In defense of the sanctimonious women's studies set || First feminist blog on the internet

Storytelling as a Radical Act

Testimonies hold great power, and there is no better feeling than the ability to tell my stories in the ways that are true to my life, my heart and my perspective. In activist and anti-oppression circles, the term “silencing” appears frequently, referring to a particular type of manipulation and subjugation. A person’s words, for whatever reason, are not honored. They are not honored because the person’s existence illuminates an undesirable truth the hearers do not want to face, or their words lead to a place that cannot be accessed fully by travel or imaginative exploration.

Sometimes, I’ve silenced myself and many of my sisters have done the same. They have borne witness to me and to others telling of egregious wrongs that they have experienced or have observed… yet they do not speak too loudly. They won’t speak out for fear of losing something: losing a relative, losing control of their lives, or losing their stories. To them, it’s not a myth that their stories will be repeated without their names to guide them. Anyone can pick up a textbook and read case studies about H, a 26-year-old African-American woman from X with cerebral palsy, or see pictures of happy smiling children online referred to as “happy smiling children in the Y mountains/Z desert/Q farmland.” These people — their bodies, their plight, their stories — are Other. No names in the street, in the book, in the mind, and people only recently have been asking why they are nameless.

Think of Alice Walker’s search for Zora Neale Hurston and discovering her unmarked grave in Florida, and the resulting revival of Hurston’s great anthropological works and stories about the Southeastern United States.

Think of Rebecca Skloot’s search for Henrietta Lacks and how her immortal cells save lives and generate billions of dollars for the medical industry; yet her surviving family members can’t afford health insurance.

Think of the stories behind these 17 words: Prosecutors in Los Angeles have not won a murder conviction in a police shooting case since 1983. Think of Oscar Grant’s trial and what the jurors now carry with them. I think back to a section of Audre Lorde’s “Power,” a poem she wrote in response to the acquittal of a Queens cop whose murder of a 10-year-old boy was recorded:

Today that 37-year-old white man with 13 years of police forcing
has been set free
by 11 white men who said they were satisfied
justice had been done
and one black woman who said
“They convinced me” meaning
they had dragged her 4’10” black woman’s frame
over the hot coals of four centuries of white male approval
until she let go the first real power she ever had
and lined her own womb with cement
to make a graveyard for our children.

I think pessimistically, “At least he was convicted of something. At least he’ll serve some time.” Justice still feels cold and leaves a bitter, coppery taste on my tongue. The cast of characters are similar and the same bodies are still and cold.

Seek out the stories behind the news alerts; count the years behind the breaking bulletins. Learn the patterns. Cherish the names.

Tell their stories; tell your stories. Be ready if they say, “Where were you when you heard about Mehserle?” “Where were you when the world let down another one of our dead?” When confronting miscarriages of justice, errors in history, and blank pages in books, arm yourself with names and dates. Amadou Diallo. Kathryn Johnston. Sean Bell. Aiyana Stanley-Jones. Hold their truths to be self-evident until all are created equal, until every person’s life carries the same weight as Yeardley Love or Natalee Holloway or even Michael Jackson.

This is the first year I have agreed to write here on Feministe, and I feared using this platform to tell my story. I feared no one wanting to hear what I said. I didn’t want to be drowned out by past infighting and abandonment. Then I reread Audre Lorde’s “A Litany for Survival” and I thought. Audre Lorde, a woman who preached the power of poetry and speaking truths to power. Audre Lorde, a woman who spoke truth to power until her last breath. So it is better to speak/remembering/we were never meant to survive. Every silence, every statistic, every appearance of an asterisk hits me as violently as the worst epithet. Do not erase the stories. It is better to speak, even if we cannot indulge the passing dreams of choice.

No one chooses to be exploited. Media are forces, are vehicles of expressing who you are. Of reinforcing who you will become.

Tell stories by choice. Tell stories of life as it should be. It is radical to speak.


30 thoughts on Storytelling as a Radical Act

  1. Every act of speaking makes way for the next one. Forgive the cliche, M, but this here is powerful.

  2. Have to keep telling the stories; eventually someone will listen. Or enough power will be gathered through the frequent storytelling that not paying attention will no longer be an option.

    I’ve been reading (and sometimes telling) the tales of the past lately, while not ignoring those of the present. This sometimes helps to put things in context for me, at least for a time. Funny thing – my great-great uncle wrote a book in 1909 I think it was, and in the introduction he mentioned the importance of telling our *own* stories, of not allowing the narrative to be set for us, but to work on setting it ourselves.

    Black folks – not so different then and now, in that respect. Still, more people are listening these days. More – maybe not that many more, but still – are outraged at the Mehserle verdict than would have been even 10 years ago or in The Time of O.J. People are beginning to recognize the Missing/Murdered White Girl syndrome (which recognition, by the way, is meant to take nothing away from the grief or worry of the families and friends of the missing white people, it’s more a media/media consumer indictment).

    Anyway, my long-winded way of saying – wonderful piece, this, Monchel. Never shut up.

  3. There are messages in the US that are considered “obscene” to convey. Obscene to those who have yet to experience the horrors life has to offer, as had they experienced such, speech they find distasteful would be simply a non-issue.

    I don’t mean inflammatory speech, hateful speech, threatening speech, speech made through harm, but speech that causes some people to respond: “eww” for they find such speech repellent both viscerally and existentially.

    It would be a radical thing to force the privileged to confront horror, to shake the foundations of the pretty construct of lies
    in which they do dwell, for perhaps they’d not make this world hell if they knew hell is real and people are living in it now.

  4. There are messages in the US that are considered “obscene” to convey. Obscene to those who have yet to experience the horrors life has to offer, as had they experienced such, speech they find distasteful would be simply a non-issue.

    Yet those are the stories that most need to be told and told again, loudly, transgressively, publicly. Thats always been the bind for me, I know there are things to be said, but what will people think? How will telling this story hurt me? What will I lose from opening my mouth? How will I be judged? How will I be cast out of a privileged circle if I say what I feel or know to be true? Everyone has somewhere they feel safe and they’re acutely aware of the experiences that must remain unspoken if it is to remain that way.

    That, in my life, has been the core of silencing. Not the objective instances of being checked or punished for saying that which is forbidden, but the times in which I’ve stayed quiet because I knew I could be checked. I am rarely silenced by others, my nature makes it more likely that I’ll speak louder if someone tries to shut me up, but I constantly silence myself. I must choose when to speak and suffer the consequences, and too often I choose not to speak.

    It would be a radical thing to force the privileged to confront horror, to shake the foundations of the pretty construct of lies
    in which they do dwell, for perhaps they’d not make this world hell if they knew hell is real and people are living in it now.

    I would hazard to say that the privileged, with the possible exception of the young or the extremely sheltered, know full well the horror that others experience. Thats the purpose of the horror. Only the most antisocial of people would lack the empathy to understand someone else is being harmed, thats the whole idea. It isn’t random, its a message: see the power that is wielded, it can be turned anywhere, do you think you could stand against it? Privilege is relative, theres always someone with more and someone with less. The horror provides an incentive not to speak, it is an insidious means of silencing. More then that, it creates guilt, it creates tension, it creates hate (because the weak always remind the strong of what they fear they might become), it advances the systems of power even as it pretends they do not exist and threatens those who would speak out.

  5. We tell stories in the medical profession all the time, about patients who’ve had bad outcomes in the hope that the next batch of trainees will learn something from them. We also publish case histories for the same reason.

    We don’t leave out identifying details because we want to silence the people involved in our stories, but because we know that they came into our care regarding confidentiality as a basic right. And I think I’m duty bound to maintain this right. Some people don’t mind their names and identifying details used in telling their stories, and I respect this as well.

    What happened to Henrietta Lacks, because someone is going to accuse me of being a patriarchial conduit of all the wrongs of medicine, was wrong. She was cut out the decision process and not allowed to profit from the use of her cells. That’s appalling.

  6. I needed this so much today.

    By the way, I always interpreted the phrase “speaking truth to power” meant….speaking truth into being….speaking it until it had power. Not witnessing to the powerful. That’s probably “English fail” on my part, but that’s how it reads to me.

  7. La Lubu (omg, hi I haven’t seen you in a while!!!), that’s the same interpretation I have for speaking truth to power. There’s a difference between power as a type of independent force and a person who exerts control over resources (in other words, the powerful). I don’t think the difference is semantic, and people don’t realize how much power they have because it’s read as how much control they can independently concentrate at any given time.

    Rose, I understand what you’re saying about the medical profession, and I want to explain more about what I was thinking. When I wrote the case study example, I thought about people with disabilities forming communities and creating media to tell their perceptions and perspectives of living and accessibility. The case studies are important, and they do help to train new caregivers. But I think case studies and stories of coping with abilities can be stronger if coupled with firsthand accounts from people and their varied experiences outside of the doctor’s office and the medical paradigm. Does that make sense?

  8. GAHHHH! So powerful, so brave, hermana!

    THIS is why I believe creative non-fiction, particularly radical memoir and poetry, is essential for community transformation.

    This insight, this sharing is an undeniable boulder of gold.

    Yes, it is radical to speak and it is lovely to hear.

  9. We don’t leave out identifying details because we want to silence the people involved in our stories, but because we know that they came into our care regarding confidentiality as a basic right. And I think I’m duty bound to maintain this right.

    But, and I say this as someone who has written his share of case studies, both can be true at the same time. When we talk about “H” or “Anna O.” we are both protecting their privacy and creating a layer of silence around them. We can both care for someone and be oppressors. It isn’t just the patient that profits from anonymity, but also the clinician in being able to tell a story that will go unchallenged and in which the details they choose to speak will be the only ones on record. That doesn’t mean that case studies are bad, or that every one is oppressive, but it is something we need to think about no matter how uncomfortable the idea of possibly being oppressors to those we care for might make us. We owe it to our patients to think about what our words, rooted in substantially greater power, mean to them.

    I went to a convention back in April and they tried something new. Twice over the course of the week the Grand Ballroom was filled with something like 400 professionals in the audience. A luminary would deliver a case study, three very accomplished panelists would give their conceptualization of the case, and then the mics would be opened for a question-and-answer period. It was an incredible learning experience, but at the same time it also displayed how little some clinicians bother to think about their power. One of the case studies was delivered by a man whom virtually everyone in the room knew and respected, a man who ran a prestigious training program. He told the story of a woman who had been kept powerless for much of her life. In the course of the story he admitted that he published her story without her consent and that, when he finally told her that he was writing about her again and she said she didn’t want that to happen, said that he “couldn’t be forced to choose between her and his work” and went ahead and published anyway. He talked about how this was a great moment of growth, about how it helped her case immensely. Each of the panelists avoided criticizing that detail, because the man was powerful and influential and in some cases had been their mentor. The patient had been silenced, the panel had been silenced. Thankfully, when the Q&A began several people in the audience were not silent and the room applauded them. Yet one still has to wonder how much of a victory calling out this man could be when he’d just spent an hour disregarding the stated wishes of his patient, telling her story against her will, and talking about work he had already published which used her experience.

    The way we write case studies, they way we mask information and change names, can give us the illusion that we now own the story, that it is ours to do with as we please. We say “ah, the confidentiality is protected, now its mine.” We treat confidentiality as an obstacle to be overcome, as if the patient’s privacy and reputation are the only things confidentiality is designed to protect. We forget that our patients own their stories, and we do this by distancing the story from them enough that we can justify to ourselves the act of disregarding those we have pledged to care for.

  10. I may not always understand, but I seek to listen to everyone’s story. What drives me is a desire to understand, in the hopes that then maybe we might not feel inclined to live separate lives from each other.

  11. I ran across this quote while writing a portion of my undergraduate thesis on how storytelling can be a part of creating a home for oneself in the world. Of course, the pronouns are a problem, but I still consider it a sort of “signature” quote for myself.

    “It is through the recounted action that makes up narrative that man corresponds to life or belongs to life, inasmuch as human life is invariably a political life. The narrative is the first dimension in which man lives, through bios and not through zoe, a political life and/or an action recounted to other people. The initial correspondence between man and life is the narrative. Narrative is the action that is the most readily shared and, in that sense, the most intrinsically political.”

    (from Julia Kristeva’s book on Hannah Arendt, if anyone is wondering)

  12. William,

    You know what happened to me when I told a first-person account of discrimination against me on this site. I got the usual:
    “But you ARE violent!”
    “But people like you ARE violent!”
    “Society has an interest in depriving people like you of your rights!”
    “Why do you even need your rights?”
    “I know what is better for you than you do!”
    “Lock her up immediately!”

    I think using my real name would be more silencing because the privileged people in this instance have the ability to lock me away and deprive me of liberty and autonomy, all with the full backing of the law.

    Thoughts? (Cuz I love your perspective.)

  13. I think using my real name would be more silencing because the privileged people in this instance have the ability to lock me away and deprive me of liberty and autonomy, all with the full backing of the law.

    I think choosing to be anonymous when you tell your *own* story isn’t silencing at all. (It may be “silenced”, in the sense that people can disregard anonymous stories more easily than they can disregard stories with a name on them, but “silencing” is something other people do to you; choosing to tell your story at all, in whatever form you choose, is not silencing yourself by any means.) In your case it sounds as if choosing to be anonymous is the only way you feel you can safely make your story heard, which is the opposite of being silenced.

    But if we’re talking about other people, what then? One thing I’ve become more and more conscious of is the power of a writer. Actually, I think I was always conscious that it existed, but I’m becoming more *conscientious* about it — in the past, I had no trouble with the concept of writing people I was angry at into stories I was writing with very thinly disguised names, *because* that gave me power over them and I enjoyed having that power. As I get older I become more aware of how I can hurt people as a writer, how the very fact that I am ready, willing and able to pick up a pen or a keyboard and put my experience into words and publish those words in a magazine or a blog or a fiction archive gives me power over people who are unready, unwilling or unable to do the same. My ability to write, access to publication, and willingness to do it are a privilege not everyone has.

    So if another person wanted to tell your story, Flower, and they didn’t ask your permission to do it one way or another, if they included your name, that violates your anonymity and runs the risk of harming you. If they don’t include your name, they’re appropriating your story, telling it for you, and making you, the individual, disappear. Even when we say “This is a story about Jane Doe,” and we’re making it clear that Jane Doe is a real person and not fictional and not us, the writer… we’re still centering ourselves, the writer, instead of Jane Doe. We may be emphasizing aspects of her story she wouldn’t have. We may be making points with her story she disagrees with. And because we’re speaking for someone who isn’t there to speak for herself, we’re creating the impression that we’re… not a better person than Jane Doe, maybe, but a more important person. We are the conduit for her story. Her story is a way we use to attract attention to ourselves.

    Now, maybe Jane Doe is okay with that and maybe she isn’t. And maybe there is a very important reason why Jane Doe’s story needs to be told, and maybe there isn’t. But Jane Doe herself disappears when she is anonymous. If Jane herself speaks up and says “My name is Wilma Portman and I approve/disapprove of how my story was told”, suddenly she becomes an important person again, she becomes a name, we consider her to have a cultural impact in her own right. (And it still might be baloney; if everything Plato told us about Socrates was a crock, the real Socrates would be silenced by the fictional Socrates Plato made up. But at least when she has a name, we *think* the story belongs to her.)

    I do think that if you’re going to tell a story that doesn’t belong to you, and you either can’t find the person whose story it is to ask permission, or they denied you permission but you’re going to do it anyway, you do owe it to them to keep their name off it. Use their name only when they have agreed that that is okay with them. But we do have to remember as writers that making people anonymous appropriates their story and makes it about us, whether that’s what we’re trying for or not; keeping names on the story reminds people “this is a real person who is not the author, not a cipher.” (Giving people fictional names solves some of this problem, though it’s still appropriating their story… but at least you’re emphasizing their humanity with a fictional name rather than an initial or “the patient” or whatever.)

  14. La Lubu, I’ve come close to this – “I always interpreted the phrase “speaking truth to power” meant….speaking truth into being….speaking it until it had power.” – in my thinking but my mind has never made the final leap. Thanks for saying that out loud! Now that you and Monchel have done so, a whole lot of other things just clicked in my brain.

    Now if I can just lock stuff into place so that it doesn’t slip away again, sigh.

  15. First hand accounts are important, and they have great impact on learning because they close the distance between the caregiver and the recipient of the care. I’m not saying that this is a bad thing. I was lucky enough to learn in a medical curriculum which included first hand accounts (carers and breastfeeding women are the two that stick in my mind). However, some people are not happy for an identifying account to be produced, and I want to respect this. It doesn’t mean I think identifying and first hand accounts are a bad thing.

    I don’t think anyone sits down and says “If I anonymise the details, no one can ever argue with what I say.” I’ve never told a story about a patient in which no one has asked about an aspect of it. It’s nature of the beast, that doctors are a tribe of people who ask questions. And the person who published anonymised details of a patient who said they couldn’t publish their story was wrong and should have been challenged.

  16. I think using my real name would be more silencing because the privileged people in this instance have the ability to lock me away and deprive me of liberty and autonomy, all with the full backing of the law.

    Thoughts?

    Alara Rogers covered what I was going to say pretty well.

    I guess for me the important part about anonymity and silencing is who makes the decision. If you choose to be anonymous (or to use a nom de plume) then its still your story, all thats happened is that you have made a conscious decision to protect yourself from people who might use what you say against you. That doesn’t silence or dehumanize you (in my eyes) because really its just changing your name for the purposes of a specific interaction. You still have a name (Flowers) its just different from what people call you in a different context.

    Names, for me, are much like any other social exchange. What you choose to do with your name (or body, soul, social space, morality, experience, etc) is your business and you ought to be allowed to do virtually anything with it that you can imagine. Thats your right because it is your name and your story. The oppression comes from someone else telling you how your name will be used. I suppose I’d liken it to the things you were told when you talked about your experience. Its possible that there are certain things you might choose not to do because of circumstance, but its a very different thing when someone tells you that you cannot do them. It isn’t necessarily about the outcome (though it may well be) but about the loss of agency that comes with someone else exercising power over you.

  17. Thank you so much for this. I’m in a writing class and one of our assignments is to assemble a “word collage”: our own writing (academic thoughts, journal entries, freewriting, etc.) and others’ (quotes, discussions of ideas, email exchanges, etc.), all loosely around a common theme. I thought you’d like to know that I used the last full paragraph from your piece (properly attributed, of course, and not reproduced at all except for this particular class).

    It’s such a great expression of the meaning of writing, the importance of it.

  18. This is bizarre – in an awesome way. I just wrote about this, in a much more “simplistic” way, and even linked this site to it.

    Thank you so very much for existing to write this.

  19. The phrase “speaking truth to power” is of Quaker origin. It sounds quite old, but is actually from the 20th century and it definitely means witnessing the truth before institutions of power, not transforming truth into power via speaking.

  20. The phrase “speaking truth to power” is of Quaker origin. It sounds quite old, but is actually from the 20th century and it definitely means witnessing the truth before institutions of power, not transforming truth into power via speaking.

    What a word or phrase means and what it’s etymology is are two different things, especially in a language with as few rules and as long a history of nimble evolution as english. Words and phrases might have traditional meanings, but they also mean what speakers intend them to mean and what listeners interpret them to mean. The “truth” of what a word or phrase means is really little more than the interaction of a speaker’s intent and a listener’s interpretation. Saying that a phrase “does not mean X” denies metaphor, allusion, context, culture, and code in a way that flies in the face of not just ordinary usage but also semiotics.

    Words really aren’t anything more than abstract symbols which we use, generally with great idiosyncrasy, to reflect our experience. Telling someone that their interpretation of a phrase is wrong seems to miss the entire point of discussing storytelling. Making such an assertion in the context of a discussion of storytelling as a radical act suggests ignorance at the ways in which language has historically been used by oppressed persons to say things which they would not otherwise be allowed to say.

    Language is never “definite” because language is always produced by people and we’re a complicated bunch who rarely have the decency to conform to strict rules.

  21. “Speaking truth to power” is a phrase with a definition, and is a recent construction. Nowhere did I say it couldn’t be used in another way; I was merely stating its source and intended meaning. It was specifically coined to describe the act of oppressed persons saying things they would not otherwise be allowed to say. Misquoting someone to your own ends is also a silencing tool.

  22. When you say what a word or phrase “definitely means” and also what it does “not” mean I cannot imagine how you could then interpret that pair of statements as not saying “it couldn’t be used in another way.” Thats not “merely stating the source and intended meaning”, it is exerting the original meaning in the context of the stories of others who have used it in a different way. The fact that you used the word “intended” further underscores what you’re communicating, implying that those who have used the phrase in another way are deviating from an established norm. If that wasn’t your intent, I apologize; it was not an intentional misreading of your post but my honest interpretation of what you had said.

Comments are currently closed.