Multi-Disciplinary Definitions and Understandings of ‘Paedophilia’
| Author | Kieran McCartan,Rachel Manning,Karen Harrison |
| Date | 01 December 2010 |
| Published date | 01 December 2010 |
| DOI | 10.1177/0964663910369054 |
| Subject Matter | Articles |
Social & Legal Studies
19(4) 481–496
Multi-Disciplinary
ª The Author(s) 2010
Reprints and permission:
Definitions and
sagepub.co.uk/journalsPermissions.nav
DOI: 10.1177/0964663910369054
Understandings
sls.sagepub.com
of ‘Paedophilia’*
Karen Harrison
University of Hull, UK
Rachel Manning
University of the West of England, UK
Kieran McCartan
University of the West of England, UK
Abstract
Despite the current high-profile concern over paedophiles and paedophilic activity, there
is no easily accessible or widely accepted multi-disciplinary definition of paedophilia.
Commentators have pointed to a general contemporary misunderstanding surrounding
the subject of paedophilia, and to the tensions between strong beliefs and facts in both
societal and correctional contexts. We suggest that the current situation – societal, clin-
ical and legal – can be problematic for both offenders and practitioners who are currently
charged with, and involved in the risk treatment and/or management of paedophiles. This
article attempts to begin to address these issues by looking at conceptions of paedophilia
from a multi-disciplinary viewpoint. We examine understandings from clinical and legal
sources, and present this analysis in a historical and cultural context. In drawing these
divergent conceptions together, we highlight various contradictions and discrepancies.
We suggest that these inconsistencies present significant problems in terms of profes-
sional engagement with paedophilia and paedophiles, and as a result illustrate the need
to engage in more detailed debate regarding what constitutes ‘the problem’.
Keywords
multi disciplinary definitions, paedophilia
* We would like to thank our anonymous reviewers for their helpful comments on an earlier draft of this
manuscript. Any errors are of course our own.
481
482
Social & Legal Studies 19(4)
Child sexual abuse (CSA), and by default paedophilia (whose distinction will be
discussed below), have been described as one of the most misunderstood crimes in mod-
ern society. Given the apparent acceptance of the punishments meted out to those who
violate the taboo of childhood sexuality (Kleinhans, 2002), the meanings and assumptions
that underlie our contemporary understandings of it can remain unacknowledged.
Moreover, the public safety and criminal justice problems that can surround paedo-
philia in the contemporary social context (as illustrated, on the Paulsgrove estate,
Portsmouth in 20001) can present obstacles to a measured discussion of the ‘problem’
at hand. The tendency for the subject of paedophilia to generate strong opinions rather
than facts (Musk et al., 1997) can be problematic for offenders, practitioners, and, by
implication, society more generally. Thus, despite the current high-profile nature of
paedophilia, there is no easily accessible or coherent multi-disciplinary definition of
it (Feelgood and Hoyer, 2008). Analyses of sexualities, paedophilia and CSA (Scott,
1995; Weeks, 1985) have pointed to the particularized nature of our current
understandings, and the various assumptions that underlie them. In both academic and
practitioner contexts there understandably remain concerns regarding the ability to
accurately categorize paedophilia and CSA. However, the historical and cultural
contingency of both clinical diagnosis and legislation ensures that the framework for
understanding concepts such as paedophilia is necessarily shifting. Moreover, the
situation of paedophilia and CSA at the intersection of a variety of multi-stranded
discourses about, for example, sexuality, gender, class, race, and not least childhood
(Kitzinger J, 1997) presents further challenges to the development of shared defini-
tions. Therefore timely reflexive self-examination can assist in challenging the
assumptions that underlie particular current understandings.
The benefits of multi- or trans-disciplinary approaches towards paedophilia and CSA
have been noted previously (Schofield, 2004). This article therefore attempts to begin to
explore some of these issues by looking specifically at conceptions of paedophilia from
clinical and legal sources. While scholars such as Kleinhans (2002) have provided valu-
able insight into the punishment of (convicted) paedophilic sex offenders, our focus is on
issues that fall prior to, but which also have implications following, conviction. We
firstly contextualize our analysis by reviewing issues of history and culture in relation
to adult/child sexual relations. We then set out some contemporary understandings of
paedophilia from clinical and legal perspectives so as to highlight the tensions between
these two central arenas. For example, given that paedophilia is currently considered a
mental disorder (Cohen and Galynker, 2002), what is the nature of this understanding?
Moreover, given that what might be termed paedophilic activity is regulated by the law,
how does the law construct paedophilia? Clearly there are additional issues in the rela-
tionship between the two that are beyond the scope of this article. However, we argue
that, for the purpose of contemporary practice, there are similar problems that affect both
legal and clinical perspectives that revolve around the issue of definition. Kleinhans
(2002) has set out the core assumptions that underlie the notions of ‘child’ and ‘child-
hood’, and has used this to examine their role in legitimating particular sanctions towards
those determined as paedophiles. Here, we aim to complement this work by examining
some of the constructions that inform these sanctions in the realms of law and clinical
psychology. This we believe is important as these clinical and legal terms have
482
Harrison et al
483
significance for practitioners making important risk-management and risk-reduction
decisions. We therefore focus specifically on the law in England and Wales, and high-
light clinical understandings that have primary currency in the United Kingdom context.
Finally, we consider the utility of this mapping and set out key issues for further consid-
eration that have been raised in the process.
The Context of Paedophilia
The problematic binary distinction between adult and child, and the underlying issue of
the construction of childhood (e.g. Kitzinger J, 1997), loom large in our interrogations of
paedophilia. Crises of representation in academic writing alert us to the problematic
nature of terms such as child (Griffin, 1993). The concept of childhood varies in meaning
across different times and places. As such, historical and cultural variation in understand-
ings of adult/child sexual relations might therefore be anticipated. However, such varia-
tion can be obscured by the normalization and assumed universality of contemporary
(Westernized) definitions of transgressive phenomena such as paedophilia. Howitt
(1998) has pointed to the ‘substantial differences’ in legal, sociological, and biological
definitions of paedophilia, with Western societal definitions of childhood being based on
‘arbitrary dates, milestones marking progress into adulthood’ (p. 17) which may not cor-
respond to biological change. Similarly, Green (2002) points to the problematic use of
puberty as the marker for clinical definitions, such as those discussed below, as it fails
to take into account the mental development of the child, and does not reflect the intra-
and inter-generational variation of puberty itself. This is also noted by Weeks (1985),
who argues that while puberty is the obvious line, ‘physiological change does not neces-
sarily coincide with social or subjective changes’ (p. 230).
Problems of assuming universality and standardization of variable markers such as
puberty are further challenged by the array of exotic examples that are regularly mobi-
lised to illustrate the particularity of our current understandings of paedophilia. These
include, for example, ‘various rites of passage’ involving childhood sexuality, including
10-year-old boys of the Tharo swallowing the semen of older men to aid their develop-
ment into manhood (Bauserman, 1997), along with various other cross-cultural reports of
sexual activity between or involving pre-pubescent children. Green (2002) uses such
examples to problematize the positioning of paedophilia as a mental disorder. Similarly,
Ames and Houston (1990), refer to the challenge posed to researchers of ‘adult/child sex’
(p. 339) in terms of the boundary between sexual interaction with a child as pathological
rather than just criminal. Clearly, there are additional issues here regarding the nature of
mental illness itself. Such a concept is not unproblematic, and illustrations of cultural and
historical variation in this case are as, if not more, easy to find. However, these examples
indicate that the sexual and developmental practices encouraged in some societies are
alien to those understood and practised in the contemporary West.
Historical examples can similarly be used to illustrate the difficulties of essentialist
definitions of paedophilia. Again, various commentators point to the acceptance of
adult/child sexual relations as normative in other times (e.g. McConaghy, 1998). Antici-
pating our analysis of legal involvement in the definition of paedophilia, it has also been
pointed out that the age of consent for heterosexual activities in England and Wales in
483
484
Social & Legal Studies 19(4)
1285 was 10 (Thomas, 2005). This was raised in 1875 under the Offences Against the
Person Act to 13, and to 16 in 1885; although this was due to concerns over child pros-
titution, and not...
To continue reading
Request your trial