January 28, 2010
I wanted to write a response to a comment we received on the blog about our use of the word victim:
I’m surprised by how much the word victim is used in this blog! Is the goal to establish who’s fault it’s not? I’ve been trained to use the word “survivor” instead, when referring to women who have been raped. To me it promotes a sense of strength, whereas “victim” seems to imply helplessness. Is there a specific reason you guys use the word “victim?”
It’s an important question, and I wanted to reply in a separate post that wouldn’t get missed in all the replies and comments we’ve been getting. Thanks to the comment’s writer for the good question, I hope you see this, and please keep the discussion going!
I sympathize with the desire not to burden a people with a label and an identity that can handicap them. I think in the United States, and perhaps Western culture in general, we have a certain discomfort with the idea of being a victim. We cling to the idea that we are always in control of our circumstances. We seem to feel that tragic occurrences; assault, robbery, rape, are things that were not completely unavoidable, and How many times do we hear people in our society refrain that “she should have known better than to walk down that street; or talk to that guy; or go to that country….” Also, there is the notion in our culture that great strength is gained from surviving and recovering from trauma. I detect great romanticism in the story of people overcoming incredible circumstances to succeed. To the point that suffering can be seen not so much as an incredible burden for someone to bear their entire life, but something that we should expect people to shed and grow stronger from.
I like to use the word “victim” because it absolves that person of responsibility for what happened to them, and the expectation that they should be made newly resilient. It is something that after spending two weeks in Sierra Leone, and meeting with amputees, war widows, miners and former child soldiers, seems totally appropriate. I question what exactly is so harmful of the identity of victimhood? What I saw through my lens, and heard through my ears, were testimonies and pleas of people crippled by the lagging economic development in Sierra Leone and their separation from the rest of society. To the extent that there was an identity of “victimhood,” it seemed not to be the thing that was inhibiting people from moving on after the conflict.
In terms of healing and reconciliation, I think gaining comfort with one’s own victimization is valuable. Admitting to having been a victim, and allowing others to understand that you were victimized, I think is hardly an expression of weakness. I think for a lot of people, knowing oneself is a challenge, and as such, fostering an identity of being a “survivor” seems to be something that is easier to project. But the idea of victimhood is extremely nuanced, and should not be confused with weakness. Indeed, I see it as a true display of strength, to confess that something terrible happened that was beyond your control. Personal healing and strength I think grows out of a certain comfort with your own circumstances and fortune. Without a doubt, it is difficult. For me, it is hard enough to be comfortable with how fortunate I am in the opportunities I have now, and have benefitted from in the past. I cannot imagine the difficulty in becoming comfortable with severe traumas. But I do feel that comfort with this makes healing possible.
Similarly, reconciliation at a societal level is, I believe, enabled by an acceptance that some, many, or most were victimized. Sympathy for traumas that were suffered, as well as apologies, are necessary for this wide reconciliation. An emphasis on surviving, to me, detracts from the severity of the trauma. Amputation, rape, and mutilations are difficult to know and consider, but it is valuable for the victim to have some faith that others know at least some recognition of their suffering. Please do not lift them up yet with language of courage, survival and strength. Allow for the suffering to happen. The catharsis in the wake of traumas of the kind in Sierra Leone I think comes about after those that were victims are allowed the space to know their victimhood, and to see that others recognize their suffering.
Lastly, we should bear in mind that “victim” has wide application. Are the children that were forcibly taken from their communities, traumatized through beatings, and drugged not victims because they then participated in acts committed by the RUF? And about Foday Sankoh, the leader of the RUF, and a man who appears to have been somewhat of a pawn of Charles Taylor’s in carrying his war to Sierra Leone. Is he not somewhat a victim? I like to use the word “victim” because it allows us to understand that victimization is not one-sided. Brutal violence of the nature that Sierra Leone experienced leaves victims from all parties in its wake. I certainly do not mean to sound as if this absolves Sankoh or the RUF combatants of the atrocities they committed, it merely asks of us to be more nuanced in our consideration of the war. There were not perpetrators on one side, and targets and survivors on the other. To some degree, the war touched everyone in Sierra Leone, and by this token, in some way, everyone was a victim of the war. The label of victim reminds us of the grotesqueness of war. Conflict is not a bad thing, but war and violence produce victims all around. The “winner” of a war will still be rife with victims. Understanding this allows us to know that violence and war are not constructive. In any way. Conflict offers great opportunity for growth and positive change. Violence in conflict produces victims. Labeling those that have gone through traumas as survivors or heroes seems to me to somewhat glorify the violent acts to which they were subjected.
Again, great, great question. Please be mindful that these are only my words and thoughts, and by no means do I speak for the group. Also, I know that I am not “right” in my ideas of the terms victim versus survivor. It is only my perspective and I understand that there are many others, and some that are undoubtedly more persuasive. I hope others in the group and those that follow the blog can reply to the question of “victimhood.” It is a good dialogue for us to have.
Thanks to both you and Mary for such interesting and thoughtful responses!
I’m not sure how most people who have lived through something horrific would prefer to self-identify, in the US, in Sierra Leone, or anywhere on earth. I suppose its largely individualized, and as you suggest, culturally influenced.
I think that’s why using the term survivor makes sense to me. The individual can still decide whether they see themselves as a victim or not, but victimhood is not forced upon them. I don’t suggest we try to elevate surviving or ignore suffering, or deny people the space to heal. There are two meanings to the word survivor, there’s the person who lived through, and the person who managed to overcome adversity and thrive. The second meaning may be too American or too soon, for Sierra Leone, but I think the first definition still works.
In Sierra Leone, “survivor” might also be a more concilatory term. Many perpetrators were also victims, but aren’t some of their victims outraged by their perpetrators’ senses of victimhood? I think that saying “survivor” acknowledges that it was a horrific time for everyone, without implying innocence or blame and without contributing to the “hierarchy of suffering” that may come from calling everyone a victim.
Mary and I spoke recently of FGM as well, and I mentioned that I was also taught never to say mutilation. Instead, I say FGC, for female genital cutting. The woman can decide whether or not she feels mutilated.
I know I’m coming across as a cultural relativist right now, which is surprising to me and really not the case. But I, like every human, cannot really claim to understand anyone’s suffering but my own. Therefore, I think it’s best to use the most neutral terms possible until I hear how someone self-identifies. That being said, in difficult conversations, I think most people can recognize compassion whether or not the “right” words are used.
Benjamin,
I appreciate your ability to differentiate a victim from a survivor. Being a victim implies a degree of helplessness, while a survivor has made a psychological transition toward moving forward. There is often a “Stockholm Syndrome” at play with the victims of such brutal circumstances, whereby the “victims” identify with the perps, as another classmate noted with the women who equate being beaten with love: “the victim’s mentality.” The healing process brings the full constellation of emotions found in any bereavement until ultimately the survivor learns how to accommodate the wounds of their experience. I appreciate your contribution and those of your classmates.
Pingback: Our Victimhood Culture; How Did It Happen?