In "Human Rights in Literary Studies," James Dawes claims that “human rights work is, at its heart, a matter of storytelling” (394). He considers the relationship between literary studies and human rights discourse in the article through a series of related paradoxes: beauty, truth, description, suffering, and witnessing.
Respond to the article's claims in 200-500 words, and consider its relationship to the idea of compassionate storytelling as articulated in the TED talk we saw in class:
http://www.ted.com/talks/ryan_lobo_through_the_lens_of_compassion.html
Works Cited
Respond to the article's claims in 200-500 words, and consider its relationship to the idea of compassionate storytelling as articulated in the TED talk we saw in class:
http://www.ted.com/talks/ryan_lobo_through_the_lens_of_compassion.html
Works Cited
Dawes, James. "Human Rights in Literary Studies." Human Rights Quarterly. 31:2 (May 2009). 394-409.
James Dawes, in his article titled ‘Human Rights in Literary Studies’, has discussed various points relating to the connections between human rights and literature. Of these, I take particular interest in two—the questions of representation and the commodification of suffering, as they are related to Ryan Lobo’s TED talk screened in class.
ReplyDeleteHonestly, I found Dawes’ article quite baffling as it asks too many questions and offers very few answers or even, attempts at providing answers. However, standalone points raised in the piece are valid ones and require some mulling over.
I had personally never thought of literature addressing human issues as usurping the voices of the masses, perhaps because the idea never crossed my mind. Most of the time, I only see a story as an individual narration of what a particular person went through. That said, I believe that a text that claims to speak for the people cannot be trusted fully, as an individual effort cannot possibly be representative of a considerable section of the people.
Keeping that in mind, I enjoyed Ryan Lobo’s speech, for he makes no claim of having portrayed the people’s suffering anywhere in the talk. He simply stated what he saw before him, laying bare his thoughts on the suffering, not what he thinks the people felt.
Although the commodification of suffering is just grazed upon in Dawes’ article, it is a relevant point as that is what a lot of works of art seem to do in the guise of addressing human rights issues. It can be a daunting task for readers/audience of these works of art to identify genuine expressions of concern in the melee of formula-based commercial material banking on the human appetite for tragedy.
Putting across an interesting point of view, Ryan Lobo says that while telling a story, focussing on what’s ‘dignified, courageous and beautiful’ will make it grow. Placing that in context, it becomes easy to see the thin line that rests between a sincere effort at storytelling as seen by Lobo, and the commodification of suffering mentioned by Dawes.
Parvati Mohan.
James Dawes muses on the nexus between human rights and literary studies in his essay. He explores this relationship through the prisms of beauty, description, truth and suffering. Through each of these, Dawes puts forth more questions than he gives answers. These are the questions that surround us, all the time: that of representation, identity politics and aestheticism.
ReplyDeleteMore often than not, there is a commodification of personal suffering in the quest for aestheticism. This is also, precisely, the conflict between the personal and the public sphere. Then, there are the perennial questions on the significance of the literary studies as a legitimate outlet of suffering. What bearing does it have on those who have lived through the suffering? To what extent does it matter? And to what effect?
Questions of representation: Who ought to be represented? How is it represented? In other words, is there some inherent good in literature regardless of the politics attached to it, or is it only the politics of it that makes it either virtuous or banal. Can there be a literature that is neutral, all embracing, or is all literature a subterfuge at some level?
Ryan Lobo talks about photography as a vehicle of compassionate storytelling. In the three experiential accounts he recited, the role of art has come out to be partially recuperative, partially ineffectual. Yet, he believes in focussing on what's dignified, courageous and beautiful: somewhat in parallel to the paradoxes Dawes verbalised in his essay.
- Subin Paul
Human rights has conventionally been associated with purveying of financial and humanitarian aid and the protection of individual freedom especially when it is infringed upon by external forces. However, post colonial studies has turned our focus towards the role of dialogue which has perhaps been unnoticed and underestimated.
ReplyDeleteIn this scenario where an individual or community suffers, their voices/feelings are conveyed by another person, often by a journalist or a person working for a human rights organization. Their representation of the scene is such that they personify the troubles of those suffering, but the representation of suffering itself is distorted, often different from how the victim perceives their trouble; and therein lies the contradiction of how the victim perceive their strife and how it is portrayed by someone speaking on behalf of them.
Although, the strain lies where in the victim who is suffering will have a certain perception about their suffering. If we take the example of a community that is suffering, one victim’s perception or sense of suffering will be different from that of another victim. In such situations, representation of suffering is moulded by an individual’s sensitivity towards the situation. So who does really get to decide which representation or portrayal is accurate?
Then again, as far as representation is concerned, the sensitivity of the witness is important to get a raw, firsthand account of the incident. Consider the example of the account given by a Holocaust survivor who described the burning of chimneys in Auschwitz. The fact that she gave an incorrect account of the number of chimneys is not important. She testified to the breakage of a framework where the notion that Jewish armed revolts do not take place was demystified.
Language has proven to be an effective voice in the case of Uruguayan prisoners. Letters issued on their behalf eased the pain suffered by them in prison. However another paradox is that often the language used to depict suffering has immense literary merit to the extent it dilutes the gravity of the suffering more than highlighting the issue of suffering itself.
Lynn Hunt has spoken about the evolution in storytelling with books such as Pamela by Samuel Richardson which helped emphasise a sense of equality among people. The role of books and storytelling undoubtedly has had an impact on people, and history makes that evident. Imagine by John Lennon also emphasized one community, and a number of songs in the 1970’s were known for the strength of their lyrics in defying the accepted conventions of society. The importance of aesthetics is accentuated with Helen Vendler who says that art brings us into a pervasive being.... So that one not only feels what Keats called the poetry of the earth but responds to it with creative motions of one’s own.
Bincy Mathew
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteDawes begins by saying that human rights are a work of story telling and that sometimes for victims the hope of telling a story is their only hope. Dawes talks about how TRC is one of the most powerful example of storytelling in terms of a collective endeavor. It worked on two levels ,one by giving the victims a therapeutic effect and a healing experience but on the other hand the act of re-telling almost re-traumatized the victims as the memories haunted them again.
ReplyDeleteTherefore dawes goes on to describe the relationship between literature and human rights through a series of paradoxes including beauty, truth, description, witnessing and suffering. The key element according to me in the essay was the issue of “representation”. The entire idea of representation is linked to story telling which in turn is linked to re-enforcement of pain as the re-enactment of story telling also re-creates pain and ends up injuring one or the other in more than one way.
Ryan lobo also talks about story telling but with his photographs. He immersed himself in emotional experiences as often he himself found in fearful situations. When he returned from most of these trips he found himself isolated. The only instrument of story telling that attracted him was his passion and fulfillment. Photography transcended culture and him. He describes three recent incidents, which describe the same. One was the libayn war where he met General Joshua, who admits to have killed 100o0 people and fought stark naked killing and raping one after another. But today Joshua is a baptized Christian who walks around begging for forgivness and receives it from the same one who lost their family members at his hands. It’s the human compassion that attracted me.
The other event is of DFS,who answer 5000 calls for rescue operations each day. In one such phostoshoot, lobo found himself late to cover a fire in a slum in Delhi, and when he reached there he saw the residents attack the fire fighters who were risking their lives out there. In another incident, the the heads of the the fire force led the team,in a country here manual labor is usually looked down upon and successfully completed the task only to win public hearts and to save lives. This episode of the DFS has made people recognize their importance and lobo till dates receives phone calls from DFS personals thanking him.
Lobo finds his attempt at story telling to be fulfilling day after day as he sees peoples compassion answering all his incomplete questions.
By:Ridhima Bhatnagar
I agree with Parvati on the point that Dawes in his article raises questions, few of which, he attempts to answer. Nevertheless, the concepts he puts forward intrigue the mind.
ReplyDeleteOn his theory of “Beauty”, he mentions Schiller’s quote, “Taste alone brings harmony into society, because it fosters harmony in the individual.” Later in the concept of beauty, he mentions that art is valued by us since it is essential to the free and full development of personality because it promotes human flourishing. This issue can be debated in the context of cultural divide. If it is “taste” that gives the scope of development to a personality, it can be termed as an “elitist” concept that can create uproar against the concept of “popular culture”. It raises the elementary question of how many people has the luxury of indulging in the form of “art” in order to develop their personality? Can we expect people from all cross-sections to have access to art to finesse their taste in personality development?
Poetry has often been seen as an elitist way of expression. But, Worsworth’s kind of poetry is revolutionary against the pomp and grandeur of literature, reuniting the mass. “…the Poet binds together by passion and knowledge the vast empire of human society, as it spread over the whole earth, and over all time.” Afterall, as it is often said poetry of all kinds is a protest.
Another interesting issue to be touched upon is whether everyone has the duties to the community in which alone personality can be developed. Fernand Dohousse objects to this idea citing Defoe’s Robinson Crusoe where personality enhancement was possible inspite of being isolated. So, the whole process of personality building and sharpening can be seen as a debatable issue built on different theories. While, Robinson Crusoe’s is a unique example, the commonest instances show that constant contact with the community is the primary step towards personality development.
Broadly, it might be said that art is both a public and private experience. It applies to different people differently and should not be generalised under any circumstances.
In the article by James Dawes about the Human Rights discourse he talks about the truth and the representation of truth and he questions about the paradox of representation of suffering which is quite exhilarating. The question that can be asked is that how the story of suffering of one individual can be told or narrated by any other individual who just was a secondary source and it may happen quite often to be like a ‘Chinese Whisper’. The person who has been telling the story or narrative should write or tell that through his/her own opinion and as they observe to be fit and many times sensationalizing it to some extent. The question is also that about how to disseminate the actual information that was being shared by the receptor of the information to the listener does not get distorted so that the actualization of the information does not get distorted. In the process Dawes argues that people may end up interrogating the survivors or commodifying their suffering. He cites example and gives different references about the Elizabeth Swanson Goldberg’s analogy of commercialization of the human suffering which in a way obliterates it through different media sources for example through movies. He also gives the reference of the studies done on the victimization of inmates by other inmates in US prison system. Thus the question arises always that how the ‘private’ individualism gets a distorted description in the ‘public’ sphere and whether this commodification just or unjust, apt or not. In this respect we can discuss about a few instances of movies that have been made on the topic of Rwandan genocide which in the early 1990s in films such as ‘Hotel Rwanda’ or ‘Sometimes in April’ which shows us about the brutality of the civil war the country has to go through; but the question remains that the people who have to go through the pain and suffering at that point of time have only got the right to express their views first hand or not because the individuals who are watching from a non-concerning perspective becomes nonchalant which is quite naïve for the true cause of depicting the actual suffering. So the representation of the truth always becomes important.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteIt is the question of the “self” and the “self-concept” that is troublesome to me. Dawes in his paper says that we need to be sensitive to the structure of narrative and the role of storytelling. How this concept of self is related to storytelling?
ReplyDeleteDawes, in his article, somewhat follows Keats’ “truth is beauty, beauty is truth.” However, to me it seems we are in danger of losing both when we try to cling to them as a unity. Also, if something is truth so do we automatically assume it to be beautiful? It is worry-some is that fewer people come to know what either of them are, where to find them, and how to appreciate them better for knowing what distinguishes them. And this is where the real challenge in storytelling lies.
Even Ryan Lobo talks about beauty and adversity, since his photographs deal with revealing suffering and pain and forgiveness, they still bring out that hidden element; comparing this to Dawes, we get the assumption that beauty springs from self-centeredness; thus the thinker remains in his own comparison of the human perspective of beauty. This means that we are unconsciously comparing our own desires or behaviours to the scenario displayed by Lobo.
The most profound issues that is dealt with in both Dawes and Ryan Lobo is the question of representation and commodification of suffering. The common link between the two is that they both speak about the art of storytelling but in different domains. According to Dawes, the way of storytelling is a ‘therapeutic process ‘. I personally beg to differ from this opinion. I feel that a story of one’s suffering definitely arouses a feeling of sympathy or as Aristotle would say the sense of ‘pity’ and ‘fear’. But it does in no way make one conscious of the victim’s human rights.
ReplyDeleteDawes speaks about the use of individual narratives depicting inhumane treatment, being important in supporting the human rights regime. Evidently Lobo does just that. His reframes controversial subjects with empathy. He recounts the story of a Liberian war criminal who repents the mass slaughter that he was responsible for during the war. He chooses to personally go from door to door begging forgiveness for his sins. Through Lobo’s eyes we see the plight of the underdeveloped African country like Liberia and the absence of their basic rights. But Dawes on the other hand finds this act of witnessing a paradox. He argues that speaking for others is both a way of rescuing or usurping the other’s voice. Thus the question that arises is the question of representation and who gets to represesnt and whether the one who is representing has a right to represent the voiceless of the society.
The most profound issues that is dealt with in both Dawes and Ryan Lobo is the question of representation and commodification of suffering. The common link between the two is that they both speak about the art of storytelling but in different domains. According to Dawes, the way of storytelling is a ‘therapeutic process ‘. I personally beg to differ from this opinion. I feel that a story of one’s suffering definitely arouses a feeling of sympathy or as Aristotle would say the sense of ‘pity’ and ‘fear’. But it does in no way make one conscious of the victim’s human rights.
ReplyDeleteDawes speaks about the use of individual narratives depicting inhumane treatment, being important in supporting the human rights regime. Evidently Lobo does just that. His reframes controversial subjects with empathy. He recounts the story of a Liberian war criminal who repents the mass slaughter that he was responsible for during the war. He chooses to personally go from door to door begging forgiveness for his sins. Through Lobo’s eyes we see the plight of the underdeveloped African country like Liberia and the absence of their basic rights. But Dawes on the other hand finds this act of witnessing a paradox. He argues that speaking for others is both a way of rescuing or usurping the other’s voice. Thus the question that arises is the question of representation and who gets to represesnt and whether the one who is representing has a right to represent the voiceless of the society.
Referring to Dawes' article, there is one paradox, according to me, which questions the very core of a narrative and its role. In the paradox of Witnessing, the example of Emmanuel Dongala raises the issue. "Dongala knew that the humanitarian workers had been able to reach him was because they had been able to raise money and gain access by revealing dramatic stories, like his, about suffering in Congo: he knew, in that moment of rescue, that he was trading his story for his life. But he was also emphatically, painfully aware of the dehumanising quality of such story telling, aware that the price of each such recue was a solidification of the image of the suffering African, the African whose natural state is suffering."
ReplyDeleteThis few sentences from Dawes questions about the role of narrative in human rights in a manner which no other paradox does so. It pertinently asks us whether a narrative used, no doubt is for the greater good, also abuses in manner by creating certain perceptions in the mind of the recipients of such narratives.
The power of a narrative or literature no doubt had the power of influencing. It sort of fashions our attitudes and behavior depending on the literature which would have been read to before sleep or what we love to read. It is then we ask about this paradox of witnessing. Do we use it to help people and are we unknowingly encouraging the image that so naturally follows such descriptions. Like I said earlier, it is just a question, a very puzzling one though, for the answer is not easy, nor impartial.
Talking about suffering it brings to the mind about the paradox of suffering. Though I find the issue quite similar to the paradox of witnessing. Maybe it is quite a fine line which separates them. For are you abusing the victim by making him/her to relive the trauma again, so that you can make the world aware of the situation?
This makes me focus on the issue of description. Dawes has made this a complex issue. Referencing from various sources, he raises the paradox of how language liberates us by creating protective boundaries, now again don't these boundaries still curtail us. The examples given by Dawes have not yet convinced me of which school of thought is correct.
Talking about truth, I find the contrast of truth and fiction and the role they play in human rights very interesting. As Dawes clearly in his questions and examples makes us know that it is tough to classify what is truth what is truth? Is it the accuracy of facts? If so, if accuracy is sort of sacrificed in the pursuit of making the situation known, does it make the situation a fiction? Where does one find the balance? It is kind of tough to find the balance, I guess.
But whatever the paradox, it is quite clear that literature does have a crucial role in the human rights movements. But clearly the two complex issues of human rights and language raises further many uncomfortable questions for which answers are not easy.
It was tough engaging with the text, but the effort, I would say, was worthwhile. What I find problematic with scholarly texts (and this was true of this article by James Dawes) they are too jargonistic. Then again, this a flawed argument in a sense that it is often an excuse for one’s inability/ refusal/ apathy towards engaging with pieces of writing that try and push one out of his/her comfort zone. Hence, I grappled with the text and emerged as confused and full of questions, as before. Anyway, I would not dwell too much on this.
ReplyDeleteDawes tries to, I believe, paint a picture of how issues of the inalienable rights of all humans are reflected in literary studies, and that human rights activity – say intervention in humanitarian crises - is not only about intervene and provide the victims with relief materials, but trying to hear them out and put out their story for the others in the world. Language is thus posited as the most important instrument of rescuing these people, who have lost that ability to put out their own story for the others, who view things from afar. It is their story, their suffering which assumes greater significance, than anything else. For otherwise, they’d forever remain blank pages in a book of history, that’ll never be written in the first place.
Paradoxically, in doing so, the story tellers, in a way, appropriate the “story of the victims” themselves. They moderate the stories, knowingly or unknowingly and try to aestheticize it. How can they reproduce the reality, when they have not experienced the pain of being victimized in the first place? This, too, strikes as a sensible argument, doesn’t it? Dawes quotes French filmmaker Claude Lanzmann. “There is an absolute obscenity in the very project of understanding,” he says.
T his is what is made me deeply uncomfortable. The question therefore is, borrowing the title of one of Lenin’s famous works, What Is To Be Done? Doesn’t it question the very moral foundation on which the profession of journalism stands upon? After-all, if one cannot ever empathize with people (here I am indicating only the people out of the existing power-structures) and reproduce it, for the other consumers of that news, what’s the point of going out, interacting with the people, and trying to make sense of ourselves and thereby, us ? We can never be anyone else other than what we already are, is It not? In the end, with all the reporting that Mr. P.Sainath has done, what has been the positive change that has been brought about by his years of toiling in the poorest of the poor regions of the country, and reporting on the lives of the people? (a point made VKR during one of his classes in the first term)
And therein, I believe lies the answer to this conundrum. We can never be, and are not supposed to be, someone else. This journalists (or for that matter, even film-makers or writers) should be aware of. Ryan Lobo, during the TED Talk says how he questioned his integrity as a storyteller, when he felt isolated from the reality which he had witnessed in Liberia, and the constructed reality ( almost like The Matrix) that he came back to, in Bangalore. It was then that he realized that he needed to fine-tune himself if he had to feel fulfilled. This he did when he worked with compassion and purpose, and tried to empower the voiceless, by giving them a voice.
To do that, we need to, as far as we can try and cross over the fence and feel oneness with the object of reporting. An analogy can be drawn (or can it ?) between what Louis Althusser talked about, in Philosophy As A Revolutionary Weapon. He said how Lenin had said, that to be a true ideologists of the working class intellectuals have to carry out a radical revolution in their ideas: a long, painful and difficult re-education
Maybe this is what it is all about: facing paradoxes and carry out a long, endless struggle, so that one can weed out the biases that one might bring, while telling the story of people who might not be able to tell it themselves.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteFrom James Dawes’s introduction, I realized that the only aspiration for those craving for rescue and care is the hope of being able to tell the story. It was a bizarre revelation that literary studies, in addition to story telling, could be a powerful tool for human rights work. With reference to the paradoxes listed by Dawes to understand the developments of human rights, two of them—Beauty and Truth—caught my attention. But the complexities of the phrases used to explain each, left me furiously reading and attempting with frustration to comprehend the same.
ReplyDeleteIt is interesting to note that novels that toyed with idea of human emotions created a feeling of equality among the people and were also successful in reflecting changes in the society. While the narrative helped understand human rights violations, aesthetics and ethics interwoven under the field of art provided basis for human dignity. Though art is a human right protected by Universal Declaration of Human Rights, Dawes puts forth the argument that they are centered on aesthetic principles. I wonder where he has given the definition of aesthetic principles. Had he pondered on aestheticism and the reason why it was chosen as the root for formulating human rights principles, the blurring of this concept could have been avoided. There are several questions he raises to which an answer is seldom presented.
After citing instances of prison inmates’ violation of human rights, he shoots questions on who grants someone the authority to represent the sufferers. The dilemma on whether or not gory straight details of various incidents need to be made public is a debatable issue.
Ryan Lobo speaks about his utilization of photography for effective story telling and the necessity to focus on aspects of courage, dignity and beauty.
- Sunitha.S
When I read James Dawes idea of representing 'suffering', through the five paradoxes, I doubted if it would work in practice. Was it plainly theory? James Dawes's idea that storytelling held the power of moving someone to the degree of understanding what suffering meant for another individual was somewhat acceptable, but wouldn't that also depend on the perception of the individual receiving it, that is to say, would it appeal to every individual who reads a piece of such storytelling. This question lingered on as I read the rest of the article. Dawes makes a significant point when he talks about the TRC. He says that while we recount one's suffering, we empathize with him/her. Thus storytelling leads to ‘self-reflection’ and we understand the power of the ‘narrative’.
ReplyDeleteI also accept the idea that storytelling serves as a therapeutic process for those who have experienced suffering. This is akin to what Ryan Lobo talks about. The General asks for forgiveness from the people he has wronged, he makes them recollect and recount their trauma, but for good measure. By the act of forgiving, they don’t hold on to grudges, and the fact that the General can now understand their suffering may lessen it.
It is difficult to not be moved by Ryan Lobo’s way of storytelling, it has a profound effect on one’s conscience, and helped me understand the impact that storytelling can have in any form. The peacekeeping corps, stationed far away from home and the firefighter’s work in Delhi, had a lasting effect on my understanding of ‘storytelling’ as a concept to aid Human Rights studies.
As far as my understanding of the article by James Dawes goes, he has quite rightfully raised some very important points, one of which is of writing on behalf of somebody else in Human Rights narrative. The Paradoxes of Beauty, Truth, Description, Suffering and Witnessing that one comes across while writing these discourses is also rightly pointed out. Though some sections concerning Paradox of truth are quite incomprehensible at places so I can't write much about it. The other issues of Beauty, where he points out that aesthetics of a picture or a writing can actually evoke empathy in readers but at the same time may also aggravate the pain of the sufferer, as he/she sees it or narrates it. The same is the case with description which the author may not be able to write as properly as it was actually felt by the victim. Pain and suffering in these situations is so intense that a picture or a writing might not be able to portray/convey the way it was felt actually. Again suffering, when one writes about the suffering of the others in form of a literary writing, Dawes puts a very thoughtful point where he quotes John Treat who says that these writings are sometimes so perfect in a sense that one may actually forget the "real" disorder or the "disintegrated" world it conveys, while reading it.
ReplyDeleteRyan Lobo raises the same questions where he shares his experience of storytelling through photographs where he says " it should be dignified, courageous and beautiful as well as compassionate and it grows" .
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteIn his introduction to Bhisham Sahni’s award-winning novel on Partition, Tamas, Govind Nihalani explains how a traumatic event finds its place in artistic/literary response twice: once immediately following the event and again after a lapse of time, when the tragedy occupies an obscure place ridden with cobwebs and misplaced facts. He says while the immediate response, especially that in first person narrative, tends to be emotional, involved and even exaggerated at times, the account that arrives later is composed, factually well-researched and still replete with all the nuances of the suffering of the event in question. A view on the violations and their consequences is portrayed clearer and in a more coherent manner second time around.
ReplyDeletePerhaps Nihalani’s two cents on the role of literary works in telling stories of the abused, the disadvantaged and the violated made me agree(at least partially) with the criticisms against I, Rigoberta Menchú, a literary work cited in Dawes’ paper, that aimed at representing the sufferings of a community through the voice of one. “Did Rigoberta Menchú tell the truth? Did she lie? What counts as ‘the truth’?“
The question to be asked is, can one woman’s experience provide an accurate window to the realm of the Gautemalan Indians’ suffering? Though the book helped in changing the complexion of events in such that it helped the subject discussed receive worldwide attention, did it truly represent the thousands who went unrepresented?
Anne Frank’s family knew people who could provide them with timely refuge. The Diary of a Young Girl, widely read even today, is considered to be a heart rending tale of a little girl whose normal life comes to an abrupt standstill with the Nazi onslaught. It gained worldwide sympathy. However, did it truly represent the holocaust or did it merely catalogue an adolescent’s emotions during that time?
Ryan Lobo beautifully explains how, when he as a photographer (and hence a “compassionate storyteller”) of war torn areas, realised the importance of drawing deep from within and looking no place else to truly represent the unrepresented, the suffering registered, the story got told.
This is the reason why I believe that in literature, compassionate story tellers will be able to represent tragedy and human rights violations far better that those suffering themselves. As an accurate account for posterity, this may perhaps be the best way.
- Evelyn Ratnakumar
“The stranger who tells our stories when we cannot speak not only awakens our spirits and hearts, but also shows our humanity – which others want to forget – and in doing so, becomes family.” This Mende proverb of the tribe in Sierra Leone seems to provide sanction for someone who is willing to tell their stories. But as we all know, this sanction is never a given or is universal.
ReplyDeleteDawes article, even after multiple reading, is incomprehensible in parts. But there are some ideas that he outlines with relation to “witnessing” that resonate with ideas that I had formed a while ago.
I have always believed in the power of storytelling. The ideas and stories that originate from a source and travel the world are to a large extent capable of awakening the humane in us. Writers and photographers are two immensely inspiring mediums in this respect. Words are beautiful. They capture and crystallize the essence of any story in a unique form. But photographs are better representations of reality, in my opinion. There is little scope for the subjectivity and distortion that are at times incidental when stories are mediated through the written word.
That being said, I also firmly believe that the “protagonist” of the story has every right to tell his story if he so wishes to and more importantly if he has the power to. I think it can never be surmised that it’s a lone narrative. In most instances, it might be the story of a large section of the subaltern, and it might be more real and stark that the narrative of someone who is only representing.
Ryan Lobo concluded his talk by saying that he believes that focussing on the dignified, the courageous and the beautiful in a story will help in going a long way. While this is not always possible, I think that doing this will also help a compassionate storyteller transform into someone who is not just a representer but someone who can be perceived as a “stranger who becomes family”.
- Athirupa Manichandar
The article by James Dawes described the relation ethics and aesthetics with finesse and great detail. And his idea of human rights work, at its heart, being a matter of storytelling was well supported and substantiated in Ryan Lobo’s talk.
ReplyDeleteDawes is of the view that storytelling can be both the means and ends of human rights work. It can either be a powerful tool representation or prove to be a hindrance in representation. To exemplify this he gives the example of South Africa’s Truth and Reconciliation Commission (TRC) which he says was arguably one of the most visible acts of collective storytelling in the history of human rights endeavours. I agree with his point that storytelling can have a therapeutic effect on the victims and help them to get over their suffering. In such instances, storytelling acts as a medium of venting out the sorrow and anger and helps the people to express their views. Also, as Ryan Lobo said, ‘Focus on what’s dignified and beautiful, and it will grow.’ If we bring out the beautiful stories of reconciliation and courage which can be seen during the hard times, it would undoubtedly boost up the morale of the people and help them come out of their misery.
But Dawes also argues that storytelling can also prove to be a hindrance by under representing the affected people. A person who has suffered can better recount the story of his/her suffering than a person who has only witnessed it. This leads to under representation of the story. Another important point which he brought up was that even though use of individual narratives depicting inhumane treatment was important and could limit suffering in the long run, but such narratives could cause further suffering for the victim whose story is told.
What I personally gathered from the article was that language and storytelling is an important tool which can play an important part in empowering people and providing them their basic human rights. It can help to ease the suffering of the victims and if used wisely by the human right activists, can prove to be quite beneficial.
Those who suffer are those who are in need of rescue and care. They may seek to tell their story in order to be liberated from their pains. In Dawes’ words, “The hope of being able to tell the story is sometimes the only hope.” But how do such people make their case? How do they get someone to believe them? How do they get someone to speak to them? This is where the human rights workers come into the picture.
ReplyDelete“Most of the work that we do is just talking. Really what is at the heart of the ICRC is to make representations,” as Dawes recounts what a delegate of the International Committee of the Red Cross had said. Organizations that intervene in humanitarian crises do so in large part by using language instead of food, medicine, or weapons. “The most important act of rescue for them is not delivering supplies but asking questions, evaluating answers and pleading with those of us who observe from a distance.”
In other words, it’s through storytelling that human rights organizations make the voice of the oppressed heard far and wide. Storytelling is both the means and ends of human rights work. It is a ‘therapeutic process” of “giving victims an opportunity to tell their stories.” In the form of story telling the victims’ case in point is represented for empathy and healing.
Among Dawes' 5 paradoxes, the paradox of suffering draws my attention more. Suffering as an experience can never be represented fully in any form. Even the person who is suffering cannot really explain his/her pains even in his/her own language. And much less so the one who tries to represent the sufferings of others in a language that's 'strange' to the one who is suffering. However, because there is the possibility of 'healing' because representation plays a 'therapeutic role' the story of those who suffer needs to be told. Here something is better than nothing could be a pragmatic approach. Representation tells me that in the larger context of the human family I am moved with empathy because there is someone 'like' me who is suffering. This leads to Lobo's story of 'compassionate story telling'.
Ryan Lobo’s ‘Photographing the hidden story’, in my opinion, transcends the paradoxes as elucidated by Dawes. Lobo who travelled to 3 war zones namely, Iraq, Afghanistan and Liberia has two stories from Liberia – one about Joshua who claimed to have killed 10 thousand of his own people including children and another about the life of the Indian women in the UN Contingent Indian Peace Keeping Force. And he has another story from New Delhi where he captures the Delhi Fire Service in action. He invites us to focus on what is dignified, courageous and beautiful. Despite the ‘limitations’/paradoxes with which the human rights movement tell the story of the victims in a narrative form, we are called upon to see what is "dignified", "courageous", "beautiful" and meaningful.
- William
James Dawes in his article 'Human Rights and Literary Studies' talks about human rights being a matter of storytelling. Personally i don’t think talking about one's sufferings could really be called as 'commodifying' it. For many, it has helped in more than one way. Even psychoanalysis, the theory developed by Sigmund Freud relies on talking to the victim to cure him of his disturbed mental state. Human rights writings too help the distant observer to empathize and relate to an individual who has faced horrors that the former can hardly imagine. Also instead of traumatizing it could help the victims face their repressed fears and anxieties.
ReplyDeleteElie Wiesel had also recounted his sufferings in his autobiography 'Night' wherein he talks about his experience with his father, Shlomo, in the Nazi German concentration camps at Auschwitz. He said in one of his interviews “I wrote to testify, to stop the dead from dying, to justify my own survival" In an interview with novelist François Mauriac, Wiesel asked Mauriac about the state of France to which he replied that France like Jesus was suffering. To this Wiesel said that ten years or so ago, he had seen children, hundreds of Jewish children, who suffered more than Jesus did on his cross and they did not speak about it to which Mauriac told Wiesel "You know, maybe you should talk about it."
The TED talk show wherein Ryan Lobo talks about compassionate story telling is also on those lines that if the story is well said with dignity and courage, it will definitely elicit responses that will lead to a positive change. The sufferings and the pains if said in an empathetic manner in fact makes it go beyond mere storytelling. It makes the observer experience that pain himself leading to his awareness and his struggle against injustice done to his kin.
ReplyDeleteA major part of Amitav Ghosh’s narrative was representative of the paradox of language(as described by Dawes in his essay). The idea of the colonizer communicating with the colonized in the language of the colonized and vice-versa was particularly striking to me. The character of Paulette, who belongs to the colonizing race and is French, communicates in Bengali more effectively than she does in English, owing to her French-Indian upbringing. We see the thin line of colonizer and colonized blurring with the representation of this character. Although she is not a colonizer herself, she is considered to be a part of the ruling race and hence faces an identity crisis when she is brought into the Burnham household.
ReplyDeleteOn the other hand, Babu Nob Kissin Pander’s character is representative of the colonized who patronize their colonizers. Although a Bengali himself, he wishes to speak and be spoken to English. The very fact that he can speak the language of the colonizer is of great value and importance to his identity.
Throughout the narrative, the author has used a multitude of words from the Laskari language, even the dialect of the ruling race is full of words like ‘guzalkhana’, ‘Pugli’, which are derived from native Indian languages. This is indicative of the paradox of language, the fact that the ruling race is forced to communicate in the language of the colonized to continue to rule over them.
'No this was "our suffering, our pain…we had the right to keep it private." This statement from the novel Johnny Mad Dog by Emmanuel Dongala mentioned in James Dawes 'Human Rights in Literary Studies' could be taken as good example of the ongoing debate on private versus public and the question of representation.
ReplyDeleteIn the novel young woman does not want Western journalist to film her mother dying as she says their pain and suffering was private. Right to privacy is the basic human right. Her mother's death was the painful event for her, her most vulnerable time. When that event public, it doesn't just become her personal event. This is where it is open to different opinions and reactions.
It is not about just re-living the trauma of those moments when we lose someone close to us, it is also being witness to our privacy being public and open to sympathetic eyes. For some people sympathetic looks in their private moments could be a blow in their dignity. There is also the fear of being misrepresented. As Dawes has pointed out Theodor Adornos's claim that 'to write poetry after Auschwitz is barbaric.' Adorno argues the artistic depiction of pain contains, however, remotely, the power to elicit enjoyment out of it.
This is where literary people, journalists and humanitarian people need to be careful whether while trying to do good for 'larger group' they are actually crushing some people's human right. For journalists that dying woman and crying of the young daughter could have made 'perfect news-story', for writer 'a best poem of suffering' and for human right organization 'great narrative story for pleading help with those who observe from a distance'. But, while doing so we have to re-think whether we are actually victimizing the subject with our concept of representing them for their condition.
This might be where writer Dongala's biographic account fits. He was saved by a group of humanitarian workers from likely death, as he puts, because they had been able to raise money and gain access by revealing dramatic stories, like his, about suffering in Congo. But, the irony is when he was saved 'he knew in that moment of rescue, that he was also trading his story for his life. But, he was also emphatically, painfully aware of the dehumanizing quality of such story telling.' This account itself shows where humanitarian workers, literary figures and people who represent the sufferings might re-victimize them. But, the irony is if they do not do that there might not be any representation and ignorance of what is going around which would create the situation where help might never come.