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

[0jack]

Man. I thought I was the only one quietly in the corner thinking, "the fact that I want to say I'm a victim doesn't mean I'm not moving on or healing or that I'm clinging to some victim-identity". Thanks for this.

[flippac]

I just retweeted this, so thanks for sharing!

I for one am utterly fed up of the continual pressure to be strong over things (thankfully most of my experiences have been non-violent, but the discourse generalises), and the whole thing about not being allowed to name what happened to you like that really pisses me off. Also, er, grr, arr?

[sonia]

Loved this! Reposted.

As part of disallowing victimhood after an assault or other misfortune, our culture retroactively disallows it before the misfortune too. I keep finding more layers of self-blame for having been a small, vulnerable child. For having been victimized.

Thank you for sharing this.

[chaos_by_design]

I knew the term "survivor" made me twitchy for some reason. That post makes some interesting points.

[dingsi]

Thank you for the link. *bookmarks*

[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.

[flarenut]

And it's not just as if "survivor" meant "it never really happened:, it's more like "going through this tribulation has made me a stronger, purer, more centered person who is morally superior to others, unless of course I betray some hint of weakness that drops me back to 'victim' status."

[eggcrack]

That post was so good to read. Thank you for sharing it.

[graymalkin13.livejournal.com]

I'm very aware that many societal narratives don't accurately describe my experience.

Damn right they don't.

The constant guilt and self-blame I feel are probably linked to this phenomenon somehow, although I can't point to any specific way in which I'm a victim. I haven't been subjected to physical violence since my early 20s, and I am truly over that. So what am I supposed to have become a "survivor" of? -- what am I supposed to be fine about now? Having cancer and the physical and emotional changes brought about by the surgery? I definitely haven't "healed" emotionally from that. But my guilt and self-blame go back farther than that. Having a chronic illness? becoming disabled? I don't know. In the end, it seems like no one really completes this transformation. Life changes us. Society doesn't want to make room for that.

I must read the entire article. Thanks for posting this.

[nancylebov.livejournal.com]

Neither "victim" nor "survivor" feels right to me. Maybe I can come up with something.

From casual reading of people who do pull together pretty good lives after some disaster, it seems as though a lot of them spend a year or two freaking out or collapsing first.

It's possible that part of the problem with the victim/survivor dichotomy is that it doesn't leave space for natural processes of healing-- it's all supposed to be a matter of choice.

[johnpalmer.livejournal.com]

One thing about the entire discussion that bothers me is how it makes "victim" out to be a bad thing.

Someone punctured my car tires; I'm a victim of vandalism. That's not a bad word. Should I call myself a "survivor" of vandalism because I had plenty of cash available to fix the tire, and a working doughnut-spare? No. There's nothing wrong with the word "victim".

People who try to play the "victim to (survivor, or whatever)" game are probably trying to use "victim" to mean something else. Until they recognize and acknowledge what that "something else" is, they're working from faulty premises.