Check out this reading by Eve Ensler of a section of her upcoming book, I'm an Emotional Creature: The Secret Lives of Girls Around the World. It's called "The Teenage Girl's Guide to Surviving Sex Slavery" and in it she speaks in the voice of a former sexual slave from the The Democratic Republic of Congo:
First let me say that I admire Eve's bold insistence on speaking truth, on writing deeply emotional pieces, on insisting that we talk about and stay conscious of and do something about the most horrific suffering on this planet--things that the rest of us often don't have the strength to face on a regular basis. V-Day is such an unbelievably successful movement--unparalleled in contemporary feminism. The idea that she got a nation of girls and women, and even a healthy number of men, thinking and talking about vaginas--as a metaphor for femaleness and violence and sexuality and so many other buried issues--is nothing short of a modern miracle. For all of this, I give her infinite props.
But I have to say that I find this piece really problematic and it makes me worried about the rest of the book that she's almost finished with.
The girl does sound real in many ways, authentic in her interactions with her friends and her experience of being abducted and raped. It's clear that Eve had spent a lot of time with these women, that she has talked to them about their lives and experiences in great detail. It's clear that Eve has the best of intentions, that she sees her own voice, her own persona, as the most effective way to amplify the messages that these young women from the Congo need the world to hear.
But no amount of reporting adds up to understanding, adds up to truly inhabiting the lives and experiences of others. As a journalist, I have continuously struggled with this reality. The most painful part of my job involves attempting to tell others' stories with empathy and clarity and honesty, while still respecting the living, breathing human being who owns them. I have a higher purpose--to paint a picture, for example, of the new normalcy of body hatred, to enrage people so they try to stop it, to lure people into a social issue with a good old fashioned story--but I also have an ethical commitment to respect people's ownership over their own stories, and quite connected, respect my own limitations.
I feel like Eve has lost sight of her own limitations, like this piece reveals this story of a girl, but also the story of an activist and storyteller who has forgotten to be humble in the process. I haven't read What is the What by Dave Eggers, but it seems that he tried to do something similar and he called it a novel (though he made clear that it was very grounded in reality). I totally get the impulse. You're an activist, a writer, a well-intentioned, empathic human being who feels like the most important stories aren't being told, so you think of the most immediate, palpable way to get them into the world. But it's not that simple.
Why not write a personal essay in her own voice about the experience of getting to know this girl, of hearing these stories? Why not publish an anthology of these women's stories or a collection of oral histories where we hear their voices exactly? Why not bring these women to the U.S. and let them stage their own play about what they've experienced? Why not make a documentary?
For me, Eve is taking too many liberties. She has the power to get these women's voices and stories out into the world, and instead, she has usurped them.
0 TrackBacks
Listed below are links to blogs that reference this entry: Eve and the Ethics of Story.
TrackBack URL for this entry: http://www.feministing.com/cgi-bin/movabletype/mt-tb.fcgi/12301
I've found this with a few of her monologues, lots of them actually...the style of the play is that she is the narrator, and gives an introduction as to how she developed the monologue. Then the monologue itself is in the character of the woman telling her story.
It comes across better, I think, when larger ensembles put on the Vagina Monologues, because you have different people acting out each woman's story. When Eve herself does all of them it's a bit strange.
But she's acting - she takes on a character and tells the particular woman's story.
I agree that there are issues with this style (the cast that I was in the play with this year did a bunch of workshops and wrote a letter to her about a lot of issues that we have with the pieces) but I don't see this monologue as being that different from her others.
As Eve says, she wrote this story "for" these women. As you suggest, I don't think she means that she wrote this piece to give the women but rather to tell a story that speaks for them. While I agree that she may be taking too many liberties, it's important to understand that for the MSM, Eve's words may be these women's only voice. Is that a sad situation? Yes, but it's not Eve's fault and I personally think she's doing the best she can for the voiceless.
I'm a student at University of Southern California and Eve came for a performance of "Vagina Monologues" this year (!!!) and brought a guest speaker, Dr. Denis Mukwege (PLEASE LOOK HIM UP), who also "spoke" for these women. Dr. Mukwege is a gynecologist in the DRC who sees the unspeakable physical and emotional trauma and aftermath of the systematic use of violence against women there.
Though Eve and Dr. Mukwege were tremendously impactful, I couldn't help wondering, why didn't Eve bring an actual survivor (one who would _want_ to speak about the situation there, of course)? It seemed strange that it was an AMERICAN woman and a Congolese MAN who were telling these women's stories, but I really believe it's a question of AT LEAST SOMEONE IS TELLING THEM.
not to nitpick, but "what is the what" is subtitled "the autobiography of valentino achok deng", then "by dave eggers" is printed immediately underneath. valentino achok deng also traveled the country hosting book signings and talking about his experiences firsthand, so it's not an exact analog here. (he signed my copy, and it's a treasure to me.)
this is such a hard issue, but i tend to err with msmaddy....these stories need to be told, and though the best solution to this issue would be to have real women telling their stories, the second-best solution, to my mind, is NOT for no one to tell them at all. by that logic, "schindler's list" should never have been made, because spielberg and neeson and fiennes and most everyone else involved in that production didn't live through the holocaust and therefore have no right to tell the story, when in fact, for many people, that film provides the most powerful images of that horror and imparts more meaning than perhaps anything else they've ever seen. (though, can i suggest reading "man's search for meaning" by frankl?)
i think this brings up a larger issue, too, which is: when is something so big, or so horrible, or so wonderful, that it ceases to be "yours" and instead becomes a teachable moment for everyone, "belongs to humanity"? geez, that's a rough one.
I think theater has a long tradition of giving a voice to the voiceless (and i use that term in the sense that these women are not allowed to use/don't feel safe using their voices, not that they don't have them). In that way, I think that Eve is bringing important messages to people who would otherwise not be exposed to them, since not everyone has the resources to go to the Congo and study firsthand the awfulness that is going down.
However, I agree with the above commenter that it would have more of an impact if different women read each monologue...but the idea of potentially retraumatizing a survivor by having her tell her story over and over again to westerners sounds icky. I realize that for some women telling their story to a lot of people can be empowering and feel awesome (the DV agency I work for recently produced a video full of survivors telling their stories, and the women had a largely positive experience), and I think that's wonderful. But for us to expect that that would be the case for a woman coming from the Congo seems a little presumptious.
So, if survivors are available and willing to tell their own stories, yes, by all means, that would be incredibly powerful. But I think Eve is a stopgap because for multiple reasons that may not be possible right now.
I can see why she might want to give a voice to these women. For those of you who wonder why they aren't telling their stories themselves most victims of sexual violence aren't comfortable describing what happened to them to groups of people they don't know. Of course, there are some strong women who do talk about their experiences and many of them are involved in the feminist movement, but still as a whole most women who have been raped would prefer not to talk publicly about it.
The women Eve talked to probably got to know her and were comfortable telling her their stories but might not be able to speak in public and tell people they don't know what happened to them.
Okay, everyone needs to read Adrienne Rich's "Notes Toward a Politics of Location" right now. If you have already read it, read it again.
What Rich talks about in this essay is the need and responsibility, of Western feminists speaking and commenting on lives of women whose experiences we can never *know*, to understand the politics of their own location. This begins by naming our identities and acknowledging the space it provides us / denies us. I have no business speaking of African women if I cannot first acknowledge my own location, centered in *my* body, and what that means socially, politically, economically, culturally, etc.
We, as Western feminists, have no business talking about women of the Global South (nor could we ever hope to do so properly) if we do not have the courage to implicate ourselves in the circumstances of these women's lives and to *unlearn* and then *relearn* a language that is adequate for talking about an experience outside of our own.
Though I think Eve Ensler and activists like her are well-meaning and their work is important, we *must* be very careful not to speak *for* other women. Instead, how can we empower these women, elevate their voices to a place that can be heard?
All women are capable of speaking about their lived experiences, and it is only because of global inequalities that this human right is impaired. But we must not be the ones who impair it. If we are their sisters, we will listen. We, as Westerners, have a habit of not shutting up, even when we're trying to help. If things are going to change, it must be founded on the words and thoughts and expressed needs of these women.
So first, let's take a step back and ask ourselves, "how am I implicated in her oppression? What can I do to elevate her voice above the silence?"
Right on, GraceMP! Beautifully stated and I couldn't agree more.
But the essential thing about the voiceless is that they, well, have no voice.
It's not that I think what you're saying is wrong - everyone would agree that the best thing is that women from Mongolia or the Congo or Saudi Arabia speak for themselves with their own voices.
But the question is how to get there from here. If we are going to listen, are we also going to act? If we act, can we avoid imposing our own pre-occupations upon our action? Where is the line between helping and coercing. The way you phrase things is attractive, but it half of me is saying that it is just quietism dressed up in pretty words.
And to whom are we listening? It is old women who most strongly enforce the taboos surrounding (for example) female castration. And it is their perspective, not a frightened and powerless girl of 7, to whom we will "listen".
In 2003, most Iraqis in Australia that I talked to strongly supported the invasion. But the leaders and institutions representing Arabs/Iraqis here couldn't string a sentence together without inserting "Blood for Oil".
Difficult.
I agree with you very strongly. We all believe (I think) that these are stories that must be told. But why? The obvious answer is to raise awareness so that these things stop happening. But in that case aren't these stories being told in the wrong place. Does telling them in the west really improve things for the women who they're about at all? (not a rhetorical question, if you see how it does help, please let me know).
Or is it just kind of a masochistic voyeurism where we listen to the stories, get upset about them and tell each other how rotten things are and how they really have to change. And then we..... what? Tell or friends? Write something in a student rag? To what end, for what purpose? What does it actually achieve? How do we help? Can we help? Or are we just patting ourselves on the backs abut what egalitarian globally minded people we are.
I'm not trying to demonize or even criticize anyone here. But when injustices are occurring in other countries, in other cultures. Is their anything that we can actually beyond the old (unacceptable) classic of charging in to "educate" the savages
I'm at Fordham, and we're doing the Eve Ensler- EDITED (not written) "A Memory, a Monologue, a Rant, and a Prayer" this year. In fact, it's tonight, and I should go get ready soon. But y'all should check it out because a lot of the monologues are first-hand accounts. Others are entirely fictional. But almost all of them are wonderful.
BTW, I do agree with GraceMP that more reflection on our places within these issues would be tremendously helpful.
She came to the Ethics Center at Emory University to present the dialogue with Dr. Denis Mukwege. I attended, along with several of my castmates from Emory's production of the Vagina Monologues. When she read this excerpt, all of us were deeply, deeply moved.
I'd just like to point out the media's tendency to ignore women, people of color, and anyone anywhere outside the US. As these are foreign women of color, and America is the most likely source for change and an improved quality of life for these women, a white American woman, especially a relatively affluent and famous one, really is in a better position to advocate for change for these women than they are themselves.
See, half of me reacts with worry when people say things like GraceMP, and the other half reacts with distaste when you say thing like that.
Even if "we" are best placed to act, how can we know that our action is right? Does our monopoly on agency do more harm than good? It is like the British in India - while they're stamping out the practice of satee, they're incidentally instilling "Indian" culture with repressive sexual ethics.
I've just joined the Army (Australian) in the hope of going to Afghanistan, where I think foreign action can really do some good, *especially* for the lives of Afghani women, so this is a very troubling question for me.
Unlike what is moral, what is ethical, what is just, is an absolute. Justice is any action which adheres to an ethical philosophy. Ethical philosophies are those which adhere to the principle of mercy. Mercy can be defined as the reduction of suffering. Thus, ethical philosophies can be said to be philosophies dedicated to reducing suffering. Justice, as the actions resulting from the enactment of ethical philosophies, can be said to be any action which reduces suffering. To do justice by anyone, all you have to do is reduce their suffering.
This view has a problem though due to the subjectivity of suffering. It is an experiential issue that would varies from person to person too greatly to enact a single, monolithic system of behavior over. Just think about the range in any other physical characteristic, like height. Verne Troyer and Yao Ming are both members of the same species. The only reasonable means of enacting justice would be to give the individual as much autonomy as possible. Humans, like all animals with a nervous system, attempt to move away from pain and towards pleasure. So given autonomy, a person would seek to mitigate their suffering to the greatest degree their autonomy and the laws of nature would allow. Liberty is required as a prerequisite for justice. Liberty, defined as the maximum amount of freedom for all individuals, allows for the greatest possible autonomy for individuals to remove suffering from their lives.
There are three fundamental, inalienable rights required for Liberty, and thus justice, to exist. First, the right to bodily integrity and autonomy. If you cannot do what you want with your body, safe from harm or restraint, no other rights can be exercised. A person's body is theirs to do with as they will. Second, the right of free conscience. All individuals must be free to think, feel, believe, and say anything they wish. There can be no freedom with thought crimes. Finally, the right to property. If you cannot posses the means to protect, maintain, and convey your body how can you have freedom of bodily integrity and autonomy? If you cannot posses the means to express and acquire your thoughts, feelings, beliefs, and words how can you have freedom of conscience? Though I shy from using this language, poverty is a sin. It is not a sin of the impoverished, but a sin of the enriched for allowing it. Poverty is inherently and universally unjust.
As it relates to this particular instance; ethics requires us to actively pursue liberty for all individuals. By being enslaved, these women have had their rights of bodily integrity, conscience, and property all violated. Agitating for justice is inherently just; it can never be unjust. So advocating on behalf of the disenfranchised for their franchise is never unjust. Furthermore it is unjust for the enriched to remain wealthy while the impoverished remain poor. Redistributing wealth with greater equality is a requirement of justice.
Justice is the act of reducing suffering. Liberty is the only route to justice. Agitating for justice can never be unjust. Thus, agitating for the redistribution of wealth from the enriched to the impoverished for purposes of restoring liberty to the suffering is the ultimate act of justice and can never be unjust.
(Two quick asides. Yay! For the Oxford comma! And why the term "sex slave" at all? Rape is inherent in the institution of slavery. My own skin tone attests to that; to quote Richard Prior, "You think I came out of Africa like this?")
I think you are forgetting a very important thing. Touring around the world acting out your abuse several times a week, might not be the best thing for the women in issue.
Eve is giving them a voice, and with her empathy and acting skills she shakes you when she speaks about it, she reaches out to you, and she makes you feel it. She gets the attention.
But she allso gets all the bullshit, critisism, anger and hatred directed towards her.
I find it a sort of selfish notion that people want the raw, the real, the first hand experience put in front of them. Isn't the emotional healing and protection of these women just as important, if not more important than the world getting something "real" to gawk at.
The world is not the most sympatetic of audiences.
Her spot light piece this year was also about the women in the Congo. I was supposed to perform the Into piece to it. I was so disgusted at how Euro-centric and poorly written the piece was that I had to decline. As a freshman in College I was so excited to see that something so amazing and powerful was being done to help women. Now after taking several Women's Study classes and reading more in to Ensler's work I have realised that she was revolutionary many years ago but people have moved on from where she is.
In her 2009 Intro piece she relates the success of a nation to a woman's body. That archaic idea is one of the very things that leads to mass rapes because the invading army knows they can destroy the community by raping the women. She could have changes the word to spirit and made the feel of the piece different. Also at the end of the piece she talks about a little girl who had been raped for days on end and she hugged her in the hospital. She then talks about the girl trying to squirm away. Instead of respecting the fact that this girl probably had PTSD (Post Traumatic Stress Disorder) and associated touch with her rapes, She hugged her tighter and forced her to sit on her lap!!!! That was the part that made me refuse to read the piece. I survived a traumatic experience similar to the girl in the piece and I still to this day have trouble with human contact never mind a few weeks after it happened. Her insensitivity made me want to throw up when I read it.
I like some of the work she does but she has a lot of interpersonal skills that she needs to learn.
I too was appalled by the spotlight piece this year, but I'm not willing to reject the entire play because of it, if only because there really is nothing better out there. Hopefully, one day soon that will change.