A Product of Its Time?

In a piece for the Atlantic, Noah Burlatsky argues that saying a work is a 'product of its time' is not just a lazy way to dismiss bigotry when it crops up in historic works, but also a disservice to the diversity of viewpoints people hold at any one point in history. He points out that, for example, treating racism by white 1920's authors as the standard of their time period dismisses the entire Harlem Renaissance.

Overall, I agree with Burlatsky's assessment. Just because something was written by someone with a different context and value system does not mean that the views expressed in their writing are off-limits for critique. And uncritically excusing something as a 'product of its time' shuts down relevant and fruitful discussions about the work and its meaning.  In cases where a work failed to age or travel well, it can be interesting to study the dissonance between what the author most likely intended (or says they intended) and how the story comes across to the reader. But ultimately, a work should stand on its own. If it needs a pile of excuses to make it palatable to the majority of the audience, it has failed the test of tapping into the more universal aspects of the human experience.

At the same time, context does add meaning. Some morals, symbolism and nuances of language have a hard time crossing the cultural boundaries. Furthermore, understanding the author's world can shed a new and interesting light on a work. And sometimes it's worth examining authorial intent and context before leaping to a knee-jerk response: for example, a word may have taken on a derogatory meaning (or lost it's punch) between the time when the author wrote and when you are reading. Or maybe a seemingly obvious solution to a plot point was unthinkable-- or even illegal-- at the time and place where the author wrote.

In the end, I think discussing historical works and thinking about the context in which they were written lays the groundwork for a more nuanced understanding of a story.