Relatable is a term that most people are using now days. The
term however, has so many meaning that it is not even identified as a word in
the 2008 version of Microsoft Word. Before I read “The Scourge of
‘Relatability’” by Rebecca Mead, I never saw this word as problematic; however,
I now understand why this word could have so many problems. The word relatable
has adapted new meanings since the beginning of time. Over a hundred years ago,
if someone said something was relatable, they just meant that it could be told.
Then when Shakespeare would use the word “relate” he simply meant the one could
connect to some other thing. As you can see the meanings are slowly starting to
change. Recently, the word relatable is
used when someone is describing a situation or person that someone ordinary
might see themselves connecting with. I am guilty of throwing this term around
carelessly and expecting people to have the same definition. I now realize that
there is a better term to use. Identification means to develop your own personality
through admiring and imitating a family member or other figure. The word
identification or to identify is a better term to use rather than the term
relatable or relatability. I find that the term relatable is often a very
selfish term and makes a person consider themselves the center of attention
because it takes away the reason for making the story. Relatable to be thought
of as a person somehow thinking the story was made to accommodate them, and
expects the work to be done for them. Instead of saying that a character is
relatable, you can say that you identify with a charcter. For example if you
have seen the movie the notebook, more than likely your love story did not go
exactly like Noah and Allie’s did, so if you were to say you relate to their
story it would be the same thing as saying that the story was created to please
you and that can be very selfish. If you were to say you can identify with Noah
and Allie, you would be saying that yes, you were actively engaged in the story
and could see yourself in some of the situations that they faced as characters.
Reading this piece of writing has made me realize the difference in the two
terms. I never once saw the word relatability as a problem until now.
I honestly don't think that relatability is a selfish term or a problem that needs a solution. I feel that the concept is similar to empathy. Just because someone says that they can relate to The Notebook doesn't mean that they think the story was created to please them, it may simply meant that they can relate to the love story; that they can relate to how Noah feels after Allie leaves or how Allie feels when she finds out that Noah wrote to her everyday for a whole year. What they mean is that they can empathize with them and that can feel what the characters are feeling. When Glass said that Shakespeare wasn't relatable I think he meant it more in the sense that it was unrealistic now compared to back then and in that respect that it is harder to relate to Shakespeare's stories simply because they are so dated that it is harder to put ourselves in those characters shoes and feel empathy for them; to feel they way that Shakespeare wanted us to feel for the characters. In that respect I do disagree with Mead and agree with Glass. A lot of the older literature that we are expected to read and comprehend in school is very dated, hard to read and understand and "unrelateable" to our current time period and us personally. Relatability isn’t problematic but necessary if you actually want people to care and empathize. It is hard to make people drawn to the work if they cannot relate to characters.
ReplyDelete