Demanding minority art speak for its community reinforces that community’s marginality

Evidence

Kobena Mercer’s classic analysis of the burden of representation on black British cinema in the 1980s identifies a critical requirement that the individual minority film “speak for” the community it represents and from which its creators come. Yet Mercer is also acutely aware of the limitations such expectations impose as well as the broader context in which they take place. At heart, this question is about power: “who has power over the apparatus of image-making.” Mercer quotes Judith Williamson’s observation that “the more power any group has to create and wield representation, the less it is required to be representative.” At that time, the expectation that a film “speak for” its community implicitly lay behind multicultural patterns of funding. Minority filmmaking then became a guarantee of multiculturalism; the more such films were produced, the more multiculturalism was demonstrated. At the same time, states Mercer, “the very notion that a single film or cultural artefact can ‘speak for’ an entire socio-ethnic community reinforces the perceived marginality and ‘secondariness’ of that community.” — Peter Morey, Islamophobia and the Novel, 161

At heart, this question is about power: “who has power over the apparatus of image-making.” Mercer quotes Judith Williamson’s observation that “the more power any group has to create and wield representation, the less it is required to be representative.” At that time, the expectation that a film “speak for” its community implicitly lay behind multicultural patterns of funding. Minority filmmaking then became a guarantee of multiculturalism; the more such films were produced, the more multiculturalism was demonstrated. At the same time, states Mercer, “the very notion that a single film or cultural artefact can ‘speak for’ an entire socio-ethnic community reinforces the perceived marginality and ‘secondariness’ of that community.” — Peter Morey, Islamophobia and the Novel, 161

Categorization

• DEFINE: Defines the ‘burden of representation’ concept and its paradox: representative status perpetuates the very marginalization it aims to redress.
• XREF: Directly relevant to negotiating how Hamid’s and Naqvi’s novels are read as ‘representative’ of Muslim communities — the representativeness trap is exactly what the reader needs to argue against. — connects to: Counterstories do more than rebut dominant narratives; they humanize marginalized communities. — James D. Kirylo (ed.), Reinventing Pedagogy of the Oppressed:…, 469; Public art revitalizes community by giving voice to silenced groups — Rebecca A. Martusewicz, Jeff Edmundson, and John Lupinacci, EcoJustice Education: Toward Diverse,…, 1822
• QUESTION: Worth chasing: does the reader’s own argument risk invoking Hamid/Naqvi as ‘representative’ evidence of Muslim experience, reproducing this bind?
• corroborated: 2 independent passages support this claim — Peter Morey, Islamophobia and the Novel, 161