This week’s reading, though difficult in content, was a deeply engaging read. The an auto ethnographic style is very interesting. As Rigoberta points out her culture is illiterate and knowledge is passed down through an oral tradition. On the one hand, the auto ethnographic mode is true to this tradition in that the story and knowledge is being transmitted as told verbally. But on the other, by writing it down and making it permanent many central features, for example its continually changing nature, are removed. The knowledge is concreted or ‘Westernised’ some might argue. Also dangerous to the oral tradition is the wide distribution of the work. Oral tellings mean that knowledge can rarely be widely distributed, especially without change of adaptions to the context they are in. Arguably this adaptability is one of the most valuable parts of the tradition. This is why I think that Rigoberta’s secrecy surrounding some customs is not only motivated by them being secret to the community but also out of respect for the oral tradition. She acknowledges that perhaps permanent print of one (her own) version does not do the knowledge justice.
Although I agree with the lecture that all autoethnographies exist in dialogue with colonisers and colonialism, I take issue with the word “conqueror” because Rigoberta’s story exists in resistance to potential ‘conquerors’ and denies their success in their attempts. Another note i have on the lecture is that I disagree that the inclusion of the cultural customs disrupt the book’s direct politicicism but I would argue they heighten it. Without these the story becomes, although she denies this, more about Rigoberta’s personal experiences of hardship. Although political, they (tragically) do not stand out in the sea of existing stories of discrimination, poverty and war. The customs place these within a culture with distinct and real practices under attack. The insistence on the existence of the culture simply by telling of it is what politicises this text the most to me.
My favourite character in the work is Candelaria. She acts as a sort of microcosm role model for Rigoberta by teaching her how to rebel from within the system. Her being fired also mirrors Rigoberta going into exile but leaving behind a legacy with her sisters as Candelaria does with her in the landing house.
Question: Do you think the oral tradition is respected or maintained by the book? Why? Why not?
“Another note i have on the lecture is that I disagree that the inclusion of the cultural customs disrupt the book’s direct politicicism but I would argue they heighten it.”
OK, that’s fair enough. But they make it political in different ways. (NB the French subtitle to the book gives it quite another spin… closer to the original intention, I think…)
Meanwhile, I believe that David Stoll would suggest that Candelaria is an invented character, as his story says that Rigoberta never worked as a maid in the capital. Does that change how you see her? Or Rigoberta?
It is true that orality has a kind of economy of its own word, especially in cultures where their language is threatened. The “Westernised” idea of autobiography that we have has its model in the “Confessions”, as explained in the lecture. I believe that the way in which Menchú builds her public image from testimony also has to do with breaking the “confessional” model, that is, in which one speaks to atone for a sin, and therefore secrets should not be kept. Here there is no idea of transgression on the part of Menchú, there is no need for repentance. On the contrary, there is an affirmation that is made using these autoethnographic models strategically.
I really liked your point about how writing down Menchú’s story down defeats the purpose of her culture’s oral tradition. As to your question, I believe Menchú’s deliberate omission of a lot of aspects of her culture helps to maintain respect for the oral tradition. However, the fact that the person writing these things down focused on those secrets shows that she would have shared them and tarnished aspects of Menchú’s culture.
I agree with your critique of the idea that this book accurately recreates oral storytelling; while it is an admirable exercise in translation between the two, there are essential elements to the oral format that cannot be preserved in a written text. Perhaps this convergence between the two incompatible formats is better understood as the creation of something new that ultimately falls upon the written side rather than a faithful preservation of oral storytelling. There’s an interesting parallel to how Menchú’s oral story found its place in a written canon in how the Bible found its place within her own community’s oral tradition in a way radically different from how it was imposed by colonial institutions.
Hi Kara. I found your perspective on writing down oral tradition interesting. I agree that it does take away the organic-ness of the original medium and makes it more widespread, taking away the adaptability. As readers, we don’t get the nuances that might be added by telling stories in person. To answer your question, I don’t think written work could ever properly maintain oral storytelling just because they’re two completely different formats. The testimonio did feel like a genuine attempt to tell Menchu’s story though, even with the different format.