In reading Ahmed’s section on Audre Lorde, I am
struck by the way “misperception…creates an object” (54). I am reminded of Ralph Ellison’s The Invisible Man in which Ellison writes, “That invisibility to which I refer occurs because of a peculiar disposition
of the eyes of those with whom I come in contact. A matter of the construction
of their inner eyes, those eyes with which they look through their
physical eyes upon reality… you often doubt if you really exist. You wonder
whether you aren't simply a phantom in other people's minds… It's when you feel
like this that, out of resentment, you begin to bump people back. And, let me
confess, you feel that way most of the time…you strike out with your fists, you
curse and you swear to make them recognize you. And, alas, it's seldom
successful.” Indeed, Ellison points to the misperception Ahmed speaks
of—misperception that makes it impossible to claim a sense of self or identity.
For the invisible man, being made into an object, being misperceived or not
seen at all, makes it impossible for him to claim a space. We see the way in
which the Invisible Man can only he know he exists by being recognized in
space—Ellison writes of his bodily responses. And yet Ahmed discusses a
problem: if “an individual subject comes into being through its very alignment
with the collective” (71), what happens when the collective constricts the
movement of the individual? How then can an individual map him/herself?
What is interesting about Audre Lorde’s scene is her moment of
recognition: there is a shift. First, she does not see the terrible thing on
the seat and then she realizes that the “terrible thing” is in fact her. The
realization happens because of the interaction between bodies, it happens in an
interaction between self and “other,” it happens when she is turned into this
“other” and then struggles to locate herself. What Ahmed points to is the way
that this experience happens both in the present and is also historically felt.
It is both Lorde’s individual experience and is linked to a collective
experience of oppression in which social spaces constrict and limit Black
women. Ahmed writes, “the past is living rather than dead; the past lives in
the very wounds that remain open in the present” (33). Thus Ahmed argues that
we must recognize the past because it is mixed in with our present. It is important to note that Lorde’s
experience extends beyond this moment. When Ahmed discusses the way a daughter
feels her mother’s pain, we understand the intergenerational and historical
transmission of loss. Indeed, it seems that Lorde’s feelings are her own but
they are perhaps, her mother’s feelings too, tied to a history and a historical present in which Black women
are objectified.
Ahmed points to the way society relies on “an imagined
other” (49). The 9/11 footage creates a rhetoric of fear and protection that relies
on “us” as needing protection and “them” as the enemy. Those in the footage invoke
The Civil War, arguing that the United States must again defend itself. The nation of “America” is meant to feel
a collective fear.
I am interested in the role of language in Ahmed’s work. We
see the extent to which emotions are felt physically. We see too the way in which
oppression limits bodies. And yet her intervention lies in her ability to link
language to the body. She calls for an alternative way to read, and I think, to
see. She says, “Such forgetting would simply repeat the forgetting that is already
implicated in the fetishising of the wound. Rather, our task would be to learn
to remember how embodied subjects come to be wounded in the first place, which
requires that we learn to read that pain,
as well as recognize how the pain is already read in the intensity of how
it surfaces” (173). We must learn to read, and learn to read on the surfaces of
the body, as opposed to prescribing or covering over the experiences of those
who are historically marginalized. Thus she speaks to the power of translation.
How can language create alternative spaces? How can language intervene to
recognize the experience of being made invisible and objectified? Part of our
task is to acknowledge the way historical wounds still live in our present.
No comments:
Post a Comment