GEND309 Critical Victimology PDF

Preview

Summary

Gend309 Lecture Notes...

Description

GEND309 Critical Victimology Lecture One Victimology is the science of victims, a diverse field of theory and research about victimization in a broad sense. - It is a 20th Century phenomenon as it originated in the 1940’s Critical Victimology critiques and moves beyond victim blaming victimology Etymology: 1. The study of historical linguistic change, esp. as applied to individual words. an account of the history of a particular word. 2. The derivation of a word. Van Dijk argues that victimologists need to be aware of the meanings and connotations attached to the word ‘victim’. - In particular, victimologists should be aware of the Christian heritage of this term. Van Dijk sees this heritage as harmful History of the word ‘Victim’ “Only that which has no history is definable.” (Nietzsche, On the Genealogy of Morals, 1887) • There is no single, truest meaning of ‘victim’. • The word ‘victim’ is polysemic – it has multiple meanings (denotations) and connotations that have built up over hundreds of years. ‘Victim’ is derived from the Latin victima • Victima: ‘beast for sacrifice’, ‘sacrificial animal’ which initially appears in 15th century latin biblical scripture • Victima: a living creature offered in sacrifice to a deity or supernatural force • Victima/victim is a specifically Western concept (strong Christian heritage) • Victim appears in English in 1582 in the Rhemian Bible  ‘Sacrifice’ is connected to ‘scapegoat’ – the creature whose banishment cleanses society of its sins Related etymologies: ‘sacred’ and ‘sacrifice’ Victim/victima is related to the German weihen, to consecrate, to make sacred. Weihen is related to the Sanskit - vinakti, to set apart or single out. “At a deeper etymological level, ‘victim’ refers to those sacrificed, meaning those who achieved holiness by being killed as scapegoats” (Van Dijk). The word victim became applied to humans due to Johannes Calvin. Calvin used the word victima as a special name for Jesus Christ in an elaboration of the sacrificial nature of the Crucifixion. - In European languages from 1530s and over the course of the Reformation (1517 – 1648), victima is first used as a word for a human being, specifically Jesus of Nazareth. *Before 1736 in English, ‘victim’ is only used to denote ‘sacrificial animal’ Jesus Christ as the ‘expiatory victim’. JC’s suffering as a willing sacrifice made to redeem humankind Biblical references (John 1:29 and Peter 1:19) to Christ as the “lamb of God”. • John 1:29 “Behold the Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world.” • Peter 1: 19 “But with the precious blood of Christ, as of a lamb without blemish and without spot.” In Latin this depiction of Jesus Christ is called Agnes Dei (Christ the lamb) Reference to Jesus Christ as the ‘expiatory victim’ is accompanied by the “incremental humanisation of the imagery of Jesus Christ, starting in Renaissance religious art - Initially the word victim only referred to Jesus Christ and not to ordinary human beings

-

The term started to be referred to ordinary humans through the notion of the ‘passion of christ’ o In suffering one shares in Christ’s passion o Victimization as a Christ-like sacrifice o Victims as Christ-like th In the 17 or 18th century, broader usage appears in colloquial language. ‘Victim’ is broadened to victims of crime and disaster The Christian heritage of ‘victim’ is still very much with us: “The moral imperatives attached to the victim label shape the treatment of crime victims in Western societies.” There is an expectation that crime victims will be Christ-like (‘without blemish and without spot’) Reactive victim scapegoating: Refers to the dramatic withdrawal of compassion for the victim that typically takes place when victims do not conform with expected victim traits or behaviour, or defy the ethic of forgiveness 20th Century: • A proliferation of discourses, debates and definitions of and around the term ‘victim’ • The advent of victimology and victim typologies in the 1940s (next week) • A wide array of uses of ‘victim’ is evident in official and colloquial language Lecture Two Trigger Warnings: • Trigger warnings are statements alerting the reader, viewer or listener to upcoming material that is potentially distressing; or, more specifically, potentially triggering. • The idea of triggering has a specific meaning and refers to re-traumatisation. The effects of trauma reverberate after an experience of trauma. Material that is potentially triggering could bring on emotional effects that stem from a prior trauma • The idea of post-traumatic stress has evolved most visibly in relation to combat (‘soldier’s heart’, ‘shell shock’, ‘combat fatigue’, ‘post-Vietnam syndrome’) • The idea of ‘triggering’ and ‘being triggering’ emerged out of folk therapy sessions among anti-war veterans of the American war in Vietnam. • “The traumas of war are not just physical and fleeting, but psychological and long-lasting.” Victimology contains two elements: Victim derived from the Latin victima Logos derived from the Greek, meaning a system of knowledge Victimology is: • a system of knowledge about victims • a science of victimity (vulnerability to victimization) The first victimologists Hans von Hentig (1887 – 1974) 1940s: Hans von Hentig and Beniamin “Often victims seem to be born. Often they are society-made.” Mendelsohn Belief that some are ‘victim-prone’ Beniamin Mendelsohn (1900 – 1998) 1950s: Marvin Wolfgang Coined the term victimology in 1947 —all follow ‘logical positivism’ Focus on degree of ‘victim culpability’ —all are defence lawyers Mendelsohns Victim Typology The first victimology is ‘positivist 1. Completely innocent victims (children, unconscious) victimology’ 2. Victims with minor guilt 3. Voluntary victims 4. Victims more guilty than the offender (provocative, precipitative)

Victimological inquiry arose in the 1940s during the high tide mark of logical positivism. Logical positivism 1920s – 1950s LP came to prominence in the 1920s after Emile Durkheim develops functionalist sociology, prevalent until the 1950s. Use of scientific method in the study of society … with the aim of ‘improving’ society. - Functionalist sociology follows Auguste Comte (1798–1857) o Comte coined the term ‘sociology’ and argued society should be studied scientifically Religion: fiction Metaphysics: abstraction Science: positive (hence ‘positivism’), as the path to true knowledge Positivism is an attempt to move beyond the fictions of religion and the abstractions of metaphysics LP believes that: For claims about the world to have meaning they must be verifiable through experience or observation. Positivism is an attempt to weed out unreliable statements (‘the unverifiable claims of metaphysics and religion’) 4 Key Characteristics of Logical Positivism 1. Empiricism and verificationism “the verifiability test for meaningfulness” 2. Reductionism Very limited (literally, reduced) and purist approach to data, weeding out all that is deemed contradictory, subjective, intuitive, all that fails the verifiability test for meaningfulness. 3. ‘Necessary truths’ Truth claims that are true in all possible contexts. These serve as a priori assumptions. Necessary truths: basic, self-evident, justified beliefs Contingent truths: claims that can be true in some contexts 4. Belief that society operates on the basis of universal laws Just as nature operates according to gravity and other absolute laws, so too does society operate on the basis of absolute laws that are discoverable when we apply the scientific method. Logical Positivism Notorious lack of internal consensus (eg on what counts as self-evident, etc.) Widely critiqued • The positivist search for ‘pure data’ disregards many truth claims and perspectives. • The positivist claim on objectivity wears thin – the value-laden nature of positivist inquiry has not been difficult to demonstrate. But LP is still going strong – in the sense that research informed by positivist methodology persists in ‘social science’ and in law/the state/policy/official politics. Logical positivism and Victimology Hans von Hentig (1887 – 1974) Beniamin Mendelsohn (1900 – 1998) Marvin Wolfgang (1924-1998) —all follow ‘logical positivism’ —all are defence lawyers Mendelsohn conceived victimology as: A science of victimity that measures victimization in order to predict and prevent it, with adjacent areas of application in psychology, law and the state (‘applied victimology’). Positivist victimologist count verifiable data as Police statistics and police file reports - Not the victim’s perspective, which is tainted by bias The victim’s perspective as ‘unverifiable data’ Fattah notes: early studies are “individual studies of victims of specific crimes” later succeeded by “large scale victim surveys”

Positivist victimology seeks to know about victimization with a focus on victim ‘susceptibility’ and ‘culpability’ Miers: “The enterprise involves, in short, an attempt to explain ‘victimisation’ by an examination of those held to be victims.” Miers on positivist victimology Focus on victim character and behaviour “The standard questions of positivist victimology are: what socio-cultural factors are most likely to produce victims, and why are some people repeatedly victimised?” “These questions are answered by examining the values, beliefs and behavioural patterns displayed by victims; by analysing how victims differ from non-victims and by trying to identify those factors that increase a person’s susceptibility to victimisation.” Focus on the victim’s character and culpability “Positivist victimology has traditionally concentrated on two aspects of victimisation: the identification of characteristics inhering in individuals that make them especially susceptible to victimisation, and the identification of particular crimes and of relationships between victims and offenders which might suggest some causal responsibility in victims for their victimisation.” Positivist victimology The focus on “examining the values, beliefs and behavioural patterns displayed by victims” led to the creation of victim typologies Walklate: “[The positivist] view of science facilitates a concern with patterns, regularities and precipitative characteristics of victimizing events and, consequently, the production of victim typologies.” The early victimologists produced typologies classifying different types of victims according to their degree of susceptibility/culpability. Mendelsohn’s Victim Typology (1) completely innocent victims (children, unconscious) (2) victims with minor guilt (3) voluntary victims (4) victims more guilty than the offender (provocative, precipitative) (5) victims who alone are guilty (harmed having attacked someone) (6) the imaginary victims (false accuser) Miers’ three signs of positivism in victimology 1. “The persistent search for factors inhering within individuals that increase their susceptibility to victimization” 2. An “almost exclusive focus within victimological studies upon crimes against the person” 3. “The perennial concern with the question of victim participation in crime, in particular, in the commission of sexual offences.” The term ‘victim blame’ was coined by William Ryan in his book Blaming the Victim (1969) • There is a lack of distinguishing victim characteristics … this leads victimology into the problem of tautology Positivist victimology does not live up to its professed interest in value-free truth claims, instead drawing upon culturally specific categories and biases in the study and depiction of victims. Miers interactionist perspective “When at a general level victimologists have disagreed over the question, ‘what objects of harm are properly to be included within the scope of victimology?’, an interactionist perspective will formulate the question differently: ‘under what circumstances can individuals or groups of individuals (including entire ethnic or national groups), animals, plants, or even values or ideals become victims?’

What are the social processes by which such groups are selected and identified as ‘victims’, and why are they so labelled?” Lecture Three Victima – sacrificial animal 16 century: a “special name for Jesus Christ” 17th century: broader colloquial usage (‘passion of the Christ’), victima is broadened to victims of crime and disaster. 20th century: multiple new meanings and discourses: – Victimology: 1940s – ‘Victim-blame’: 1969 – ‘Victim identity’ controversy, anti-victimism: 1980s to now th

Negative constructions of victimhood, victim identity and victim politics are pervasive in the neoliberal polity. The notion that one should choose to refuse to be a victim and choose to refrain from identifying others as victims, has attained deep cultural, political and intellectual resonance. Our ways of thinking and talking about victims, victimization and victimhood have been reorganised around the dominance of anti-victim talk. Anti-Victim Talk Examples “Don’t play the role of victim, or use past events to build excuses. You will never fix a problem by blaming someone else. Whether the cards you've been dealt are good or bad, you’re in charge of yourself now.” Larry Elder “coined the term ‘victicrats’ for groups who blame all their ills, problems and concerns on other people.” “And let’s face it. Seeing ourselves as victims is often far easier than taking responsibility for those aspects of our lives we can control.” o Victim identity is seen as being at odds with personal responsibility o Victim identity is seen as voluntary (one ‘chooses to see oneself as a victim’) o There is a clear anti-sociological heuristic (contentious and eliminable structures of inequality are derealised; individuals are ‘dealt cards’ in a game of chance) o Before their claims have been heard, ‘victims’ are already seen as destructive, mendacious, lacking in virtue – crooked. Anti-victim talk  Neoliberal victim theory - Knowing Victims examines the language and politics of victimhood in the neoliberal context - Knowing Victims develops a reading of anti-victimism as ‘neoliberal victim theory’ - The ideal neoliberal citizen avoids ‘victim mentality’ and assumes personal responsibility for guarding against the risk of victimization, instead of focussing on their right to not be victimized. - Victimization is constituted as a matter of individual responsibility, psychology and will, endorsing a fundamentally conservative conception of victimhood as a state of mind rather than a worldly situation. - ‘Victimhood’ = an unhealthy attitude of resentment brought on by an individual’s lack of personal responsibility, rather than a circumstance occasioned by wider social forces and the workings of power Neoliberal Victim Theory (NVT) The self-made victim, the victim as the author of their own suffering Signature characteristics of NVT: 1. The victim-bad/agent-good formulation 2. Reverse victimology 3. The motif of resentment

NVT always assumes the form of an anti-establishment liberation narrative in which we free ourselves from the yoke of oppression brought on by Leftist political correctness and its ‘power victims’. NVT does not in fact ‘move beyond’ or ‘let go’ of the category victim, instead reorganising the perception of who can and cannot be seen as a real and legitimate victim. - To be ‘real’, victimization must either take place at the hands of progressives and power victims (‘reverse sexism’, ‘reverse racism’), or else constitute a form of injury, loss or misfortune that stands out clearly from everyday life (an event rather than a structure) Neoliberalism’s ‘situational’ approach to crime control – focused on crime ‘before it occurs’     

Butler (1993): feminism needs to move beyond the “paradigm of victimization” Ronai (1999): victim identity is “disempowering” Hall (2004): feminism needs to “let go of the abstract figure of woman as victim” Gruber (2009): Anti-rape feminism is characterised by “myopic focus on women as victims” Kapur (2002): ‘victim’ is unable to “accommodate multi-layered experience”

Even as feminism has contributed strongly and innovatively to politicising and theorising victimization, it has also been a key venue for articulating anti-victim discourse – it doesn’t stand outside of NVT William Ryan coined the term ‘victim blame’, and developed the concept in his 1969 book Blaming the Victim Jean-François lyotard, The Differend It is in the nature of a victim not to be able to prove that one has been done a wrong. A plaintiff is someone who has incurred damages and who disposes of the means to prove it. One becomes a victim if one loses these means. I would like to call a differend the case where the plaintiff is divested of the means to argue and becomes for that reason a victim. The differend ‘asks’ to be put into phrases and suffers from the wrong of not being able to be put into phrases right away. What is at stake in a literature, in a philosophy, in a politics perhaps, is to bear witness to differends by finding idioms for them. - Note the complete absence of assumptions about the victim’s inner world. Examples of idioms brought in by differends: • Marital rape (1980s) • Child sexual abuse (1970s-80s) • Hate speech (1980s-90s) • Rape as a war crime (2001) Lecture Four Victimology is a system of knowledge about victims - Positivist victimology: a science of vicimity Critical victimology is the study of victimisation as a labelling process Jean-François Lyotard, The Differend - Lyotard provides a viable theory of the victim and shows that we don’t have to be anti-victimists - A plaintiff is someone who has incurred damages and who disposes of the means to prove it. One becomes a victim if one loses these means - He calls it a differend the case where the plaintiff is divested of the means to argue and becomes for that reason a victim *Victim can be distinguished from plaintiff In the law you cannot be charged for victimising yourself Rebecca Stringer- Knowing the Victim

“Whether or not someone is recognised as a victim does not depend on what happened or is happening to them, or the apparent severity of their experience. It depends rather on the particular parameters of victim recognition that exist in their social world” • • •

Positivist victimology has been thoroughly critiqued, and we now have critical victimology. Although victimology has moved on from positivism, positivist victimology continues to dictate official and popular discourses of criminal victimization. Positivist victimology’s descriptive dimension has been critiqued, but its prescriptive dimension (influence in official and popular discourses) is still very present.

- Crimes included are property and interpersonal violence crimes - State and corporate crimes are excluded Official crime stats are dominantly focused on interpersonal violence and certain forms of property crime. Absent are state and corporate criminality. For critical victimologists, official crime stats are achingly partial Victims of State Crime: • Tend to be among the least socially powerful • Are often repeatedly victimised • Are often blamed for the crimes against them • Have to rely on their victimiser, or another institution, to take notice and assist in redress Perpetrators of State Crime: • Tend to be in more powerful positions • Often fail to recognise the extent of harm that they have caused • Actions tend to fit in with organizational principles / institutional aims Massive Violence and Harms: • genocide • the arms trade • mass killings • new technologies of repression (electro• abuse and killings within state institutions shocks/ • torture chemical gas) • disappearances • war • mass rapes • state-terrorism • slavery • corruption and financial crime • unequal development, massive poverty around the world • environmental crimes (pollution) • repressive asylum policies • forced relocations of people • nuclear policies From 1900-1987, about 170 million people were murdered by governments * figure excludes deaths in war and judicial executions

Critical Victimology: Key features 1. Seeks to avoid – and to examine – victim-blaming 2. Examines the social construction of the victim rather than taking this term as self-evident 3. Create contexts for acknowledging and examining overlooked victims 4...