I’m going to use this week to think about the question that
came up towards the end of our discussion class: what are the implications of a
feminist backlash against Chrissie Hynde and the way she spoke out about her
sexual assault? The content this week has really stuck with me to question the
utility of non-political speech.
To me, the Naples reading emphasised the importance of oppositional where a movement striving
for change is to be political. In the class discussion, it became clear the Hynde’s
comments were clearly not oppositional to society’s current discourses of rape
myths and victim blaming; it is this that would make Naples describe this
speaking out as not political.
The
following was taken from a Guardian
article (theguardian.com/society/2015/aug/30/chrissie-hynde-rape-comments);
This
singer’s comments were condemned by the head of the charity Victim
Support, who said victims should not blame themselves.
Lucy Hastings, the charity’s director, said: “Victims
of sexual violence should never feel or be made to feel that they were
responsible for the appalling crime they suffered – regardless of circumstances
or factors which may have made them particularly vulnerable.
“They should not blame themselves or be blamed for
failing to prevent an attack – often they will have been targeted by predatory
offenders who are responsible for their actions.
“It is critical that nothing deters victims of sexual
violence from coming forward to the police or to independent organisations so
they can get the help and support they need.”
It also
became clear in our discussion class that Hynes’s speech undermined and pushed against
the work of feminists for decades. While I wholeheartedly agree, I think it is
important to consider, as was stated in class, that this may have been how she
worked through the assault. This personal value at an individual level is where
I find the utility of ‘non-political’ speech.
I feel that
the above quote is particularly interesting, in that it presents a discourse
dominant amongst feminist thought (rejecting victim blaming), and posits Hynde’s
comments as therefore (in so many words) wrong. The feminist takes the place of
the expert in this event of survivor speech, subsuming into that dominant
discourse to devalue it. Should the goals of a political movement really take precedence
over the experiences, opinions and knowledge of a fellow survivor?
I really like the point you made here about how feminist speech, while attempting to change the societal view of victim blaming as a whole, it can be shown to undermine individuals ways of dealing with their trauma. In this sense, the individual is lost within the political movement, and Hynde is essentially re-victimized through the backlash that she receives much like other survivors of assault are in the courts by way of victim blaming.
ReplyDeleteOn the other hand, similarly to what I talked about in my own blog post, is the idealization of the celebrity as the "expert." Unfortunately, while Hynde may be dealing with her past trauma in her own ways, the public attention that her statement has acquired is what makes this a political movement, and in my opinion, a movement in the wrong direction. I really like what you say though at the end of your post about the goals of the political movement taking precedence over the experiences of other survivors. I agree that the individual should not be forgotten, but I think we also have to keep in mind the idealization that is placed on people in the limelight, and how small statements such as the one that Hynde makes can be detrimental to political movements.