In what is probably a weird case of serendipity or happenstance, a few weeks ago I spent part of my dinner thinking about aporias (perhaps best described as a point of undecidability or a philosophical puzzle). Earlier that day, I had found a copy of Jacques Derrida’s Given Time, in which the late French philosopher digs into the economy of giving and questions whether gifts can truly be “given.” It’s a bit brain-bending, like most of his writing, but it’s also of a piece with his oeuvre in that it highlights certain irreducible logical horizons that many take for granted.
I say all this because as soon as I “entered” Public Secrets I was almost immediately drawn to Sharon Daniel’s use of that same word. She’s interested in how life inside and outside the prison condition and reinforce each other, as well as how knowledge and ignorance conspire to keep this feedback loop functional. It’s a powerful message, and powerfully presented through “algorithmic” or modular structure.
Still, as compelling as it is, the skeptic in me felt as though something is missing.[1] We tacitly assume every statement recorded on Public Secrets is true, but we don’t always bother to ask, “What has been left out of this story?” The only information we have on these women’s lives is provided by them, and whether they are reliable narrators or not, it is safe to assume that certain details might have been elided or altered. Perhaps Daniels took this into account and did her due diligence, but as there is no mention of it in her author’s note many skeptical viewers would presume the opposite.
I think it is important to apply this question of omission or elision to our own projects and stories. What are we leaving out? And what consequences or effects will it have on our viewers/readers?
[1] This, ironically enough, is also a fundamental part of Derrida’s philosophy: something is always left out.
I had the same response as you did when I listened to the women’s stories. Are the women being truthful? Are they sharing the entire story? What really happened?
What’s interesting to think about is why we question their stories vs. the people from Interview Project. It’s sad to say, but the fact that these women are incarcerated makes question if they are telling the truth. I would have liked to have read about why they were found guilty. But, I guess that’s not the point of her project.
I had similar thoughts as well. I also found myself wondering if there are any people angling for change inside the system (which she presents as pretty monolithic), but, like you, quickly realized that adding that changes the complexion of her project. How would a project that juxtaposes the lives of these inmates and the people who mind them look? Would it work? The human scientist in me would be curious to see.
I think this is an apt question. I also think we’re used to assuming things will be left out of a story with traditional narrative structure–we expect there to be a thesis, or a message, or at the very least some thread of structure that justifies the author’s choices of what to leave out and what to keep in. Perhaps the more unstructured feel of digital media makes us wonder more about what is missing?
Interesting post, Steven. I think it’s a valuable question, to always consider what is being left out. And of course, there are other perspectives out there, other views on what happened to these women and what they did. However, what I saw as the point of the project was to give voice to these women. The justice system has a voice. The prison system has a voice. These women are not given a voice. Yes, they were found guilty. They are incarcerated. But they still have a valid perspective. They still have their own truths. And the project gave them voice to speak their truths. Also, the questions the project raises about the prison system are valid, important questions to pose.
Daniels comes at it from an “angle,” yes, arguably a biased angle since she only gives voice to the women. However, who else has given these women a voice? I was also slightly interested in learning what crimes these women were incarcerated for; however, if we had been given that information, we would also have been immediately biased against them.
And knowing what the crime had been wouldn’t make it any less valid, for example, that a woman arrested for a crime (not yet even arraigned, tried or sentenced) wasn’t allowed to tell her kids simply that everything will be okay, what is happening, and where they are going and what they can expect to encounter. (As a mother that example really spoke to me.) Cops can be assholes. They should treat people with respect even when they have been arrested. But our culture doesn’t value respect for all humans, or compassion for people whose histories are complicated and led to a certain event.
Great points all, Natalie. I think the lasting legacy of James Frey (author of the pseudo memoir A Million Little Pieces) is that we should regard every single-sourced story as potentially dubious. This is not so much presuming the innocent guilty as it is safeguarding the contract of legitimacy between the producer (or curator, or gatekeeper) and their audience. It behooves us to make sure the information we are creating or distributing is in fact truthful.
While I agree that part of her project is giving these women a voice, she’s also taking aim at the prison system as a whole, showing how “inside and outside mutually determine and construct one another.” The prison, she argues, is a giant feedback loop, and considering that the guards, social workers, and other non-prisoners all participate in it, I would argue that they should be part of any such story as well.
I think it’s useful to remember that I am in all likelihood not the project’s model reader. When I come across a story that deserves to be told, my first question is almost always, “How will this hold up in the court of public opinion?” In the case of Public Secrets, these questions will be ones raised by potential detractors and skeptics, and so should be addressed beforehand.
yash It prompts creators to reflect on their own narratives, fostering a more mindful and responsible approach to the stories they tell. Well-articulated and thought-provoking! Thanks for sharing