Free the Victim: A Critique of the Western Conception of Victimhood
| Author | Jan Van Dijk |
| Published date | 01 May 2009 |
| DOI | 10.1177/026975800901600101 |
| Date | 01 May 2009 |
International
Review
o(Victimologr.
2009,
Vol.
16,
pp.
1-33
0269-7 580/09
$10
© A 8
Academic
Publishers
-
Printed
in
Great
Britain
FREE
THE
VICTIM:
A
CRITIQUE
OF
THE
WESTERN
CONCEPTION
OF
VICTIMHOOD
JAN
VAN
DIJK*
Tilburg
University,
The
Netherlands
ABSTRACT
In
Western
languages
those
affected
by
crime
are
universally
labelled
as
'victims',
meaning
the
sacrificed
ones.
According
to
the
author
this
practice
seems
to
originate
from
the
association
of
the
plight
of
victims
with
the
suffering
of
Jesus
Christ.
In
his
view,
the
victim
label,
although
eliciting
compassion
for
victims,
assigns
to
them
a
social
role
of
passivity
and
forgiveness
that
they
may
increasingly
find
to
be
restraining.
He
analyses
the
narratives
of
eleven
high-profile
victims
such
as
Natascha
Kampusch,
the
couple
McCann
and
Reemtsma
to
illustrate
this
thesis.
The
article
continues
with
a
critical
review
of
biases
deriving
from
the
unreflexive
adoption
of
the
victim
label
in
various
schools
of
thought
in
victimology
and
criminal
law.
Finally,
the
author
argues
for
the
introduction
of
stronger
procedural
rights
for
crime
victims
in
criminal
trials
and
for
a
new
focus
within
victimology
on
processes
of
victim
labelling.
Keywords:
victims
of
crime
-
labelling-
procedural
rights
-
narratives
INTRODUCTION
The English term victim
is
derived from the Latin word for sacrificial animal,
victima. The English language
is
not alone in calling persons affected by crime
the sacrificed ones. In fact, all Western languages use words referring to
sacrificial animals for victims
of
crime. In Romance languages terms are used
that are likewise derived from the Latin word victima.
In
German victims are
called Opfer, a word meaning both the sacrifice and the sacrificed object. In
Dutch this double meaning
is
avoided by adding the word for slaughter. The
Dutch word
is
slacht-o.ffer, meaning the object that
is
slaughtered by way
of
sacrifice. In Icelandish the word used is Fornarlamb, meaning the sacrificial
lamb. In modern Greek, Hungarian and all Slavic languages similar concepts
* Professor J.J.M.
van
Dijk
is
at
the
International Victimology Institute, University
of
Tilburg,
P.O.
Box 90153, NL-5000
LE
Tilburg, The Netherlands
(Jan.
vanDijk@uvt.nl).
This article
is
a revised version
of
his inaugural lecture
as
Pieter
Van
Vollenhoven
Professor
of
Victimology
and
Human
Security
at
the
University
of
Tilburg, The
Netherlands
on
24
November 2006 which
was
internally published under
the
title
The
Mark
o.lAbel,
Reflections
on
the Social Labelling
o.f'Crime
Victims
(Van
Dijk, 2006). I
want
to
thank
Hans
Boutellier,
Rene
Coo
len,
Joanna Shapland
and
Leslie Sebba
for
their
constructive criticism of this earlier
text.
For those who are interested
in
a fuller account
of
my
ideas
on
victim labelling
and
who read Dutch, I refer
to
my
latest book
Slachto.ff'ers
als
Zondebokken (Victims
as
Scapegoats)
(Van
Dijk, 2008).
2
are used. We have not found a single exception to the rule that Western
languages as well as modern Hebrew and Arab refer to those affected by crime
with words denoting sacrifice and/or sacrificial objects (Van Dijk, 2006; 2008b;
Fletscher, 2007).
The choice
of
the victima label for victims
of
crime in
so
many languages
is
puzzling for several reasons. Why have these languages not opted for the more
neutral terms that are used in, for example, Chinese and Japanese where the
victim is called the harmed party?
It
seems melodramatic and strangely lacking
in respect to call human beings suffering from the after effects
of
crimes
slaughtered animals. The victima label precludes any hope
of
a rapid recovery
or, in fact,
of
any recovery at all. Moreover, the use
of
the label puts the
behaviour
of
the perpetrator in a strangely favourable light. By calling the
affected persons sacrificial objects, the speaker suggests that the perpetrator has
been motivated by higher, unselfish motives. The perpetrator is put in the
venerable position
of
the sacrificing priest. The same objection has been raised
against the use
of
the word holocaust for the genocide
of
the Jews by the Nazis.
Holocaust means a sacrifice by fire. As Kamins (2005) comments, the word
holocaust implicitly suggests that the killing
of
millions
of
Jews has somehow
served a higher purpose. For this reason Israeli
people-
and Jewish people
generally-
have started to avoid the concept and to refer to the shoah instead
(shoah meaning the God forsaken disaster).
As noted by British victimologist Paul Rock (2004) victims
of
crime are
increasingly harbouring reservations about being called victims. This
observation
is
confirmed by Spalek (2006):
'If
the stereotype
of
victim as
"passive" and "helpless"
is
perpetuated in dominant representations
of
victimhood, during a time when individual strength is valued in society, then
both males and females may increasingly refuse to situate themselves in terms
of
victimhood'. According
to
Rolf Kleber, Dutch expert on the treatment
of
psychotraumata, increasing numbers
of
victims resent the negative
connotations
of
the label which seems to deny their potential strengths (cited in
Van Teeseling, 2001
).
By being called victims, victims
of
crime feel 'locked in'.
Typical for the rejection
of
the victim label by victims are statements made by
Natascha Kampusch, high-profile victim
of
a kidnapping in Vienna that lasted
for eight years. In an interview with a British newspaper she stated: 'I am not a
victim simply because other people say I am. Other people cannot make you a
victim, you can only do that yourself(
...
) I want
to
be taken seriously and for the
events
of
my case not be swept under the doormat' ('I am not a victim',
The
Telegraph, 20-08-2007). In The Netherlands, a former world champion in judo
accused her former coach
of
sexually abusing his pupils, saying: 'I never felt
myself a victim and this is not an act
of
retaliation either. But other, less strong
judokas could become victims and I want to prevent that' (cited in Romkens and
Dijkstra, 1996). In the USA likewise several high-profile victims have publicly
rejected the victim status (Cole, 2006). A typical example
is
the testimony
of
the
victim
of
a brutal attack in Central Park, Treshi Meili, who presents herself in a
3
book called A Story
of
Hope
and Possibility
as
a survivor (Meili, 2003). The
proposal by American feminists to replace the negative concept
of
victim by
survivor in cases
of
violence against women has met with near universal
approval1• In formal texts
of
the government, rape victims or victims
of
domestic violence or human trafficking are now duly called survivors and
victim support programmes survivor agencies.
In this article I will first try to unravel the etymological origins
of
the
increasingly critiqued victima label. When has the usage
of
the label in Western
societies commenced and for what reasons? I will try to demonstrate that the
content
of
the victima label in Western languages originates from the late
Christian imagery
of
Jesus Christ. The label has become used when common
people in Western Europe started to recognize the passion
of
Christ in fellow
human beings suffering from crime or disaster. A first pointer to this
is
the
Icelandish concept
of
Fornarlamb mentioned above. This concept seems to be
directly derived from the Catholic (and Lutheran) concept
of
Jesus
as
the Lamb
of
God (Agnus Dei). As the next part
of
this reconstruction, I will try to unravel
the various implications
of
the victima label for the treatment
of
crime victims in
our culture. Since this
is
largely unchartered territory this enquiry must be
explorative in nature. As material I will mainly use stories from high profile
crime victims such
as
Natascha Kampusch and Treshi Meili mentioned above.
The analysed victim narratives tell a very different story to conventional
representations
of
passive suffering. They also reveal how society's response to
crime victims tends to turn from sympathy into antipathy when victims defy the
expected victim role. Although the results
of
such narrative analysis can only be
tentative and should be followed up by further empirical research, they do seem
to point to serious biases in current representations
of
victims. I will therefore
subsequently argue that the young discipline
of
victimology, by uncritically
adopting the concept
of
the 'victim' as its subject-matter, has reproduced many
of
the underlying assumptions and connotations
of
that label. I will discuss
hidden biases in early penal victimology, studies centering around the concept
of
psychotraumatic stress disorder, reformist criminal victimology and early
versions
of
restorative justice. In the closing paragraph I will exhort
victimologists to pay more attention to hidden processes
of
victim labelling and
their potentially harmful, restricting consequences for those so labelled. The
ultimate objective
of
this essay is to launch a discussion on the need for
victimology to break away from conventional modes ofthinking about victims
as
'victims' and become more self-reflexive.
IN
THE
SHADOW
OF
CHRIST
According to the main available dictionaries, the word victim has in most
European languages been in use for centuries only metaphorically such as
in
expressions that someone
is
a 'victim
ofhis
own ambitions'. The first use
of
the
word victim for a human being emerged in theological texts around the time
of
To continue reading
Request your trial