Truth in Autobiography: The Rigoberta Mench Controversy - Term Paper Example

Truth in Autobiography: The Rigoberta Menchú Controversy Introduction Rigoberta Menchu Tum was the recipient of the Nobel Peace Prize in 1992. According to Les Prix Nobel (1993), Rigoberta Menchú came from a poor Indian peasant family and grew up in the Quiche branch of the Mayan culture. She became involved in social reform activities through the Catholic Church, and became prominent in the women's rights movement. Her father joined a guerilla organization called the Committee of the Peasant Union (CUC), which she later also joined. Rigoberta became increasingly active in the CUC, which was fighting military oppression of the peasantry. Her contribution chiefly consisted of educating the Indian peasant population in resistance to oppression. In 1983, she told her life story to Elisabeth Burgos Debray, which resulted in a book called in English, “I, Rigoberta Menchú”. Over the years, Rigoberta Menchú has become a strong advocate of Indian rights and ethno-cultural reconciliation, and has garnered many international awards for her work. After more than a decade from the publication of “I, Rigoberta Menchu”, a controversy sparked regarding the veracity of the details contained in the publication, largely initiated by anthropologist Dr. David Stoll. Soon after various academics and journalists published their own studies related to the issue, including essays and articles about the genre used in Rigoberta’s book, the testimonio. The controversy revolves around the overarching question of whether or not an autobiography should represent the exact details of a person’s life; whether or not this is a uniquely Western expectation, and whether or not the expectation of “truth” is the same from a non-Western genre such as a testimonio or oral autobiography. This essay takes a look at the issue of veracity or truth in “I, Rigoberta Menchu” and the various positions taken by different authors on the subject. It also discusses the concept of the testimonio genre and the position taken by various authors on why the understanding of this genre is central to the Menchu controversy. It concludes with the position taken by this essay’s author on the extent to which the problems of truth in Menchu’s book matter, as well as the author’s position on the debate related to the testimonio genre. The Issue of Truth David Stoll (1999), in his book “Rigoberta Menchú and the Story of All Poor Guatemalans” claims that Menchú’s book “is not the eyewitness account that it purports to be”. He also poses the question, “If part of the laureate’s story is not true, does it matter?” Stoll’s answer to his own question is that it matters. The contradictions between Rigoberta’s version, that of neighbors, and the documentary record creates confusion on the reasons for why the killings took place. According to Rigoberta’s version (Menchu, 1984), the killings were part of military oppression of the peasantry. According to Stoll’s findings, from interviews he conducted, the killings were caused by both guerillas and the military. Stoll proposed that the reason of Rigoberta’s particular version is actually propaganda to further the cause of the guerillas and solicit international sympathy. Stoll also argued that “truth” is important because it has international repercussions in the way human rights violations are reported, how people will react, and how events will be interpreted as to implications for the future world of human rights activism, journalism, and scholarship. Stoll seems to further argue that since Rigoberta Menchu has become a symbol for a cause, especially since she has become a Nobel laureate and has told a story that is largely true, the contradictions in her version with other accounts should be put to straight. Dinesh D’Souza is a writer and public speaker who had written an article in The Weekly Standard in 1999 regarding his own views about the Menchu controversy. In his article he mentioned his book called “Illiberal Education” wherein he had criticized “I, Rigoberta Menchu” as a bogus multicultural propaganda which was displacing Western classics in the reading lists for undergraduate students. From his article, D’Souza tends to support the view that the lack of exact truthfulness of Rigoberta’s story doesn’t really matter but he sarcastically disdains the image of victimology that it presents. He explains that the reason for the popularity of Menchu’s book in academe is because it reflects the political ideology of American professors of the 1960’s with their Western Marxist and feminist views. Rigoberta is a model among American minority and female students, who need Menchu as a rallying point for solidarity. D’Souza’s contention is that inclusion of Menchu’s book in the curriculum wastes the opportunity to have a genuine liberal arts education. So for D’Souza, the veracity of Menchu’s book is not the issue, rather it is the imagery that it presents, which is disadvantageous to students. Dante Liano is a Guatamalan novelist and professor at the University of Milan who is also co-editor of Rigoberta Menchú’s second book, Crossing Borders. In an article translated by Corral in a Hopscotch journal (1999), Liano supports the view that if part of Rigoberta’s story is not true, it doesn’t matter because for him, it does not change the facts regarding the social injustices in Guatemala such as the genocide, the malnutrition of children, the prevalent illiteracy of the population Liano avers that Stoll’s initiative was a process for deligitimating Rigoberta as part of a larger campaign by the Guatemalan oligarchy and their foreign supporters. Liano also directly attacks Stoll as another American or Western anthropologist who dares to study indigenous peoples and reinvents the problems presented in testimonial literature, citing Stoll’s criticism of Menchu’s books as well as in Stoll’s work, “Between Two Armies in the Ixil Towns of Guatemala”. To Liano, therefore, the complete veracity of Rigoberta Menchu’s book does not matter, what matters is that it was able to inform the world about the social and political injustices being perpetrated in Guatemala. Kay Warren is an author and professor of anthropology at Harvard University. She has written about the David Stoll and Rigoberta Menchu controversy from the point of view of the testimonio form that Menchu had used to present the story (2001). Warren is of the opinion that the controversy should be taken seriously because of the many and diverse things that are at stake, related to it. These include the integrity of Rigoberta Menchu, a public intellectual and human rights leader; the use of Menchu’s book by professors in universities in the United States and Europe for teaching classes and citing in research; the book’s virtue of accessibility and the way its first-person account connects with students on important issues distant from their own experiences; the concern of activist Guatemalans and their international sympathizers about the political fallout from the well-publicized attempt to discredit the rebels and the popular opposition to state violence during the counterinsurgency wars of 1960-86; as well as whether the insurgent left was fighting a just war with broad civilian support; and whether the rebellion, supported by an international solidarity movement in the United States and Europe was doing more harm than good. Warren’s position is that truthfulness in Rigoberta’s testimonio matters because testimonio writers and anthropologists share a commitment to realism. Realistic representation allows for the vicarious experience of social realities outside the reader’s own life experiences. It offers testimony from an eyewitness in the court of public opinion. Having said this, it would mean that Warren believes that for Menchu’s testimony to be judged fairly, it must first be true. However, Warren goes on to also reject Stoll’s critique as a battle of fact versus politics. Warren claims that Stoll had not read Menchu’s book as testimonial literature, wherein there is room for and maneuver between collective and individual veracities. Stoll had judged the work using scientific procedure in that fabricated, and therefore fraudulent data was uncovered. Warren’s position then, is that while a testimony has to be true, the literary form necessarily includes a certain degree or permissible inconsistency, meaning to say that what matters is that it is largely true. Therefore, on the question of whether it matters that some parts of Menchu’s book is not true, Warren believes that it does not matter as long as the book is largely true. The Genre of Testimonio John Beverley is a professor of Spanish and Latin American Literature at the University of Pittsburgh who has extensively published works related to testimonial literature. According to Beverly, new literary forms appear or are developed from the impetus of humanism and become ideological practices of the time periods they are developed in. The emergence of new forms of literary expression embodies the contending social forces of its current world. The testimonio is one such form (1996). Beverly defines the testimonio as a novel or novel-length narrative that is told in the first person by a narrator who is also the protagonist or witness of the events being recounted. The narration is usually a life or a significant life experience. Since the testimonio is still in its embryonic form, it is not yet subject to rules by a normative literary establishment and definitions being proposed are provisional. The testimonio has emerged as a new narrative genre in the 1960s closely related to the liberation movements and radicalism of the decade. Beverly says, that the testimonio is a component of what Barbara Harlow calls resistance literature. Understanding the testimonio genre is central to the Menchu controversy because the subject matter narrated in Menchu’s book happened during the 1960s. Beverly says, the testimonio differs from oral history in that the testimonio arises from intentions of the narrator, while oral history is produced from intentions of the recorder who is usually a social scientist. That is to say that Rigoberta Menchu produced her testimonio and Elisabeth Burgos Debray did not merely write an oral history from Menchu’s account. Beverly further explains that the situation involved in the testimonio is that of the narrator’s desire to urgently communicate a problem and that the position of the reader can be likened to a juror who will pass judgement on those implicated in the narration. The testimonio is more concerned with sincerity rather than literariness. According to Beverly, the testimonio form emerged because the narrator is in most cases unable to produce the narration in written form by himself or herself. The process therefore required recording the narration and then transcription and editing by an intellectual interlocutor who has writing or journalistic capabilities. In Menchu’s case, according to her own account, she was not a schooled person and therefore incapable of writing her own account. Depray became the interlocutor for Menchu’s testimonio. According to Beverly, the lack of writing ability of the narrator contributes to the “truth-effect” that the form generates and that what is at stake in a testimonio is the nature of its “reality-effect”, meaning the sensation of reality if not factual reality. Beverly’s opinion is that a testimonio, even is not entirely factual should not be considered fictional literature. Beverly’s position on Menchu’s testimonio is that it stands for the experience of her community as a whole, not an individual author, because otherwise then it would be an autobiography which Beverly says it is not. Karen Warren (2001) supports Beverly’s definition and position on the concept of testimonio. She says the genre became a strategy in Latin America to air subaltern views to gain support, even suggesting that the genre attempts to make abstractions like violence, poverty, and degrading living conditions, real by personalizing their effects. As previously stated, Warren claims that testimonio writers and anthropologists share a commitment to realism but that there is a permissible ground for inaccuracies which does not render the Menchu’s book less truthful. Dinesh D’Souza (1999), a writer and professor maintains that Menchu’s book is not worthy of its central place in the curriculum for liberal arts studies in American universities as it is merely political propaganda for minorities and feminists. Without directly delving into the concept of the testimonio genre, D’Souza suggests that Menchu’s book is influenced by her interlocutor who is a feminist and who has used Marxist and socialist vocabulary which are not typical of a Guatemalan peasant, thereby seeming to insinuate that the work is not a testimonio by Menchu but rather an interpretation of a feminist writer of oral history. Dante Liano (1999), while expressing his views on the Menchu controversy, which largely supports the contention that the inaccuracies in the testiminio do not matter to the overall value of the book, indirectly refers to the distinction between autobiography and testimonio as he attacks critiques like Rohter and Stoll. Liano excuses the inaccuracies because of the literary form used, which is a testimonio, work that underwent transcription and editing. Although Rohter consistently referred to the work as an autobiogpraphy, Liano excuses this as Rohter is a mere reporter of the New York Times, not an academic intellectual like Stoll who would fully understand what a testimonio is its difference from other literary forms. Conclusion Does it matter that parts of the testimonio of Rigoberta Menchu are not true? This question has to be answered from a certain point of view. From the point of view of an outsider looking into the social injustices and atrocities that occurred during the time being recounted, this author’s position is that it does not matter. To an outsider looking in, it would not even matter who Rigoberta Menchu is, whether or not she actually exists. The story “I, Rigoberta Menchu” matters if it is representative of the reality that it portrays. It is matters extremely when sickening atrocities are being done to human beings by other human beings only for furthering selfish gain, whoever the perpetrator, in the Guatemala case, whether they be the military government or the guerillas themselves. From this point of view, it does not matter that the “I, Rigoberta Menchu” story is not completely accurate. But, from the point of view that “I, Rigoberta Menchu” is presented as an eyewitness account, similar to a witness’ testimony in court, then it will matter if the witness’ testimony is flawed because it will affect the judgement on the case being presented. To a certain degree, Stoll’s criticisms uses this argument to support his own verdict about who is to blame for the atrocities. But in this author’s opinion, Stoll’s verdict may have been rashly arrived at. Various references point out that the violation of truthfulness only occurs in the way that the story has been presented as an eyewitness account, not that conceptually similar types of events did happen in Guatemala. Therefore, it matters that some of the anecdotes are not factual if the objective is to point a finger to who consummated the act of killing the civilians. But it doesn’t matter if the objective is to broadly condemn the act and manner of killing. From the point of view of the academe, it matters if parts are not true, if the story is being presented as historical facts. It also matters if the story is to be categorized within the accepted rules of types of literature – whether fiction or not, whether testimonio or autobiography or oral history. But it doesn’t matter if it is merely treated as a piece of written work, which leads to D’Souza’s argument that it may not have to play a central part in liberal arts education, rather just an additional piece of recommended reading. On the genre of testimonio, this author’s position is that it is a necessary genre to have even to this day, when narrators continue to exist who do not have the requisite skills to write their own stories. The testimonio genre would give voice to an otherwise voiceless crowd who may have important and enriching stories to share with the rest of the world. It would therefore be good if the academic community can develop the genre into a form that can guide interlocutors as they record, transcribe and edit the testimonios. Moreover, this author’s position is that testimonios may not be completely factually true and exact, more because of practical reasons than anything else. Testimonies are given after the fact, and in the case of narratives about problematic situations, sometimes after some length of time from the actual occurrence of the story being narrated, when the narrator is in a more comfortable position or situation to do the narration. This being said, it would be natural that inconsistencies to fact would occur, but they should remain excusable if the testimony is largely true, and portrays reality. Works Cited Beverly, John. The Margin at the Center: On Testimonio (Testimonial Narrative). The Real Thing: Testimonial Discourse and Latin America. Ed. Georg M. Gugelberger. Durham: Duke UP, 1996. 23-41. D’Souza, Dinesh. I, Rigoberta Menchú? … Not. The Weekly Standard. 1999. Les Prix Nobel. Rigoberta Menchú Tum. The Nobel Peace Prize 1992. Biography. The Nobel Prizes 1992, Editor Tore Frängsmyr, Nobel Foundation, Stockholm, 1993. October 23, 2008. Liano, Dante. I, Rigoberta Menchú? The controversy surrounding the Mayan activist. Translated Will H. Corral. Hopscotch 1.3 (1999): 96-101. Menchú, Rigoberta. I, Rigoberta Menchú: An Indian Woman in Guatemala. Ed. Elisabeth Burgos-Debray. Trans. Ann Wright. London: Verso, 1984. Stoll, David. Rigoberta Menchú and the Story of All Poor Guatemalans. Boulder, Westview, 1999. Warren, Kay B. Telling Truths: Taking David Stoll and the Rigoberta Menchú Expose Seriously. The Rigoberta Menchú Controversy. Ed. Arturo Arias. Minneapolis: Minnesota UP, 2001. Read More