‘Things’ are not What they Seem: On Persons, Things, Slaves, and the New Abolitionist Movement

Abstract

Children. The definition of 'trafficking' in the latter protocol is extremely loose. 'Trafficking' is defined not as a single, one-off event, but a coercive process that takes place over time (recruitment, transportation and control) and that is organised-in a variety of different ways-for purposes of exploitation. 'Exploitation' is undefined, and the nature and degree of force that will constitute 'coercion' unspecified. Despite, or perhaps because of, the vagueness of the term, political and media interest in 'trafficking' helped to support a resurgence of the anti-slavery movement in Western liberal countries, for although slavery is noted as just one possible outcome of 'trafficking' in the Trafficking Protocol, antislavery activists claimed 'trafficking' as a form of 'modern-day slavery'. Talk of 'trafficking' as an immense and growing global social problem has thus been translated into talk of slavery as a significant global problem, and a series of new non-governmental organizations (NGOs) have sprung up since the millennium with a mission to combat it. This includes Free the Slaves, founded in 2000, Stop the Traffik, founded in 2006, Not For Sale, founded in 2007, CNN Freedom Project, founded in 2011, and the Walk Free Foundation, founded in 2012, and many more. These 'new abolitionist' organisations draw upon the iconography of the original European and American abolitionist movement of the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries in their campaign materials, and also borrow some of their campaigning tactics. They urge members of the public to participate in a movement to combat 'human trafficking' and 'modern slavery' by boycotting 'slave made' goods, for instance, and call on them to raise money to support anti-slavery organisations and projects, as well as to sign petitions and otherwise press their governments to act against the problem of 'modern slavery' both domestically and globally. There is one very notable contrast between the old and new abolitionism, however. Historically, antislavery activists had to pit themselves against strong opposition from established political and economic powers, and in some cases, even broke the law in order to protect fugitive slaves from being returned to their masters, or to operate an 'underground railway' by means of which people could escape slavery. Today, the relationship between new abolitionist organisations and political and business elites in Europe, North America and also Australia is extremely cordial.

The risk of sliding down

“…In other words, Malagasy domestic workers working abroad have been quickly included in the growing number of “disposable people” who, according to Kevin Bales (2004), characterize “modern slavery.” Paradoxically, these neoabolitionist discourses rarely consider how the notion of “modern slavery” tends to lump together very different phenomena (trafficking, child labor, debt bondage, forced marriage, etc.) or that governments in the Global North exploit this rhetoric to justify limits on immigration (O'Connell Davidson 2015, 2016; Bunting and Quirk 2017). Moreover, different Malagasy administrations have appropriated the “neoabolitionist” and “antitrafficking” agenda in order to ban the formal and informal agencies that facilitated emigration for domestic workers.…”

Human Trafficking and Heroic Consumerism

“…While it may be more prudent to incentivise individuals to act rather than lambast them for their actions, the uncritical heroicising of consumers in the Global North along with the villainising of producers in the Global South must be avoided, and influence exerted beyond consumers' link in the chain. 2 See O'Connell Davidson (2016) for a detailed analysis of the use of the term 'modern slavery'. 3 For critiques of the Nordic Model, see Sanders and Campbell (2014: 539) and the special issue of Criminology and Criminal Justice Volume 14, Issue 5 on 'The Governance of Commercial Sex: Global Trends of Criminalisation, Punitive Enforcement, Protection and Rights'…”

The Modern Slavery Core Outcome Set: A Survivor-Driven Consensus on Priority Outcomes for Recovery, Wellbeing, and Reintegration

“…It has been criticized as undermining international cooperation, trivializing historical slavery and being appropriated for political purposes ( Dottridge, 2017 ; Faulkner, 2017 ). O’Connell Davidson (2016) has argued that the term risks equating today’s exploited persons to “things” rather than recognizing their agency and diverse experiences. However, charities such as Freedom United defend the use of the term “modern slavery” by highlighting its resonance with the public and power to galvanize global action ( Ewart-James & Howard, 2017 ).…”