Labelling the Victims of Sex Trafficking: Exploring the Borderland between Rhetoric and Reality
| Author | Michelle Dempsey,Carolyn Hoyle,Mary Bosworth |
| DOI | 10.1177/0964663911405394 |
| Date | 01 September 2011 |
| Published date | 01 September 2011 |
| Subject Matter | Articles |
Article
Labelling the Victims
of Sex Trafficking:
Exploring the
Borderland between
Rhetoric and Reality
Carolyn Hoyle
University of Oxford, UK
Mary Bosworth
University of Oxford, UK and Monash University, Australia
Michelle Dempsey
Villanova University, USA
Abstract
In this article we discuss findings from a small scoping study into the experiences of
victims of trafficking and those who work with them. We use testimonies from our
interviews to examine issues of choice, slavery and escape. We challenge some of the
current language and terminology in the literature on trafficking and call for a more
nuanced appreciation of the relationship between agency and victimization.
Keywords
agency, choice, ideal victim, prostitution, sex trafficking, slavery
Introduction
During the first decade of the twenty-first century, as Britain prepared to commemorate
the 200-year anniversary of the abolition of slavery, the government, academy and media
increasingly appropriated the language and metaphors of the slave trade to bring to
public attention the current ‘epidemic’ of human trafficking. The year of the anniversary
Corresponding author:
Mary Bosworth, Manor Road, Oxford OX1 3UQ, UK
Email: mary.bosworth@crim.ox.ac.uk
Social & Legal Studies
20(3) 313–329
ªThe Author(s) 2011
Reprints and permission:
sagepub.co.uk/journalsPermissions.nav
DOI: 10.1177/0964663911405394
sls.sagepub.com
– 2007 – was marked by viewings of the film of William Wilberforce’s life, Amazing
Grace, by new biographies of the anti-slave trade campaigner, and by a rush of popular
books on slavery more generally. It also saw public apologies for Britain’s involvement
in the slave trade, primarily at her ports, in Bristol and London, for example, and in
Liverpool two years later. Less than one week following then Mayor Ken Livingstone’s
formal apology for London’s role in the slave trade, Prime Minister Tony Blair expressed
sorrow and regret for Britain’s participation in it too.
As Britain seeks to close one chapter of shame, human rights campaigners
persuade us to confront another: a contemporary version of our past sins. Hence
in a relatively short time commentators around the world have readily, indeed
eagerly, adopted the notion of ‘modern day slavery’ or ‘21st-century slavery’ to
describe human trafficking (Picarelli, 2007; Schaeffer-Grabiel, 2010). These terms,
so laden with shame, regret and abhorrence have been deployed by diverse groups
ranging from the United Nations, national and regional governments to human rights
organizations.
1
Powerful figures in the media have appropriated them, apparently
without question; Oprah Winfrey and the distinguished New York Times journalist,
Nicholas Kristof, being two high profile American examples,
2
while on this s ide of the
Atlantic, the BBC frequently refers to trafficking as ‘modern slavery’.
3
AGoogle
search of ‘sex trafficking modern day slavery’ reveals just under 50,000 ‘hits’ while a
search on Amazon UK shows a great many books on sex trafficking with ‘modern day
slavery’ in the title.
Invoking conceptions of ‘modern day slavery’ or ‘21st-century slavery’ clearly
packs a powerful rhetorical punch. Yet, as we shall demonstrate in this article, it
is not without some limitations. By creating‘idealtypes’oftraffickedwomenwho
are ‘stolen’ from their homes, or coerced into leaving, and imprisoned in brothels,
the language of slavery oversimplifies our understanding of the range of causes and
experiences of trafficking. It also sits uneasily with the legal framework established
in 2000 in the United Nations’ Protocol to Prevent, Suppress and Punish Trafficking
in Persons, Especially Women and Children, Supplementing the United Nations’
Convention Against Transnational Organized Crime (hereinafter, the Palermo
Protocol).
4
In2009weconductedaseriesofsemi-structured interviews with eight
case-workers at the Poppy Project
5
in London, with four prison officers at HMP
Bronzefield and with the head of the UK Human Trafficking Centre,
6
all of whom
had experience working with victims of trafficking. With the assistance of the Poppy
Project, we administered surveys to ten women who had been trafficked for sex
work into the UK. In 2010, one of us (Bosworth) conducted longer, open-ended
interviews with two trafficked women in an immigration detention centre.
Elsewhere, we provide a detailed discussion of our methodology and the research
process (Bosworth et al., forthcoming). Here, however, we consider the accounts
of trafficking given by the women and those who work with them. While our sample
is no doubt small, we hope that by engaging directly with service providers and
trafficked women we may provide some more textured analysis to the sometimes
heated debates in this field (see e.g. Dozema, 2005; Kempadoo, 2005). In so doing,
we strive to unpack the language of ‘slavery’, victimhood and coercion.
314 Social & Legal Studies 20(3)
To continue reading
Request your trial