Historical child sexual abuse in England and Wales: the role of historians

Abstract

This article reflects on methodological and ethical issues that have shaped a collaborative project which aims to chart social, legal and political responses to child sexual abuse in England and Wales across the twentieth century. The etymological problem of searching for child sexual abuse in the historical archive is discussed, given that the term itself is a relatively recent one. Acknowledging that research tools will always be partial, it then focuses on the gaps and silences in the archive, most problematically in relation to the voices and experiences of victims and survivors themselves. Finally it discusses ethical issues relating to the naming or anonymising of those accused and convicted (as well as victims and survivors) in the writing up of research findings. The discussion focuses on two key periods -the 1920s and 1950s -and on education policy, including regulatory procedures for teachers in state and fee-paying schools.

Heredity as a burden: causes of children’s behavioural problems in Finnish psychiatry between the 1920s and 1950s

“…The textual traces do not shed light on the experiences of the children who underwent abuse, and the terms and practices have changed to the extent that child sexual abuse can be hard to identify. Historical research challenges teleological assumptions about ignorance or lack of abuse in the past (Bingham et al, 2016). In this light, the descriptions of children may have included hints of acknowledged abuse, despite the lack of terminological clues.…”

‘A Poor Prospect Indeed’: The State’s Disavowal of Child Abuse Victims in Youth Custody, 1960–1990

“…In summary, the legal regulation of sexual consent shifted from a preoccupation with specific acts (and with the gender and age of those party to them), towards a more explicit recognition that power imbalances are the central problem in sexual acts between adults and children: from 2001, the age of the parties concerned was the paramount consideration in determining victimhood. Before this, however, it is clear that even where sexual offences against children were successfully prosecuted, official recognition of victimhood was uneven and contingent on wider cultural definitions, whether the victim was male or female [34] (pp. 420, 423).…”

“…420, 423). In 1953, for example, a judge sentencing an adult man for buggery nevertheless named his child victims, remarking that by 'soliciting' his attention they had been 'repulsive little pests' [34] (p. 423). Such blaming also affected female victims, particularly those in adolescence, who could be ascribed a degree of agency and were thus blamed for their moral 'waywardness' [34][35][36][37][38][39][40][41][42][43].…”

Introduction

“…19 In general, the Committee assumed that 'experts'-professionals, politicians, policy-makers, lobbyists-would speak on behalf of victims and survivors, rather than inviting them to provide direct testimony, although three mothers from Edinburgh whose children had been abused did testify, criticising the police and criminal justice system. 20 Later in the interwar period, concerns about child abuse faded once again. The reasons for the falling away of concerns in this period were multiple: voluntary sector focus was on reconstruction; the woman's movement in part fractured following the granting of universal suffrage; and the NSPCC became less campaign-oriented following administrative changes.…”

“…There has been 'no one unified lobby group' that has called for change on behalf of children, parents, or survivors, but, rather, multiple local and national groups formed in specific ideological and cultural contexts over time and space. 47 Studying the array of groups in this book takes examination of voluntarism and voluntary organisations into new terrain. The book makes deep examination of how and when the subjects of policy have become involved in its creation and critique, and of the new challenges made to expertise by experience.…”