9/27/08

Trauma

I can't quit thinking about the Nonsite Collective event, Bhanu Kapil on "Poetics of Disablement," which took place last Saturday afternoon (September 20). It was a follow-through on the collective's July 23rd Allegories of Disablement event, featuring a talk by Thom Donovan, which I wasn't able to attend.

Bhanu Kapil and Amber Di Pietra

Bhanu is a brilliant novelist and thinker, but the discussion was actually co-led by poet and editor Amber Di Pietra. Amber's participation was not advertised, though it was implied in Bhanu's description of the event:
I've been reading Elizabeth Grosz on sensation and futurity: "There is an involuted and oblique relation between the energies of sexual selection...the attraction to and possible attainment of sexual (though not necessarily copulative) partners—human and otherwise—and the forces and energies of artistic production and consumption" (from *Chaos, Territory, Art*). That the intensity felt in a body is part of what allows it to extend into a territory or cross between domains—acts of pleasure, acts of sexual selection, as analogous to the process of making transgressive works of art. Not sure. Am thinking about immigrant bodies, refugee bodies, bodies made hybrid by divergence on a continuum from prosaic (the South-Asian grad student) to traumatic. Have been thinking about numbness, about hyper-vigilance, about what happens to the flow of "energies of sexual selection" in a body that's at the limit of possible sensations. This as depending too on class status. On how desirability is worked out in the port of arrival. My question, then, for writers/artists working through a poetics of disablement—towards hybrid works, in particular—is there any language we can think through together, about the experience of hybridity/fusion in the body—and how might this affect our transgressive relationships to the space of the book, the territory of document, our ability to attain the kind of couplings/intensifications/resonant physical gestures that further the limit of what a book is? I feel as if there is another kind of book I am only beginning to imagine. What about you? I didn't meet you yet. Other aims: I'd like to ask Amber Di Pietra to say more about the hybrid body as "compacted."
It was an intense event. Some people were thrilled by it, others had mixed feelings, still others were disturbed. I don’t think anybody walked away unmoved. One person told me that afterwards she had to abandon plans for the evening and stay home, that she was in no shape to go out because of what she'd heard—and felt. The afternoon has haunted me this past week. I’ve been journaling about it, over and over, trying to get a handle on my reactions.

Jumping off from an excerpt from Elizabeth Grosz's Chaos, Territory, Art (which Bhanu had made downloadable on the Nonsite site ahead of time) Bhanu talked about attraction and species survival—and alluded, without going into details, how the trauma of otherness can thwart one from feeling one’s attractive capability, can thwart one from enjoying pleasure until an experience is nearly over. It numbs one’s ability to take in and feel passion. As always she evoked a wonderfully uncomfortable edge between intelligence and emotional and physical vulnerability.

Amber's surprise presentation was also captivating and smart, and can be found here. Amber talked frankly about her difference from her family, the painful physical realities of childhood arthritis, and the social stigmatization she’s experienced. She said you feel like an other to yourself—taking in cultural images and then the shock of looking in the mirror and seeing you aren’t that image. Others talked about various ways they too were shocked when looking in the mirror—age, race, etc.

I felt there was not enough acknowledgement of the gulf between our experiences and Amber’s, the gulf between ableness and disablity, between private trauma and public trauma. An acknowledgement of otherness is not necessarily a bad thing—it’s a matter of respect. On a more mundane level, being with Kevin for 20+ years, at a certain point I stopped trying to understand him—he’s unfathomable—and I realized that understanding and trust weren’t inherently connected. We should acknowledge otherness—rather than trying to colonize it through compassion or understanding—or finding parallels in our own trauma. But how can we do this?

Perhaps the event was trying to do too much: acknowledging the deeply personal nature of the topic, witnessing Amber’s trauma—but also discussing Elizabeth Grosz, who naturally adopts an academic and speculative tone. There were all these people plugging into personal traumas and then there was the group’s continual return to an intellectual mode. Although abstraction has its place, and I love Elizabeth Grosz, it felt alien amid all the personal disclosure. I don't think the event was set up to handle an overload of emotion, but the nature of the topic and the generous vulnerability of Bhanu and Amber invited gut level reactions.

When I inserted theory into The Letters of Mina Harker I tended to collage in theoretical language—including passages from Elizabeth Grosz—in an awkward and jarring manner—so that the coopted language was a violation as much as an opening. Intellectualizing disturbs me these days—intellectualizing as a way to contain all the messiness, an impulse to distance and erase ordinary life.

But then, does one need to be frank about everything, does one need to put a spotlight on every messy little thing? Aren’t there positive values in coding, filtering, mediating? I’ve never written directly about my own childhood trauma—at this point I wouldn’t know how to make it interesting—there’s no distance, nothing redeeming, no relief. But that trauma has influenced my writing about monsters and all sorts of freakishness. Lots of women relate to the monster. Not surprisingly, the discussion turned to the question of whether writing about trauma reactivates the original trauma or recuperates it.

There’s so much trauma among writers. What happy child spends so hours with her nose stuck in a book? I do believe we store emotions in the body. I asked my chiropractor if she felt a person could release childhood trauma. Karen said no—the memories will always be there—but one can get to know that trauma so one can better manage its impact on your current life. Later in the week, I asked another body worker about trauma. Erene said emotion is always in the present—so if you dip into a childhood trauma, you experience it not as past/distant but in the present. That's how it felt at the Nonsite event—that for some of us the past was infecting the present. As Faulkner wrote in Requiem for a Nun, "The past is never dead. It's not even past."

11 comments:

tomkendall said...

This was a really great post Dodie. Given me a lot to think about.

K. Lorraine Graham said...

Hi Dodie,

This in particular is also something I've been thinking about:

"We should acknowledge otherness—rather than trying to colonize it through compassion or understanding—or finding parallels in our own trauma. But how can we do this?"

I don't know. When I was 19 and 20, one reason I loved being in China was because my otherness and other peoples otherness had an easy, obvious explanation--I was a young, blond American woman in a country thoroughly exotic to my culture. I was exotic in an exotic land. Explaining otherness was neat and easy.

But with trauma, it's harder. My impulse is always to empathize, to rewrite my own narrative to fit the trauma of others and vice versa, but that's problematic for many of the reasons you've mentioned. Even without trauma, my impulse is to empathize--it's my good white middle class training.

As you noted, though, trust and understanding aren't inherently connected. I'm always puzzled by the ways identification works: we can identify with anyone. Without understanding them. Without trusting them.

Providence said...

Hey Dodie,

I just sent a link to this excellent post to the Disability Studies in the Humanities listserve. Hope it gets read.

I wanted to add that maybe trauma isn't a sufficient category for thinking about disability and its representation. That might lead to modes of acknowledgment (of otherness) that are only proprioceptive (sp?). A kind of essentialism. As with Thom Donovan's earlier Nonsite talk and the Action Books team's "Disabled Text" essay, I am concerned that the rubric of disability isn't being defined very well. It's as though it were the opposite of ability, which is precisely what disability studies, if anything, has denied. Your questions are entirely valid, but I think it's important to reach out into the existing disability arts communities and the major texts of disability studies, in order to allow Grosz (with whom I studied when she was originally developing the material Bhanu cited) and other touchstones to resonate. But mostly I'm just bummed I wasn't around for either of these talks. Which is part of what makes your report so valuable!

Patrick

Jim Stewart said...

Hi Dodie,

Lots of questions here. I am trying to process it all. Is disability regarded as 'trama' or just in this case? Why were people uncomfortable with the piece? Are people continuing to view disability as 'personal trama?' This is something I would like to move away from. I think for people with disabilities to be empowered, we need to regard ourselves as a collective -- as in race or gender.

Jennifer Bartlett

A DiPietra said...

This was cross-posted on www.nonsitecollective.org

Thank you for this Dodie. I believe the talk was an important one to have and was hugely meaningful to me on a personal level because of my connection to Bhanu’s work, but I think there were conflations that I would not want to see become permanent for some of the very reasons people mention in the preceding comments. (See Dodie's personal blog and comments to the Trauma entry based on the disability community's take on trauma....http://dodie-bellamy.blogspot.com/2008/09/trauma.html)

As a body worker, Bhanu talks of her work as “a space for healing” and much of in relates to the wounded body in relation to ethnic displacement. Grosz talks about literature as a rarefaction of sensation, either as pleasure or pain. And I was trying to gesture towards ideas of a body (starting with my body I guess) in language, when I spoke of “the compacted”. I was speaking as someone with a disability, but in talking of trauma, I was also in conversation with Bhanu. Throughout the talk, I was aware that what I said could be construed as flattening the one into the other, disability and trauma, but this was not my intention.

Had I been speaking on my own, I probably would have gone the direction of the body, language, sensation and the self in real time (which can sometimes be painful) which for me is a less loaded look at an identity category. Which is not to say my experience at times, has not been linked to trauma, but more truly, it can be categorized as an ambient discomfort.

So yes, in a way, this was a public sharing between me and Bhanu which turned into a talk about trauma, more so than it was a furthering of the discussion on disability. Trauma relates to disability for some people certainly, but I do not think it is the only or even the most clear lens with which to continue looking at formal aspects of the disability experience and the potential for new forms in writing. I think trauma is exceedingly important to talk about in terms of the body and language, but it does not delineate disability.

Oh and also,Dodie, I am intrigued by what you say about resisting the urge to empathize. I don’t think it is a goal I can forgo in my writing entirely, but other, more immediate goals certainly would be to fascinate, to make the strange mundane and the mundane weird in terms of the disabled subject in language. I want to think about it more.

A DiPietra said...

Edit: I want to add, using some of your words, that what I think is interesting to discuss further is how disability is a kind of "public trauma". That is to say, it can and does at times fall into that category of phenomena, as viewed by others, nondisabled or even the disabled--that "public trauma" is part of the exterior fractal truth of disability. Meanwhile, it is an everyday, interior not to be elevated and thus diminished) by the grandiose notion of trauma. So, the disconnect there is the most problematic and charged and worth thinking about. Also, I did not necessarily want to "shine a spotlight on every messy thing" but I did want to chart a trajectory in trying to sync up language/writing with a personal kinetics (one that happens to be known as "disabled"). So, what would be the disabled subject's options in this case? If disability is a fiction, a collusion of semblances and dissemblance than autobiographical details may actually be revealing very little while serving as a set of pivot points to new forms--as in Alexander Technique. Just some ideas your post stirred up for me.....thanks again.

Dodie Bellamy said...

Thank you all for your comments. You're right that disability should not only been seen through the lens of trauma, nor should it be seen as being posed as the opposite of ability. Such a definition only further reifies "normality," which is—I've been sick the past couple of days so my head is fuzzy—which is . . . fucked. Reporting isn't my strong suit, and Amber's correct that I didn't give all the nuances of this discussion. I was mostly wanting to talk about the emotional atmosphere—how can one talk about the intimate, the vulnerable in an intellectual space. I wrote in my journal that it felt like being naked on an examination table.

In my original post, to make a point about the bourgeois tendency to coopt otherness, I was setting up a dichotomy that is problematic. Dichotomies are also fucked. My problems with empathy is when it becomes a means of reducing otherness, of making the empathizer feel safe.

I love what Amber says: "to make the strange mundane and the mundane weird," which I think should be all our goals in writing.

When I was talking about shinging "a spotlight on every messy thing," I didn't mean it to sound like a criticism of Amber. I was thinking about my own bluntness in my writing and a conversation I had with someone lately about directness versus coding. I'm always pushing myself—and the rare student I actually have an impact on—to move further and further into discomfort when writing. I was questioning outloud maybe I should reevaluate that position.

My one big question in all of this is why are people who don't identify themselves as disabled using disability as metaphors and allegories for writing? Beyond my gut-level this doesn't smell right, I'm basically confused why it's happening. Is there some history to the trend that I don't know about?

Jennifer Bartlett said...

Dodie,

'You're right that disability should not only been seen through the lens of trauma.' This comment confuses me. It implies that disability is sometimes seen as trama, but I think we get into dangerous territory. I was born with cerebral palsy. I have never considered my disability to be a 'trama' which implies that I had the potenial for a 'normal' body, and something went wtrong.

I am attempting to get people to see disabilities in one of two ways.

1. Disability must be regarded as identity -- like feminism, race, gender, and so. "Disabled," for me is neither negative nor positive rather it is who I 'am.' Along wtih poet, fag-hag, wife, mother, woman, instructor, thinker, Catholic, and so.

2. Conversely, and this is WAY over the top, I philosophically argue that 'disability' is a social construction that does not have any accurate truth. Every 'body' has different capabilities. Some ice hockey players can't play basketball and vice versa. So how can we hold any one body to a certain litmus test?

I have to say that it makes me nervous when so-called able bodied people discuss people with disabilities. I think, while the topic in so new, most people still have ableist viewpoints even if they are trying. But, I can't have it both ways. Before I complained that 'they' ingored 'us.' The solution is to have both sides be part of the dialog.

Dodie Bellamy said...

Jennifer,

Thanks again for your thoughtful comments. A couple of things—trauma was a concept used at the Nonsite talk. The way it was used at the talk was that it was a very "in" thing to talk about. Though I often deal with traumatic issues, I don't tend to use the word "trauma" to discuss them. The linking of disability and trauma was not introduced by me. On the other hand—thinking of a child development book I was reading this summer—our very selfhood is linked to trauma. Mommy's not always there. Waaaaaa! I'm a separate entity. And I agree with you in the subverting the whole defining oneself against the norm.

Anonymous said...

Don't stop posting such themes. I like to read blogs like that. By the way add some pics :)
SteaveTheMighty

Anonymous said...

Interesting article as for me. It would be great to read more concerning that matter. Thank you for giving this data.
Joan Stepsen
Sacramento escort