N is for Nostalgia Bias
'We need better, less offensive history!'
--Leslie Knope
Much like privileged writers of the 19th century romanticised the early days of colonialism and the native cultures they encountered, there is a pattern in the 21st century of romanticising upper and middle-class English and Euro-American life 18th and 19th centuries. This era is portrayed as a gentler, more civilised time, when men behaved like real gentlemen and everything was prettier and quieter and less banal.
The truth, of course, is much messier. Viewing a small slice of the past by studying the lives of a relatively privileged subsection of the population will yield a distinctly rose-tinted picture. Furthermore, limiting your study to materials produced from that group will mean you see their own idealised self-portrait. Through that filter, we miss what struggles and fractures within that society-- and every society has them.
Painting an entire era as the 'good old days' does a deep disservice to the people on whose backs the 'good' was built. Your genteel 19th century southerners or Regency Londoners probably owe their relatively luxurious lives to hundreds of Caribbean and American slaves. Your noble samurai rely on an army of serfs to do their bidding. But as a writer, you're also missing out on the chance to tell a far more interesting story. We've seen the romantic, sanitised version of the past hundreds of times. Studying the flaws in those societies lets you go deeper, tell a greater variety of stories, and ask your readers to think. All of which are much more fun than another discount Darcy.
--Leslie Knope
Much like privileged writers of the 19th century romanticised the early days of colonialism and the native cultures they encountered, there is a pattern in the 21st century of romanticising upper and middle-class English and Euro-American life 18th and 19th centuries. This era is portrayed as a gentler, more civilised time, when men behaved like real gentlemen and everything was prettier and quieter and less banal.
The truth, of course, is much messier. Viewing a small slice of the past by studying the lives of a relatively privileged subsection of the population will yield a distinctly rose-tinted picture. Furthermore, limiting your study to materials produced from that group will mean you see their own idealised self-portrait. Through that filter, we miss what struggles and fractures within that society-- and every society has them.
Painting an entire era as the 'good old days' does a deep disservice to the people on whose backs the 'good' was built. Your genteel 19th century southerners or Regency Londoners probably owe their relatively luxurious lives to hundreds of Caribbean and American slaves. Your noble samurai rely on an army of serfs to do their bidding. But as a writer, you're also missing out on the chance to tell a far more interesting story. We've seen the romantic, sanitised version of the past hundreds of times. Studying the flaws in those societies lets you go deeper, tell a greater variety of stories, and ask your readers to think. All of which are much more fun than another discount Darcy.
No comments have been added yet.
