Friday, 20 September 2013
affect, positionally, and 'insidious' forms of sexual violence
I left Thursday's class thinking about my own affective experience of engaging academically with the topic of sexual assault. Like other students, I had a very visceral reaction to Campbell's article, "From Thinking to Feeling". I found that reading this piece with vivd and detailed rape testimony was very triggering, and much of my time reading the article was spent simply managing my own emotions. In her article, Campbell talks about her own deeply affective experience of digesting the testimony of survivors of sexual assault, explaining how she and her research team could "clearly imagine [their]selves in the victims' situation" (42).
While I feel that Campbell's article explored and supported the idea that affect is inextricably implicated in the study of rape, and can be "shocking and surprising, sad and depressing, anxiety-provoking and scary, and sometimes uplifting and empowering" (64), I felt that it would been addition for her article to move beyond acknowledging the presence of affect in study of rape, to considering the implications and consequences of these affects. For me, I feel that reading sexual assault testimony is a complicated process that involves acknowledging my own positionally and personal investment in the topic, empathizing with those involved in the testimony, imagining myself in the circumstances of the survivor, while also trying to navigate my own academic agenda. That is to say, I believe that we cannot approach sexual assault neutrally, whether this means using socially upheld 'sexual assault myths' to victim-blame, or validating and honouring experiences of sexual assault that align most closely with our own experiences trauma. I agree with Campbell's suggestion that we need to be aware of the way that social narratives blatantly (or more subtly) impact our reading sexual assault testimony; however, I think we need to also be aware of our own positionality as readers. Further, I felt that Campbell's article seemed to legitimize visceral reactions to heteronormative instances of sexual assault (p-in-v penetrative rape); but, I think we also need to be sure validate and appreciate more insidious experiences of sexual violence (cat calling on the street, and unwanted touch, etc.), and offer them the same affective claim to trauma, and vulnerability.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteDear PU$$Yriot~*,
ReplyDeleteI too found Campbell’s article, "From Thinking to Feeling,” to be a little unnerving to digest: due to both the emotional content and my own readerly responses to the various survivors’ testimonies. Nevertheless, I found something productive in the tension created through being unnerved as a reader. And I think this productivity aligns well with your call for Campbell’s article to go beyond simply acknowledging the presence of affects (and, in the case of this article, feelings) by interrogating the implications and consequences of these affects as readers. Rather, taking into account the implications and consequences of these feelings seems to add a necessary complexity to reading survivor testimonies.
To begin, I had grappled with this tension by trying to negotiate the role of empathy, as an affect, into acknowledging my own positionality as I was reading Campbell’s article. And I agree with you when you say that we need to be aware of our own positionality as readers. For instance, I found it particularly difficult agreeing with Campbell’s suggestion toward empathetic identification(41), as I have been taught in other courses to avoid appropriating another person’s experience. The more I thought about it, however, I was able to see how Campbell utilizes empathy in a productive way: stating “that empathy with victims reduces victim blaming” (41). Furthermore, Campbell goes onto state that empathy creates a “perceived similarity with the victim” one that can override “the us-them, me-other” dichotomy(41-41). I began to think of this perceived similarity as a form of imaginative investment, a way to identify with survivor testimonies at a distance. I think this distance and recognition of positionality moves us away from both the risk of appropriation and also, importantly, personal catharsis. This move, in short, creates an identification with the testimonies, rather than as the testimonies. That is to say, this imaginative investment moves us away from a neoliberal “I” in such a way that creates a collective “we” of us all.
On another note: I think it is striking that the entire article uses the pronoun “we.” Perhaps the feelings we have reflected on show just how connected we all are to instances, such as sexual violence, that breach our comfort zones? Isn’t that the point of this article?...
Cheers,
lesbian_avenger666