Functional Isolation: Understanding Isolation in Trafficking Survivors

Abstract

The study of sexual exploitation of trafficked victims cannot be done without understanding their enforced isolation. To better understand the dynamics of isolation, this study examined how traffickers used different elements of isolation and how such tactics may have contributed to the traffickers’ success in maintaining control over the victim(s). We examined in-depth narratives from 14 women between the ages of 20 to 53, primarily immigrants, who were recruited from an agency serving victims of sex trafficking in a large metropolitan city. The tactics used by traffickers varied and included not only the commonly defined structural isolation in which victims are restricted physically and socially, but also included a shrinking of safe social space and an elimination of privacy and social support. The latter, which we label as functional isolation, refers to instances when survivors are surrounded by peers who are either unreliable or aligned with the trafficker and thus are unable to give true social support. Survivors reported a combination of isolation tactics (i.e., both structural isolation and functional isolation). The different interwoven types and patterns of isolation reported by former victims of trafficking help address a dearth in the coercive control and abuse literature, providing a richer understanding of isolation in trafficking survivors.

COVID-19: Reducing the risk of infection might increase the risk of intimate partner violence

“…Many of the strategies employed in abusive relations overlap with the social measures imposed during quarantine. Next to physical and geographical isolation, IPV survivors describe social isolation (i.e., from family and friends), functional isolation (e.g., when peers or support systems appear to exist but are unreliable or have alliances with the perpetrator), surveillance, and control of daily activities [5]. During quarantine, measures intentionally imposed in an abusive partnership, may be enforced on a massive scale in the attempt to save lives.…”

Abusers indoors and coronavirus outside: an examination of public discourse about COVID-19 and family violence on Twitter using machine learning

“…Since the rigorous measures overlap with many of the intervention strategies for family violence (Van Gelder et al, 2020), they are likely to increase the vulnerability of victims, such as increased exposure to the exploitative relationship, reduced options for support (Peterman et al, 2020), economic stress (US Bureau of Labor Statistics, 2020) and alcohol abuse (Colbert et al, 2020; Malathesh, Das & Chatterjee, 2020). For example, isolation limits the social contact with families and social services and thus facilitates violence and prevent victims from seeking help (Gelles, 1983; Gelles and Straus, 1979; Hagan, Raghavan & Doychak, 2019). During the COVID-19, home becomes a very dangerous place for victims, while individuals are living in forced close quarters (Salisbury, 2020).…”

Linguistic Indicators of Coercive Control: Evidenced in Sex Trafficking Narratives

“…The formalization of trafficking law specifies coercion as one identifying condition of sex trafficking. This has led to an increased interest in establishing coercive control to demonstrate sex trafficking dynamics (Doychak and Raghavan 2018;Hagan et al 2021;Reid 2016). Although the boundaries of what constitutes coercive control is not specified by the law, from a psychological perspective, coercive control is an abuse dynamic, utilized to control a victim by denying, challenging, and limiting her liberty, autonomy, and equality (Barbaro and Raghavan 2018;Beck and Raghavan 2010;Johnson 2006;Kelly and Johnson 2008;Loveland and Raghavan 2017;Stark 2009;Tanha et al 2010).…”