The public’s role in reinforcing hegemonic attitudes relating to marginality

After watching Through a Blue Lens (and with Jiwani and Young’s article about frames and counter frames in mind), I found myself feeling quite critical about the documentary’s approach to the issue of drug addiction in the DTES. In my post on Connect, I talked about how the framing in Blue Lens differentiates the “good” from the “bad”, thus reinforcing common stereotypes and perpetuating the marginalization of the DTES community. Melissa’s response to my post reminded me that it is important to consider the goals and targeted audience when analyzing narratives, so I now turn my attention to the the website of the producers of Blue Lens, oddsquad.com.

Upon entering the site, my attention is immediately drawn to the mission statement, which is formatted in big font and says:

We empower youth to make positive life choices about drug use and criminal behaviour through documentaries and education.

From this mandate, we can gather that Odd Squad’s focus is on prevention and empowerment. Young people are the targeted audience, but this organization also addresses the broader public as exemplified by Blue Lens. As I explored the website a bit further, I came across a testimonial section on the site, which featured responses from viewers of Blue Lens. 

The public can play a major role in reinforcing the legitimacy of dominant narratives relating to marginality. Through short testimonies, audience members repeatedly asserted the credibility and positive impact of Odd Squad’s work, as they believed that it was an eye-opening, educational tool. See here:

“.. My kids and I watched [Blue Lens] about once a year. It really touched my heart…I feel so bad for all the people that fall victim to the drug dealers and these horrible drugs that take over our young peoples minds and body and make it next to impossible to stop and live a healthy normal life. It is so sad. Thanks so much to the Odd Squad for teaching me and my children so much about this scary world of drug use…”

J.B. – Michigan, U.S.A.

While Odd Squad may have good intentions, the narrative style of their film, Blue Lens, inadvertently condemns and further marginalizes the DTES (in my opinion at least). The approval and generally positive responses from the viewers ultimately functions to reinstate the hegemonic ideals relating to marginality, which in this case is that drugs are the sole reason for degeneracy in the DTES. In doing so, both the distributers and consumers of dominant narratives can fail to reflect upon other factors that have led to the state of the DTES. What is important to recognize here is that while producers of minority narratives can perpetuate hegemonic ideals, the public can also play an equally substantial role in marginalizing those on the periphery by supporting and reproducing dominant beliefs through personal perspectives, “testimonials” to the discourse, or everyday interactions. Thus, it is extremely valuable to exercise critical thought when consuming such narratives.

 

The problem with language barriers in accessing testimony

The Indian Residential School exhibit in the Museum Of Anthropology can be thought of as a collection of testimonies for more intimate purposes; those who visit this exhibition will find themselves taking part in a very personal interaction with the survivors and descendants of the residential schools. As I was flipping through the memory book, which is used to provide observers of the exhibits a place to share their thoughts and feelings, I noticed that one person mentioned how translations in other languages would have been beneficial. This prompted me to think: what kinds of audience are invited to partake in testimonial processes?

Naomi Angel reminds us that testimonies are a reciprocal process; in order for testimonies to be made, there must be someone at the other end, ready to listen and hear what the person has to say. Mutual exchanges are necessary in order to be able to express and understand. However, language barriers can often get in the way of this process. From what I have observed, IRS redress has mainly taken place in the English language. Of course, Indigenous groups can share their language through songs and prayers, but English is the dominant language in testimonial processes. The Canadian TRC website prompts visitors to pick a language before entering the site, the options being either French or English. It makes sense to communicate by using the “official” languages of Canada, as a broader audience can be reached, but unfortunately, it means that certain groups will be excluded.

I think of my parents as I write this. With a very limited understanding of English, how well would they be able to comprehend the content of testimonies and participate in the collective process of redress? A limited capacity for French or English should not prevent people from fully understanding and experiencing the testimonies that are being made. Given the diverse ethnic makeup of Canada, I think that the exhibits such as the one at MOA, or the operations of the TRC, should strive to be more accommodating so that more people will be able to participate. Providing translations can be a step towards inclusion. Clearly, lots of people are interested in the history of the IRS, as the memory book was filled with comments written in different languages. While institutions and organizations may not have intended to exclude certain groups of people, language barriers can reinforce the dynamics of colonial power, and ultimately be counterproductive to goals of understanding, reconciliation and empowerment.