On Tuesday night, we ate at Cole’s (originator of the French dip)-with a friend-contact who does communications for an anti child trafficking organization. Among other interesting points of conversation, he shared with us his insights into how non-profits operate and what their role might be in social movements accomplishing change. in our conversation about the nature of non-profits versus the nature of social change, we reflected on the ways some non-profits seem to be operating on old world models and lack the innovation and momentum that is part and parcel of any social movement. Referring to evolving human problems and human solutions, he described how an issue develops faster than does language; and that for an issue to be adequately addressed, it has to wait for language to catch up to it. He said that, in a way, this also diagnoses the illness of some of today’s non-profits: they’re using old-fashioned processes and termninology, and so cannot upgrade their work to the level of social change.
We agreed that this is also a symptom of the nuances of tackling the issue of human trafficking. It is pivotal to discuss what human trafficking is, but sometimes it is impossible to broach the subject without offending someone. The language that we use in discussing this issue is fraught with misconceptions, designations and tags that threaten to give way to stereotype, and generalizations that misrepresent. Some have argued the importance of calling human trafficking what it is: modern day slavery, insisting that the term is more equipped to demand the attention the issue deserves, and that to do less denies the severity of the individual’s condition. But a significant portion have questioned what happens when we term someone a “slave”—or a former slave, or a victim. Terms and names like “slave” and “victim” attach a host of signifiers to individuals (without their choosing) that they may prefer not to drag behind them. Moreover, they bisect humans into stark categories. The categories and qualities surrounding trafficking situations are rarely black and white but multifarious; understanding human trafficking requires understanding a spectrum of issues. Can we put all these individuals who have been oppressed under the power of another in the same category? Isn’t blanket terming a hallmark of mischievous rhetoric?
As the team discussed in the van today, it is easy to be suspicious of the emotional response slavery language inevitably solicits. In the same way that “sex sells”, and sex trafficking receives an inordinate amount of attention than does labor trafficking*, using slave terminology can seem more like powerful branding than tactful respect.
I think the one term that affords the most to the conversation about human trafficking is exploitation. For all the talk of humans deprived of their basic rights and their oppressive condition, we haven’t heard the term <<exploitation>> near as much as others. The crux of the issue seems to me to be that individuals are exploited on a massive level we do not fully realize. Our goal on this trip is to understand what this means, and also to understand how we can curb our consumption behavior to prevent exploitation instead of perpetuating it.
*USC researchers shared with us that for every one person sex trafficked, nine people are labor trafficked.
No comments:
Post a Comment