Weeks after the death of Nobel Prize-winning author Alice Munro this year, her daughter Andrea Skinner disclosed the longstanding sexual abuse she'd suffered as a child at the hands of her stepfather, Munro’s husband, Gerald Fremlin—abuse about which Munro had known and stayed silent. The disclosure is but the latest revelation to throw into question the legacy of a revered cultural icon. Neil Gaiman, Louis CK, Jean Vanier, and Avital Ronell are only a few public figures to be reassessed in recent years in the wake of accounts of sexual abuse. Similarly, the disputed claims to Indigenous ancestry touted by celebrated artists including Canadian novelist Joseph Boyden and singer-songwriter Buffy Sainte-Marie have generated outrage and heartbreak among Indigenous groups and innumerable admirers, compounding generational traumas.


How do we address works of deep cultural meaning when the moral failings of their creators are exposed? The question is not new, but its cultural purchase is particularly urgent today, often framed in terms akin to Claire Dederer’s declaration, “The real question is this: can I love the art but hate the artist? Can you?” In contrast to this individualized perspective, Karen Guth crafts a more systemic approach in her taxonomy of responses to what she terms “tainted legacies.” These responses include, for instance, the Separationist position that the actions of the creator have no bearing on the work, and the Abolitionist rejection of all work from a discredited creator. Guth advocates instead for what she calls the Reformer position, which seeks to unearth the social and institutional roots that enable abuses, with an imperative to learn from the past so we can create conditions of justice to guide the future. The injunction for a reckoning with the past that charts a way forward guides this seminar’s approach.


This panel seeks to explore the radical possibilities offered through engagement with “tainted legacies.” How might we excavate the conditions that facilitate and perpetuate the moral injury occasioned by inexcusable behaviour from artistic, religious, or cultural authorities? What can we learn by returning to texts that we now see in a new light? How might we guide new formations of cultural production and reception from our current perspective?


Potential topics may include:


-trauma-informed pedagogy when teaching works involving tainted legacies

-the status of critical chestnuts like the biographical fallacy

-conditions that shape our affective responses to cultural artifacts and their makers

-historical moments that can inform our understanding of current ones

-private vs public responses to tainted legacies

-parasociality and identification in the digital age

-artistic and grassroots responses to tainted legacies

-envisioning accountability