Wednesday 8 May 2013

Sexual abuse and culture

There's an interesting article from Joseph Harker, essentially arguing that whiteness is invisible when we talk about sexual violence, a privilege not enjoyed by Muslim people:
Every day across Britain, it seems, there's a new and horrific revelation of sexual abuse: last week we had the guilty plea of veteran TV presenter Stuart Hall, who confessed to 14 cases of indecent assault against 13 girls, the youngest only nine years old.  Days earlier the possible scale of child abuse in north Wales children's homes was revealed.
But after the shock has subsided and we have time to reflect on these revolting crimes, the main question in most reasonable people's minds must surely be: what is it about white people that makes them do this?
While Mr Harker has left alone the obvious male connection that all of these perpetrators - white and non-white - have in common, he raises a valid point, well.  And one which is just as relevant in Aotearoa, where as Moana Jackson points out the Kahui twins, Nia Glassie and James Whakaruru are household names, while the Nelson twins, Timothy Maybin and Samantha Nelson are not.

What I'm slightly disappointed by in Mr Harker's article though is the lack of attention to power in other ways.  Sexual violence thrives in situations in which there are power imbalances.  Predators target vulnerable people.  Child sexual abuse perpetrated by adults is in the main not by "paedophiles" but by men who have sexual relationships with other adults as well as targeting children. 

This power might be institutional - Jimmy Savile say, with his powerful role within the entertainment industry in the UK.  Where there seems to be a problem, given the Coronation St roll call of men accused of raping children is growing.  Institutional power within educational organisations, or community groups for children, or religious based organisations, or residential services for children, or facilities to care for children.  Social power that comes with adulthood, or being a caregiver, or helping out with babysitting.

We need to ask questions of culture if we want to prevent child sexual abuse, but they need to be much broader than racist deficit assumptions for Muslims, Maori or any other people of colour.  What was the culture in the British entertainment industries which has led to a Police investigation arresting  pop star Gary Glitter, comedian Freddie Starr, DJ Dave Lee Travis, publicist Max Clifford and comedian Jim Davidson, alongside of course the Jimmy Savile revelations and the recent arrest of Rolf Harris?

How many children and adults did these men sexually assault?  How many people knew about it?  What did they tell themselves?  How can we stop that happening again?

The Steubenville rape convictions put the spotlight on the inability of young sportsmen to identify sexually assaulting a near comatose young woman as something unacceptable.  One teammate of the convicted rapists who saw the rape and walked away had just moments earlier stopped another teammate from drinking and driving.  How do we shift those cultural norms, so that young sportsmen are just as determined to stop their teammates raping as driving drunk?

The most important issue, whenever we are talking and thinking about culture, is that the analysis - and the shift to building and supporting protective social norms - needs to come from within the group of interest.  I don't know why the British entertainment industry has been providing such a safe place to abuse for men for decades.  But people working there will.

I don't think we should be scared of talking and thinking about culture when it comes to preventing sexual violence.  In fact I think it's imperative we do that work, if we want protective social norms which promote respect, safety, mutuality and consent as foundations.

We just need to be looking at our own cultural belongings first and foremost.  There's plenty of social change to go around.

9 comments:

Scorpio said...

"The most important issue, whenever we are talking and thinking about culture, is that the analysis - and the shift to building and supporting protective social norms - needs to come from within the group of interest."

I 100% disagree.

When we are looking at sexual abuse that comes from a white male heterosexual culture, analysis from queer, coloured, female groups is extremely valuable.

I have no interest in hearing a white het male dialogue about white het male child abuse. That would be of no use to anyone.

LudditeJourno said...

I wonder if I've phrased this poorly Scorpio - but it feels like you've picked a fight here I don't think I'm having.
If I want to stop sexual abuse in white communities, calling on manaakitanga say, will probably not work, because it will not be culturally meaningful. If I want to stop sexual violence in queer communities, I'll need to understand the complex dynamics at play around coming out and the vulnerabilities that has because otherwise I will misunderstand how that time is targeted by older queer predators. If I want to stop sexual violence in Pacifica communities, assuming I can do mixed gender work will be a barrier, even if that's good practise in other communities, because of strict cultural rules around gender and sexuality. But mobilising communal belonging and responsibility may well work.
The "group of interest" I'm talking about is not the same as "the person perpetrating the sexual violence" which seems to be how you've taken it.
And I completely disagree with you about the need to listen to straight white men about how to stop straight white men's violence - the problem, to my mind, is there are not enough men doing that work. It's of tremendous use - try doing some reading on current best practise in preventing sexual violence.

Anonymous said...

Yes, Luddite is correct. Listening to white het men who perpetrate this abuse helps you understand why. That is increasingly what research focuses on. The victims are incidental to the offenders' motivations and the latter is what needs to change to reduce sexual offending by and large.

Very excellent post. This issue gets ignored far too often.

xyz.

Scorpio said...

LJ, I am going to ask you to believe that I did not come here to 'pick a fight' with you or anyone else. If I see something I disagree with, I say so. I'm not trying to bring you or anyone else down.

Anyway, as for foregrounding the experiences of white het men, I think patriarchy already does that EXTREMELY well by itself. If all we needed to end abuse by white het men was for white het men's voices to be heard, the problem would have been solved long ago, because that is the voice that is always heard. That's what patriarchy is. The idea that the solution is to turn up the white het male volume even further, when it's already at 11, I just don't understand.

If you'd said that we need to foreground the experiences of groups that re usually silenced (women, queer communities, Muslims etc etc) in dealing with abuse inside those communities, I would agree 100%. In fact I basically agree with your statement except when it comes to the group that benefits from patriarchy. But I feel that this exception is a very important one because this is the group that pereptrates most abuse. We can't really talk about 'solutions to abuse' generally without talking about white het male abuse.

In fact you said it pretty well yourself not so long ago, LJ:

'I have very little patience with people who want to undermine equity driven responses to women's oppression by insisting instead that we focus on men.'

I can't see how, if we say that we need to listen to straight white men, we are doing anything other than just that.

LudditeJourno said...

Hi Scorpio
I think our issue here is you think I'm saying:
"If all we needed to end abuse by white het men was for white het men's voices to be heard, the problem would have been solved long ago, because that is the voice that is always heard."
And I am emphatically not saying that. What I am saying is we need to understand and mobilise protective cultural norms within specific cultural contexts if we want to change rape culture(s). That doesn't mean we listen only to the relatively powerful in any culture.
Hopefully that is clearer, I still feel like this discussion is a little off base, but that may be because I'm written too short a post to communicate some complicated things.

Scorpio said...

Well LJ, I'm sure it's not what you meant to say. Often when we say one thing we end up accidentally saying another thing. I've done it too. But when I did it realised that intent wasn't magic and that sometimes readers could help me unpick the problematic aspects of what I'd written. Not that I'm blowing my own horn here.

But the examples you gave were all white men. Then you talked about 'the analysis... needs to come from within the group of interest'.

I'm having a hard time looking past that... it fairly leaps out of the page, for me.

Anonymous said...

Umm the patriarchy prioritises the voices of normalised masculinity. Sex offenders, particularly against children, don't uphold that norm and therefore aren't the voices you normally hear. There's a strong argument to be made that their offending is based in the rigid notion of gender norms and how masculinity is enforced. That's very hard to explain without writing a novel, though.

xyz.

Anonymous said...

Put another way, the voices of white het men and the voices of offenders that are white het men...those are two different voices and the former is normally heard. Not the latter.

xyz.

LudditeJourno said...

Thanks xyz and Scorpio, and apologies for delays in replying.
Scorpio the examples of offenders I gave were all men (though not all straight possibly, I'm not sure about the offenders identified in the investigations into the UK entertainment industry) but the examples of culture were not:
"I don't know why the British entertainment industry has been providing such a safe place to abuse for men for decades. But people working there will."
AND
"One teammate of the convicted rapists who saw the rape and walked away had just moments earlier stopped another teammate from drinking and driving. How do we shift those cultural norms, so that young sportsmen are just as determined to stop their teammates raping as driving drunk?"

I guess we might just have to disagree here. I don't think my post reads the way you've read it. Maybe that's me expecting magic, maybe that's you making assumptions. Hopefully these comments make it clearer if it's confusing for anyone else.