This weeks readings were centred around survivor discourse, and the political implications that surround them. I found the discussion in todays class particularly interesting, especially around Chrissie Hynde’s discourse on her own personal experiences of sexual assault.
In an interview that preceded the release of her autobiography she spoke about her experience as a young adult who hung around with rebellious biker gangs, did various drugs, and lived an overall reckless lifestyle. In her eyes, this justified her sexual assault and the violence experienced through her association with a biker gang. Unlike the characterized “perfect victim” who mourns their sexual assault and places blame solely on their perpetrator, Hynde spoke in the opposite way and revolved her discourse around how her assault was her own fault. As would have been expected, these comments drew a lot of so-called “feminist” backlash, but additionally received praise from those who choose to casually victim blame. With her unique position as a celebrity, this opinion of her own sexual assault got more attention than most and acquired support as someone who “finally” realized they were accountable. This is clearly problematic in a multitude of ways, such as explicitly condemning the rockstar lifestyle she lived and the outfits she wore as inherently rapeable, but it also proves problematic because of the reactions around it.
In contrast to the other survivor discourses shown today in class, it appeared as if the story of Hynde’s assault was a byproduct of her autobiography. The sole purpose of the autobiography was clearly not to outline this experience, and it was merely included as the reality and consequence of how she lived. It was included intentionally but the focus was not on it exclusively. In a way, this allowed her the position to minimize and glaze over her sexual assault, and contrast it to other destructive events around the world that in her words are much more horrific.
Overall, it begs the question as to whether or not she deserves to be criticized for the way she personal handles her past experiences. While she deals with her experience in a way that may make more sense and grant her the ability to take control of what happened, should there be any backfire? In demanding the ideal response from a survivor, there is a discrete method of projecting an “expert opinion” on what a survivor should say and think, and privatizing their experience on a greater scale. For a survivor that may not want their narrative dragged into a larger debate over sexual assault responsibility, it is logical that their opinion should be respected. But what is harmful is the substantial recoil that can result from ignorance that generalizes which lifestyles deserve consequences like rape. While Chrissie Hynde was taking a hold of her experience, she was condemning a broad way of life than many choose to live by.
I think you bring up an interesting point. Hynde chose how to handle her personal experiences but I wonder how much that choice was formulated by the ideas surrounding the "rockstar life." The idea of an ideal response from a survivor brings up so many thoughts. What exactly encapsulates the ideal response? From different viewpoints this response would change drastically. I think Hynde's celebrity is important to take into consideration in the context of a survivor talking about her assault. Hynde taking responsibility for her sexual assault is heard on a very broad scale and this could have a huge impact on other survivors. I do not want to condemn Hynde in anyway because she was trying to take ahold of her experience but I just worry about what this means in a larger scale. Celebrity "scandals" are so obsessed over in our society and people hold up celebrities as gods and believe everything they say. However, Hynde should be able to speak out without being the target of such widespread criticism. Letting survivors speak what they want to and need to speak is important for an effective survivor movement.
ReplyDelete