The purpose of a survivor's movement is to create a space that survivors of sexual assault can come forward and break the silence about what happened to them. By speaking out about sexual assault survivors challenge the discourses of domination that surround them. Survivor's speech is important because speech from any marginalized people is necessary to resist the dominant discourses that have repeatedly silenced them. However, how can survivor movements go to spaces or create spaces where all voices can speak? If spaces for survivor speech do no make room for all voices those individuals will be further oppressed. When survivors remain silent it only "adds fire" to the dominant discourses "flame," so to speak. By speaking out, survivors bring attention to inequities they face and to the harms that have been done to them. How do we create a space for all voices to speak? To do this you must be aware of the diverse lived experiences of people of all different race, class, sex, ability, sexual orientation. Every person brings a unique intersection to the movement and every person must feel valid in their survivorship.
Something I have though about a lot is how should survivor movements account for different experiences of sexual assault. All individuals endure different degrees of sexual assault and how would a survivors move to validate all experiences of sexual assault. There is not a hierarchy of experiences but I worry that one could develop in a movement and this could be damaging for the cohesiveness of a group.
In the Alcoff article she talks about how the expert is a tool of recuperation. I do agree that experts can dampen and recuperate survivor speak but I was thinking that experts could be utilized in a survivors movement but only as part of the group. Experts should not stand apart or above the survivors but within the group as a venue for additional support. In a survivor movement I think it is important for no individual to stand above the rest because this type of movement is about bringing people together in a space where everyone can feel comfortable to break their silence.
I question if one space can truly exist for survivor discourse to occur. Considering all of the multiple facets in which people come to understand and process their experiences, is it realistic to have a single space for their projects? Especially considering the heavy influence that gender, class and social history take place in construct and interpreting the events that have lead them there. I’m not saying that any experience is less valid, or even necessarily more traumatic. It is just becoming unrealistic tomorrow that the umbrella “survivor movement” is actually helping anyone more than providing the media a hook from which to depoliticize what occurred to the survivors. Considering the power and diversity that every survivor’s story has, keeping them the space in which they move forward unique only makes sense as well. A survivor movement should be about how narrative of the severity and difficulty that survivors face, rather than creating any one space or multiple spaces. Reflexively, this prevents survivors from sharing tools to cope with and the ability to see new avenues to explore in life beyond their trauma. I feel both sides have merit.
ReplyDelete