but it is part of the problem. And the pity of it is that both public and private types of thing can be very accessible but the methods for achieving that accessiblity don't transfer.

[kass]

Here via thuviaptarth, and I think you're quite right. Thank you.

[hazelk]

Thank you.

[musesfool]

This is a great post.

[hazelk]

Thank you.

[loligo]

Yeah, I think you've put your finger on something really important. Thanks for posting.

[hazelk]

Thank you.

[minnaway]

+1

[jesuswasbatman]

Even given that, I was shocked by the tone of the sections in the policy about disabled people's aides/carers and the level of suspicion and hostility.

Put it this way: the place where I work has had a bit of critique over our policy on aides/carers for users with disabilities because we require the aides to go through the same ID verification process as the users do, which breaches some people's principled belief that aides should be treated in that context as simply an appendage of the person they're helping and that anything else creates an extra barrier for disabled people. But we think that's justified because of our general security issues.

On the other hand the VVC policy seemed absolutely convinced that aides would be unpleasant outsiders who would mock fannishness, sexually harass fangirls letting it all hang out in a safe space, turn people in to copyright holders and so on. To which my response is "seriously, how likely is it that a disabled fan would have someone like that as their aide?". And if the aide does misbehave then I'd say the organisers would be fully justified in kicking both people out and holding the disabled fan responsible for their choice of retainer.

[hazelk]

I agree it was horrifying and I really don't know what happened in the writing of those sections. I say that not out some general belief that VVC people are good people but from knowing that the con has had prominent members people with severe mobility issues attending every year since it began. I think in the past aides were other con goers or spouses or both so maybe this was suppressed anxiety about strangers coming to town surfacing. Those sections of the policy were retracted and apologised for almost immediately and I think the policy conversations currently going on in astolat's DW are much more representative of what VVC can be.

To put it in perspective the place I work has exquisitly welcoming polices on disability but the disability unit is a team of about 5 people trying to serve 22000 students of whom almost 1000 have a declared disability. It works as far as it does in large part because of stuff that isn't in the policy.

[jesuswasbatman]

Oh yes, policies are worthless if not for individuals and sometimes the individual behaviour that keeps people feeling welcome has absolutely nothing to do with the policy.