Jenkins: objectivisn and constructionism

“...examines the changing uses of terms like pervert, pedophile, molester, defiler, psychopath, and predator. None of these words of concepts is privileged in the sense of representing a universally accepted, objective reality, as each is rooted in the attitudes of a particular time, and each carries it ideological baggage.”

-Philip Jenkins in Moral Panic: Changing Concepts of the Child Molester in Modern America

(I like it when one quote from the introductory parts of a book nicely summarizes what the next 238 pages are going to be about.  This is the case with Jenkins’ work; in four lines he tells us his argument for the entire book. )

Think about what you think you know about sexual “predators” or “molesters”. Perhaps you’ve heard from multiple sources that molestation or sexual abuse often escalates in its level of extremity, that it can even lead to murder for certain people. You’ve probably also heard the “cycle of abuse” theory, in which the victim of sexual misuse continues the abuse; the abused becomes the abuser of later generations. Then of course there’s the rumour that predators are “sick” individuals, that they cannot be “cured” or rehabilitated into mainstream society.  These “facts” have become part of the dialogue we use to discuss sexual abuse, but it’s worth questioning how these ideas became part of the normative discourse.

A phenomenon or actions may remain unchanged through context, time and space, but how it is perceived is likely to change. It may be seen as problematic at one time but a non-event at others. When an action or phenomenon is perceived as a social problem, there are two popular responses, Jenkins argues. He outlines the differences between an objectivist and constructionist perspectives of social problems.

Objectivist perspectives accept an act or something as a problem when it harms or disturbs society. It looks for “roots” of the problem, seeking origins of the behaviour in an attempt to better understand it. With this line of thinking, there is almost always a “solution” to any problem that may arise.

Constructionist perspectives question how the set of circumstances came to be known as problematic. Why are particular issues seen as problematic in some contexts and not others? This question acknowledges that “problems” (i.e. sexual molestation) have a basis in reality, but also makes sure we question the so called objectiveness of knowledge. Constructionism asks us to question the discourses being used in discussing and dissecting sexual abuse. Are the words being used predominantly medicalized? Are they in legal jargon? Does the discourse attempt to extract fear from the society? Asking questions like these is one of the steps in not only better understanding the acts of sexual abuse but also how we have come to know about it.