What’s in a word? Victims on ‘victim’

Introduction

When presenting research at conferences or, on occasion, when teaching students, there is an exercise I like to do in order to demonstrate the stigma of the word ‘victim’ in our modern Western society. The exercise is simple: go online, and find a definition and/or list of synonyms to the word ‘victim’. The results are not particularly surprising, but very telling; examples include casualty, sufferer, fatality, scapegoat and sacrifice, prey, hunted and quarry, to name but a few. This simple exercise is a powerful example of the negative connotations the word conjures, and, in turn, why one might be powerfully motivated to avoid being labelled in this manner.

Moving from synonyms to definitions, despite debate in the wider academic community (see Hope, 2007), the World Society of Victimology still defines victims as

persons who, individually or collectively, have suffered harm, including physical or mental injury, emotional suffering, or economic loss or substantial impairment of their fundamental rights through acts or omissions that are in violation of criminal laws, including those proscribing abuses of power.

Background and previous research

The power placed in labels will be well known to anyone who has studied or researched in sociology or criminology, though the association is typically one made with young offenders and youth justice. Very little research exists, excluding, perhaps, that by Kenney (2002) and Greenberg and Ruback (1992), investigating the role labelling plays in the plight of crime victims. Proponents of the use of ‘survivor’ as a descriptor go some way in highlighting the undesirable and negative characteristics of the word, but rarely, if ever, cite empirical evidence in support of the claim. In contrast, Taylor et al. (1983) began to identify some of the reasons, both social and personal, that make the victim label undesirable.

Socially, the word is associated with a powerful stigma and may draw blame, derogation, weakness and shame. As the origins of the word ‘victim’ are telling (from the Latin for sacrifice), so too are those for stigma. Originating in Greek, the word stigma was used to refer to bodily signs designed to expose something unusual and bad about the moral status of the bearer; the term stigma, then, was used to refer to an attribute that was deeply discrediting (Goffman, 1963). Hence, once this stigma is attached in the form of the victim label, any hope of a rapid recovery or, in fact, of any recovery at all is dashed (Van Dijk, 2009). This, in turn, is due to the phase of the socialisation process through which the stigmatised person (the victim) learns and incorporates the standpoint of the un-stigmatised other, acquiring thereby the identity beliefs of wider society (Goffman, 1963: 45).

According to Goffman, the beliefs of wider society are that the person with the stigma is not quite human (a very dangerous process of dehumanisation, as history has taught us time and time again). Based on this assumption society exercises a variety of discriminations towards the stigmatised victim through which we effectively, if often unthinkingly, reduce their life chances and prospects of recovery (1963: 15). This is done through the construction of a ‘stigma theory’ – an ideology to explain the inferiority and account for the danger the victim represents.

What danger does the stigmatised victim convey to the untainted individual? According to a number of psychological theories, any healthy individual will possess a series of beliefs, schema or an ‘internal working model’ on which the person relies to construct a basic theory of self, other and the world (Bowlby, 1973). It is through this system of beliefs that we interact with the outside world and make sense of our daily experiences. The exact nature or content of these beliefs is debatable, but the literature tends to suggest at least three core beliefs to which most individuals subscribe (Janoff-Bulman, 1992). Simply put, these are the belief in personal invulnerability, that the self is good, and that the world is safe and just (Frieze et al., 1987; Janoff-Bulman, 1992).

It is the challenging of the belief systems that also makes being a victim of crime so distressing (from a psychological perspective). Victimisation invalidates, or in the words of Janoff-Bulman (1992), ‘shatters’, the assumptive world on which we rely as our taken-for-granted sense of security, predictability, trust and optimism are profoundly and perhaps permanently undercut by the traumatic experience (Neimeyer et al., 2002).

Any challenge to these beliefs in therefore upsetting, and may result in distress. Therefore, when another person, particularly someone who is similar to oneself, is victimised for no apparent reason, this challenges the beliefs that the world is just and safe, thereby threatening our belief systems. It is this same logic that results in blaming the victim for their suffering, as this allows the safeguarding of belief systems. By blaming the victim for their fate, we can assure ourselves that we live in a just world (Lerner, 1980).

Recovering from crime, then, may be seen as an attempt to rebuild these foundational beliefs, which will necessarily involve integrating the traumatising event into one’s world view. Recovering individuals can be viewed as struggling to affirm or reconstruct a personal world of meaning that has been challenged; however, threats to beliefs systems that are traumatic in nature, such as criminal victimisation, pose additional challenges to the survivor’s adaptation. Thus, trauma of any sort requires a ‘relearning of the self and the world’ in the wake of loss (Attig, 1996: 239).

In their research on mourning and meaning, Neimeyer et al. (2002) discuss a framework for recovery which also fits that of victims recovering from the loss of self following criminal victimisation. They suggest humans seek meaning in mourning and do so by struggling to construct a coherent account of their loss, or, in our case, victimisation, that preserves a sense of continuity with who they have been while also integrating the reality of a changed world into their conception of who they must now be. However, adapting to normative as well as traumatic losses poses significant challenges to survivors, who draw on personal, social and cultural resources to give meaning to the loss and to incorporate the experience into their ongoing narrative. One implication of this view is that the meaning-making triggered by victimisation is not a private affair, but pursued at the juncture of self and society rather than only in the private thoughts and feelings of the harmed individual. (Neimeyer et al., 2002, cited in Armour, 2007). This is problematic from the outset as we have seen the view society takes towards the victim, which unfortunately results in people suffering from either loss or victimisation, receiving little or no support from the community (Doka, 2002; Neimeyer and Jordan, 2002). The ability to make meaning may, therefore, be dependent on a supportive and validating social milieu and may be thwarted by their stigmatised social status and the meanings assigned by others.

The meaning and role of victims prescribed by others in generally one of the weak, passive and fragile victim. The little old lady of Christie’s (1986) ideal is well known to us all. What is also known, however, is that this image rarely reflects the realty (see Fohring, 2018). Victims are more often young than old, more often male than female (excluding victims of sexual offences) and more often known to the offender (Scottish Government, 2016). What is more, victims may be stronger and more independent than they are often given credit for. This poses a further problem as these attributes do not synchronise with the public views of victims, and, according to Ditton (1999) and Goodey (2005), a fearful, passive victim in need of help is a more convenient person for support agencies and government alike to manage than an angry one, actively seeking punishment of the offender or changes in society (Goodey, 2005, cited in Van Dijk, 2009).

Two powerful motivations to avoid being labelled as a victim thereby present themselves to those affected by crime, both originating in our foundational belief systems. Firstly, we have an overwhelmingly negative public perception of victimised individuals, one that victims are keenly aware of. Secondly, we have the victim’s own internal beliefs about self and world which are already facing a direct challenge and are in need of protection. With such powerful motivations, it is not surprising that many victims choose to avoid the label (Fohring, 2015).

Results

Analysis of this data soon revealed a distinct pattern of responses to interview questions addressing the meaning of what it is to be a victim and feeling in relation to the word ‘victim’. The response to the word victim was overwhelmingly negative, as is demonstrated in the following section. Additionally, findings indicated a distinct disconnect between how an incident of crime is labelled and how a victim identified themselves, indicating an acknowledgement of the incident as wrong and illegal, but denial of victimhood. When it comes to describing and understanding victimhood, the following three key themes emerged from the data: weakness as a key characteristic of victims; the importance of distinguishing between victims and non-victims or the dichotomy of victim versus survivor; and the fluidity of the state of victimhood. Each of these key themes arguably all relate back to the undesirability of being a victim, which will be discussed first.

Discussion

The evidence presented thus far has clearly demonstrated that people who are affected by crime find the label of ‘victim’ to be highly undesirable. The participants interviewed for this research have demonstrated a clear distaste for the word itself, and distance themselves from it even when they acknowledge an incident to be a crime. When the concept of victimhood was further investigated, three key characteristics emerged: weakness; the dichotomy between suffering and coping; and the fluid nature of victimhood.

These results add to our understanding of avoidance of the victim label. This may happen not only through effective coping or minimising of an incident, but through fighting and overcoming suffering. Additionally, it now becomes apparent that, at least in some cases, there may be a conscious choice to avoid the victim label, though such a choice is not made freely. On the one hand, there is a keen awareness of the stigma associated with the label that will exert a powerful influence on the victim’s choice. Indeed, the fear of being labelled may cause individuals to delay or avoid seeking help or reporting altogether, while those already labelled may still attempt to distance themselves, forgoing justice and available support (Link and Phelan, 2006).

At the same time, refusing a label that is associated with such undesirable qualities may also be indicative of the strength and resilience of victims; that they reject the label not out of fear for socially imposed stigma, but in opposition to it. In addition to the risks posed by social stigma, victims are also likely to be keenly aware of the other risks associated with identifying as a victim, namely secondary victimisation and further trauma at the hands of both the police and criminal justice system. Thus, avoiding the label may actually be an act of self-preservation and protection whereby the victim maintains ownership of their conflict (Christie, 1977). Research suggests that many victims do not report crimes, particularly those of a sexual nature, for exactly these reasons (Sable et al., 2006). Every victim should of course be free to choose the best course of action for themselves, and informal support from friends and family may be preferable to formal options for many following incidents of crime. That being said, access to justice and formal support (including compensation) for better or worse, still depends on criminal justice contact, and, therefore, it remains important that those in need are not denied justice or support for fear of stigma or further victimisation. Therefore, the primary concern highlighted by this research is how the socially imposed stigma surrounding victimisation may be reinforcing poorer outcomes for victims. Such instances of social stigma undoubtedly add to the adverse effects of crime. Whereas victims of crime with strong and diverse social support systems are less vulnerable than other victims to experiencing adverse psychological consequences (Kaniasty and Norris, 1992), those without will need to rely on formal support options.

Social support and socioeconomic status have a robust association with disease, death and victimisation: people with greater resources of knowledge, money, power, prestige and social connections are generally better able to avoid risks and to adopt protective strategies. As stigma places people at a substantial social disadvantage with respect to these resources, it increases their exposure to risks and limits access to protective factors (Link and Phelan, 2006). Similarly, Hope and Trickett (2004) propose an immunity model of victimisation: rather than seeing victimisation as a consequence of excessive selective exposure to risk, they suggest victimisation instead reflects certain victims’ inability to remove themselves from risk, by virtue of their relative powerlessness to change their life circumstances. Hope (2007) further justifies this theory of powerlessness by citing research showing that multiple victims are more likely to also exhibit other types of social economic vulnerability such as being younger adults, living with children and living in social housing in poorer, urban areas. Thus, victims share many of the social characteristics of economically marginal social groups; sectors of society that are also likely to suffer other misfortunes, including ill health (Hope et al., 2001).

For the stigmatised individual, then, including victims of crime, acceptance of society’s views and the resultant self-stigmatisation may lead to concealment or active attempts to refute the stigmatising label in order to avoid discrimination. Unfortunately, for many victims, the consequences of concealment may often be more severe than those of resistance. In both cases the individual will face status loss and discrimination, but, depending on the nature and incidence of enacted stigma, people (like P007 quoted above) who adopt resistance strategies may actually face less stigma, experience less social harm and be better able to cope with any discrimination. The reason for this is that in refuting the victim label they are able to protect their foundational belief systems and thereby maintain a sense of control and avoid learned weakness and helplessness. By acknowledging that a crime has happened yet refuting this status, that may be exactly what the victims in this research are doing. This of course requires further empirical support, but existing research does suggest that maintaining foundational beliefs is good for mental health and well-being (Taylor et al., 2000). Likewise, others have argued that assuming at least some responsibility for one’s victimisation has the benefit of keeping control with the victim; meaning they retain the power to change their behaviour to avoid future victimisation (Bard and Sangrey, 1986).

Such complexities are inherent in the delicate task of providing support to crime victims. Arguably, what is needed is a more proactive approach of educating the public about the impact of crime and the role of social support, both perceived and received, in coping with criminal victimisation. Addressing the social stigma towards victims is, however, no simple task and not something which can be accomplished overnight, if ever. Further victim-oriented legislation may deter harmful conduct or provide recompense when harm has been done, but it will not necessarily change the attitudes that produce the behaviour (Neimeyer et al., 2002). However, as argued by Kaniasty and Norris (1992), the need to address such stigma through multiple avenues is largely justified by criminal statistics, as despite lower than ever crime levels in some countries it is still highly likely that, whether as victim or provider, at some point in our lives, we will all be touched by crime.

Weaknesses and further research

This study suffers the same weakness inherent in any qualitative study – the fact that results are simply not generalisable beyond the current sample. That being said, the value is still evident. This is a considerably large sample for qualitative work, and the patterns identified raise some pertinent questions as to the treatment of victims of crime within society. These questions may of course be further investigated, and may benefit particularly from the use of quantitative methods to further support the qualitative work reported here. Of course, statistical techniques will not be likely to further our understanding of how and why victims interpret the labels assigned to them, but they may allow further investigation of the impact the label has on behaviour (such as reporting crime and using victim services).

Finally, it should also be noted that this pattern of behaviour will not play out for all victims of crime. The opposite side of the coin is also highly problematic: victims who seek recognition and yet are denied the status. This opposing problem has a set of equally concerning outcomes for victims, including a lack of support and services provided to recognised victims as well as few avenues to justice.

Conclusion

It has become increasingly clear that victims of crime are likely to encounter any number of reasons for wanting to avoid being labelled as just that, a victim. This paper has argued that two powerful motivators converge to influence the identity chosen by individuals post crime. Social stigma associated with victimisation sets out a fairly clear cluster of behaviours that are expected of victims, including weakness and vulnerability, as well as suffering and passivity. The costs of going against this model may be victim blaming, ostracisation and exclusion. This social stigma will also underlie the cognitive decision-making processes through which a victim chooses to associate (or not) with the victim label. As society will blame or derogate the victim to protect its foundational beliefs, so too will the victim take steps to protect theirs. The unfortunate outcome is fewer victims reporting their crimes to the authorities, and poorer chances of recovery and healing for those who do.