Questioning the "from victim to survivor" narrative

[firecat]

via moominmuppet

http://eminism.org/blog/entry/291
"Reclaiming 'victim': Exploring alternatives to the heteronormative 'victim to survivor' discourse"

The article discusses the rigidity of societal narratives around people who have been subjected to violence. I quote from it below the cut-tag.


Excerpt:

The society views victimhood as something that must be overcome. When we are victimized, we are (sometimes) afforded a small allowance of time, space, and resources in order to recover–limited and conditional exemptions from normal societal expectations and responsibilities–and are given a different set of expectations and responsibilities that we must live up to (mainly focused around getting help, taking care of ourselves, and recovering). “Healing” is not optional, but is a mandatory process by which a “victim” is transformed into a “survivor”; the failure to successfully complete this transformation results in victim-blaming and sanctions.

This is really useful for me right now because lately I'm very aware that many societal narratives don't accurately describe my experience.

Comments

[adrian_turtle]

I see how it can be counterproductive or hurtful to talk about people as necessarily being "survivors," not "victims" of crimes or illnesses. How is it heteronormative? There may be something heteronormative in assuming a female victim, or a female survivor, when talking about sexual assault...but everyone in this conversation knows men and boys can be sexually assaulted, and EVERYONE knows there are other kinds of assault and abuse. And everyone knows there are cancers other than breast cancer.

[firecat]

I didn't really get the "heteronormative" part either.

The post says "The society needs victims to quickly transition out of victimhood into survivorship so that we can return to our previous positions in the heteronormative and capitalist social and economic arrangements." So insofar as "heteronormative" is used to mean "part of the status quo" I guess I can see why it might be there, but overall I think it's something of a distraction from the point.