chaturvedi test i paper

8/11/2019 Chaturvedi Test i Paper

1/11

Mukul ChaturvediAssociate Professor

Dept. of EnglishZakir Husain Delhi CollegeUniversity of DelhiIndia

ukul.chaturvedi!outlook.co

Ethical Witnessing: The Poetics and Politics of Testimony

"ecent theoretical revaluations have e#panded the role of testiony $eyond itsdocuentary and legal function and focus on the ethical aspect of survivor testiony.%Aga$en &'''( )elan and *au$ &''+( ,liver +--&( *a Capra +--&/estiony in itsne0 avatar has $een ontologically reconfigured and has $ecoe a useful category tounderstand the silences that structure trauatic events. In the 1age of testiony2 %)elan&''+ and the 1era of the 0itness2 %3ieviorka +--4 there has $een a gro0ing ephasison e#periential kno0ledge and the 0itness has $ecoe a 1key political figure of ourtie.2 %)assin +--5 6y enlarging the notion of testiony $eyond the first7handkno0ledge of the 0itness( the notion of 0itnessing has undergone a radical

transforation. /estiony has $ecoe a odel of crises of representation yet its veryipossi$ility akes $earing 0itness a necessary ethical responsi$ility.

/he literature of testiony has spa0ned in recent ties 8 soe of 0hich arepresented as colla$orative auto$iographies( life 0riting and oral history. *atin Aericantestimoniosthat 0ere recorded during a period of intense social and political ferent in*atin Aerica %&'9-2s( 5-2s and '-2s represent soe of the 0ell7kno0n narratives of0itnessing. Closer hoe( narratives of Dalit 0oen fro India( and 0ritings froconflict :ones in Middle East( Afghanistan and Pakistan 77 Malala ;ousaf:ai andChristina *a$2s(I Am Malala( %+-&


2/11

/he current and gro0ing interest in the practice of testiony has $rought in adifferent perspective to address the episteological and theoretical challenges oftestionial narrative. 3hile the *atin Aerican testionio focuses on the politicaldiensions of testionial 0riting( the discourse on testiony as it has evolved 0ithinthe frae0ork of e0ish Holocaust( highlights the ipossi$ility of speaking a$out

traua and psychological and historical aspects of silence. Aga$en2s 0ork highlightssoe of the ost difficult challenges testiony poses and his forulation points to theipossi$ility of $earing 0itness. According to Aga$en not even the survivor can $ear0itness copletely

/he language of testiony is a language that no longer signifies and that( in notsignifying( advances into 0hat is 0ithout language( to the point of taking on adifferent significance 8 that of the coplete 0itness( that of he 0ho $y definitioncannot $ear 0itness. /o $ear 0itness it is not necessary that this senseless sound$e( in turn( the voice of soething or soeone that( for entirely other reasons(cannot $ear 0itness. It is thus necessary that the ipossi$ility of $earing( the

1lacuna2 that constitutes huan language collapses giving 0ay to a differentipossi$ility to $earing 0itness 8 that 0hich does not have language. %


3/11

argues that to testify( to vo0 to tell the truth is to accoplish a speech act rather tosiply forulate a stateent

/o testify is thus not erely to narrate $ut to coit oneself( and to coit thenarrative to others to take responsi$ility7 in speech7 for history or for the truth of

occurrence( for soething 0hich( $y definition( goes $eyond the personal( inhaving general%non7personalvalidity and conseFuences.% i$id +-

Ho0ever( as )elan points out( 0hat testiony does not offer is a copleteaccount of those events. In the testiony( language is in process and in trial( it does notpossess itself as a conclusion as the constation of a verdict or the self7transparency ofkno0ledge. /estiony is( in other 0ords a discursive practice( as opposed to puretheory.B%i$id G /he task of testiony thus is to open up the $elated 0itness( 0ho thereader no0 historically $ecoes( the iaginative capa$ility of perceiving history7 0hatis happening to others7 in one2s $ody( 0ith the po0er of sight or insight that is usuallyafforded only $y one2s iediate physical involveent.B%i$id 4

In dissociating the idea of 0itnessing fro the concept of an eye0itnesstestiony and that it ust $e e#perienced through a speaking su$>ect( )elanephasi:es the significance of listening to others and akes it crucial to the process of$earing 0itness. )ocusing on the literal( historical and psychoanalytical aspect oftestiony( )elan( *au$ and Cathy Caruth highlight the essential inaccessi$ility oftraua as it effaces voice and eory. /aking the Holocaust as the prototype of thehistorical traua( and its victi as the paradigatic victi( )elan( *au$ and Caruthela$orate a theory of testiony $ased on the crises of 0itnessing. /estiony $ecoes aoral( political and ethical response to the silences and non7languages that constitute thee#tree situations of traua. )or instance looking at the e#perience of individuals 0ho

0ere diagnosed 0ith P/?D after the 3orld 3ar II( Caruth points out that survivors ofviolence are often una$le to e#perience the trauatic event as it occurs( as a atter ofsurvival and often e#perience it $elatedly. Caruth also argues that traua ay not $eassiilated at the tie of occurrence and is usually e#perienced as an afterath inrelation to people( tie( and places other than itself. 3hile Caruth highlights the1inherent $elatedness2 of traua 0hat is interesting in her forulation is the presence ofanother( 0ho 0ill $ecoe a 0itness $y listening to victi of traua. 6y ephasi:ingspeaking and listening fro the site of trauaB( Caruth highlights the dialogic nature oftestiony 0hich has $een ela$orated $y Dori *au$( hiself a child survivor. Dori *au$also notes that Holocaust 0as an 1event2 that produced no 0itnesses at the tie of actualoccurrence and 0itnessing is possi$le only retroactively. He ephasi:es the >ointresponsi$ility of the intervie0er7 listener and the narrator. In fact( according to *au$( thelistener or the intervie0er $ecoes the Holocaust 0itness $efore the narrator does

/o a certain e#tent the intervie0er and listener take on the responsi$ility for$earing 0itness that previously the narrator felt he $ore alone( and therefore couldnot carry it out. It is encounter and the coing together $et0een the survivor andthe listener( 0hich ake possi$le soething like a repossession of the act of0itnessing. /his >oint responsi$ility is the source of the reeerging truth. %5G

In her seinal 0ork on 0itnessing( =elly ,liver( develops an ethics $ased on0itnessing( $y aking it central to the foration of su$>ectivity. ,liver addresses herself

to the dou$le eaning of 0itnessing( as eye0itness testiony $ased on the first7handkno0ledge( and testifying to soething that cannot $e seen( that is $eyond recognition.


4/11

%+--ect inhistory and necessitates the infinite responsi$ility of su$>ectivity. %i$id 4ect. 3itnessing restores $oth the address7a$ility and the response7a$ility and

constitutes su$>ectivity. Addressing particularly the victis of su$ordination(enslaveent and torture( ,liver points out that 0hile oppression daages su$>ectivity(0itnessing offers the possi$ility of restoring it. ,ppression and su$ordination underinethe very possi$ility of su$>ectivity that ust $e revived or reconstructed in order for thesurvivor to $e a$le to act as an agent. Central to the notion of 0itnessing( ho0ever( is thepresence of an addressee as it is ipossi$le to $ear 0itness 0ithout an addressee.Dra0ing attention to0ards the dialogic nature of su$>ectivity that eerges as a result ofthe process of 0itnessing Dori *au$ notes

/he intervie0er 8listener takes on the responsi$ility for $earing 0itness thatpreviously the narrator felt he $ore alone and therefore could not carry out. It is the

encounter and the coing together $et0een the survivor and the listener( 0hichakes possi$le soething like a repossession of the act of 0itnessing ./his >ointresponsi$ility( is the source of the reeerging truth. %&''+ 5G

3itnessing is possi$le only in dialogic relations 0ith the others( and for *au$ theinner 0itnessB is produced and sustained $y dialogic interaction 0ith other people.E#panding *au$2s notion of 1inner 0itness2( ,liver argues that to have a sense of oneselfas a su$>ect develops through address and address7a$ility fro and to others. 3ithoutan e#ternal 0itness( 0e cannot develop or sustain the internal 0itness necessary for thea$ility to interpret and represent our e#perience( 0hich is necessary for su$>ectivity andore essentially for $oth individual and social transforation. /he perforance of

0itnessing restores a sense of agency to the victi $ecause it reesta$lishes the dialoguethrough 0hich representation and there$y eaning are possi$le and $ecause thisrepresentation allo0s the victi to reassert his o0n su$>ective agency and huanity intoan e#perience it 0as annihilated.B %4ective agency into $oth social and psychic life.B%4 Asargued $y ,liver( through the process of $earing 0itness to oppression( those 1othered2can $egin to repair daaged su$>ectivity $y taking up position as 1speaking su$>ects2./he perforative enactent of 0itnessing creates effectsB of truth and transfors thenarrative of the victi to that of an agent. In suggesting that 1response7a$ility2 is centralto 0itnessing( ,liver akes the dynaic of address and response crucial to the forationof the su$>ect. /he perforance of 0itnessing can $e transforative $ecause itreesta$lishes dialogue through 0hich eaning and representation are possi$le ( and$ecause this representation allo0s the victi to reassert his o0n su$>ective agency andhuanity into an e#perience in 0hich it 0as annihilated or reduced to guilt and self 8a$use.B%'


5/11

0itnessing is useful for testionial narrative for it is founded on a dialogical relationship$et0een the 0itness and the addressee.

In esta$lishing the role of testiony $eyond its docuentary and legal functionsand an effort to evolve an ethics $ased on 0itnessing( recent revaluations reconfigure the

episteological challenges of testiony. In dra0ing attention to the silences and non7languages that structure trauatic events( $oth in historical and the psychoanalyticalters these critics of testiony offer copelling arguent a$out engaging 0ithparticular aspects and conditions of traua. /he de$ates on testiony and 0itnessinghave eerged 0ithin the larger discourse of traua as in the late +-thcentury 3esternculture( traua has eerged as a paradigatic discourse for defining the catastrophic(calaitous( or other0ise in>urious( for attri$uting $lae( accounta$ility( and fororgani:ing su$>ectivity and identity.B% Mckinney +4G /he therapeutic effects of thearticulation of trauatic eory have $een su$>ect of uch discussion. /he therapeuticprocess also has iportant political and oral diensions especially 0ith trauaticeory of survivors of genocide( 0ar( and political conflict. Ho0ever( traua2s

essential inaccessi$ility and the ipossi$ility of $earing 0itness to it suffers froliitations 0hen trying to understand situations of collective and personal violence andthe yriad responses that e#ist siultaneously. In 1sacrali:ing2 %*a Capra +-- trauaand endo0ing victis 0ho suffered 0ith a su$lie character there is hardly any roofor iagining possi$ilities 0here task of re$uilding personal and social relationshipsreain in the afterath of occurrence of the trauatic event. Critics of testionytheory as ela$orated in the field of Holocaust studies have pointed to the liitations ofsuch a odel for understanding the presence of violence and atrocities as an ongoingchallenge in various part of the 0orld. /he literature of testiony has gro0n in societiesthat have e#perienced atrocities and large scale huan rights violations.

/estionies that are produced fro 0ithin conflict :ones are not preised on aretroactive response to a situation of e#tree traua. Instead( they deal 0ith prolongedsituations of political violence and atrocities that have disrupted the social and politicalfa$ric of the society. More significantly( they foreground the challenges of re$uildingrelationships in the afterath of violence. /hese narratives ove a0ay fro theparadig of victihood and seek to esta$lish social and political agency and effectchange 0hile Holocaust narratives perceives its audience to have vanishedapocalyptically and e#aines the crises of 0itnessing occasioned $y the e#treesituation of traua. 3hile 0itness voca$ulary is very uch part of the *atin Aericansecular and religious traditions( it seeks to esta$lish agency as an ongoing process ofsocial and political change. )urther( testionio2s call for support and solidarity seeks anaffective response fro its readers. /he trou$le 0ith testionio is that it 0as too readilyappropriated $y the )irst 3orld critics( as reflecting the reality of the /hird 3orld andthe genre found favour( as Jugel$erger >ustly point out( 0hen post structuralis anddeconstruction eroded all hopes of refrentiality in literature.B /he ethodological andtheoretical challenges that affected testionial studies led to reconsideration of thenarrative for.

My purpose is to initiate a productive engageent $et0een the t0o odes of0itnessing since their critical discourses have $egun to infor each other. Interestingly(literature fro ?outhern Cone( especially Argentina( 0hich focuses on the e0ish

e#perience of atrocities as is evident in the 0orks of Alicia Partnoy( Alicia =o:aeh(aco$o /ieran( and Kora ?tre>ilevich echo a siilar voca$ulary as that of Holocaust


6/11

0riting. /he ter 1Kever Again2 a dictu of the Holocaust( recurs often in relation to theatrocities that 0ere coitted in the dictatorship period in Argentina. /he pedagogicaland ethical iplications of ree$rance resonate 0ith the ephasis on eory inHolocaust 0riting. Until recently testionio 0as read ore as third 0orld literature(narrative of resistance and su$altern literature $ut 0as often arginali:ed 0ithin the

theoretical discussions on 0itnessing. 3ith the eergence of the 1era of the 0itness2( inthe 1age of testiony2( I 0ish to e#plore testionio 0ithin the larger theoreticaldiscourse and politics of testiony. /he pro$le of representation in testionio does nothave to contend 0ith >ust episteological challenges $ut 0ith ethical dileas since it istied to the production of kno0ledge and po0er. /he trou$le 0ith testionio is that it2sultidiensionality and slippery generic location point to the liitation of a singulartheoretical odel to understand the construction of agency of 0oen. /heoreticalinsights fro recent 0ork on traua( testiony and 0itnessing can assist in clearerarticulation of the testionio2s pro>ect of esta$lishing agency of 0oen.

Kot0ithstanding the larger political and theoretical frae0ork 0ithin 0hich

these different theories of 0itnessing eerged( y contention is that they forulate anethics $ased on 0itnessing though to0ards very different end. /estionio seeksintervention( calls for an affective response( links process of 0itnessing to Fuestions ofacceptance and >ustice and 0ants to effect political change. 3hile testionio alsoeerges fro situations of social and cultural traua( 0hat distinguishes it fro othernarratives of historical traua is the teporal distinction $et0een the t0o discourses./he narrative of historical traua is oriented ore to0ards the past( and as Caruth hashighlighted( it is $ased on a retroactive response to traua. /estionio is oriented oreto0ards the present( $y influencing the reader to act and calls for a change. As =i$erlyKance points out( As part of a social pro>ect( testionio is ... La atter of speaking ofone2s suffering in such a 0ay that readers 0ill $e induced to act against the in>ustice ofit.B%+--& '- According to Kance( testionio speakers declare ephatically that theirpro>ects neither end 0ith the production of the te#t nor even 0ith its enthusiasticreception. Instead( they descri$e the te#ts as interediate steps in a process directedto0ard producing change in the life 0orld.B%& /he iediacy and urgency oftestionio akes it a vehicle for social change and it is this Fuality that sets aparttestionio fro narratives of historical traua. /he 0itness of the testionio esta$lishesher authority as 1episteic2 0itness 0ho is speaking on $ehalf of her people( telling the0orld a$out the 1reality2 of her country and in doing so( solicits support and solidarity.More significantly( the narrative calls for response fro its audience and asks the totake a political stand. Anne Cu$ilie rightly points out that testiony and the

responsi$ility of >ustice and ethics are not >ust a$out ipossi$ility they are also a$out0hat 0e are 0illing to do as 0itnesses to 0itnesses.B %


7/11

testionio calls for a critical engageent and political response. More significantly(testionio does not seek epathy and identification as uch as it calls for solidarity andaction. /estionial narrative is not preised on a retroactive response to traua( rathertestiony $ecoes an event in 0hich the responsi$ility of the 0itness is at play.

/hough testionio deands a fair share of cognitive truth( in its act of testifyingto a historical and political reality( accuracy cannot $e a criterion for such truth. /henarratives are in the for of an ethical address to the readers( asking the to take a standagainst in>ustice. /he ethics of 0itnessing in these narratives has a counal diensionand it seeks to raise consciousness of the reader $y e#ploiting the po0er of the 0ord asPaulo )reire puts it( 1the right to sa$ his o%n %ord, to name the %orld&. Dra0ing on therecent thought of $earing 0itness to historical traua the paper has argued that theperforative enactent of 0itnessing creates 1effects2 of truth and transfors thenarrative of the victi into that of an agent. Moving a0ay fro the pro$les of veracity(y purpose is to foreground 0itnessing as an alternative that restores $oth dignity andhuanity to the su$altern 0oan and constitutes agency. Instead of roantici:ing

su$altern resistance and ideali:ing it is ore re0arding to analy:e ho0 0itnessingrestores the fractured su$>ectivity and prepares the su$>ect for political action.


8/11

"eferences

Adler( onathan.E( N/estiony( /rust and =no0ing1( /he ournal of Philosophy(Oolue '& Ko. G( May &''

Adorno( /heodor 3. Coitent. In The ssential Fran(furt )"hool *eader ed.Andre0 Arat and Eike Je$hardt Ke0 ;ork Continuu( &'5+.


9/11

6au( "Never to forget: #edagogi"al memor$ and se"ond generation %itness7 In ". I.?ion( ?. "osen$erg( T C. Eppert Eds. 8et%een ho#e and des#air: #edagog$ and theremem5ran"e of histori"al trauma, Maryland "o0an and *ittlefield. +---.

6ecket( erey Auto5iogra#hi"al and testimonial dis"ourse in M$les Lalor 9oralhistor$7 inTelling )tories: Indigenous histor$ and memor$ in Australia and Ne% ealand-Ed. 6ain At0ood and )iona Mago0an Cro01s Kest Allen and Un0in +--&.

6enayor( ". NTestimon$, a"tion resear"h, and em#o%erment: /uerto *i"an %omenand #o#ular edu"ation7. In ?.6. Jluck T D. Patai %Eds.( Women7s %ords: The feminist

#ra"ti"e of oral histor$ %pp.&G'8&9. Ke0 ;ork "outledge&''&.

6ernard7Donals( Michael and "ichard Jle>:er. Witnessing the Disaster: ssa$s on*e#resentation and the Holo"aust. Madison U of 3isconsin P( +--


10/11

)elan( ?hoshana and Dori *au$. Testimon$: 0rises of Witnessing in Literature,/s$"hoanal$sis, and Histor$ .Ke0 ;ork and *ondon "outledge.&''+.

)reire( Paulo(/edagog$ of the O##ressed %trans( Myra 6ergan "aos. Penguin Education.&'9+.

Jivoni( Michal( S3itnessing@/estionyS(Mafte'a(h +( +-&& &97&4'

Jluck( ?. 6.( T Patai( D. %Eds. Women7s %ords: The feminist #ra"ti"e of oral histor$.Ke0 ;ork "outledge. %&''&

Jold$erg( Eli:a$eth ?0anson. 8e$ond Terror: =ender, Narrative Human *ights "utgersUniversity Press( +--9.

=ay ?haffer and ?idonie ?ith(Human *ights and Narrated Lives: the ethi"s of

re"ognition Ke0 ;ork Palgrave Macillan( +--.

=elly( ,liver Witnessing: 8e$ond *e"ognition Minneapolis and *ondon University ofMinnesota Press( +--&.

=i$erley( Kance(Disarming Testimon$: )#ea(ers *esistan"e to readers Testimonio(8iogra#h$, une +--&

*a Capra( Doinick Writing Histor$, Writing Trauma %6altiore( Maryland ohnHopkins University Press( +--&

*aCapra( Doinick NHolo"aust Testimonies: Attending to the 4i"tims 4oi"e7 in Moishe Postoneand Eric ?antner ed. The Holo"aust and the T%entieth 0entur$.University of ChicagoPress.+--


11/11

chaturvedi test i paper

Documents