While reading Minow’s text about truth commissions this weekend, I became a little confused when I read the part concerning public testimony of victims’ trauma, and the broadcasting of it to obtain sympathetic witnesses. While Minow argued that through public testimony, victims forged trusting relationships and received acknowledgement and validation from others. I’m a little skeptical as to if this actually works or not.
On one hand it seems like a decent idea, and that victims could actually benefit from this. Having people show their support, and reiterate the fact that people sympathize with them must be a positive part of their progress towards healing. Furthermore, if other victims see these testimonies that are publicized, they may come forward with valuable information, not to mention it may help in their healing as well.
But on the other hand, it seems that this publicity could be detrimental. I feel that instead of helping the victims, it could possibly induce shame with them instead. While some people may be proud of what they had endured, and want to use their voices as a tool, others may be hurt by the constant reminder of their pain. Until a certain point in healing has been reached, it seems that this broadcasting may hold some victims back from healing at a desirable pace.
The problem with this however is that no one will heal at the same pace as another person, and because of such society cannot just halt all things that may get in the way of it. Even though both options – broadcasting the victims’ testimonies or refraining from such – can both cause psychological damage, one must be chosen. While it has damaging properties, I guess in the end I could see more benefits coming from broadcasting the testimonies, but I’m still not comfortable with it.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
I think it was optional for the victims to be broadcast, but there definately could be some detrimental effects. If the victim goes on national television and then people in his or her city all of a sudden start treating that person differently because of what happened to that person in your past, it could be an omnipresent reminder of the horrors committed against the victim.
ReplyDeleteI'm somewhat skeptical that brodcasting testimony before a truth commision does any more good for victims than private therapeutic techniques would, so the main motivator for the publicization of testimony seems to be the promotion of the new narrative of restorative truth or what have you (as usually seems to be the case with these commisions).
ReplyDeleteIt seems like there is an individual healing and there is an overall community healing, and this sort of strategy works mainly on an overall level. There is individual healing involved, but it seems like that is secondary to the overal level. So the people who aren't really ready for this part of the healing yet don't form enough of a detriment to counter the good that's done because of this.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Patrick. As far as the victim's well-being is concerned, the difference between broadcasting TRC testimony and private therapeutic techniques is the difference between telling horrific, personal, often humiliating stories to one/a few people and telling the same thing to millions of people. Testifying before the TRC does promote restorative truth; however, it is not necessarily a better route for personal healing.
ReplyDelete