The Courage to Heal and Memories of Abuse

PAGE 2 OF 2

 
Points about the force with which perpetrators deny crimes (and the social
support for them) are well-taken.
 
Yet I am disturbed by the quickness with which commitments to reason, due
process and even attempts at objectivity are tossed by some feminists when
this issue comes up.  I would think a class that covers child sexual abuse
would have to, in all responsibility, at least analyze at the recent witch
hunts of daycare providers.  What are the socio-political anxieties that go
into such hysteria, and what might have they to do with feminism?
 
The argument that a woman or young girl would never claim to have been
abused when she wasn't (because of all the suffering entailed in making
that claim) seems based on an idealized view that because women/girls are
subject to patriarchy, they (we) never do twisted or misguided things.
 
And yet we do.   Suffering does not ennoble.  Living with patriarchy does
not mean our s---t doesn't stink.  "Survivorship"of anything at all does
not confer automatic moral authority.  No suffering is so sacrosanct that
it should not be carefully queried when publically claimed -- particularly
in regards to the law, which is a rationalist discourse.  And sorry, I just
don't buy the implication that rationality and objectivity are just male
constructs and we should give them up.
 
And this is not a cruel, unfeeling argument.  What I am saying is that we
should care about justice SO MUCH that we want to bring ALL OUR
INTELLIGENCE to the matter of abuse claims, instead of being swept away
into group hysteria.  The hardest thing about this issue is that in the
midst of all the difficulty about getting convictions for actual
perpetrations, there are also plenty of charltans in the mental health
field (women among them, folks) who are anxious to "save" patients from
their remembered abuse, write their books, get on the lecture circuit, and
do the Oprah show.  THAT'S why I am in favor of keep skepticism, care,
ethics and analysis as part of this debate.

 
    I am one who has been "in recovery" from repressed memories of sexual abuse
for about 6 years. now. My mother first supported my claim by saying "I always
knew your father was a sex maniac, I just never thought he'd hurt you
childen," and then a few months later joined the False Memory Syndrome
Foundation. It is now impossible for me to talk to her about anything. Thanks
to the FMS Foundation I have lost a mother who originally supported me, and
she holds steadfastly to her denial. She has also been trying to manipulate my
brothers and my sister. Interestingly, although my sister has no specific
memories herself (she, like me, has a big blank canvas where our childhood
memories should be), she supports me completely in this, while my brothers are
on my mother's side. (My father has been dead 22 years).
 
Although I am sure that there are people who have "false memories," I am also
emphatically certain that the FMS foundation is not interested in truths. They
do not allow for the possibility that the abuse happened; they just assume
that the memories are false, and provide support on that basis.  In this way
they are no more reputable than the incompetent therapists who supposedly
indoctrinate their patients with false memories.
 
My belief in my memories stems from the bodily response I had to them--a
bodily response that remains regardless of how much time passes. As I wrote to
my brother:  "...this is not a legal issue. The "proof" does not come by
factual evidence. Rather, the proof is in what the body does; by the body
shaking and sobbing when the images come; by the bone-chilling scream that
comes from so deep insyou wake up believing that the perpetrator stands
directly above you, and you are so certain of that presence, even upon waking,
that you thrash against him and feel his body resist though you slash at the
air. Such evidence would never "stand up in court," but no one is on trial. It
is evidence enough that, as I gradually remember and face the truth, I
heal...."
 
People who think legalistically and "scientifically" about the process of
healing lack the necessary framework for listening to the narratives of the
victims. Whether or not the victims were male or female, or the perpetrators
were male or female, those who insist upon the kind of factual evidence that
stands up in court cannot comprehend nor adequately respond to the emotional
validity of victims' pain.
 
*THAT* is why this is an issue of gender and patriarchy. Emotions have no
place in science, yet deep emotions are the very core of the experience of the
victim/survivor (as well as the perpetrators). Emotions, in western
patriarchal ideology, are feminine. They *don't* stand up in court. They do
not provide adequate *testi-mony."
 
Georgia NeSmith
gnesmith  @  aol.com

 
At 03:54 PM 17-06-98 +0100, you wrote:
>I have been interested in/bothered by this subject for a long time.  Though
>it may be the psych community that brought sexual abuse into the public,
>its disciplinary emphasis on subjectivity and personal healing has made it
>difficult to HAVE political discourse about sexual violence.
>
 
It was not the "psych community" that brought sexual abuse to public
attention. It was grassroots feminists in consciousness raising groups,
then hotlines, battered women's shelters, and rape crisis centers. In my
experience the science and practice of psychology has lagged behind the
frontline activists and service providers in uncovering, understanding and
helping victims of sexual assault and abuse.
 
Since this is the case we probably should turn to them to ask the questions
about credibility, integrity of memories, and the impact of sexual trauma
on women and children. It certainly makes no sense to turn to groups like
the False Memory Foundation, which was founded by accused perpetrators.
 
It was political action by feminists in the community that brought these
harms to the public's attention, not the mainstream research or clinical
psychologists. Certainly academic researchers (such as Judith Herman and
Mary Koss) have contributed important research and analysis to our
understanding of sexual violence, but for sharp political and insightful
analysis of what is going on today (like claims of false memory) I suggest
you talk to community activists or service providers for information to
help you sort out controversies.
 
Donna Hughes
dhughes  @  uriacc.uri.edu

 
The original post that stimulated the debate about _The Courage to Heal_
requested citations for feminist analyses of rape. I'm not sure if these have
been posted before, but here are a few off my bookshelf:
 
The Female Fear: The Social Cost of Rape
Margaret T. Gordon and Stephanie Riger
 
Rape: An Historical and Social Enquiry
eds. Sylvana Tomaselli and Roy Porter
 
Transforming a Rape Culture
eds. Emilie Buchwald, Pamela R. Fletcher, and Martha Roth
 
I should note however-- to the writer who requested such books for his
girlfriend-- feminist analyses are great for helping victims understand the
wider culture in which rape is not only possible but is part of the very
fabric of the social order. However,  intellectualizing pain does not help the
healing. The problem with non-feminist therapy isn't the work that is done
with the individual, but the failure  of the therapy to connect one's
experience to that social order and to encourage movement into social action.
There is no substitute for individual and group therapy on this. One needs a
safe context in which to speak, to give voice to, the depth and breadth of the
damage that was done to the psyche. I have benefited personally from the more
traditional therapies. It's not what they do that's the problem. It's what
they don't do. And it is easier to supply the intellectual analysis on one's
own than it is to heal from the emotional trauma in isolation.
 
Georgia NeSmith
gnesmith  @  aol.com

 
To claim that those who think legalistically and scientifically don't have
the right framework for comprehending sexual violence is only to prove the
point I am trying to make, which is that legal discourse about sexual
violence has to be transformed.  We don't do this just  by constantly doing
the victim testimony and crying "You just don't understand," but by going
on from there to applying many different analytic lenses to experiences for
the purpose of transforming the public sphere.
 
Individuals must themselves decide whether to seek legal justice for the
wrongs done them.  If they do, if behooves them to think seriously about
how/whether their claims will do in court, and how legal discourse can be
used/transformed.
 
 Controversy about False Memory folks does not negate the ways in which
fear about sexual abuse has been exploited by people who have committed
purges of entire staffs of daycare centers.  These miscarriages of justice
are deeply urgent issues that need feminist attention just as much as any
sexual abuse survivor needs emotional healing.
 
If there is no balance, if we constantly react to thise issue with only own
own personal experiences and emotions, if we not only heal through emotions
but let them lead us around by the noses, we end up with these Kakfa-esque
situations in which the guilt of the accused is not even so much assumed as
assigned -- because people are in deep pain, and need a scapegoat.
 
Even in the depths of the most horrifying experiences, or re-experiences,
we are still accountable adults.  No amount or severity of trauma ever
EXEMPTS US AS FEMINISTS from considering matters of justice carefully.
 
I guess it comes down to focus -- what are you after?  Personal, emotional
healing, or justice?  Both?  Different discourses serve different ends.
Justice is a LEGAL, PUBLIC discourse.  Justice is what I am committed to as
a feminist.
 
Pamela Kemner
Center for Women's Studies

 
A colleague of mine at Ben Gurion University asked that I forward the
following to the list. Please address all comments to him.
 

 
Dear Naomi,
Please feel free to forward this to whomever you wish.  I have noticed
that whenever I discuss sexual abuse of children or domestic violence or
rape inevitably someone responds by saying that he/she thinks that all of
these issues are simply examples of false memory. It seems to me that the
cliche of false memory and the knee-jerk response of "false memory" to any
discussion of childhood sexual abuse is just another example of a
well-known psychological process called denial. There is a tendency,
especially among the emotionally immature (a great many adults over the
age of 40 are included in this) to deny the existene of any unpleasant
phenomena over which we have no control.  A former student of mine from
the Chicago area reported to me in the last days the hostility with which
she is met now with respect to the possibility that she may have cancer.
She is told, "If you do not make your mind overcome this, you will lose
control over your immune system and your death will be all your own
fault." Some 20 years ago she gave birth to a Downes Syndrome child and
the very obvious fact of his not being "normal" was likewise met with
denial and hostility. You must know that when my late wife was dying from
pancreatic cancer she received in the mail a series of books whose basic
message was that if you think positively you can turn on your immune
system and get well; the clear message is that if the patient dies it is
the patient's fault.  Thus we eliminate by denial all unpleasant things
over which we have no control.  Or I have a friend whose daughter was born
hearing impaired. Any number of people have tried physically to remove the
child's hearing aid so as to eliminate the unpleasant reality! I suggest
that people who really believe that childhood sexual abuse is simply the
product of overeager psychologists putting it into their heads or the
result of the person's having read The Courage to Heal I suggest that they
look into the medical literature in the field of pediatric gynecology and
see that sexual abuse of little girls under the age of 3 is a reality
which often but not always leaves physical evidence.You can open up the
Medline Data Base at your nearby medical school library and look up the
subject hymen (I recommend doing it before rather than after lunch unless
you have a very strong stomach!) or browse through such medical journals
as Pediatrics, Journal of Pediatrics, Pediatric & Adolescent Gynecology,
etc. etc. What a number of physicians have done is to compile data bases
of photographs of the genitalia of a control group of little girls who are
believed not to have been abused so that physicians can learn the
difference between the intact hymen and one that has healed itself after
having been ruptured by a finger, object or penis. Now of course it is
possible that some of these little girls may have been precocious. They
learned how to read. They climbed up on the sofa and reached for their
Mother's copy of OUR BODIES OURSELVES opened it up to the page on
masturbation, stuck in a banana etc. But it is more likely that some sicko
man had his hand or some other part of his body in the honey jar. I got
interested in this subject because I was trying to understand several
passages in a 3d century A.D. Jewish Law Code called Mishnah which takes
it for granted that girls under the age of three are penetrated by men and
their hymens heal. The Mishnah, I assure you, did not get this idea from a
psychologist/hypnotist or from reading THE COURAGE TO HEAL!  The reason I
do not think that most of the victims under the age of 3 used a banana is
a scientific principle called the law of parsimony.
 
Let us just say a little prayer for these people who believe that
pyschologists put it all into someone's head. It is the prayer of Jesus of
Nazareth on the Cross: "Father, forgive them for they know not what they
do."
 
Mayer Gruber, Rabbi, Ph.D., Litt.H.D (honoris causa), Assoc. Prof., Dept.
of Bible & Ancient Near East, Ben-Gurion University of the Negev,
Beersheva, Israel

I've compiled a pretty thorough list of feminist writings on violence,
including sexual assault/rape/child sexual assault etc, in The Men's
Bibliography (despite its title!). You can find these in the section on
"Violence", at:
http://online.anu.edu.au/~e900392/mensbiblio/MensBiblioMenu.html
 
There's also a section on "Counselling or healing for survivors of
abuse/violence in particular", in the section on "Counselling and therapy".
 
Cheers,
 
michael flood.
 
michael flood.
 
E-mail: Michael Flood <michael.flood  @  anu.edu.au>
Phone: [02] 6279 8468 (w). PO Box 26, Ainslie ACT, 2602, AUSTRALIA.
 
-- XY magazine: http://www.spirit.com.au/gerry/XY/xyf.htm
(e-mail: (Ben Wadham) postmod  @  box.net.au )
-- The men's bibliography:
http://online.anu.edu.au/~e900392/mensbiblio/MensBiblioMenu.html
-- Pro-feminist men's FAQ: http://www.spirit.com.au/gerry/profem.html
-- Pro-feminist men's mail list: http://coombs.anu.edu.au/~gorkin/profem.html
-- Women's Studies Web Page: http://www.anu.edu.au/womens_studies/
-- Homophobia and masculinities among young men (Lessons in becoming a
straight man): http://online.anu.edu.au/~e900392/homophobia.html

>Emotions have no
>place in science, yet deep emotions are the very core of the experience of the
>victim/survivor (as well as the perpetrators). Emotions, in western
>patriarchal ideology, are feminine. They *don't* stand up in court. They do
>not provide adequate *testi-mony."
 
I know that this thread is calming down, but I've been unavailble and so
couldn't respond until now.  I want to disagree with the statement that
emotions  have no place in science - of course they do!  They have the same
place that they have in history, and in art, and in whatever a person does.
I am of the opinion, after much studying and reading on the topic, that
objectivity is not to be completely thrown away in *any* area - but if one
is to be as objective as possible, one must admit that true objectivity is
impossible.  In short, one comes the closest to eliminating bias by
admitting and facing one's own biases.
 
Why is this important?  It seems to me that this debate has shown rather
clearly the problems that a discussion gets into when people's buttons are
pushed.  Yes, there are survivors of abuse, some of whom didn't remember
that abuse until later in their lives.  And they need to be listened to.
Yes, there are people who have "remembered" things that didn't actually
happen.  The destruction that has happened to other people because of those
"memories" has been substantial.  So how do we sort all this out?  The
people who want to believe all recovered memories are false need to
acknowledge that desire, and recognize the impact that desire can have on
their listening.  The people who wish to believe that all recovered
memories are true need to do the same.  By acknowledging how our desires
can affect our perception (and our brains), we can be most able to truly
hear what is being said.
 
Back to science.  This is one of the critiques of objectivity that has the
most resonance to me.  There are tons of exapmles of science that was done
in order to advance certain points of view.  That doesn't mean all science
is bad.  It doesn't even mean that all the science that was done with those
biases in mind was bad.  It means that science needs to be looked at as
critically as any other subject.  It also means that you *can* be a
feminist and do science, and that it doesn't even involve splitting
yourself into two pieces.
 
Sorry if I'm being incoherent.  I've spent the last 3 days reading student
application files.  My brain is approaching the mush stage.
--Liz
 
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
% Elizabeth McMahon, Department of Mathematics            %
% Lafayette College, Easton, PA 18042-1781                %
% 610-250-5274                                            %
% mcmahone  @  lafayette.edu                   %
%                              %
% Where are we going?  And what's with this handbasket?   %
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

On Thu, 18 Jun 1998, Liz McMahon wrote:
>
> I am of the opinion, after much studying and reading on the topic, that
> objectivity is not to be completely thrown away in *any* area - but if one
> is to be as objective as possible, one must admit that true objectivity is
> impossible.  In short, one comes the closest to eliminating bias by
> admitting and facing one's own biases.
>
Of course science is not emotion-free.  Most great work is motivated by
passion, even if the day-to-day effort is somewhat dull.  Diseases would
never get cured if nobody felt deeply the need to cure them.
 
  What matters is not scientists' passion, but the veracity of their
results, which may or may not line up with their beliefs.  I have the
greatest respect for those thinkers who set out with a hypotheses,
especially on an important matter, and can own up to the recognition that
they were wrong, or that the situation is more complex than they at first
believed.
 
As for biases, the best thing a researcher can do is to be extra alert for
all evidence that does NOT fit his or her point of view.  That false
memories occur does not mean real abuse does not, and vice versa.  "Not
all X is Y" is very different from "All X is not Y," though a lot of
people get these propositions mixed up.
 
 
Marc Sacks
msacks  @  world.std.com

In a message dated 6/18/98 3:27:38 PM, Liz McMahon wrote:
 
<<I want to disagree with the statement that
emotions  have no place in science - of course they do!  They have the same
place that they have in history, and in art, and in whatever a person does.
I am of the opinion, after much studying and reading on the topic, that
objectivity is not to be completely thrown away in *any* area - but if one
is to be as objective as possible, one must admit that true objectivity is
impossible.  In short, one comes the closest to eliminating bias by
admitting and facing one's own biases.>>
 
I just want to clarify that when I said "emotions have no place in science," I
was speaking ironically. That's a rule with which nearly all young scientists
are indoctrinated; it doesn't mean that emotions are not truly involved. I
become aware, again and again, of how that rule is still dogmatically taught,
when I am teaching myself. Particularly (but not only) when I am teaching
science students!
 
Georgia NeSmith
gnesmith  @  aol.com

I agrNote the difference between the term "recovered memory" and "false
memory syndrome", especially the term "syndrome, which implies illness.
There is both anecdotal and empirical evidence for the former.  The alleged
empirical evidence for the latter is  the result of implanting memories NOT
of sexual assault/incest (incest is sexual assault) but of being lost in a
shopping center etc.  I agree with Sacco's comments.  In whose interest is
it to perpetrate this  view which invalidates so many true reports.  I will
present one anecdote about  a research assistant of mine and a reference to
empirical data.
 
  When my assistant was working on my rape data she suddently remembered her
incest by her grandfather, and understood why she felt ill every time she
smelled paint.  He had incested her while painting the kitchen and she was
"deaf" for a year afterwards and didn't go to school.  She joined a
survivors group and was told she had to confront her mother (her grandfather
had committed suicide shortely after and her father was dead).  Her mother
said "I'M SO RELIEVED. I THOUGHT IT WAS YOUR FATHER."  Her mother had heard
the discussions of incest on television and realized that her daughter was
abused because she had classic symptoms.  She just didn't know what it was.
Additionally her husband seemed to be trying to tell her something before he
died , but didn't.  He must have known.  Her grandmother knew because she
threw her husband out of the house, after which he suicided.
 
BUT my student, THE VICTIM, did not know, until when working on sexual abuse
the memories returned.  Additionally another acquaintance remembered her
incest while working on law cases concerning violence against women.
 
Concerning the empirical evidence, prominant social psychologist Nancy
Henley, reports a study done in which the researcher examined old newspaper
reports of incest.  She then traced the victims named, and they didn't
remember the incidents.  I just called Nancy to obtain the name of the
researcher, but she is not in.  The Dept. of Psychology at UCLA will have
her Email number.  If she calls me with the name before I logoff I'll supply
it.  Furthermore psychologist Ken Polk has cited many such studies,
Remember CUI Bono.  We don't benefit, but perpetrators do.  And psychiatrist
Judith Herman, whose work "Father Daughter Incest" and the subsequant Trauma
and Survival (?), and who has dealt with many incested girls and women over
the past twenty years (her original article, not the book, was in Signs,
their first year-the black covered issues), strongly believes in recovered
memories.
 
Surely SOME memories are recovered.  BUt the members of the foundation deny
that any memories are.  That feminists  believe in the "false memory
syndrome" does not surprise me, given that some feminists believe that
pornography  enhances female sexuality and that prostitution is merely "sex
work".
 
Pauline B. Bart    pbart  @  ucla.edu
(revised version of a Yiddish proverb) It is better for a person never to
have been born at all, but not one woman in 10,000 has such good fortune.
Pauline B. Bart  pbart  @  ucla.edu

At 02:20 PM 6/17/98 EDT, you wrote:
>The conversation on the list about the issues of childhood sexual abuse and
>ritual sexual abuse of women raised questions for me about what happens in
>women's studies classes about these topics.
>
>
>Mary Rose McCarthy
>mrm  @  acsu.buffalo.edu
>
>The writer asks how we addressed the issue in our classes. First, on the
anonymous questionnaire I hand out at the beginning of the class, listing
the various injuries the students have experienced e/g rape, battery, forced
pornography, incest, etc.  I read the results.  There are always students
who have been incested.  I present the data to the class so they learn they
are never "the only one who ever...".  Students then come to my office hours
or after the class and tell me about their experiences.  I give them books
to read and referral sources.  I listen carefully and sympathetically, but
do NOT interpret, since I am not a therapist.  Neither do I ever negate
their experiences.  I have my classes read Judith Herman's work in an
abridged version, and some personal accounts in the literature.
Pauline B. Bart   pbart  @  ucla.edu
(revised version of a Yiddish proverb) It is better for a person never to
have been born at all, but not one woman in 10,000 has such good fortune.
Pauline B. Bart  pbart  @  ucla.edu

At 03:54 PM 6/17/98 +0100, you wrote:
>Pamela Kemner has questioned re law and analytic thinking on the one hand
and epxerience on the other.  Feminist jurisprudence, an approach used by
feminist law professors deals with the issue.  I suggest "Cases and
Materials in Feminist Jurisprudence: Taking Women Seriously" ed. Becker
Mary, et. al , Westlaw. to see how look at sexual violence in particular,
but many issues in women's lives.
 
In my experience law is not the same as analysis.  What one can learn from
an analysis (logical analysis not psychoanalysis obviously) in NOT the same
as what can be proven in court to judges.  I studied the Illinois Sexual
Assault Statute and the court cases after the law was passed dealing with
acquaintance rape.  Almost no acquantance rape cases even made it to court,
much less were adjudicated such that the offender was found guilty.  That
was because the cases were perceived as unwinnable by prosecutors, a judge
in "violence court", never found probably cause in such cases, and juries
had difficulty believing one could be raped by one's date, friend. etc.  I
could analyze the cases.  I could interview the women.  I have an analytic
framework.  Its not analytic frames of reference vs. experiential data.  One
can analytically analyze experiential data, as I have in a number of my
articles on violence against women .
I haven't yet written up the Illinois data.  Its too depressing, so don't
write asking me for it.  One day I will, unless someone is willing to hold
my hand, symbolically, while I write it up.
 
In teaching however, one must accept the students' experiential knowledge of
abuse.  When I male student in my class questioned the students experiences
critically, the students stopped speaking, and in some cases, coming to class.
Teaching is different from research in strategies and effectiveness.
 
I would rather err on the side of believing the woman, than on the side of
not doing so.  Its a Type I vs. Type II error for those who think in those
terms.\
Pauline B. Bart     pbart  @  ucla.edu
(revised version of a Yiddish proverb) It is better for a person never to
have been born at all, but not one woman in 10,000 has such good fortune.
Pauline B. Bart  pbart  @  ucla.edu

In absence of jurisprudence which represents them, sexual abuse survivors
seem to have created a culture of public revelation in which they are
putting the issues of abuse and whatnot "in everybody's face."  But what's
the purpose?  Consciousness raising?  Catharsis?  I really saw this going
on in the late eighties/early nineties when the recovery movement was in
full swing.  The cathartic or affirming affect of telling one's story to a
group of total strangers -- on email lists, on talk shows, whatever -- has
always escaped me.  How can you really feel "heard" by strangers?  How can
affirmation go on in absence of intimacy?  I for one would feel like I was
talking into a vaccuum.  But maybe this is just part of the postmodern age
-- everyone is free to be a total individual, doing "whatever they need to
do to take care of themselves," but partly because public bonds are so
superficial.
 
A lot of the info in testimonies about abuse is so sensitive that it
warrants only the engaged, unconditionally accepting listening of
client-centered therapy.  But most situations in life are not therapy --
unless every time you do your testimony you want to pay people to listen to
you.  It puts people in awkward situations in any public climate --
classrooms, email lists, community meetings, etc.  There's no way to apply
an engaged, analytical lens without seeming insensitive.
 
This is why I don't encourage students to go into intense detail about
experience in class. If the info gets too sensitive, it just puts everyone
else into the position of shrink.   In class, which is a public, academic
setting, not therapy, we're not there to all be "unconditionally affirmed."
We're there to apply analysis.  Experience should be used as an
epistemologic tool.
 
I'm concerned about the pathologizing of survivors.  I'm concerned about a
hyper-psychologized culture of women's suffering that does not encourage
women to move beyond their own personal, subjective experiences.  It looks
too much like the nineteenth century white middle class Victorian cult of
female frailty to me.  I get a bit weary of people arguing points only on
the basis of experience.  The problem with arguing with anecdote is that
there's always a contrasting anecdote out there that some one else can come
up with, and everything can quickly disintegrate into "is not!"  "is too!"
which is exactly what's just happened with this false memory issue.
 
I'm a teacher, not a shrink.  At the risk of sounding brutal, I have to
say, leave it to the $90-120 per fifty minute therapists to do
unconditional listening.  I want to teach my students to be smart feminists.
 
 
Pamela Kemner
Center for Women's Studies

I'd like to interpolate some responses to pamela kemner's recent post,
because she expresses views I've heard before and thought about.
 
On Fri, 19 Jun 1998, pamela kemner wrote:
 
> In absence of jurisprudence which represents them, sexual abuse survivors
> seem to have created a culture of public revelation in which they are
> putting the issues of abuse and whatnot "in everybody's face."  But what's
> the purpose?  Consciousness raising?  Catharsis?
 
I don't think testifying to and bearing witness to
atrocities and systematically-inflicted traumas is just a way to
compensate for the failures of the legal system. According to
Judith Hermann, one of the profoundest needs of survivors of violent
trauma is to be reassured that what was done to them is unequivocally
abhorrent to their community. Unfortunately, incest survivors in our
culture have the extra burden of finding--or in some cases creating--a
community willing and able to listen, because the still-dominant tendency
in our society is denial.  To put it bluntly, there IS no community. "All
victims of incest have, by definition, been taught that the
strong can do as they please, without regard for convention...Re-education
is often indicated, pertaining to what is typical, average, wholesome, and
'normal' in the intimate life of ordinary people." (psychiatrist Michael
Stone, quoted by Hermann, Trauma and Recovery). Unfortunately,
our society itself needs to be massively re-educated about violence in
all its forms, and until our society is thus re-educated, it cannot--or
will not--provide what the survivors need. And we will all be confronted
over and over again with the fact that something is needed that is not
there and will not be there until we--survivors and witnesses
alike--CREATE it.
 
 
> I really saw this going
> on in the late eighties/early nineties when the recovery movement was in
> full swing.  The cathartic or affirming affect of telling one's story to a
> group of total strangers -- on email lists, on talk shows, whatever -- has
> always escaped me.
 
 
The problem, in my opinion, is that the community response that should be
there is not. So survivors of violent trauma are forced to create or find
an alternative way to communicate with a society that doesn't want to
listen. That is already an unnecessary extra burden to place on the
backs of survivors. Then, adding insult to injury, the outlets found
or resourcefully created by survivors are denigrated and stigmatized.
The public response to domestic violence was once similar. The
general public once greeted domestic violence with a deafening silence,
creating an implicit community concensus that dv did not warrent community
concern or intervention. I think the tide has turned on that issue, and
eventually (soon, I hope!) there will be a critical mass of people who can
counterbalance the reigning societal tendencies toward denial and
victim-blaming in the matter of incest.
 
 
> A lot of the info in testimonies about abuse is so sensitive that it
> warrants only the engaged, unconditionally accepting listening of
> client-centered therapy.  But most situations in life are not therapy --
> unless every time you do your testimony you want to pay people to listen to
> you.  It puts people in awkward situations in any public climate --
> classrooms, email lists, community meetings, etc.  There's no way to apply
> an engaged, analytical lens without seeming insensitive.
>
 
People whose lives have not been directly touched by violent trauma find
it hard to understand that we all (at least potentially) have a role to
play in making recovery possible for survivors and in opposing societal
tendencies that make recovery unnecessarily difficult. Our society does
not teach us how to play the role of witness. In fact, I'd say our society
actively distorts whatever intuitive responses we still have left. Many
people do not even know what to say to someone mourning the death of a
traditional partner, let alone what to say to someone coping with
recovered memories of incest. Consequently, many people feel
uncomfortable, helpless or guilty when faced with a situation that places
them in the role of witness--a role that makes their repertoire of social
and intellectual responses seem painfully inadequate. This will continue
until we learn how to respond, which we can only do by listening.
 
> I'm a teacher, not a shrink.  At the risk of sounding brutal, I have to
> say, leave it to the $90-120 per fifty minute therapists to do
> unconditional listening.  I want to teach my students to be smart feminists.
 
In my opinion, the "leave it to the shrinks" approach expresses the
frustration of people adrift in a society offers no adequate model of how
to respond to the testimonies of incest survivors. One of the worst things
about such frustration is that it can lead to anger and victim-blaming
("Just go away! I don't know what to do, so I just don't want to hear
about it!") Many smart feminists are trying to think and feel their way to
better responses that could be mutually healing.
 
    Leah Ulansey
    leou  @  jhunix.hcf.jhu.edu

I allow students in women's studies classes to talk about their abusive
experiences.  It's never turned into therapy.  Rather, it encourages other
students to talk about their experiences and allows students to see that
they are not alone, that they are not the cause of their abuse, and to
come to understand how patriarchy thrives under conditions of
silence--when the political is taken to be the personal.  I find it is
only when students bring their own experiences to the class that the
students begin to understand patriarchy and feminism.
 
Arnie
 
--
Arnie Kahn              Day 540-568-3963    Night 540-434-0225   Fax
 540-568-3322
kahnas  @  jmu.edu    Dept. of Psych., James Madison U., Harrisonburg, VA 22807

I find these arguments interesting.  So academia becomes part of abuse
survivors' attempts to create a culture of resistance to abuse.  I like the
idea of witnessing as a political tool for change.  here are the dilemmas I
see brought up:
 
When the emphasis is on talk for personal healing, how does public talk get
transformed to public action -- ie political CHANGE?  The therapeutic model
implies talking is enough.  Yet as this debate has shown, the talking cure
in FAR from enough.  I am concerned that what gets lost -- in classes or
other public forums -- is the turning from individual stories to
commitments to change.
 
Any feminist analysis of incest/sexual abuse STILL has to, in my view,
consider cases of wrongful accusation.  Ironic but appropriate that on the
news today was the attempt of accused sexual abusers who had been acquitted
in Wetachee (sp?) WA to seek civil redress for their persecution.  They
were ministers/Sunday school teachers at a Pentecostal church.  Their lives
had been destroyed by the witch hunts in their town -- instigated, by the
way, by a male law official.
 
So -- if we witness to the sufferings of abuse survivors, don't we have
also responsibility to witness to persecution survivors?  I think so -- if
the commitment is justice.
 
I cannot say that the "personal healing" of abuse survivors is something I
could directly address IN DEPTH with students -- particularly because
personal healing is such an idiosyncratic, lifelong journey.  I think it
can be a compassionate move in classes to keep the emphasis on issues of
justice.
 
Pamela Kemner
Center for Women's Studies

On Fri, 19 Jun 1998, pamela kemner wrote:
 
> I find these arguments interesting.  So academia becomes part of abuse
> survivors' attempts to create a culture of resistance to abuse.  I like the
> idea of witnessing as a political tool for change.  here are the dilemmas I
> see brought up:
>
> When the emphasis is on talk for personal healing, how does public talk get
> transformed to public action -- ie political CHANGE?  The therapeutic model
> implies talking is enough.  Yet as this debate has shown, the talking cure
> in FAR from enough.  I am concerned that what gets lost -- in classes or
> other public forums -- is the turning from individual stories to
> commitments to change.
 
In almost all of my classes revelation does translated into political
action.  Sometimes it's taking part in Take Back the Night or the
Clothesline Project.  Sometimes it's confronting the accuser.
Sometimes it's joining a political group on campus.  Sometimes it's
writing his name on a bathroom wall.  Knowing, recognizing seems to be
a necessary first step for any political action.
 
> Any feminist analysis of incest/sexual abuse STILL has to, in my view,
> consider cases of wrongful accusation.  Ironic but appropriate that on the
> news today was the attempt of accused sexual abusers who had been acquitted
> in Wetachee (sp?) WA to seek civil redress for their persecution.  They
> were ministers/Sunday school teachers at a Pentecostal church.  Their lives
> had been destroyed by the witch hunts in their town -- instigated, by the
> way, by a male law official.
 
In almost all my classes someone brings up false accusations.  Yes,
they do exist and we recognize this.
 
> So -- if we witness to the sufferings of abuse survivors, don't we have
> also responsibility to witness to persecution survivors?  I think so -- if
> the commitment is justice.
>
> I cannot say that the "personal healing" of abuse survivors is something I
> could directly address IN DEPTH with students -- particularly because
> personal healing is such an idiosyncratic, lifelong journey.  I think it
> can be a compassionate move in classes to keep the emphasis on issues of
> justice.
 
When it comes to "personal healing" I'm out of the picture.  I'm no
therapist.  I'm one of those dreaded (in some circles) scientists and
teachers.  I'm not sure I know what justice is and am not sure
"justice" is any more ideosyncratic that "healing."
 
These are tough issues.  I think they belong in women's studies
classes.
>
> Pamela Kemner
> Center for Women's Studies
>
Arnie
Arnie Kahn   kahnas  @  jmu.edu

I want to recommend the following article as a sophisticated, feminist
discussion of the discourse surrounding the False Memory claim.
 
Kathy Miriam
kmiriam  @  cats.ucsc.edu
 
---------- Forwarded message ----------

To: Kathy Miriam <kmiriam  @  cats.ucsc.edu>

 
>Hi Kathy.
 
Good to hear from you.
 
The full citation for the article:
 
Joan Schuman and Mara Galvez. "A Meta/Multi-Discursive Reading of 'False
Memory Syndrome.'" Feminism and Psychology. Vol.6(1):7-29, 1996.
 
Thanks for the interest.
 
mara