Child abuse or confronting abuse
I do work hard. Yes I do. Really.
But in the middle of an important meeting, I found myself considering what we really mean when we talk about a taboo.
It is broadly defined as a “system of prohibitions connected with things considered holy or unclean”.
I’m no social anthropologist or sociologist, but it seems clear to me that even when we collectively uphold something as a taboo, it’s not actually a prohibition; it simply stops us talking about it.
Child sex abuse is a taboo; within the confines of trusted structures – such as family or school or religion – even more so. This is quite right.
Yet although we operate this “system of prohibitions” it doesn’t translate into action from us, as a society, to prevent it in the first place. This is because where abuse is concerned the actual taboo is talking about it, acknowledging and confronting it.
It’s unsurprising, I suppose. We are frightened of taboos; how they challenge us, what we might need to do to stop them.
Take death. Since we left the Victorian theatricality surrounding death behind, it is high up on the list of taboo subjects. We can’t talk about it. We deny it and at best address it euphemistically. But this doesn’t stop it. It just means we aren’t prepared for it.
Of course, this is where that comparison must rightly stop. Death from natural causes is inevitable, child abuse is not. However until we break the talking taboo childhood sex abuse will continue and will remain inevitable.
You see the things that start at home – private, unshared, tacitly understood – are perpetuated. A taboo, such as family abuse, is a crime committed, known about, but rarely talked about. The more trusted, tightly wrought and familiar the institution, the greater is the taboo surrounding revealing any deviation within its confines.
Recent high profile celebrity abuse cases are really helping us to peel back some of the layers here. The reporting is so often skewed, but the conversation has started however uninformed and misguided it may sometimes be. Like Sophie Heawood in her column I too punch the air when another case is revealed because some fresh air has been blown into the musty long held secret. But I also have to temper my exasperation. The bind is that a concept such as ‘celebrity’ and the notion of an ‘institution’ enable us to put a distance between these horrors and daily family life. This is what gives it license to continue, unchallenged. We speak out about the famous, but we can’t speak out about our families. The more we know about it, the more we defend against it.
The family is our smallest unit of society – many would see it as a fundamental building block of society. In so many ways it forms us, teaches us, sustains us. We are taught to trust it and everything that happens within it. The rules learnt within the family – including what you do or don’t talk about – are virtually impossible to break as a child or an adult. If you experienced something hateful, perpetuated by someone you trusted and actively or passively sanctioned by those you loved, how on earth do you know it is wrong and how on earth do you summon the resources at any point in your life to speak out? Society at a macro level can’t believe you and society at a micro level, your family, may well reject you. The talking taboo is an important contributor to this.
Twitter is alive with the fact that the Home Secretary’s long promised inquiry into historic child sex abuse has been kicked into the political long grass. This, I believe, is a living, breathing example of my point. We know it’s happening, at scale, but we can’t talk about it, for fear of what might ensue and what it might unleash. It is, in fact, too close to home for everyone.
The inquiry matters for all sorts of reasons: first it was promised by the Government and the Government needs to follow through. Second it would send a message to those who have suffered and are suffering abuse that this issue will be taken seriously. Third, and most importantly, it would mean talking about abuse.
Although the inquiry will focus on institutions, it should shine a light on the fact that it happens inside families, outside families, in institutions, by those we trust and don’t trust, in every class, faith, colour, and household, and make it part of our discourse. Only in this way can we take some small, firm steps towards putting an end to abuse.
I am not living embodiment of what I say here. I am not out of that particular closet: I was abused for a long time as a child.
I write about it, think about it, have opinions about it, take medication because of it, feel huge empathy for others who are suffering and admiration for the struggle of survivors. However talking openly is still a taboo for me – I blog anonymously and I share my experiences with very few people.
In my family the abuse is known about but not talked about or acknowledged. It remains a silent, living secret…although the perpetrator is dead.
So, the taboo of talking is created and reinforced in families from the bottom up.
I’m usually of the opinion that small scale action leads to big scale change. But in this case I believe a top down, national inquiry, signed up to by politicians of all persuasions and supported by all agencies, with survivors and their representatives at its heart, would start to create a discourse that might help permeate every layer of society.
This could outlaw the taboo of talking about childhood abuse and enable us to focus on stopping the real taboo – the abuse itself.
A version of this article first appeared on anewselfwritten.
Taboos are all about maintaining power structures. Sexual abuse of women and children has long been seen as a right by men, part of their dominance or racial superiority over us as lesser humans. Men recognise it is wrong, hence the law changes, but they do not want to give up male supremacy, so they hide the areas of their corruption by shaming and blaming the victim of their crimes against humanity. 80.000 women and a good number of men were falsely locked up in mental institutions in the 80’s simply for being victims of male abuse who no one wanted to believe as it would shake the myth of male supremacy over women and children. The problem with male abuse of either women or children is no one wants to take on the ingrained social discrimination that women and children are born into in this country and the world all over. Framing the problem of covering up male abuse as institutional rather than endemic to men lets the real villain, male social supremacy over women and children and therefore lack of accountability, totally off the hook … which is what the men in charge want. Our male MPs are a sham.
Thanks for your comment on my piece. I agree – especially your point about maintaining power structures and the shaming and blaming. Often this is incredibly subtle and manipulative and practically invisible to an outside observer. That’s the horrible irony – something blunt and vile is actually orchestrated in a sophisticated way. As I said in the piece I’m no expert but I do know how the taboos play out. The distance between the institution and the individual is a fundamental problem and also the unwillingness to actually accept the family as an institution. Anyway. Thanks again – are you on twitter. If yes please follow me @anewselfwritten and I’ll reciprocate.
Thanks for commenting on my piece. Certainly agree about power structures. I’m no expert on taboos – I just know the impact they have. So disturbing that acts so blunt and violent are carried out in often such a sophisticated way that enables the blame and shame. Do follow me on twitter @anewselfwritten .