I must say Thursday class was Epic! (yes Nicolas I’m
borrowing your catch phrase J)
Let me start by saying that Tuesday Vera fundraising
event was incredible and I would like to thank Professor Stein, Professor Reitz,
and Professor Waterston for setting up the event. I was in total awe of the spectacular
event that unfolded that evening. I would also like to thank Professor Waterston
who was able to make it to the event; we all wish you a speedy recovery. Additionally,
thank you to all the mentors, Vera alumni and the new upcoming class who were
able to attend. I would also like to congratulate the recipient of this year “Mentor
of the Year” award to Ms. White. As the event unfolded, I had a
feeling of nostalgia because of the change of perspective. When I attended the
event last year, I was excited as a newly accepted student; the speeches were
passionate and incredible with Timothy Fowler giving a riveting speech
alongside the rest of the Vera class. After they spoke, maybe I was the only
one but the thoughts that were running through my mind were how I am going to
live up to that. Throughout the year, I feel we all lived to the expectations
that the last class has left us. I believe that next year’s class will do the
same and thereafter. Only this time our perspective is switched to alumnus.
Onwards to Thursday lesson, that class was such a great experience for
me, and I am sure my peers can agree. We did two readings one on Kill
the Man by Mary Wings and Lawns by Mona Simpson. We first started
with the poem Metaphors by Sylvia Path.
An occurring
theme that came from each of these stories was the lack of empowerment by each
of the victims and the lack of control to solve their respective problems. In
the poem “Metaphors”, throughout the poem the women had no control over the
situation that she was there for the purpose of recreation. When asked how to
describe the woman in the poem, Andre used the word “subjugated,” while
Professor Stein used the word “powerless.” In Lawns, Jenny finds
herself in a similar situation;
however she was being sexually abused by her father.
One
of my questions for the class relates
to our discussion of Lawns. Professor Stein explains that everything is
paradoxical, human behavior is similar. Do you believe this is an occurring theme
in the stories? Another question I have based off the Lawns and Kill
the Man reading is, do you believe that the victims are being demanded
to change is an effective mechanism to fighting back? For example, Jenny makes
the decision to tell her mom only after the dad visit.
In the Lawns’ reading, Professor Stein made
a response that in my mind was very important; in the story, Jenny believed
that she was in control of the relationship between herself and her dad. Professor Stein explains that the victim need
to believe that they have some form of control, which would allow the creation
of a new perspective that, is faulted. What do you think of Professor Stein
comment do you believe that relates to victims of today?
14 comments:
I think it is a recurring theme in both stories. One, "love", abuse, desire, and blame is constantly in contradiction and we don't know which direction the character takes us. The story entices us to be disgusted with the father, but as Professor Stein points out, many are quick to blame Jenny in that she may have wanted to have a sexual relationship with her father. It would be as if our own innate human ability to feel and be "logical" causes us to create these paradoxes. Furthermore, sometimes we don't question these obvious contradictions, both as someone who may experience it and as an outsider. Yes, we may be quick to argue against something like incest, but when the times comes to do something when we are presented with that exact situation, confusion ensues, and we may want to find a logical explanation, as well as defend ourselves from holding any ounce of responsibility, like Jenny's mother. In Kill the Man, there is a contradiction of justice - killing the man for domestic violence or also exacting justice on the women, though ultimately the cop does nothing, even when she's realized what has happened.
Fighting back is a complicated concept, because to precede actually doing it is the internal conflict of determine whether fighting back is justified, and would it work. Jenny was a young girl when her father abused her, and fighting back may have been a very foreign concept. Even as she grew, fighting back was not necessarily an option. The women also determined that killing the man was a just act, but only through their perspective, and not so much through the perspective of the cop. Fighting back is also, partially, a choice. One has to choose to fight back, but it is not a choice that is their singular burden. For example. Jenny should have had her mother fight for her, and perhaps others.
We live in a very individualistic country. If I am poor, if I fail, if I am raped, if I am attacked, if I am addicted to a drug, it is my fault and my fault alone. We are told constantly that we are in control, that we could have avoided something, and that we could be in a better situation. Of course, this rhetoric changes for certain people. Poor her, the rich, middle ages white woman who was just watching her soap opera in suburbia when someone broke into her house. But the poor black woman in the hood who was raped was probably wearing a short skirt and showing too much privilege, plus she decided to go into a dangerous neighborhood, and she's on welfare, so she's a moocher, and we can go on and on. Our society picks and chooses who has the right to be a victim and who doesn't. Working at Common Justice has opened my eyes to that reality, that some people have a privilege in being able to claim victimhood. Also, as Jenny was shown to be herself a part of the problem by "wanting it", is very much reflective of our current rape culture. We always tell women what to not wear, where not to go, and how to avoid getting raped. We never tell me not to rape, we never teach men about proper sexual conduct (well, we do, we teach them that getting laid by any means is something to be praised), and we never turn the conversation to put the fault on the rapist - the person raped is always at fault, for some reason or another. Its as if we trick victims into blaming themselves so that, if justice ever shows up, she will be ever more seduced by the privileged in hearing that the victim, to some degree, is responsible.
Thanks for the post, David.
Us humans are interesting creatures. Emotions are often irrational and hard to explain. Behaviors don't always match up to values and strongly held beliefs. And relationships can be complex and tangled. I believe a misunderstanding of some of the above-mentioned is what leads so many to "blame the victim." It's certainly easy to endorse such a mentality when you're not in the victim's shoes.
To your points on Jenny: She was powerless, I believe, until she finally understood what was happening to her. At that point, she tried to regain power of the situation in whatever way she could, even by "agreeing" to go with her father to the hotel. It was her choice at that point, and she had the control... so she thought, I gather. She convinced herself she was in control, and in turn, may have began to blame herself.
Of course, she didn't want the abuse and did not enjoy it in any way. And the pain did not go away for her. A look at her relational patterns, particularly with Glenn, shed some light on the effects of her abuse.
I think your last points touch on a huge discussion of victimology. Who knows for sure what delayed Jenny's decision to talk about the sexual abuse? Maybe it's because of the anticipated response her mother would have; or that nothing would majorly change; maybe it's because of the arduous and emotionally-involved sharing and potential legal process; maybe it's because society still neglects to provide support and understanding to these individuals. Such possibilities are directly related to societal views and its impact on justice for victims of abuse.
And just to add: Nico's first paragraph explains perfectly "fundamental attribution error" in psychology.
It's easy to blame others for not doing the "logical," the "obvious," and/or the "straightforward choice." And we may attribute such a decision to some personal flaw, making us dislike that person even less.
However, actually being in the situation and experiencing the context could lead any person to become confused. Reality is not so clear.
Professor Stein's comment about victims needed some agency is actually very relevant. When a victim is in the process of losing their agency, they begin to lose their self worth. When all self worth is drained from them, it becomes easier to victimize the individual because they develop this idea that either "they deserve what they are getting" or "I have no other choice but to be victimized. Professor Stein's comment about victims having some form of control works to break the first idea that but is actually a coping mechanism for the second idea. In other words, when victims feel hopeless to alleviate their circumstances, they simply enjoy what is happening or they take ownership of the abuse.
This is no doubt faulted because through this change in perspective, officials who should be actively fighting to relieve this victim of abuse say instead "she is in complete control and therefor, she is not in need of our assistance. She is practically asking for the abuse. As a matter of fact, she enjoys it." Perspective is everything when discussing criminal justice issues and in this case, it may easily become damning for the victim.
Just to show how eternal and universal these questions are, the first two things I read this morning (besides e-mail) were 1) an article about Rihanna and Chris Brown. She "owns" the disturbing aspect of the relationship ("if it is a mistake, it is my mistake" she says). 2) Hamlet, who is perhaps literature's greatest example of what Nico and Joe have described as "fundamental attribution error." Hamlet is told in the first Act that his uncle, who just married his mom, killed his father. The father's ghost comes and tells him to exact revenge and Hamlet agrees. But then A REALLY LONG PLAY happens, where Hamlet thinks about so many aspects of this situation that all our understandings of agency, let along of right and wrong, get called into question.
I plan to hang out in the background for a while to hear you process what went on in class last week. It was certainly very powerful. I am reminded, even in these first few posts, how language plays tricks on us, subverting meaning, sometimes even directly contradicting our intentions. To say that Jenny is “in control” or “enjoying” her abuse is of course exactly the opposite of what is happening: she is being raped. But the paradox is that, to some extent, she must convince herself that she IS in control, a shrewd manipulator of her father’s emotions, in order to survive the abuse with some sense of agency.
As Nico points out, society all too readily takes up the pretense of her free will to label her complicit in the sexual abuse, even name her its instigator. We can draw a parallel here between women’s experience of sexual harassment and abuse and the young men of color in the Danielle Sered article Nico gave us. They too were victims but refused to see themselves as such because it would undermine their notion of manhood.
Hello everyone,
I am sorry that I missed class on Thursday! The reading was so interesting and I would’ve enjoyed the discussion a lot.
After reading the two stories, lack of empowerment is definitely a key theme in the lives of these women. The women were dealing with such intense situations in their lives, they eventually ended up losing control and falling into the shadows of their problems, losing their identity as well.
In regards to your first question, I agree with Nico. “Love,” desire, abuse, and blame is constantly contradicting one another. We all make excuses in any situation. Whether it is to justify the acts of another because we are afraid of losing them, or justify our acts because we don’t know how to resolve the actual issues, excuses help us cope. However, excuses are not just a coping mechanism. Sometimes, we do believe it is for a legitimate reason, as for the case of the woman killing her boyfriend for domestic violence. Emotions and behaviors are often unexplainable, especially if we react off our “system one” in the heat of the moment. Because of this, it is only later that we realize that maybe our actions contradict our beliefs.
In regards to Professor Stein’s comment about Lawns, I do agree with her. Oftentimes, victims are so traumatized by their situations, that they do not want to truly look at the situation. If they do so, the pain becomes real and they may not know how to cope. In the example of Jenny, this may be her coping mechanism because in the end, he is “her father.” Also, as Jenny stated in the text, this has been going on for as long as she can remember. As Joe mentioned, no one knows what delayed her response. It may be the feeling of nothing changing, or feeling powerless anyway. Perhaps she feels no justice will happen anyway. This brings me to another point about how victims are oftentimes afraid to express their victimization. Why are they afraid? Is it because they feel nothing can be done afterwards? Or do they try to avoid the situation in order to cope?
I think that in all abusive situations, sexual as in “Lawns” or physically as in “Kill the Man”, the victim is always made to f eel that they are the cause of the problem or that they deserve what is happening to them, for whatever reason. For one thing, the abuser needs to excuse his/her behavior and find the “normality” in the situation, so that he/she can continue the abuse, without remorse, guilt or been stopped. For this reason the abuser always finds a way to make the victim feel that she/he, deserves the abuse, instigated the situation or provoked the emotions, (whatever those may be).
The victim, on the other hand needs to find some way to cope or to live with the situation and find some way to rationalize it, in her/his mind, in order to continue or to survive. In most abusive circumstances the victim is so confused and traumatized by what is happening that in some way it is better to find some justification for the abuse. Believing that he or she is at fault, provoked it or that in some form the abusive behavior is normal or acceptable, is the most logical explanation, otherwise someone would have stopped it or it would have never happened in the first place. Unfortunately, for victims of abuse, it’s extremely difficult to understand that the person who is doing the victimizing is the one at fault.
As Nico stated, many times, when confronted with these types of situations, most often than not, we want to find logical explanations as to why these things happen. We can place blame on others and try to rationalize why certain situations area allow take place and we form confusion in our interpretations, in order to evade our own responsibilities.
Hi David! Thanks for the blog post.
The class discussion was enormously deep and bloodily honest. Prof. Stein purposely made us stepping outside of our professional boundaries and really to have an honest and open discussion about our thoughts on the readings. It is interesting to see the way our choice of language evolved from Joe’s comment about “she (meaning Jenny) had some unpleasant experience” to our discussion about the evidence that suggests Jenney actually did enjoyed her illicit relationship with her father, such as her pleasant sexual experience. It is topics of this kind, which lies in ethical gray zone and mixed with many paradoxes, that provides a perfect chance for us to reexamine our self-imposed moral high grounds, by that I mean we often force ourselves to see things in ways that are consistent with common morality. For instance, the notion that victim of sexual abuse and domestic violence are blameless is a morally popular reading response to have.
As I was reading “Lawns”, I hated myself for even daring to question Jenny’s role as a victim after learning what her father had done to her. And after reading “Kill the Man,” I was so willing to believe that justice had been done, although in reality the dead man did not deserve to be killed for what he have done. I cannot help but to ask, have I really been conducting effective inquiry into social justice issue or am I painting a “reality” that I prefer to see, for myself? Perhaps a reality without paradox is more what I rather to believe, and the reading experience of these two stories had done an excellent job in exposing this shortcoming that I have.
Ps: I am sincerely sorry, Prof. Reitz, about having dragged you out of your “everyone always wears clothes” literature haven into our dirty talks about the protagonist’s “little death.” It is all Prof. Stein’s fault! (winks) ;D
Sylvie, I forgive you.
These comments all suggest that we have come full circle -- or gone nowhere: thinking about how "justice" is inextricably embedded within our own, albeit socially-constructed perspectives takes us right back to "In a Grove." Are these much more contemporary stories also multiple perspectives without any "truth"? Or is it important to arrive at some kind of truth? Is there some perspective that, although questionable, is more stable than others?
I take the blame, gladly!
But I am concerned that I have you thinking that psychic complexity or emotional/cognitive paradox means there is no moral boundary we can outline. They are just conversations that happen in different spheres.
Jenny's defenses may hoodwink her into feeling guilty and her father's defenses may fool him into feeling innocent, and we can use a psychology lens to examine that process. But just because they feel this way in order to navigate their own guilt and innocence and live with themselves does not mean that we, as outsiders, cannot take an overview that assesses their actions, and the consequences of those actions, rather than their feelings.
I'm so sorry that I missed this class too--I feel like a broken record. I'm fascinated that several of you have remarked this was an especially intense class, and am impressed that David seems to have been so taken by these readings that he volunteered to take the lead on this week's blog. David: what aspect of these readings affected you so?
I must confess it's been hard for me to follow the blog discussion. Perhaps, in this case, "you had to be there"??
The readings are just so sad, and have made me feel forlorn. I'm curious about what was at the center of the class discussion--did you focus on how the readings made you FEEL? Or was the discussion more focused on ANALYSIS of the "situations" and their effects on the characters in the story.
I'm just wondering because I feel more sad than analytical, especially reading "Lawns," although I couldn't help but think about three ideas: 1) the normalization of violence; 2) Bourdieu's habitus; and 3) about how power has this enormous capacity to corrupt so totally, and to be horrifically deadly.
Prof Waterston: I get the first two. Where do you see #3 happening in "Kill the Man"? We wish you could have been there, too!
Hi Prof. R. For #3 I was thinking about "Lawns" and the daughter's relative powerlessness vis-a-vis the parent, the father, the authority, the one in control.See you soon!!
Post a Comment