"Historical abuse" and "re-traumatising victims" - gas-lighting?
Posted: Thu Dec 19, 2024 5:27 pm
I've been concerned for some time about the use of the phrase "historical abuse" to refer to the CH abuse cases and convictions...
Also, the recent suggestion from The Archbishop of York that bringing allegations into the open would have "re-traumatised victims"...
Both feel like deliberate or inadvertent attempts at gas-lighting??
The "historical abuse" phrase aim to embed the feeling in all of us that the events and the consequences were all somehow in the distant past, and thus don't have any bearing on the victims today - however it's unarguable that the consequences for many are as real today as they were when they happened; so there's nothing "historical" about the abuse at all??
It also suggests a disconnect between today, and "history" - i.e. "there's nothing to see here NOW, this all happened in the past...." I guess I can see why any organisation would wish to distance themselves from those events, but it's always worried me that by calling them "historical" it absolves the organisation from drawing any parallels with what is or might be happening NOW in the organisation? This is particularly true when there are teachers or clergy in the organisation who were there when the abuse happened (and will/may have known about it?), and are still there now - this also feels like a deliberate attempts to separate themselves from the allegations somehow?
Is the "re-traumatise victims" statement from the Archibishop another example of gas lighting?? Trying to suggest that victims don't want it tackled or talked about, and effectively trying to speak for them - is this a legacy of the "stiff upper lip" and the ultimate "boarding school survivor syndrome", in the Establishment?? Better not to talk about it, brush it under the carpet, and deal with it that way??
Interested in others' views. I'm not sure I've articulated this very well - but both things feel closely linked and make me feel very uncomfortable, particularly given my own experiences at CH, my elements of Stockholm Syndrome, and definite boarding-school-survivor-syndome.....which I'm only in recent years beginning to understand and acknowledge...
Thoughts?
Also, the recent suggestion from The Archbishop of York that bringing allegations into the open would have "re-traumatised victims"...
Both feel like deliberate or inadvertent attempts at gas-lighting??
The "historical abuse" phrase aim to embed the feeling in all of us that the events and the consequences were all somehow in the distant past, and thus don't have any bearing on the victims today - however it's unarguable that the consequences for many are as real today as they were when they happened; so there's nothing "historical" about the abuse at all??
It also suggests a disconnect between today, and "history" - i.e. "there's nothing to see here NOW, this all happened in the past...." I guess I can see why any organisation would wish to distance themselves from those events, but it's always worried me that by calling them "historical" it absolves the organisation from drawing any parallels with what is or might be happening NOW in the organisation? This is particularly true when there are teachers or clergy in the organisation who were there when the abuse happened (and will/may have known about it?), and are still there now - this also feels like a deliberate attempts to separate themselves from the allegations somehow?
Is the "re-traumatise victims" statement from the Archibishop another example of gas lighting?? Trying to suggest that victims don't want it tackled or talked about, and effectively trying to speak for them - is this a legacy of the "stiff upper lip" and the ultimate "boarding school survivor syndrome", in the Establishment?? Better not to talk about it, brush it under the carpet, and deal with it that way??
Interested in others' views. I'm not sure I've articulated this very well - but both things feel closely linked and make me feel very uncomfortable, particularly given my own experiences at CH, my elements of Stockholm Syndrome, and definite boarding-school-survivor-syndome.....which I'm only in recent years beginning to understand and acknowledge...
Thoughts?