Are perpetrators of abuse “other”?


I write, teach, and provide professional care about matters pertaining to child sexual abuse. I sit on a board of a fantastic organization designed to help christian organizations prevent child abuse and respond well when allegations arise. From these experiences I can tell you that victims of abuse struggle the most when they finally get the courage to speak up but then aren’t believed–whether by other family members or those within their community. Since most abuse happens in secret places and since most of us live with happy public facades, it is easy to disbelieve the victim. In fact, the temptation is great since believing the victim means we must alter our perceptions of the perpetrator and the system that supports them. And that alteration disrupts our own lives, threatens our own comfort zone. Since some reports could be, have been false, maybe this one is too…

The first problem in stopping child abuse is the failure to believe victim stories of abuse. Victims know their information will destroy life as it was before the revelation. Believing that they will be singly responsible for damage done by revealing their abuse, they keep silent. Silence always enables further abuse.

But there is another problem, a second problem faced in stopping child abuse: treating abusers as “other,” some sort of monster that is so unlike the rest of us, we can’t imagine being in their presence. Think about these words. Perpetrator. Pedophile. What garish images come to your mind? Or, do you imagine someone with virtue along with their obvious and destructive vices? Do you imagine the image of a victim in that same person?

“Does it make sense to discard an entire oeuvre of work? Or does it simply reflect an inability to live with messiness and ambiguity? To chalk it up as nothing more than the work of a monster, to cast it out of the village, is to senselessly re-affirm the same basic strategy of denial and dehumanization that, ultimately, allows abuse to continue.”

If you are interested in considering the complexities of the person of the perpetrator, I highly recommend this essay where I found the previous quote. It is written by a victim of abuse perpetrated by his father. How do we account for the virtues, the generosities, the humanness, the victim experiences found in individuals who choose to perpetrate against others? Like the author of this essay, I suggest that doing so is absolutely necessary if we are going to make any dent in the incidence of child abuse.

“Most of us would sooner discard all parties who have been tainted by this event than we would look at how tenuous the sanctity of children really is, how commonplace abuse is, or see the capacity for the mostly good to do periodic evil. We live in the same universe as those who abuse kids. We walk among them. If we want to end the sexual abuse of children, it will begin with the recognition that we are simply not that different from them.” (emphasis mine)

Won’t humanizing perpetrators harm victims?

Humanizing perpetrators of abuse does not minimize the need for justice for victims. It does not decrease the place for restitution or incarceration. Naming humanity in perpetrators does not lead to excuse-making (we do that for other reasons!) nor demand explanations for abusive behavior (though sometimes this can be helpful, most would rather have acknowledgement of abuse done). It need not change our triage policy to prioritize victim recovery over all else.

But when we recognize that perpetrators of abuse suffer from the human condition plaguing us all (self-deception, self as the center of the universe, seeing others as objects for self-comfort, choosing fig-leaves rather than truth in response to shame), we have the opportunity to name these conditions wherever they show up in our lives. Naming them early and often hinders the development of the “split-self” where we live publicly one way but privately nurse other shame-inducing habits. And when we are more able to identify these features in ourselves, we may also find that we can identify them in others as well. While we are not responsible for the abuse perpetrated by others, complicity with abusive behavior (failing to respond to evidence of abusive behavior, allowing cover-ups, etc.) does stand as judgment on us.

Let us acknowledge that we are not so different, that “treatment” must start first in our own hearts so that we can help others before abuse takes place.

About these ads

5 Comments

Filed under Abuse, christian psychology, news, Psychology, self-deception

5 responses to “Are perpetrators of abuse “other”?

  1. Andrew J. Schmutzer

    Powerful piece, Phil, and the article you link to is a great piece. It’s a needed reminder, that the line between good and evil runs down the middle of us all. But talking in the past tense is necessary for victims.

    Like a Holocaust Survivor walking back into their concentration camp, this line of evil is not so abstract for abuse survivors, either. Victims speak first of “did,” then “could.” Healing a victim restores a community, and a reintegrated survivor is one of the most compassionate people you will ever meet–it’s not an abstract discussion for them.

    There’s a danger of squashing choice in contemporary narratives of “we could.” As we read such articles, let’s be reminded of human nature; but let’s also honor REAL STORIES of victims, whose lives have been forever changed. Many of us live in a visceral “I won’t,” precisely because we sat in a pain that permanently changed our vision.

    • Agreed Andrew. Thanks for your comments to clarify. It is sad that the assumption out there is that abuse victims are more likely to abuse others. Just not so, for precisely the reasons you say so.

  2. A Wife

    Thank you for this article. I am married to an offender and he has so many wonderful qualities but it seems like I would be betraying the victim to say so. Others would think I was crazy, condoning his abusive behavior,or deceived by him to consider him of any value to my life or anyone else’ s.Thank you for “permission” to love him and NOT see him as a monster.. He was a victim of child abuse and neglect. He is also a victim of a society that doesn’t promote men sharing their temptations or problems. These in no way excuse his behavior. if we continue the way we are going, the cycle of abuse is only going to continue. We should not chose between loving the victim and loving the offender. They both need love and they both need the Savior.

    • “We should not chose between loving the victim and loving the offender. They both need love and they both need the Savior.”

      Well said. Christ came into the world for sinners.

  3. Andrew J. Schmutzer

    The article you cited Phil, spoke of incest, a father, and the “power plays” used against the son as the son finally mustered the courage to call out his own father! His sibling couldn’t face it. One parent denied and dismissed his own actions…the mother then added to it by her response. Precisely because one was a child, it is not an “either or” equation…the developmental years of child are different than the selfish years of the abusing father.

    Of course both need a Savior, but the son needs to hear that he was betrayed–the author admitted what he wanted to hear–the offender needs to admit that he did the betraying! Most offenders actually need help doing this. The healing path is different for son, father, and mother. Any healing needs to acknowledge such differences. Not all sin is equally devastating…but popular Christianity doesn’t want to hear that.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s