According to John Beverley, quoted in G. T Douglas’ “Signifying Bodies”, a testimonio is a testament to the oppression or marginalization of a group of people, represented by one individual (Douglas, 46). Also explained by Beverley, a testimonio can become an autobiography by the change of a few small distinctions such as “[losing] this connection” between the writer and the suppression of the group in subject (Douglas, 46). In this blog post, I will be analysing why it was effective for Rigoberta to write her story as a testimonio rather than an autobiography.
Menchu’s testimonio directs attention towards a larger population and larger issues than just her own. While she does mention her own experiences, her large focus is on the agrarian reform and the consequences of it on the entire Indian population of Guatemala. For example, when she explains that 106 peasants were killed in Panzos by coal workers during the reform, she states, “we felt like this was an attack on us” (Menchu, 160). By saying “we” in this moment, Mechu identifies herself with a larger group in order to convey how this suppression affected the entire Indian population. This differs from an autobiography in the way that it focuses on the justice of a larger population rather than an event that she personally experienced. Essentially, she is testifying for the natives of Guatemala. In the chapter Political Activity in Other Communities. Contacts with Ladinos, Menchu explains, “we have hidden our identity because we needed to resist, we wanted to protect what governments have wanted to take away from us” (Menchu, 170). Menchu explains how she, and the rest of the natives, felt that they needed to hide their identity from the rest of their nation to protect themselves from being exploited. She does not focus on the fact that she has hidden her identity alone, but rather situates herself with preserving the identity of natives in the effort to protect their culture. Essentially, in both examples that I have provided, she has used the pronoun “we” rather than “I” and this has effectively directed the attention of her book towards an issue of a population rather than issues of her own.
While Rigoberta Menchu uses personal examples to reflect on the trauma that has happened to her geographical surroundings, herself and the communities around her, she has reflected in a way that has drawn attention to a cause greater than her own life. Using the pronoun “we” and testifying for this larger population has caused her novel to make the distinction between autobiography and testimonio. In doing so, she has written a testimonio that represents the agrarian reform in Guatemala with great passion and emotion.
Works Cited
1. MenchuÌ, Rigoberta, et al. “The CUC Comes Out into the Open.” I, Rigoberta MenchuÌ: an Indian Woman in Guatemala, Verso, 1984, p. 160.
2.MenchuÌ, Rigoberta, et al. “Political Activity in Other Communities. Contacts with Ladinos.” I, Rigoberta MenchuÌ: an Indian Woman in Guatemala, Verso, 1984, p. 170.
3. Couser, G. T. “Rhetoric and Self-Representation in Disability Memoir.” Signifying Bodies: Disability in Contemporary Life Writing, University of Michigan Press, 2010, p. 46.