Since we watched the clip of Oprah
Winfrey’s show today in class, the issue of the “expert” opinion when it comes
to sexual assault is something that I have really been thinking about. On one
hand, I see the importance of the expert opinion when past survivors of sexual
assault are dealing with PTSD, depression, etc. that happens after any sort of
trauma. However, what I find most problematic of the account of the “expert
opinion” are not only the generalizations that are often made, and also the
disconnection between the public layperson and the expert.
Where this disconnection becomes most
problematic is when the public takes the perspective of the idealized expert as
factual and unwavering, without researching topics on their own coming up with
their own opinions. With this in mind, the backlash but also support that
Chrissie Hyndes received for her comment that she made about her own assault
makes me think of how society idolizes celebrities, immediately labeling them
as experts, despite what their credentials may be. Within the article that we
looked at today was the opinion of a former politician, Anne Widdecombe who
states that, “thank heavens somebody has said it at last. It is common sense as
she says, women have a duty to take care of themselves and not put themselves
in precarious situations.” Both of these statements are problematic in their
own sense, and the declaration that it is not the main rhetoric of today’s
society is simply wrong, which was one of the points made in class today. Moreover,
Widdecombe appears to make a connection between women and property, suggesting
that women need to take care of themselves by not putting themselves into
vulnerable situations, whereas the woman is the purse and her sexuality is the
wallet that is likely to be stolen if we do not protect it. In this sense,
Widdecombe takes on the persona of the “expert,” further validating her opinion
above those of the public. Furthermore, this statement of blaming the victim of
sexual assault can further discredit women who come forward with their
allegations, and more importantly, stop the from coming forward at all.
More on the topic of political
movements, I believe that they can be lightening, as Tyler Perry mentions
during his interview with Oprah. However “expert” opinions such as Widdecombes
tend to generalize all survivor discourses, hindering the individuals who are
meant to gain something from their speak-out experiences. In class on
Wednesday, we talked in our small groups about all the criticisms of speak-out
movements, and really movements in general. Seeing the examples of speak-outs
in class today, and further thinking of them in a political setting, I wonder
how they can be bettered, without killing them entirely. Would we need to
completely remove the perspective of the expert? Or can this somehow be
integrated within the movement as a source of healing, for those that are
dealing with a great amount of PTSD?
Hey Karah!
ReplyDeleteYou've brought up some important questions at the end, which seem extremely difficult to reach a solution that would account for everyone’s disclosure without generalizing or recuperating the survivors.
I don’t believe in the need to completely exclude the experts, as they can further encourage others to speak out, but the expert should be someone who is there to aid in the healing, someone who is there to listen and further explain situations but not someone who is there to just recuperate. Perry explains how prior to his public Speak out, watching the Oprah Winfrey show made him be “inspired by a comment on the program about how writing about difficult experiences could lead to personal breakthroughs” (biograpraphy,2015). This encouraged him to write letters to himself about his experience which is a different form or disclosure. Oprah’s own disclosure and the alleviaton of these issues encouraged him to deal with work through his own trauma without literally speaking out.
What does need to happen is the separation between a survivor and an expert as you can be an expert on your own experience and the mutual feelings people may experience, but you cannot speak for other people’s experiences as everyone’s differs completely. I believe that this distinction may be the beginning point of changing the view on survivor’s discourse and the role of the “expert”.
Hey Karah, I think this is a really fantastic post about what you said on the "idolization" of celebrities as experts! I think we see this far too often, with the actress who became an expert on vaccines after her son supposably got autism from it, or from the example you mentioned above. The harsh reality about upholding celebrities in this way, as you point out, is that the things they say that contribute to, or uphold rape culture. As you say, they generalize the survivor discourses and either make a spectacle out of them, or discredit them entirely. These individuals have not taken the time to form objective opinions about their own socialization into rape culture and how they can work to disengage these discourses. Instead, they use this status they have acquired as 'experts' to work alongside rape culture, and upholding traditional and dangerous stereotypes around female sexuality.
ReplyDeleteYet, we do need these expert discourses, as they can be very helpful to survivors, and when properly educated could help to break down stereotypes around rape culture. These experts can help with the trauma that survivors may experience after their assault, yet when we value different forms of experts, how can we guarantee that survivors are finding help from credible sources?
I think this can only happen once we stop making a spectacle out of the experiences survivors face, and instead only treat them as they should be treated; as serious criminal offences committed on an unwilling individual. Only until we do this as a society will false expert opinions lose their value when it comes to discussing a survivor's experience.