Files
2021-04-15 13:31:59 -05:00

140 lines
8.0 KiB
Plaintext

ORCADIAN ABUSE
The Orkney Ritual Abuse affair played out on various levels. Sides were taken
around beliefs about social truth (e.g. about prevalant child abuse), about
progress towards enlightenment (e.g. that "we are just coming to recognise
the scale of such problems"). And about justice and the boundaries of
legitimate power.
The relative weightings of these concerns map back onto social position.
Appeal to universal values assumed a shared social programme, a set of
interests backed up by beliefs.
It may be helpful to look in some detail at one of the most revealing
articles published during the affair; that it was probably written at speed
and in some anger makes its own agenda visible. The article is Derek Rodger's
signed editorial "Hands Together for Life!" in the April/May 1991 edition of
the magazine Scottish Child.
The caption itself brings the first problem. What does it mean? What life? An
appeal to solidarity on whose part? A solidarity rising above all particular
interests? "Hands together" but community autonomy has been evacuated in the
article: community is merely the scab on a wound, a place of denial:"Our
society's ability, sometimes bordering on the desperate, to deny the
existence of widespread sexual abuse in ordinary families-next-door is, quite
simply, to fly in the face of known facts". Known facts, if denied by
"society", therefore remain "real" only by circulating in the discourse of
specialists.
So by the beginning of only his second paragraph, Rodger's proposition that
child abuse is endemic in society has him veering towards prejudice. Despite
protestations of even-handedness, his prose is set in its ways. Presumption
of innocence? The media "lap it up, unquestioningly". Specialists, by
contrast, "consider the possibility" that the allegations are true.
(Presumably, the actions and inactions of the various State agencies involved
in the Birmingham Six and Guildford Four cases were informed by a similar
logic.)
The five paragraphs devoted to the South Ronaldsay witch-hunt are directed
mainly against the Press, accused of wanting to cover-up (and thus consent
in) child abuse. But this howl against the media twists and devours itself.
Those who live by the media... So ChildLine and soap operas are assigned a
place above the media swamp: "EastEnders has noticed - why can't our national
press?" This encapsulates the Left's collapse in the 1980s into identity
politics: well-meaning television soaps could provide the lint over society's
wounds; each identified group would be allocated its role models, all of whom
could discuss their ills away around a kitchen table. The zeal for greater
realism, better models, more true-life situations cedes the leading role to
script-writers (more specialists).
So far from everyone holding hands, the original social unity has already
sundered into a trinity: the mass (place of denial), the expert (place of
disinterested knowledge), and the media (at worst, an interested group
pandering to mass prejudice, at best disinterested purveyors of didactic
entertainment).
That establishes the essential purity of the social workers: "the first to
get it in the neck". They are deftly amalgamated with the "children", for
whose protection, it should be recalled, the whole affair was ostensibly
organised: "The social workers in Orkney, and the children's panel members
involved, must be defended aganst tabloid hysteria - but not just for their
own sake. For it is children who are really under attack in this press
campaign".
So much for Rodger's article.
Missing is any recognition that "therapeutic" agencies have particular
interests (although the usual bureaucratic interest in increasing the
resources under their control has already been nodded through). The response
to criticism claims a legitimacy in their power: that 'society expects us to
do its dirty work but complains when our hands get dirty'. This conservative
concept of the legitimacy of constituted power supposes a consent never
given, a society never unified.
Furthermore, the policing of "agreed" social norms has been supplanted by the
formation of a progressive programme: a novelty-based, self-enclosed project
of developing "new expertises" and new areas of concern. Agencies don't refer
back to the community for legitimacy but seek to lead. They regard child
abuse as both exceptional (in that emergency action is needed to deal with
it) and the norm (in its ubiquity). This condition of super-legality and
self-referentiality lacks corrective mechanisms, so it escalates into
continual resource-pleading and collapses into illegality.
Three codes - the legal, the therapeutic and the police - interwove in the
Orkney affair. The combination of therapeutic and police interests produced
the peculiar flavour of the initial raids: police interest in sudden raids to
snatch "evidence"; therapeutic interest in detaining those assumed to be
witnesses / victims and interview them in "disclosure sessions" until
evidence was forthcoming.
(A fable for those who think the end justifies such means: the victim of a
beating goes to a hospital casualty department on a Friday night but claims
the injury was self-inflicted. A "greater good" may be served by detaining
and interrogating the person over a period of weeks until the assailant is
named. But justice goes out the window.)
The mediation of Social Workers' relationship to minors through the
Children's Panel system developed as an ostensibly liberal replacement of
application of the legal code to children. But like the Staffordshire and
Leicester affairs, South Ronaldsay showed conditions where the legal code
admits greater safeguards against arbitrary action.
Having entered a situation where an agency was defining its own criteria for
intervention, the system's equilibrium could not easily be restored. Sheriff
Kelbie was appalled by the extent to which the process (for extracting
statements by repeated interrogation over weeks) lay outside norms of justice
and ruled the actions invalid at the first opportunity. (At least some
Scottish social workers who declined to participate in the original snatch
had predicted this.)
The Kelbie judgement left Social Work in disarray. Having been criticised for
refusing to allow children to attend their own Children's Panel hearing (or
even to know it was happening), Social Work Directors prepared pedantic
instructions that, if Kelbie's judgement stood, every new-born child being
taken into care would have to be taken from incubator to Panel Hearing.
Inability to distinguish between infants and 15 year old children would
disqualify people from most jobs, but is apparently no inhibition to a career
in social work management, where the Peter principle reigns.
Normal conditions were restored by overturning the grounds of the Kelbie
judgement on appeal, while leaving the material outcome unchanged, and a
judicial hearing is now taking place in Kirkwall. At the time of writing, the
hard evidence which the Social Work establishment has always claimed existed
has failed to emerge: social workers are claiming that one child was
insufficiently outraged by being snatched (a blame-the-victim logic akin to
blaming Jewish people for insufficient opposition to the Nazis). But some of
the social workers involved seem to be admitting to individual doubts, but
had felt they couldn't question the hierarchy.
That last fact points back to problems of agency, problems solved neither by
increasing resource allocation nor by appeals to "put our hands together for
life". Problems, including the plight of any child being abused, require
solution, but ceding them from the family and the local community to external
agencies is no more than partially adequate, both from the interests of the
individuals involved and for any possibility for social change. Any
possibility for radical change starts from elsewhere than propping up
existing institutions by appealling to abstract solidarity and the spirit of
youth.
From Here & Now12 1992 - No copyright