(C) OpenDemocracy
This story was originally published by OpenDemocracy and is unaltered.
. . . . . . . . . .
Can human trafficking survivors succeed where their allies have failed? [1]
[]
Date: 2023-06
This may come as a surprise, but many of the survivors who get platformed as ‘leaders’ have more in common with the first group than the second group. Many don't come from communities where law enforcement is a regular source of fear, and they don't come from communities where their consensual, adult sexuality has been policed or shamed. So they struggle to incorporate that lens into their work.
If those are the only survivor leaders on offer as role models, other survivors who would like to be leaders may not feel that space is for them. It is disorienting when a sense of not being heard, valued or welcomed comes from the movement theoretically advocating for you.
Joel: There's general agreement that survivors need to have voice in human trafficking conversations. However, many are concerned that the engagement so far hasn’t been genuine – that survivors are being bolted onto pre-existing positions and policies, rather than being given the power and opportunity to change the agenda. Would you agree?
Chris: For me there’s a key difference between survivor leadership and movement leadership. Most ‘survivor leadership’ entails storytelling to policymakers, funders, and other survivors. There’s a lot of that. There’s much less genuine movement leadership – i.e. people with lived experience wielding power.
Who holds decision-making power in anti-trafficking organisations? Usually it’s allies. They might be well-meaning, but they’re people without lived experience. That's a challenge. We need to ask ourselves: what would it take for us to have more movement leadership by survivors?
It certainly will require some allies to de-centre themselves. That’s a big ask, and part of my job is managing ally fragility. They signed up because they wanted to do something good. It can be really hard for them to hear that their best efforts aren’t what is needed. But it’s important.
So much anti-trafficking work in the US is still shaped by the idea that someone is broken. The idea that survivors don’t understand their decisions and need to be rehabilitated. It’s a fundamental flaw in the way the movement views impacted people, and it bleeds over into survivor leadership. If that's how you think about survivors, you're not going to be able to magically flip a switch once they become colleagues. Or if they are critical of your work.
Feedback from survivors is now commonplace, but it comes with a lot of selection bias. Say you want to assess a shelter. What are you likely to do? You probably going to reach out to some of the people who graduated – the people for whom the programme was obviously a good fit. But what about the people who dropped out? You ask organisations that question, and you’ll often hear something like: ‘they just weren't ready for healing’, or ‘it takes people time to truly implement changes in their lives’. They don’t allow space for the possibility that what they’re doing doesn’t meet the needs of some survivors.
We see the same in the criminal legal system. Say a law enforcement officer wants a survivor to speak at a training. There are some very well-meaning law enforcement officers who would say: ‘I know a survivor. I rescued her, and she still sends me a Christmas card every year. I can reach out to her.’ That survivor’s story is of course valid. But singling it out still creates selection bias.
This is the norm of survivor leadership. It often involves well-meaning people, and it is backed up by survivors who are excited to bring their wisdom to the table, but who do not necessarily realise how the group has been curated to lessen critique from the outset.
Joel: So how can survivor leadership be done better?
Chris: We could start by changing how we receive feedback. Instead of bringing in survivors who are years out from their trafficking experience, simply keep asking your current clients: is this meeting your needs? And actually listen to what they need, rather than telling them your menu of current options. If they really have a sense that you're there to support them, they can tell you what they need and how to get them there.
And we need to offer options for involvement. It feels different to say to a survivor:
[END]
---
[1] Url:
https://www.opendemocracy.net/en/beyond-trafficking-and-slavery/rescuing-the-rescuers-how-survivors-are-re-making-anti-trafficking/
Published and (C) by OpenDemocracy
Content appears here under this condition or license: Creative Commons CC BY-ND 4.0.
via Magical.Fish Gopher News Feeds:
gopher://magical.fish/1/feeds/news/opendemocracy/
