WHEN CLINICAL DISCRIPTIONS ENTER THE COMMON PARLANCE
gelöscht_16philia: The Actual vs. The Constructed? Is a change of terminology needed?
It is my contention that the main issue with the term
paedophilia is that it
has become a socially constructed and loaded term (McCartan, 2008a), with much child sexual abuse being labeled as paedophilia, whether it actually adheres to the terminology or not (i.e., the photographing of a wife under the age of 18 by her husband over the age of 18, the 16 year old boyfriend sleeping with his 15 year old girlfriend—behaviours which many unsophisticated raters might classify as being paedophilic in nature). This begs a question as to whether the term paedophilia has lost i[t]s meaning, relevance, and usefulness?
Social Constructionism is a school of thought which suggests that social and cultural practices change over time and space via the meaning attached to them by society and social interaction (Giddens, 1991; Burr, 1995; Berger & Luckman, 1966). Our understandings of childhood, childhood sexuality and as such paedophilia are all pristine examples of this, as they have significantly changed in western [culture] over the last century (Postman, 1994; Jenkins, 1996; Cunningham, 1995); but especially within the last 30 years in regard to paedophilia. Although this is, in some ways, positive as it contextuali[z]es, adapts, and integrates current concepts of paedophilia into modern society; it may also be an issue as it can move the social meaning of the term away from its professional meaning. This shift in meaning around paedophilia has happened in two ways. First, the social understanding of paedophilia is not in line with the professional definition. Second, the forms of behaviour, psychology, and offending related to paedophilia have outstripped the professional definition. Research has indicated that paedophilia and child sexual abuse have adapted in regard to advancements in technology—especially with innovations such as the camera, camcorders, and the internet (Taylor & Quayle, 2003). Even though our attention to paedophilic offending behaviour has advanced and adapted in recent years, this does not necessarily mean that there is more actual physical child sexual abuse than previously (West, 2000). What we have seen appears to be a greater public exposure to, a greater media reporting of, better police investigating of, and more government funding in regard to paedophilia.
One of the major factors in social constructionism of paedophilia comes from the way that it is used in common social parlance; especially, through the media. The media plays an important role in our society; particularly, in terms of shaping and changing social opinion—either implicitly or explicitly—through the framing of the conversation (Howitt, 1995; Tulloch & Lupton, 2001). This is particularly pertinent in regard to paedophilia, as the media mislabels and poorly communicates child sexual abuse stories to the public, using “child sexual abuse” and “paedophilia” interchangeably (Thompson, 2005; Rind et al, 2001). The media tends to depict paedophiles as anyone—generally over the age of 16—who sexually abuses or views images of any child—generally under the age of 16—regardless of their actions. In recent years, the media has started to shift towards describing all child sexual abusers as paedophiles. This includes such configurations as the 15 year old student and the 21 year old teacher, or the 15 year old girlfriend and the 17 year old boyfriend. But, are they really paedophiles? This is particularly worrying as the media often (mis)represents paedophiles as evil, sadistic strangers often being in a position of trust (Silverman & Wilson, 2002), which we know is not necessarily the case (Howitt, 1995). Newspapers—tabloid and broadsheet—often use emotive language to discuss paedophilia, with headlines such as: ‘Kelly’s weirdos’ (Blackman, 2006, 20 January;
www.mirror.co.uk), ‘Vile sickos skulking in high places’ (Parsons, 2003, 20 January;
www.mirror.co.uk), ‘Britain’s got perverts’ (Patrick, & Nathan, 2007, 16 June 16;
www.thesun.co.uk), ‘My brave girl caged a monster’ (Coles, 2007, 13 January;
www.thesun.co.uk), ‘Pervs on the loose’ (‘Pervs on the loose’, 2007, 2 August;
www.thedailystar.co.uk), ‘Mobs and monsters’ (Younge, 2000, 14 August;
www.guardian.co.uk), and ‘Child-killers on the loose’ (McKie, 2000, 7 September;
www.guardian.co.uk). This type of emotive language also continues within the main bodies of most mainstream media stories, with paedophiles being described as perverts, monsters, and beasts (Thompson, 2005; Greer, 2002). This arguably inappropriate representation has contributed to the public’s misperception of paedophilia (McCartan, 2004; McCartan, in press), leading to a shift in the social construction of the term paedophilia in modern society. The problematic nature of this current shift in the social construction of paedophilia is compounded by the fact that neither the public nor the media see any difference between the different forms of child sexual abusers, their different forms of abuse, or the severity of their actions. This is somewhat understandable, as people do not want to engage with this topic, and it is easier to label all sex offenders as sick, perverted monsters’ rather than trying to come to terms with individual actions. However, it is imperative that we remember that societal understandings of paedophilia are important because they help to shape government policy and practice; especially, in terms of funding and, therefore, can impact upon professional practice (e.g., treatment), prosecution, and reintegration.
