This week we have been discussing survivor narratives and
their recuperative potential. We discussed 6 stories of survival today from
different perspectives and some very disturbing things came to light. Someone
in class today mentioned that whenever a story of assault is publicly
released, it is co-opted and maligned into a larger narrative that the venue
wants to portray. This was incredibly clear with Tyler Perry’s case as his
narrative was pathologized by Oprah’s program.
The question that burns in my mind is for whom is the
survivor discourse intended? I realize that every survivor has a different
intention when they chose to discuss their story, but the overarching theme of
their reception must have some pattern.
Seeking support from a media organization. In Perry’s case,
his public revelation of his abuse was a way of “lifting the weight” from his
life. But this depoliticizes his experience. When a woman reveals she was
assaulted, it can be personal, but when it is only personal where does the
narrative end. Especially because anything that Tyler said could be changed in
the editing room. Misquoting and cutting his words in a way where it could fit
whatever the producers desired.
Seeking support from a community institution. On a less
public level than television, a community can act as a silencing structure for
women. The idea that a person transgressed and violated is so disturbing that
it reflects poorly on the whole community. Sports teams, churches and any
highly public community act callously to keep their public image clean, so much
to the point that they silence narratives of abuse and deny the ability to heal
to survivors. Either on the interpersonal level where members will ask you to
keep it to yourself, or from their own governance by threatening to eject you
from their community.
So if a person cannot discuss their survivorship publicly,
without being silenced or coopted, and they cannot simply personally overcome
their issue without depoliticizing their abuse, where is the venue for them to
voice their narrative?
Seeking support from a legal justice organisation. Apparently
the police are not even the correct venue. Not only will they conduct and
invasive search of the survivor but they legally have to act in a means where
their narrative is untrue until legally proven. Worse yet, the story from “the
National” not only reaffirms that there is systematic abuse of First Nations
women in Canada but points out to, yet another, narrative of their abuse by the
very officers meant to protect them.
Seeking support from a public advocacy campaign. Project
unbreakable apparently have a lot of positive aspects behind it. The reclamation
of the assailants words. The clear symbolic reparation of power. The creator
claimed that “I do this for every man and every women who has ever been a
survivor of sexual abuse.” I’m not sure if is a typo but I appreciate that verb
tense. The desire to think that you could move past your status a survivor,
that one day you will be more than a person who has been abused is a motivating
factor in my mind. While it is not clear whether you will be the same person,
or to what extent it affects and individual, I think that a person moving past the
state of “survivor” that their identity be shaped around things beyond their
control is important.
I think you bring up a good point when mentioning the potential for the producers of Oprah to cut and edit Tyler Perry's survivor discourse. In terms of the environment or place the survivor discourse occurs, television talk shows present an interesting space. While they are offered as an extremely public and accessible platform in which individual's can share their experiences and offer room for others to connect, there is a strong disconnect behind the scenes. Like you said, ultimately everything is edited and dependant on what the producers want, and what will get more views and higher ratings. While the sensationalization of stories like Perry's and the 200+ men in the audience may have not been entirely intended, it was certainly an outcome. The addition of the nearly immediate "expert opinion" voiced by the resident Oprah doctor certainly didn't help. Ultimately, the circumstances of survivor discourse are difficult to place, but they are still necessary.
ReplyDeleteYour exploration of the effects that different spaces have on the politicality of survivor discourse is an interesting one. As you note, a large part of this has to do with the intention behind the sharing of narratives. The commodification of survivor discourse on talk shows, and in similar sites, necessitates a specific narrative which complies with the scripts of sexual assault, because this kind of mainstream media requires a degree of apolitical moderation. On this note, Alcoff talks about how talk shows must exercise control over the amount of "shock value" portrayed so as not to bore or overwhelm audiences, but I think this also has to do with the intelligibility of narratives. Those which are unintelligible within the context of rape scripts are subsequently disruptive, and thus inherently political. Similarly, this kind of politicization calls a lot of attention and controversy to communities, or other sites of discourse, which may not have the critical tools to positively contend with it. Obviously, this depoliticization is ultimately destructive to survivors whose stories may become erased or coopted in these discursive processes. However, I think what makes sites of discourse like Project Unbreakable so powerful is that they allow survivors to engage in and portray their own narratives in a way which is largely unedited. The intention in this case, unlike that of talk shows, is for individuals to share their experiences. The survivors are central to this form of discourse, whereas the audience is central to the discourses presented by talk shows.
ReplyDeleteI also think there is a lot to be said as to whether a person can ever move beyond being a survivor, and I am interested in how we might think about surviving as a ongoing act, and one which a person may no longer need, at some point. I also think this necessitates a look at the ways in which sexual assault can affect one's subjectivity as a survivor, and one's identity as a survivor, and how these are interrelated and coproducing. But I also think that this could use a term paper to hash out, so I will end it here.