www.crimejusticejournal.comIJCJ&SD20165(4):4‐16
ISSN2202–8005
TheMetamorphosisoftheVictimofCrime:FromCrime
toCultureandtheImplicationsforJustice
SandraWalklate
UniversityofLiverpool,UnitedKingdom;QueenslandUniversityofTechnology,Australia
Abstract
Beck (2015: 81) observes, metamorphosis ‘isproceedinglatently, behind themind walls of
unintended side effects, which are being constructed as ‘natural’ and ‘self‐evident’. Thus
Beck’s concept of metamorphosis conceives of social change as unnoticed and
unacknowledged.Suchchangeisevidentinthecontemporaryeverpresentinvocationofthe
‘victim’inawiderangeofdifferent,crime‐soakedcircumstances.Thispaperisconcernedto
explore this metamorphosis of the ‘victim’ in reflecting on two narratives: the victim
narrativeandthetraumanarrative.Thecontemporaryconflationofthesetwonarrativeshas
ledAgamben(1999:13)tosuggestthatpolicyhasproceededasif‘“testis”(thetestimonyofa
person as a third party inatrial or alaw suit) can be conflatedwith “superstes” (a person
whohaslivedthroughsomethingandcantherebybearwitnesstoit)’.Thepapermakesthe
casethatthisconflationhasconsequencesforunderstandingsofjustice.
Keywords
Metamorphosis,victimhood,narratives,justice.
Pleasecitethisarticleas:
Walklate A (2016) The metamorphosis of the victim of crime: From crime to culture and the
implicationsforjustice.InternationalJournalforCrime,JusticeandSocialDemocracy5(4):4‐
16.DOI:10.5204/ijcjsd.v5i4.280.
ThisworkislicensedunderaCreativeCommonsAttribution4.0Licence.Asan
open access journal, articles are free to use, with proper attribution, in educational and other
non‐commercialsettings.ISSN:2202‐8005
©TheAuthor(s)2016
SandraWalklate:TheMetamorphosisoftheVictimofCrime:FromCrimetoCultureandtheImplicationsforJustice
Introduction
In the summer of 2015, the Western media carried the picture of a three‐year‐old boy, Aylan
Kurdi, found drowned on a Turkish beach, having been washed overboard from the boat on
whichheandhisSyrianfamilywereendeavouringtoescapefromSyriatoEurope.Atthetime
this image had a profound effect on the politics surrounding responses to the migrant crisis
occurring during the summer of 2015 consequent to the conflict in Syria. The purpose in
presentingithereisnottoengageinadiscussionoftherightsandwrongsofthatcrisisbutto
pointtotheuseofthisimageasadepictionofvictimhoodandtheeffectsthatithad.Ofcourse,
it is without doubt that this young child was a victim. Moreover it is without doubt that he
constitutedan‘idealvictim’ineverysenseofthattermintendedbyChristie(1986).However,
what are perhaps less visible are the processes behind the contemporary, and apparently
acceptable, use of an image of this kind in a wide range of media outlets. Awareness of this
raisesanumberofquestionsthemostpressingofwhichis,arguably,howandwhyvictimhood
has cometooccupythe kind of positionthatitdoes ininforming cultural, political andpolicy
responsestoawiderangeofsocialproblems,frommassmigrationtodomesticviolence;from
the global to the local to the interpersonal. The purpose of this paper is to reflect on these
processesthroughthelensofvictimology;toconsidertheextenttowhichthedisciplineisitself
wellenoughequippedtoaddressconcernssuchasthese;andtoasksomehardquestionsabout
what this centring of the victim in this way implies for understandings of justice. Put more
simply, as Fassin (2012: 29) asks, ‘What are the consequences of this representation of the
worldthroughpain?’
In order to do this the paper falls into three parts. The first reflects on the contemporary
centringofvictimhoodthroughconsideringthepresenceintwonarratives:thevictimnarrative
and the trauma narrative. The second considers the extent to which Alexander’s (2012)
articulationoftraumaasamasternarrativecastslightonthemetamorphosisofthevictimthat
centresvictimhoodandconflatesvictimhoodwithtrauma.Thethirdandfinalpartofthepapers
reflectsontheconsequencesofthisconflationforpolicyandpoliticsandfocusesinparticular
on questions of justice. Arguably, it is in this arena that the unintended consequences of the
metamorphosisofthevictimarebeingmostkeenlyfelt.Firstofall,however,itwillbeofvalue
tosaysomethingaboutthevictimologicallensthroughwhichtheseissuesarebeingconsidered.
Onvictimology
Victimology emerged as a sub‐discipline of criminology in the aftermath of the Second World
War.The‘FoundingFathers’ofthissub‐disciplinewere,ontheonehand,concernedtocorrect
theoffenderfocusofcriminology,arguingthatanycrimeinvolveda‘doer‐sufferer’relationship
(avictimandanoffender;seetheworkofvonHentig1948)and,ontheotherhand,puzzledby
theHolocaust,wantedtodevelopanareaofinvestigationthatwouldhelpmakesenseofsuch
mass atrocities and the role of the victim within them (Mendelsohn 1956). These early
interventions led to the development of two key concepts: victim precipitation and victim
proneness which subsequently framed the emergence and dominance of what came to be
recognisedaspositivistvictimology.(SeeMcGarryandWalklate2015,chapteroneforafuller
discussionofthevariegatednatureofvictimology;andalsoseeO’Connell2008.)Thisversionof
victimology, emulating her sister discipline of criminology, became pre‐occupied with
measuring the nature and extent of criminal victimisation and the impact that such
victimisationhasonpeople.
Thedominanceofwhatmightbeconsideredtobea‘quixoticquestforstandardizedmeasures
in victimization’ (Spencer and Walklate, forthcoming, 2016) rests on the problematic
assumptions that what people may experience as victimisation may never match with legal
definitions of such (Spencer 2011), overlaid by some confusion of what is actually being
measuredbythevictimsurveyssofavouredbypositivism.Fattah(2010:51)asks:
Onlineversionviawww.crimejusticejournal.com
IJCJ&SD5
©20165(1)
SandraWalklate:TheMetamorphosisoftheVictimofCrime:FromCrimetoCultureandtheImplicationsforJustice
Is their objective to measure those criminal victimizations that meet the legal
criteria set by the criminal code, or are they meant to measure the subjective
victimizations experienced by the respondents? These, needless to say, are two
differentrealities.Inotherwords,arethesurveysdesignedtomeasurecrimeor
victimization?
Suchissuesnotwithstanding,muchefforthasbeeninvestedinthisapproachinmakingsenseof
victimhood. Effort that has yielded a range of secondary concepts like, for example, indirect
victimisation,secondaryvictimisation,andsoon.Thesedevelopments,alongsidetheemergence
ofawiderangeofvoluntaryorganisationsandsupportgroupsintentonamelioratingtheworst
effects of being a victim, form the dominant bedrock of what is known about crime and its
impact. These academic and practitioner voices all occupy the space called victimology and,
takentogether,informwhatmightbecalleda‘victimnarrative’discussedmorefullybelow.
In an analysis concerned with issues that somewhat pre‐date the emergence of positivist
victimology, Fassin and Rechtman (2009) document what they call ‘psychiatric victimology’.
This version of victimology emanated from an appreciation of the impact of trauma first
articulated in the work of Charcot in the 1850s. Trauma as a concept has a range of different
usages,fromthemedicaltothepsychologicaltothepsychic(andasshallbedevelopedbelow,
the social). However Fassin and Rechtman (2009) were particularly interested in the
intertwiningoftheintellectualappreciationoftraumawithitsadoptionwithinaparticulararea
of professional expertise: psychiatry. This intermeshing was a feature of the war‐time
experience,particularlytheFirstWorldWar,andthenlatterlytheVietnamWar.Ineachofthese
contextstheconceptoftraumaacquiredanaddedmoraldimensionconcernedwithhowtodeal
with‘malingerers’inthecaseoftheFirstWorldWar,andhowtojustify/explaintherecourseto
excessiveviolenceintheVietnamWar.
So,ratherlikepositivistvictimology,thispsychiatricvictimologywasconcernedwiththeharm
done to individuals (and latterly collectivities) by experiences that fractured the routine
patternsofeverydaylifeonwhichpeoplerelybut,inthecaseofpsychiatricvictimology,such
experienceswerenotnecessarilytiedtowhatwasconsideredtobelegalorillegal.Inaddition,
as shall be seen, psychiatric victimology was also implicitly embraced by voluntary
organisations and campaign groups wanting the pain of those who they represented to be
recognisedandrespondedto.Thus,thispsychiatricfocusonharmformsthebackclothagainst
whichitispossibletotracewhatmightbecalleda‘traumanarrative’.
Interestinglythesetwonarrativesaretiedtogetherbytheirdifferentpre‐occupationwithwhat
Sennett(1998:44)mightunderstandasthecentralimportanceofroutineforeverydaylife.
To imagine a life of momentary impulse, of short‐term action, devoid of
sustainable routines, a life without habits, is to imagine indeed a mindless
existence.
The disruption of criminal victimisation and/or a traumatic experience centres a ‘life without
habits’intowhicheachofthenarrativesdiscussedbelowoffersadifferentinsight.Inadditionit
is important to note that these two narratives co‐existed – arguably in somewhat separate
spheresofendeavour–untilthelate1960s.Atthismomentinhistoryitispossibletotracethe
beginningsofthemetamorphosisofthevictimandarguablyofvictimology,evenperhapsthat
of trauma studies, alongside one another. This metamorphosis moved each of these areas of
concern from their separable and separate pre‐occupations to ones in which their respective
contributions to making sense of the harm done to individuals and/or collectivities became
conflatedonewiththeother.Inordertoelucidatethisconflation,eachofthesenarratives,the
victimnarrativeandthetraumanarrative,willbediscussedinturn.FirstdiscussedinMcGarry
Onlineversionviawww.crimejusticejournal.com
IJCJ&SD6
©20165(1)
SandraWalklate:TheMetamorphosisoftheVictimofCrime:FromCrimetoCultureandtheImplicationsforJustice
and Walklate (2015), in many ways the separation of these two narratives in this way is a
heuristicdeviceonly,asshallbecomeapparent.
Thevictimnarrative
The development and refinementofthecriminal victimisationsurveyinthelate 1960sadded
considerableimpetustotheemergingsub‐disciplineofvictimology.Thedatageneratedbythis
surveymethodgatheredmomentumduringthe1970sand1980s,culminatingintheproduction
of not only national criminal victimisation survey data but also similar data gathered
internationally.Despitetheproblemsinherentinthismethodofdatagathering(asdiscussedin
considerable detail by Hope 2007), such data have afforded remarkable insights into the
patterning of criminal victimisation and its effects across a wide range of jurisdictions. It has
also constituted the bedrock of positivist victimology and spawned a range of concepts with
which to understand the impact that victimisation has on people. Understandings of primary,
secondaryandindirectvictimisationallowetheiroriginstothesophisticateddevelopmentand
widespreaduseofcriminalvictimisationsurveydata.Inordertoappreciatethenatureofthis
victimnarrativeitwillbeusefultosayalittleabouteachoftheseconceptualdevelopmentsin
turn.
Primaryvictimisationreferstothedirectimpactthatbeingavictim(ofcrime)has.Suchimpacts
aremanyavariedandareusefullylistedbyHallandShapland(2007:3‐4).Theycanrangefrom
the loss experienced as a result of burglary to the post‐traumatic stress reported by some
victimsofrape(animportantlinkwiththetraumanarrativediscussedbelow).Theseimpacts
canalsovarybyindividualdependinguponwhatelsemightbegoingonintheirlives(Maguire
and Bennett 1982), the extent to which their sense of identity has been spoiled (Kearon and
Leach 2000), and the nature of the victimisation itself (see for example Hagan and Rymond‐
Richmond(2009)ongenocideinDafur).So,primaryvictimisationishugelyvariable,contingent
on individual coping strategies, their persona, personal relationships, and the kind of support
received.Thenatureoftheresponsereceivedaffordsonelinkbetweenprimaryandsecondary
victimisation.
Much work emanating from the victim narrative has paid attention to the extent to which
experiencesofcriminaljusticesystemscanaddafurtherlayertotheharmalreadyexperienced.
Thisissecondaryvictimisationandhasbeenwelldocumentedforvictimsaswitnesses,families
ofmurdervictims(Rock1998),familiesofseriousoffenders(Condry2007),thosesubjectedto
wrongfulconvictions(Jenkins2013),andmanyotherdisparategroups.Sometimesexperienced
as re‐victimisation (Dunn 2007), this concern with secondary victimisation has extended its
focus to those professionals charged with responding to difficult circumstances (see for
example,Dekker2013; Ullstromet al.2014).Interestinglysomecommentatorshavebegunto
refertosecondaryvictimisationastrauma(seeinteraliaGekoskietal.2013),anissuetowhich
Iwillreturn.Finallytheconceptof‘indirectvictimisation’hasthecapacitytomovebeyondthe
directimpactofvictimhoodontheindividualorcollectivitytothewidermoredisparateeffects
that such events might have on, for example, those who share in the same ‘subject position’
(Spalek2006),whoarepartofawidercommunityofaffects(vizthe2004bombinginMadrid
(Burkitt 2005) or the reverberations of 9/11 and other events given widespread media
coverage afforded them, like the one with which this paper began) in which we are all
potentiallyvictim/witnesses(Howie2012).Sothepre‐occupationsofthisvictimnarrativehave
blossomedfromunderstandingthenatureandeffectofcriminalvictimisationtoconsideringthe
extenttowhichthoseeffectspermeatenotjustthosesoaffectedbutalsoresonateonthewider
communityandsocietyatlarge.
Alongside the burgeoning evidence base of this victim agenda there has been a concomitant
growthinvictim‐centredorganisationsandvictim‐centredpolicy.Sincetheearly1970sgroups
proclaimingtospeakforthevictimsofcrimehavegrownapace.Suchgrowthanddevelopment
Onlineversionviawww.crimejusticejournal.com
IJCJ&SD7
©20165(1)
SandraWalklate:TheMetamorphosisoftheVictimofCrime:FromCrimetoCultureandtheImplicationsforJustice
hasbeenwell‐documentedelsewhere(seeinteralia,Barker2007;Ginsberg2014;McGarryand
Walklate 2015; Rock 2004; Walklate 2007). The growth and development of these victims’
voices has been aligned with the increasingly powerful presence of neo‐liberalism (Ginsberg
2014) first illuminatedinGarland’s(2001) masterly analysis of thecultureof control and the
further politicisation of the victim as a mode of responsibilisation (see also Miers 1978). The
centring of neo‐liberalism, however, whilst still having some currency, does not adequately
account for the contemporary diversity of such victims groups and voices, and the apparent
ease with which they capture the ear of policy makers concerned with both national and
international agendas (like the international criminal court: see Krever 2014). Neither does it
fully account for the capacity of some of these voices, in seeking the ‘truth’ of what has
happenedtothem,torevisitthepastthroughtheknowledgeandeyesofthepresent(seeinter
alia, Lynch and Argomaniz 2015; Scraton 2009). Thus it is possible to observe a shift from
victimsupportorganisationstobeconcernedwithjustthat–ensuringappropriatesupportfor
people through difficult times and pressurising for appropriate policy implementation to
complement such support – to having been transformed, behind our backs (qua Beck 2015),
intoanimportantconduitforseeingtheworldthroughtheprismofpain(Fassin2012).Itisat
this juncture that it will be useful to turn to the relevance of the second narrative to be
consideredhere:thetraumanarrative.
Thetraumanarrative
Ashasalreadybeenintimated,theterm‘trauma’carriesanumberofdifferentmeanings,from
the medical to the psychological. Its development as a psychic concept has its origins in the
work of Charcot in the 1860s. Differently understood as either the result of an external event
(Charcot’sunderstanding)ortheresultofaninternalpsychicproblem(Freud’sunderstanding),
ithasgoneontobeatermusedasametaphortocapturetheeffectsofanythingregardedas
unpleasant(Hacking1995).Theintentionhereisnottodocumenttheextensiveworkdoneon
traumaanditsusesbuttoofferaflavourofthewayinwhichithasbeendeployedinthecontext
ofcriminalvictimisation.IndeeditisthroughtheconduitofwhatFassinandRechtman(2009)
have called ‘psychiatric victimology’ that it is possible to trace the presence of trauma in the
sub‐disciplineofvictimology.Thispresencecanbefoundinanumberofinter‐relatedandinter‐
lockingpaths.Onenotableroutehasbeenfeminism.
Historicallypositivistvictimologyandfeminismhavenotsateasilywithoneanother(seeinter
aliaDavies2011;Rock1994;Walklate2003).Oneofthetensionsbetweenthesetwoframesof
reference lies within understanding the nature, extent and impact of sexual violence on
women’s everyday lives. Nonetheless, when Burgess and Holmstrom (1974) published their
work evidencing a ‘rape trauma syndrome’, it was hugely important in challenging the notion
that ‘no harm was done’ by such violence. The recognition of this syndrome afforded an
important impetus to the feminist movement in their campaign at that time to secure the
recognition of the pain of sexual violence across a range of different criminal justice
jurisdictions. The influence of what Rose (1998) has referred to as the ‘psy’ disciplines, in
ensuringthattheimpactofsexualviolenceistakenseriously,hassubsequentlybeenprofound.
Contemporarily it would be difficult to deny that rape/sexual violence can have a negative
impactonbothmenandwomen.Throughthisroutethen,thelanguageoftraumaenteredthe
world of understanding the impact of criminal victimisation. The presence of this language in
relationtowomen’sexperiencesofsexualviolenceinparticularhasnotbeenandisnotwithout
itsproblemshowever.Forexample,GaveyandSchmidt(2011:439)observe:
… a universalising presumption of ‘no harm done’ to an equally universalising
presumption of ‘severe harm done’ … irrespective of the woman’s own views
aboutitsplaceinherlife.
Onlineversionviawww.crimejusticejournal.com
IJCJ&SD8
©20165(1)
SandraWalklate:TheMetamorphosisoftheVictimofCrime:FromCrimetoCultureandtheImplicationsforJustice
Perhaps even more perturbing is the tendency to declare the woman (or the man) in denial
shoulds/hecountertheassignationofbeing‘traumatised’which,ofcourse,‘traumatised’s/he
mustbeinordertobebelievedintermsofacriminaljusticeresponse(seeinteraliaBrownand
Horwath 2009). It is at this juncture that the tensions between the power of a positivist
victimologyanditsimplicituseoftheterm‘victim’asauniformandunifyingconcept,andthe
individualisednatureoftraumaasactuallylivedandexperienced,arefelt.Itisatthismeeting
pointthatitispossibletodiscernthetransferenceofthetraumadiscoursetoothercategories
ofvictimisation.InthisregardSummerfield(1999:1449)hasobserved:
Oneofthefeaturesof20thcenturyWesternculture–particularlyinthelast50
years–hasbeenthewaymedicineandpsychologyhavedisplacedreligionasthe
source of explanations for the vicissitudes of life, and of the vocabulary of
distress.
Theslippageinterminologybetweenprimary,secondary,indirectvictimisationcommentedon
aboveandthepresenceoftheconceptoftraumainthisslippage–albeit,tobeginwith,usedin
the context of rape – is one illustration of this ‘vocabulary of distress.’ There is, however, a
second point of intersection in the development of understandings of trauma in the ‘psy’
disciplines and the use of this concept in the context of criminal victimisation. This point of
intersectionliesintherecognitionofpost‐traumaticstressdisorder.
Chamberlin (2012: 362) comments that the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental
Disorders(DSM‐III),publishedin1980,broughtthecategoryofpost‐traumaticstressdisorder
(PTSD)intopsychologicalandpopulardiscourse.ThekindsofeventsthatcouldresultinPTSD
included such experiences as being a victim of violent assault, to being kidnapped, to being a
victim of a terrorist attack or a natural disaster. The recognition of this disorder meant
acceptanceoftheveracityofvictimsindistress.ThepublicationofDSM‐IIIcoincidedwiththe
concerns of the (American) feminist movement (qua Burgess and Holstrom’s 1974 work
referencedabove)alongsidethepresenceofthe(American)peacemovement(Herman1992).
Taken together this resulted in a ‘new era of thinking about trauma’ (Fassin and Rechtman
2009: 77). Thus ‘suffering is no longer something that should be hidden from others or
concealedfromoneself:itissomethingthatcanbelegitimatelydescribedinothersandoneself’
(Fassin 2012: 41‐42). To see the world through the lens of pain, shared with others and
recognised in these terms by others, became legitimate. It will be of value to explore the
presenceofthepeacemovement,commentedonbyHerman(1992)inalittlemoredetailsince
hiddeninhereisanotherlinkwiththesub‐disciplineofvictimologyandtherisingpresenceof
victims’voices.
The peace movement commented in by Herman (1992) had as its focus the Vietnam War. In
particular,Alexander(2012)remindsusthatthe‘MaiLaiMassacre’of1968sentshock‐waves
aroundtheUnitedStates.Thatmassacrepromptedseriousquestionstobeaskedaboutnotonly
how ordinary men could commit such awful atrocities but also threw into doubt American
engagementwiththewaritself.ThequestionsposedbythebehaviourofAmericansoldiersin
VietnamwerenotdissimilartothoseposedbythetrialofAdolfEichmannthatalsotookplaces
inthe1960s.Theinternationalsilenceonthediscoveryoftheconcentrationcampsduringthe
early post war years could not be sustained during Eichmann’s trial in Jerusalem. Karstedt
(2010)hascommentedonthetellingabsenceofthevictims’voicesoftheHolocaustinthepost
war years. Coupled with Arendt’s (1965) commentary on Eichmann’s trial in which she
describes the ‘banality of evil’, considerable consternation was provoked concerning the
capacity of democratic societies to engage in such atrocities. In the aftermath of Mai Lai such
concernswereparticularlyprofoundintheUnitedStates.Thusunderpinningtherecognitionof
PTSDalsolayawayofmakingsenseoftheatrocitiesofwar.Suchatrocitieswereaproductof
thetraumaexperiencedbyindividualsinthefaceofthethreatsposedbywar.Thiswasalsoan
Onlineversionviawww.crimejusticejournal.com
IJCJ&SD9
©20165(1)
SandraWalklate:TheMetamorphosisoftheVictimofCrime:FromCrimetoCultureandtheImplicationsforJustice
issue that was a focal concern for Mendelsohn, one of the Founding Fathers of victimology.
Having invented the term victimology, Mendelsohn (1976: 17) went on to include in his
definitionofthevictimthoseoppressedby‘caste,socialclassorpolitical affiliation,uptoand
includinggenocideorwarcrimes’.TherecognitionofPTSDassistedinputtingtheviolence(s)of
war,notsolelythoseperpetratedbysoldiers,squarelyintothevictimologicalframe.
Takentogethertheseprocessesnotonlycontributedtoanunderstandingoftheexperienceof
traumaasreflectedinDSM‐IIIbutalsocontributedtotheemergenceofwhatAlexander(2012)
hascalled‘cultural’trauma.Asaresultenhancingthevoicesofthoseimpactedbytheordinary
andeverydayexperiencesofcrimearethevoicestheHolocaust,theveteransofwarandtheir
victims, alongside those working within feminism. During the 1980s and 1990s, these voices
were added to by those concerned about their victimisation because of their race, ethnicity,
sexuality and identity. Indeed the ‘new wars’ of the 1990s afforded another dimension to the
voices of the traumatised. Moon (2009) observes that during this time war torn societies
became constituted as traumatised collectivities in need of therapeutic intervention (see also
Fassin2012).Yetthisembraceoftraumatooisnotwithoutitsproblems.Notonlydoesithave
thepotentialtodenyhowindividualsmightactuallyexperiencewhathashappenedtothem(as
observed above in the context of sexual violence), but it has also increasingly embedded a
conflationintermsofunderstandingwhatexactlyisbeingreferenced:atraumaticeventorthe
traumaticimpactofanevent(EagleandKaminer2014).Thesetwoproblemsaresuggestiveofa
contemporary use of trauma as a uniform and unifying concept: something that we can all
recogniseandagreeuponresonantofAlexander’s(2012)useofthenotionofculturaltrauma.
Arguably this is an unintended consequence of the way in which, in being combined with a
similarly undifferentiated use of the concept of victim, it has contributed to the conflation
observedbyAgamben(1999:13)intheuseoftestimony.
Tosummarise,thevictimnarrative,informedbyconceptsemanatingprimarilyfrompositivist
victimology,leantitselfeasilytoidentifyingthevulnerable(theelderly,theyoung,thefrail,and
so on) on whom it could be assumed that victimisation would take its greatest toll. In some
respects the trauma narrative challenged this. In the trauma narrative even those least likely
consideredvulnerable(soldiersforexample)couldfindthemselvessufferingasaresultoftheir
exposuretotheviolence(s)ofwar.Nonethelessthesetwonarrativeshavebecomeintertwined.
Indeed, in this intermeshing of victimhood and trauma, it is possible to observe (qua Fassin
2012)theshiftfrompainasnaturalistic(asgivenbythedataofcriminalvictimisationsurveys)
topainasironic(asroutineandapossibilityforallofus):hencewecanallbeseentobevictims
now (Furedi 2002). Furthermore under the influence of an increasingly mediated world it is
possible to suggest that we are all ever more vulnerable to being seen as victims through
indirect victimisation, or the trauma of witnessing, as we are exposed to the constantly and
perpetually available and unchanging images of atrocity (Pollard 2011). In this melding of
victimhood and trauma both terms are used as universal, unifying, and undifferentiated
categories. Yet it is also the case that individuals recover from bad experiences and have the
capacity to deal with horrendous circumstances in a myriad of different ways. Nevertheless
under conditions of what might be called ‘trauma creep’ these capacities remain somewhat
hiddenfromview.Itwillbeofvaluetoexaminethecharacteristicsofthistraumacreep,andits
manifestationwithinconcernsaboutthevictimofcrime,inalittlemoredetail.
Traumacreep
The work of Alexander (2012) offers one way in which to make sense of the apparent
convergencebetweenthevictimnarrativeandthetraumanarrativeashasbeensuggestedhere.
WhilsthisworkisprimarilyconcernedtounderstandinghowTheHolocaustachievedthestatus
ofamasternarrativewhenequallyatrociouseventsdidnotacquirethisstatus,hisdelineation
offourvariablesthatneedtobepresentforamasternarrativeoftraumatoemergeareworthy
of some reflection. His four variables are: the kind of pain incurred; who the victim is; the
Onlineversionviawww.crimejusticejournal.com
IJCJ&SD10
©20165(1)
SandraWalklate:TheMetamorphosisoftheVictimofCrime:FromCrimetoCultureandtheImplicationsforJustice
capacitytorelatethevictim’straumatoawideraudience;andtheattributionofresponsibility
for that pain (Alexander 2012). In many ways these four variables have been increasingly
presentforthevictim(ofcrime)fromthemid‐1970sthroughtotheearly1980stothepresent
day. These include, the proliferation of the criminal victimisation survey and its associated
findings documenting the pains of criminal victimisation; the evidence generated by those
surveys of a relatively powerless victim (gendered, aged, classed and racialised); the
proliferationofvictim‐centredorganisationsmakingclaimsonbehalfofvictims’voices;and,in
thelightofthesedataandtheclaimsoftheseorganisations,theattributionofresponsibilityto
criminaljusticepractitionersinparticularandsystemsofjusticemoregenerallyforthefurther
pain endured by victims of crime. The recognition of rape trauma syndrome alongside the
slightlylateracceptanceoftheveracityofthevictim’svoiceintheacceptanceoftheexistenceof
PTSD and the conflation of victimhood with trauma is established. From this conjuncture it is
possible to observe the increasingly diverse presence of voices claiming trauma as the
conceptualconduitfortheirrecognition.Thusthemetamorphosisofthevictimiscomplete.Yet,
is it? At this juncture it is worth considering some less visible consequences of this trauma
creep.
First of all, and a point well made by Eagle and Kaminer (2014), is the recognition that being
distressed as a result of a life threatening experience is a normal, psychologically healthy
response rather than one that denotes a disorder. As was intimated above, the capacity of
individuals and collectives to overcome even the worst excesses of violence are well
documented. Trauma creep can silence this capacity. In claiming the status of ‘traumatised’,
sometimes, of course, other things can follow, like for example, in post‐conflict societies,
international aid. However the conflation of these two processes can rest on two further
problematic assumptions both of which raise fundamental questions about the actual lived
experiencesofindividuals.Putsimply,traumacreepinconflatingthevictimnarrativewiththe
trauma narrative embraces the failures inherent in each of them in making sense of people’s
reallives.Sothevictimnarrativefailsbecauseitisrootedindatathataggregateindividualsinto
groups.Thelatterdoesnotnecessarilyrevealanythingabouttheformer.Thetraumanarrative
fails because of the same problem in reverse. It is generated by in‐depth data/experiences of
individuals that are used to make claims on behalf of groups. Hence the trauma creep,
increasinglyendemicin victim’svoices,hasthecapacitytodoadisservicetobothindividuals
andcollectivitiesatthesametime.Thequestionremains,ofcourse,astowhythismatters.This
returns us to the dilemma posed by Agamben (1999) concerning the contemporary
appreciation of testimony and its relationship with understandings of justice. This is the
problemoftrauma‐drivenpolicyandpolitics.
Traumadrivenpolicyandpolitics
The import of claims of trauma, either in popular terms (qua Laqueur 2010) or as a master
narrative (qua Alexander 2012), as clearly illustrated in the example with which this paper
began,cannotbedenied.Inpoliticalandpolicyarenas,whilstneitherthevictimnarrativenor
the trauma narrative necessarily provides the evidential basis for action, both proceed as
thoughtheoppositewerethecase.TheresponsetothedeathofAylanKurdiisacaseinpoint.
The interconnected nature of the events that unfolded in the summer of 2015 – and that
continue to do so – more than illustrate the inherent problems for politics and policy driven,
however justifiably, by the presence of trauma. Perhaps more prosaically, in terms of
responding to individuals’ experiences, trauma‐driven policies are problematic (as the
discussionaboveconcerningrapetraumasyndromeimplies)because,inordertobeconsidered
worthyofapolicyorpracticeintervention,anindividual’sresponsetotheirexperienceshasto
bepathologised.Thisisrathercontrarytoevidencethatsuggestsbeingdistressedasaresultof
alife‐threateningexperienceisnormal(EagleandKaminer2014)and,indeed,mightnotmarry
with the actual experiences of the individual concerned. However, only when such responses
are rendered abnormal is it then possible to put in place a response to render them normal.
Onlineversionviawww.crimejusticejournal.com
IJCJ&SD11
©20165(1)
SandraWalklate:TheMetamorphosisoftheVictimofCrime:FromCrimetoCultureandtheImplicationsforJustice
Thus, in the convergence of the victim and trauma narratives, the normal is pathologised in
orderforinterventiontonormalisethatwhichhasbeendeemedtobepathological.Moreover–
andperhapsevenmoreimportantly–withintheseprocesses,some‘pathologies’arerendered
considerablymorevisiblethanothers.Indeed,inconflictriddensocieties,aswiththeanguish
andthepainofmigrants,itistheirpainthatisabundantlymorevisibleandrenderedsuitable
forinterventionthantheprocessesthatliebehindtheirpain.Itisagainstthebackclothofthis
politicsofrecognitionthatsome‘victim’voicesarelistenedto–and,indeed,becomethevoices
andconduitforpolicychanges–andothersarenot.Intheshadowsinbetween,whatcountsas
justice,andforwhom,canbecomecompromised.
Forexample,inarecentanalysisoftherelationshipbetweenvictims’rightsandneo‐liberalism
in the United States, Ginsberg (2014) has observed a consonance between the two in their
shared denial of society. Rather like Garland (2001), he uses the contemporary propensity to
namelawsafterindividualvictims(asopposedtothosewhoproposedthemorwrotethem)as
illustrativeofthistendency.Thispropensityis,ofcourse,notpeculiartotheUnitedStates.The
samephenomenoncanbeobservedinarangeofWestocentricjurisdictions,inwhichnotonly
arelawsnamedafterindividualvictimsbutsuchlawsalsohavethecapacitytotravelfromone
jurisdiction to another. Clare’s Law (the domestic violence disclosure scheme), adopted in
England and Wales in 2014 in the aftermath of the murder of Clare Wood by her partner in
2009andinthefaceofavociferouscampaignledbyherfather,wasintroducedinScotlandin
2015andisunderseriousconsiderationinstatesofQueenslandandVictoriainAustralia.This
is a good example of trauma‐driven policy with a poor evidential base but simultaneously
pointingthefingerofresponsibilityforpreventingherdeathinthedirectionofthepolicerather
than wider society. The influence of such victim voices in policy formation, often with scant
regardforthewiderimplicationsforjustice,isnotunusual.Individualshavebeenappointedas
governmentadvisorsonthebasisoftheirexperienceofvictimisationasthoughtheirexperience
stands for the experience of all victims. The appointment of Sarah Payne (the voice behind
Sarah’sLawinEnglandandWales)asaVictims’ChampionintheUKortherecognitiongivento
Rosie Batty, a family violence campaigner (whose 11 year old son was killed by his father on
visitingajuniorcricketmatchattendedbyherandherson)asAustralianoftheYearin2015,
are two good examples of the presence of such voices. Indeed Schmidt (2014) documents the
persistenceofsomeofthesevoices(inhercasestudy,theorganisationMothersAgainstDrunk
DriversintheUnitedStates)evenwhenthedemandsoftheircausehaveforallpurposesbeen
met.Thisleadshertointroducetheconceptof‘perpetualtrauma’:anotionoftraumathattaps
into our deepest fears (like the loss of a loved one) and thus demands constant action whilst
simultaneously ensuring ‘victims voices become reshaped, packaged, commodified’ (McEvoy
andJamieson2007:425)inaneatnessoffitwithneo‐liberalism.
Thepresenceandinfluencesuchvoicesareneithersimplenorstraightforward:someinfluence
policyonthebackofsoundresearchandevidence;theinfluenceofothersisnotnecessarilyso
well‐founded.Nonetheless,thenatureoftheirtraumanotwithstanding,theinfluencethatsuch
individualsand/orgroupsmayassertonpolicyandthesubsequentdeliveryofjusticearehighly
contingentonwhohearsthesevoicesandunderwhatconditions.Thereverseisalsothecase.
Notallvoicesgetheard,letaloneactedupon.TheongoingdenialoftheArmeniangenocideby
Turkeymightconstituteagoodcaseinpoint(RafterandWalklate2012).Yetembeddedinhere
is,asAgamben(1999:13)observed,aprocessinwhich‘policyhasproceededasif‘“testis”(the
testimonyofapersonasathirdpartyinatrialoralawsuit)canbeconflatedwith“superstes”
(a person who has lived through something and can thereby bear witness to it)’. This is
captured in the title of a report recently published in the UK by the Criminal Justice Alliance:
StructuredMayhem:PersonalexperiencesoftheCrownCourt(Jacobson,HunterandKirby2015).
This report beautifully reflects the conflation of which Agamben speaks. Such commentaries,
foregroundingthepainfulexperiencesofsomeofthosepeoplerequiredtoattendcourtasthey
do, miss the point of justice. Justice, with all its faults, is not delivered just in the interests of
Onlineversionviawww.crimejusticejournal.com
IJCJ&SD12
©20165(1)
SandraWalklate:TheMetamorphosisoftheVictimofCrime:FromCrimetoCultureandtheImplicationsforJustice
thosewhoparticipateinparticularcasesatparticularpointsintime.Thedeliveryofjusticeisin
thecollectiveinterest,participationorlackofitnotwithstanding.Hereinliestheultimatethreat
oftraumacreep.Thisthreatcarriesimplicationsnotonlyforthepresenceofvictims’voicesin
national jurisdictions but also for the claims of the delivery of international justice (Krever
2014).
Someconcludingthoughts
Fassin and Rechtman’s (2009) analysis points to the ways in which the shift to viewing the
worldthroughpainandrespondingtothoseinpainthroughthelensoftraumaisnotonlysilent
aboutthekindsofvictimisationthatMendelsohn(1976)sodesiredvictimologytoaddressbut
it also actually hides the structural realities that constitute the environmental, political and
moralpre‐conditionsthatpre‐existthepainofthemoment.Yetitisnowself‐evident(quaBeck
2015) that victimhood and trauma have become one and the same. Nonetheless it is possible
and, indeed, desirable to add to Fassin and Rechtman’s (2009) call for a moral economy of
trauma, a more explicit call for a political economy of trauma. Such a framework would pose
important questions for not only the positivist victimological use of the concept of victim, the
conflation of this concept with the notion of trauma, and a wide range of victim‐centred
organisationsandindividualswhoclaimtospeakforsuchvictims,but,crucially,itwouldalso
turn the spotlight on how criminal justice policy is framed and developed in a wide range of
jurisdictions,particularlyWestocentricones.Onlythenwillitbepossibletotrulymakesenseof
andrespondtothetragediesofcaseslikeAylanKurdi.Itis,however,amootpointastowhether
ornotsuchquestionswillbeheard.
Correspondence: Professor Sandra Walklate, Eleanor Rathbone Chair of Sociology, Sociology,
SocialPolicyandCriminology,UniversityofLiverpool,BrownlowHill,LiverpoolL697ZXUnited
Kingdom. Adjunct Professor, Schoolof Justice, Queensland University of Technology,4 George
Street,Brisbane4000QLD,Australia.Email:[email protected]
Acknowledgement: This paper is developed from argument first articulated in McGarry and
Walklate (2015) and presented as a plenary at the International Conference on Crime, Justice
andDemocracy,July,2015andIamverygratefultotheorganisersfortheopportunitytospeak
at that event. I am also grateful to Ross McGarry, Lizzie Cook and Will McGowan for the
conversationswehavehadontheseandrelatedissues.Thefaultsthatremainare,asever,my
own.
References
AgambenG(1999)RemnantsofAuschwitz:TheWitnessandtheArchive.Heller‐RoazenD
(trans.).NewYork:ZoneBooks.
AlexanderJ(2012)Trauma:ASocialTheory.Cambridge:Polity.
ArendtH(1965)EichmanninJerusalem.Harmondsworth:Penguin
BarkerV(2007)Thepoliticsofpain:Apoliticalinstitutionalistanalysisofcrimevictims’moral
protests.Law&SocietyReview41(3):619‐663.
BeckU(2015)Emancipatorycatastrophism:whatdoesitmeantoclimatechangeandrisk
society?CurrentSociology63(1):75‐88.DOI:10.1177/0011392114559951.
Onlineversionviawww.crimejusticejournal.com
IJCJ&SD13
©20165(1)
SandraWalklate:TheMetamorphosisoftheVictimofCrime:FromCrimetoCultureandtheImplicationsforJustice
BurgessAWandHolmstromLL(1974)Rapetraumasyndrome.AmericanJournalofPsychiatry
131(9):981‐986.
BrownJandHorvathM(2009)Doyoubelieveher?Isitrealrape?InHorvathMandBrownJ
(eds)Rape:ChallengingContemporaryThinking:325‐342.London:Routledge‐Willan.
BurkittI(2005)Powerfulemotions:Power,governmentandoppositioninthewaronterror.
Sociology39(4):679‐695.DOI:10.1177/0038038505056027.
ChamberlinSE(2012)Emasculatedbytrauma:Asocialhistoryofpost‐traumaticstress
disorder,stigma,andmasculinity.JournalofAmericanCulture35(4):358‐365.DOI:
10.1111/jacc.12005.
ChristieN(1986)Theidealvictim.InFattahEA(ed.)FromCrimePolicytoVictimPolicy:17‐30.
London:Tavistock.
CondryR(2007)FamiliesShamed.Cullompton,Devon:WillanPublishing
DaviesP(2011)Gender,CrimeandVictimisation.London:Sage.
DekkerS(2013)SecondVictim.NewYork:CRCPress.
DunnP(2007)Matchingservicedeliverytoneed.InWalklateS(ed.)HandbookofVictimsand
Victimology:255‐281.Cullompton,Devon:WillanPublishing.
EagleGTandKaminerD(2015)Traumaticstress:Establishedknowledge,currentdebatesand
newhorizons.SouthAfricanJournalofPsychology45(1):22‐35.DOI:
10.1177/0081246314547124.
FassinD(2012)HumanitarianReason.BerkeleyandLosAngeles,California:Universityof
CaliforniaPress.
FassinDandRechtmanR(2009)EmpireofTrauma.Princeton:PrincetonUniversityPress.
FattahE(2010)Theevolutionofayoung,promisingdiscipline:Sixtyyearsofvictimology,a
retrospectiveandprospectivelook.InShohamSG,KnepperPandKettM(eds)International
HandbookofVictimology:43‐94.BocaRaton,Florida:CRCPress.
FurediF(2002)CultureofFear:RiskTakingandtheMoralityofLowExpectation.London:
Cassell.
GarlandD(2001)TheCultureofControl.Oxford:OxfordUniversityPress
GaveyNandSchmidtJ(2011)Traumaofrapediscourse:Adouble‐edgedtemplateforeveryday
understandingsoftheimpactofrape.ViolenceAgainstWomen17(4):433‐456.DOI
10.1177/1077801211404194.
GekoskiA,AdlerJRandGrayJM(2013)Interviewingwomenbereavedbyhomicide:Reportsof
secondaryvictimisationbythecriminaljusticesystem.InternationalReviewofVictimology
19(3):307‐329.DOI:10.1177/0269758013494136.
HackingI(1995)RewritingtheSoul.Princeton:PrincetonUniversityPress.
GinsbergR(2014)Mightycrimevictims:Victims’rightsandneoliberalismintheAmerican
conjuncture.CulturalStudies28(5‐6):911‐946.DOI:00.1080/09502386.2014.886485.
HaganJandRymond‐RichmondW(2009)DafurandtheCrimeofGenocide.Cambridge:
CambridgeUniversityPress.
HermanJ(1992)TraumaandRecovery:FromDomesticAbusetoPoliticalTerror.London:
Pandora.
HopeT(2007)Thesocialepidemiologyofcrimevictims.InWalklateS(ed.)Handbookon
VictimsandVictimology:62‐90.Collumpton,Devon:Willan.
HowieL(2012)WitnessestoTerror.London:PalgraveMacmillan.
JacobsonJ,HunterGandKirbyA(2015)StructuredMayhem:PersonalExperiencesoftheCrown
Court.London:CriminalJusticeAlliance.
Onlineversionviawww.crimejusticejournal.com
IJCJ&SD14
©20165(1)
SandraWalklate:TheMetamorphosisoftheVictimofCrime:FromCrimetoCultureandtheImplicationsforJustice
JenkinsS(2013)Secondaryvictimsandthetraumaofwrongfulconviction:Familiesand
children’sperspectivesonimprisonment,release,andadjustment.AustralianandNew
ZealandJournalofCriminology46(1):119‐137.DOI:10.1177/0004865812470384.
KarstedtS(2010)Fromabsencetopresencefromsilencetovoice:Victimsininternationaland
transitionaljusticesincetheNuremburgtrials.InternationalReviewofVictimology17(1):9‐
30.DOI:10.1177/026975801001700102.
KearonTandLeachR(2000)Invasionofthebodysnatchers:Burglaryreconsidered.
TheoreticalCriminology4(4):451‐473.DOI:10.1177/1362480600004004003.
KreverT(2014)Dispensingglobaljustice.NewLeftReview85(Jan/Feb):67‐97.
LaqueurT(2010)Weareallvictimsnow.LondonReviewofBooks32(13):19‐23.
LynchOandArgomanizJ(eds)(2015)VictimsofTerrorism:AComparativeandInterdisciplinary
Study.London:Routledge.
McGarryRandWalklateS(2015)Victims:Trauma,Testimony,Justice.London:Routledge.
MaguireMwithBennettT(1982)BurglaryinaDwelling.London:Heineman.
McEvoyKandJamiesonR(2007)Conflict,sufferingandthepromiseofhumanrights.In
DownesD,ChinkinCandGeartyC(eds)Crime,ConflictandHumanRights:EssaysinHonour
ofStanCohen:422‐441.Cullompton:WillanPublishing.
MendelsohnB(1956)Anewbranchofbio‐psychologicalscience:Lavictimology.Revue
InternationaledeCriminologieetdePoliceTechnique2.
MendelsohnB(1976)Victimologyandcontemporarysociety’strends.Victimology:An
InternationalJournal1(1):8‐28.
MiersD(1978)ResponsestoVictimisation.Abingdon:ProfessionalBooks.
MoonC(2009)Healingpastviolence:traumaticassumptionsandtherapeuticinterventionsin
warandreconciliation.JournalofHumanRights8(1):71‐91.DOI:
10.1080/14754830902717726.
O’ConnellM(2008)Victimology:Asocialscienceinwaiting?InternationalReviewofVictimology
15(2):91‐104.DOI:10.1177/026975800801500202.
PollardJ(2011)Seen,searedandsealed:TraumaandthevisualpresentationofSeptember11.
Health,Risk&Society13(1):81‐101.DOI:10.1080/13698575.2010.540647.
RafterNandWalklateS(2012)Genocideandthedynamicsofvictimisation:Someobservations
onArmenia.EuropeanJournalofCriminology9(3):514‐526.DOI:
10.1177/1477370812450824.
RockP(1986)AViewfromtheShadows.Oxford:OxfordUniversityPress.
RockP(1998)AfterHomicide.Oxford:ClarendonPress.
RockP(2004)ConstructingVictims’Rights:TheHomeOffice,NewLabourandVictims.Oxford:
OxfordUniversityPress.
RoseN(1998)InventingOurselves:Psychology,powerandpersonhood.Cambridge:Cambridge
UniversityPress.
ScratonP(2009)Hillsborough:TheTruth.Edinburgh:Mainstream.
SennettR(1998)TheCorrosionofCharacter.NewYork:NortonBooks
SchmidtI(2014)Perpetualtraumaanditsorganizations:MothersAgainstDrunkDrivingand
drunkdrivingrevisited.MemoryStudies7(2):239‐253.DOI:10.1177/1750698012470836.
ShaplandJandHallM(2007)Whatdoweknowabouttheeffectsofcrimeonvictims?
InternationalReviewofVictimology14(2):175‐217.DOI:10.1177/026975800701400202.
SpalekB(2006)CrimeVictims:Theory,PolicyandPractice.London:Palgrave
SpencerDC(2011)Eventandvictimization.CriminalLawandPhilosophy5(1):39‐52.DOI:
10.1007/s11572‐010‐9108‐3.
Onlineversionviawww.crimejusticejournal.com
IJCJ&SD15
©20165(1)
SandraWalklate:TheMetamorphosisoftheVictimofCrime:FromCrimetoCultureandtheImplicationsforJustice
SpencerDandWalklateS(eds)(2016,forthcoming)CriticalVictimology:Developmentsand
Interventions.Cambridge,Massachusetts:LexingtonBooks.
SummerfieldD(1999)Acritiqueofsevenassumptionsbehindpsychologicaltrauma
programmesinwar‐affectedareas.SocialScienceandMedicine48:1449‐1462.DOI:
10.1016/S0277‐9536(98)00450‐X.
VonHentigH(1948)TheCriminalandhisVictim.NewHaven,Connecticut:YaleUniversity
Press.
UllstromS,SachsMA,HanssonJ,ØvretveitJandBrommelsM(2014)Sufferinginsilence:a
qualitativestudyofsecondvictimsofadverseevents.BMJQualityandSafety23:325‐331.
DOI:10.1136/bmjqs‐2013‐002035.
WalklateS(2003)Cantherebeafeministvictimology?InDaviesP,FrancisPandJuppV(eds)
Victimisation:Theory,ResearchandPolicy:28‐45.UK:PalgraveMacmillan.
WalklateS(2007)ImaginingtheVictimofCrime.Maidenhead:OpenUniversityPress.
Onlineversionviawww.crimejusticejournal.com
IJCJ&SD16
©20165(1)