At the
beginning of Alice Walker and Pratibha Parmar’s film, Warrior Marks, Alice
Walker includes a story of her own experience with mutilation as a child when
her brother shot her in the eye and blinded her. She expressed the lack of
support she felt from her family, the stigmatization she experienced at school,
and the disability that this mutilation created. While I in no way mean to
belittle the harm that befell her as an individual, I was very taken aback by
her blatant comparison of her own wound and those created by the practices of
female circumcision. I was relieved to read in the first few pages of Isabelle
Gunning’s article that I was not alone in this thought. Gunning points out that
“Some see her analogy between female genital mutilation and her own partial
blindness, the result of an accident caused by her brother, as
self-aggrandizing” (205). While I am not sure that I would make quite as strong
a claim as that, I certainly felt that this comparison implied ignorance of the
practice on Walker’s part, or if not ignorance, a willingness to reduce the
practice to its most basic state.
Rogaia
Abusharaf’s essay on the same topic takes great care to speak through the
voices of women who have themselves experienced the practice through the use of
narratives, rather than speaking on their behalf or for them as Walker seems to
do in utilizing her own narrative as a comparison. As such, I would like to
explore the instances where Walker’s own story diverges from those presented in
Abusharaf’s article to better understand how Walker’s comparison may have
muddled her own idea on an appropriate approach to addressing the issue of what
she calls female genital mutilation.
First, Walker recounts in her story
that after a week after her mutilation, her parents ignored her pain and
suffering, leaving her to endure it alone. While some of the narratives spoke
to this, Najat recalls that “people around you pay no attention,” others
expressed great concern for their own daughters after their circumcisions and
are sure to take care of them (11). Asha, for example speaks to the
complications her own daughter experienced with great concern (14). As such, I
feel that Walker’s comparison encourages a very detached, unaffectionate,
perhaps even hostile view of mothers who circumcise their daughters, which many
of Abusharaf’s recounted narratives dispel.
A second consequence of her mutilation that Walker
recounts is the dismissal that she experienced at school as a result of her
injury. This experience greatly diverges from those recounted by Abusharaf.
Zakia informs readers that “A lot of people I know who live there practice
sunna for cleanliness” (9). Most of the narratives in this piece, in fact,
recount that circumcision is very common, if not the norm in Douroshab. As
such, the likelihood that any girl would face any prejudice within her
community for being circumcised is highly unlikely. Rather, it seems as if
there is more of a stigma surrounding not being circumcised. As such, Walker’s
comparison projects her own feeling of being an outsider onto the women who
engage in this dominant practice, which encourages viewers to sympathize with
these “victims” of circumcision, not for the physical pain they endure but for
the feeling of being an outcast, when this is not the case.
Finally, Walker spoke to the issues
that she had as a child navigating and living her daily life as a result of her
mutilation. While it is undeniable, as many of the narratives detail, that there are physical limitations associated with female circumcision, these narratives also include many benefits that those who partake in the practice value. Najat, for example explains, "Pharaonic circumcision is good for women. It protects the dignity of women. The woman will have control over her body...her circumcision will allow her to take control" (11). Similarly, Suaad mentions that she feels that "sex is better with pharaonic" (10). Others, like Zakia, express that "the people who support the sunna believe strongly that it keeps the genital area clean" (9). I do not mean to overlook the complications and pain that undoubtedly come along with female circumcision. Merely, I mean to draw attention to the fact that Walker's comparison of her own mutilation creates a view of female circumcision that has no other purpose besides wounding or inflicting pain on girls.
I greatly respect Alice Walker as an activist and feminist and I too see the many problems that female circumcision can present. With that said, I feel that Warrior Marks and the story that Alice Walker includes to personally tie herself to this practice and speak on behalf of these women is a problematic presentation of the issue. I believe that it reduces the practice to nothing more than torture and fails to make any attempt to understand the motivations behind this practice. Until the practice itself is understood, it cannot successfully be challenged, or else all attempts to do so will appear as mere ignorant attacks rather than presentations of alternatives.
I had very similar feelings while watching the film during class as well as while I was reading Abusharaf's and Gunning's articles. The way female circumcision was framed by Walker gave me such an uneasy feeling about the reasons why many young girls have to go through such pain in order to be accepted in their communities. From the perspective of women in these African nations, like the Douroshab women, "the virtue of purity is also best achieved through circumcision, which is seen as closely related to cleanliness and purification" (8). Gunning also says "how can one know what the appropriate solution to a problem is without having studied it thoroughly beforehand?" (218). I think these feelings of uneasiness and disgust can be explained through this because we might not have gotten the full story simply by watching the video. I do understand that this is part of their culture which is different than ours and circumcision has its reasons, but I personally do not agree that these young girls have to go through this pain simply to be considered "clean" and "pure." It makes me wonder how this tradition started? Obviously it is passed down and mothers bring their daughters to be excised because it is what their mothers did for them, but where did it start? Was it men who just wanted to make sure their wife/partner was stitched up and remaining faithful while they were away? This would be considered a patriarchal practice contributing to men exercising their power to control women and male domination.
ReplyDelete
ReplyDeleteI agree with you Leia that Alice Walker's introduction was very strategic yet disappointingly misguided. Her attempt to draw parallels between her own injury and the ritual of FGM via language adoption set the tone of the film. Her point was to establish a sense of pointless suffering and complete lack of control. Much how Walker was in little control of her injury or even recovery, young girls within the communities that participate in FGM practices also lack control yet still possess a certain sentiment of shame. As mentioned in other posts, Walker came in with the intention of deconstructing FGM not as a cultural practice, but instead a human rights violation. Rogaia Abusharaf summarizes the shortcoming of this well in the Epilogue of her essay concerning the dangers of the "dominant way of thinking pervad[ing] all of cultural life" (14). By importing Western conceptions such as autonomy and agency, Walker has effectively silenced contrasting narratives and placed clear restrictions on the conversations surrounding the topic. In other words, Walker, as an amateur ethnographer, fails to garner all the narratives about FGM within African communities as examined by Abusharaf.
I also find Walker's assumptions regarding the history of the communities she observed very interesting and almost completely false. Firstly, she assumes that the duty of FGM was relegated to women much like all domestic affairs were in the United States. Quite the contrary, in precolonial states there is definitive evidence of matriarchal societies, or at least exhibiting some relevant form of women leadership. There is documentation of "queenmothers" existing in precolonial West Africa (Farrar 581). Essentially a ceremonial character, queenmothers were a safe space for opposing the mainstream operations of the king, and held widespread respect among the community. African women were not oppressed in the same ways as women had been historically in the United States or Europe. They were often valued for their skills and special obligations, much like the FGM ceremony. As Abusharaf explains, these practices are indeed determined and controlled by women. One could argue that these cultural practices themselves hold their own value in autonomy and agency if we were to apply those concepts here.
I completely agree with both of you. I personally wished the film had focused less on Walker’s comparison to her own injury and more on the origins of and multiple perspectives on female genital mutilation. I felt as though this important background was only touched on in Walker’s attempt to draw a larger conclusion about these practices as a problem of patriarchal society. Walker’s mention of the idea that she did not receive a toy gun because she was a girl in a patriarchal society didn’t sit entirely well with me or within the context of the film. It seemed as though Walker made broad claims rather than delving deeper into an investigation of female genital mutilation practices. Gunning says, “in breathing more life into the myths, Third World feminisms are further constrained in their attempts to represent themselves and their struggles in the First World in complex ways” (207). For me, this gets at the heart of the problem of the way the film addresses these cultural practices. The way the film was put together, a First World feminist interviewing Third World women and comparing their lives to her own story, had the effect of simplifying what truly is a complex issue as shown by the multiple opinions expressed in the Abusharaf piece.
ReplyDeleteI agree with all of your points, Leia. What I believe is most unsettling about Walker's film is her lack of research (before conducting the film) and the way she frames her viewpoints. She is not simply embodying the viewpoints of a narrow-minded Westerner--rather, it seems to me that Walker does not even have a full grasp of female circumcision as a cultural practice before she dives into this documentary. Unfortunately, I feel like this leads her to blatant inaccuracies, which in turn leads to misinformed viewers. Of course, I know I am in no place to judge whether someone has a full grasp of cultural practices which are not my own, but I do think Abusharaf's article articulates why Walker's film is not particularly five star work.
ReplyDeleteAs you aptly point out (and I agree with wholeheartedly), Walker's use of personal narrative in her documentary is ill-conceived and more importantly, largely ignores and constricts the motivations behind the practice of female circumcision itself. Walker's thinking is one-sided, for she thinks that the circumcision practices are strictly horrible. And... why is that her view? Because being shot in the eye as a child was traumatic for her, therefore, so must circumcision. I think that is a poor way to frame a documentary. In fact, her personal narrative, which I would argue has no place in a documentary of this nature, conflicts with the cultural reasons behind this practice. What is at stake for the circumcised women in this culture is glossed over. Just to offer one example... Walking away from the film, I got the sense that these women were powerless and that men were domineering. However, that is false, at least in story of Najat. As related to us by Abusharaf, Najaf states that a circumcised woman feels as if she has "control over her body" (11) and "[being circumcised] helps your relations with your husband" (11). I don't think such a point even comes up in the film, let alone is presented as plainly as this. I think that's definitely a major flaw. In other words, I think Walker's piece would have benefited from an Abusharaf treatment--that is, a more "objective" approach where the narrator is simply listening to the women themselves, and relating the information to the viewer. Although I have great respect for Walker, I cannot help noticing that her documentary should have been titled "Walker's Warrior Marks," because we certainly do not get an accurate representations of anyone else's warrior marks but hers.
I agree with you all. I had a hard time watching the film on Monday for many reasons: I didn’t like how Alice compared her impairment of her eye to genital mutilation overseas and throughout the world. They are two very different body parts, and experiences that I do not think can be compared. I also didn’t like that Alice kind of set up her relationship with the locals in a way that very blatantly separated them through class systems. Maybe I’m taking this too far but it is almost as if Alice’s role in the film was that of a white savior complex, but it isn’t as easily dubbed as that because she is black.
ReplyDeleteThroughout the film she had a very Western perspective on FGM, and used a lot of emotional footage to create viewer perspective rather than actual facts. Alice herself didn’t even talk about what she was doing during her travels and how she became connected with the women she was interacting with. She really had no plot or action items for the film except to tell her personal narrative, and tell a one-sided story that she wasn’t fully educated on. It was all just a depressing PSA on how horribly women are treated and repressed through FGM. Which, there is validity in that, but also that there are more than just outsider perspectives on what is actually happening. There are two sides to every story and the audience lacked the second voice, which we heard through Abusharaf’s essay and her sharing of many women’s stories. It surprises me that someone like Alice Walked would forget the basic rules of telling a non-fictional story, which is pulling as much information from both sides as possible before crafting a piece. I must admit though, Alice had me fooled. I left the room on Monday very sad and unsupportive of FGM. While I still do not support the practice, I think I would have had a very different reaction if all of the information was displayed out to me and I was able to create my own opinion from the facts. It’s interesting to me because while this film, and Abusharaf’s works are things we are studying in class it so easily correlates back to new castings – who has the best story, which news channel will tell you the “truth,” or bend the story to fit a specific viewership. Not only did these two works enlighten me on FGM but also on how the literary and news world works as an entity.
Leia, I agree with you completely. While watching the film I was surprised at how easily Walker compared herself to these women, while offering little critical examination of her own Western biases in considering the issue of FGS/female circumcision. The comparison of her own injury, being shot in the eye by her brother, to a practice that is not present in her culture but is present in others, left a bad taste in my mouth. Additionally, I did not like the way she portrayed "Africa" in the film. It was portrayed as being one big culture, essentially, and she did not differentiate between any of the women in the story. Had she included multiple perspectives in those she interviewed, I think there would have been a much more well-rounded look at FGS offered; in giving us only "horror stories" in which she led the interviewees to their answers with leading questions, she very clearly wanted the viewer to feel a certain way. In the articles for today, I did not feel that same push: they offered their facts and let the reader decide. In the end, they are not offering a positive or negative view, because they are telling stories and letting the women speak for themselves. This was much more effective in actually explaining the issue and the complexity of it, rather than scare tactics and "us vs. them" imagery.
ReplyDelete