After years of watching media use language to minimise violence, render perpetrators invisible and dehumanise victims, it is horrifying to see exactly the same linguistic tricks consuming sector speak
Great article, loved it Jane. Your discussion also took my mind to the activist or resistance traditions that birthed these terms, prior to their uptake in psychology and social work and DFV (sorry, couldn't resist) discourse. As a researcher who has done substantial work in the field, the use of survivor for the person who has experienced violence in your presence (e.g. when seeking services or counselling, or taking part in research) is used as a form of validation. Not just that they survived violence, but validation and recognition of their agency of having kept themselves/ their children alive, which sometimes meant being the victim. Also, there is lots of this thinking from resistance movements and participatory research, which implies that a person with lived experience who resists has been conscientized, come to unravel the structural forces of their own oppressions, thereby giving them specific insights into its resistance.I think partly the issus is that these terms get coopted from what is essentially the Black/third world anti-colonial freedom movements, and become depoliticized and neutered as they enter the academy.
Thank you, Jane! Powerful and clearly explained. It's so tempting to use jargon when I assume that my readership is familiar with the concepts. I need to remember that not everyone who reads a particular piece has the same level of immersion I might.
I especially value your critique of that dreadful phrase, "lived experience"! I scream silently whenever I encounter it - yet I've succumbed on occasion when it's seemed too difficult to state the obvious: first-hand experience.
When I noticed my psychology using the term I asked her what she meant. She made a distinction between "experiencing" first-hand ("lived experience") as opposed simply to "knowing about" something second-hand, through reading, watching videos, listening to podcasts, or even vicariously. (This is my understanding of what she conveyed, not her exact words.)
I'm still wrestling with it on the grounds that the word "experience" on its own surely indicates "first-hand" or (shudder) "lived." With the arguable exception of vicarious experience, I'd feel something of a false actor if my primary or only "experience" of an event or series of events came from reading, watching, listening, etc, rather than actual participation in those events.
For instance, I know about the Black Friday Bushfires and the devastation they caused - but I would *never* claim to have any "experience" of those events. I would take it as given that anyone who stated they had experienced the bushfires was present, at some time, while they occurred.
Time to end! With thanks again! And apologies for such a lengthy response.
Great article, loved it Jane. Your discussion also took my mind to the activist or resistance traditions that birthed these terms, prior to their uptake in psychology and social work and DFV (sorry, couldn't resist) discourse. As a researcher who has done substantial work in the field, the use of survivor for the person who has experienced violence in your presence (e.g. when seeking services or counselling, or taking part in research) is used as a form of validation. Not just that they survived violence, but validation and recognition of their agency of having kept themselves/ their children alive, which sometimes meant being the victim. Also, there is lots of this thinking from resistance movements and participatory research, which implies that a person with lived experience who resists has been conscientized, come to unravel the structural forces of their own oppressions, thereby giving them specific insights into its resistance.I think partly the issus is that these terms get coopted from what is essentially the Black/third world anti-colonial freedom movements, and become depoliticized and neutered as they enter the academy.
Thank you, Jane! Powerful and clearly explained. It's so tempting to use jargon when I assume that my readership is familiar with the concepts. I need to remember that not everyone who reads a particular piece has the same level of immersion I might.
I especially value your critique of that dreadful phrase, "lived experience"! I scream silently whenever I encounter it - yet I've succumbed on occasion when it's seemed too difficult to state the obvious: first-hand experience.
When I noticed my psychology using the term I asked her what she meant. She made a distinction between "experiencing" first-hand ("lived experience") as opposed simply to "knowing about" something second-hand, through reading, watching videos, listening to podcasts, or even vicariously. (This is my understanding of what she conveyed, not her exact words.)
I'm still wrestling with it on the grounds that the word "experience" on its own surely indicates "first-hand" or (shudder) "lived." With the arguable exception of vicarious experience, I'd feel something of a false actor if my primary or only "experience" of an event or series of events came from reading, watching, listening, etc, rather than actual participation in those events.
For instance, I know about the Black Friday Bushfires and the devastation they caused - but I would *never* claim to have any "experience" of those events. I would take it as given that anyone who stated they had experienced the bushfires was present, at some time, while they occurred.
Time to end! With thanks again! And apologies for such a lengthy response.