Content warning: abuse and rape (not graphic, but please don't read if you think this subject will be too triggering for you right now). Even though these topics will be discussed in nearly every post I make, I will still add this warning to help anyone who may need it.
Just a note: This is about my own preferences and thoughts about language. I generally default to using survivor for other people because it seems to be the preferred term by most now, I will always respect a survivor’s own preferences and thoughts about the terminology, and I don't mind when others call me a survivor. What I dislike the most when it comes to the terminology is that the term “victim” is now stigmatized.
"Survivor" doesn't always feel right. It minimizes what happened. It makes it like I am resilient for surviving and my resilience is inspirational. But I never wanted to have to be resilient or be an inspiration. Before I ever experienced abuse, I was just a teenager. I wanted to be cool, likable, a good person, funny, smart. Things any teenager wants to be. And I guess I was. But this additional label - of a “survivor” - was forced on me. Because I didn't want any of this. I was just a victim of it.
The term victim has become stigmatized. People tell others they have a “victim mentality” - I have even heard of this term being used against survivors. What they mean by this when talking about survivors is that they're still upset about what happened to them. They often mean they are still “living in the past.” As if recovery from trauma is just a switch you can flip on and you are fully healed. As if you're the bad guy for still talking about it. There may be deceptive people out there who try to position themselves as the victim of everything even when they're actually the perpetrator or at least causing problems. But the problem is their deception or their warped view of these scenarios, not “victimhood.” Marginalized people are also frequently accused of having a “victim mentality” when talking about the oppression they experience. That is why you hear of feminists, people of color, LGBTQ people, and disabled people being described as having a victim mentality simply for not wanting to be oppressed. As a result, the word “victim” is stigmatized, and those who have experienced any kind of abuse or violence are supposed to call themselves survivors instead. We have the choice of language - victim or survivor - taken away from us, unless we want to deal with the stigma of identifying as a “victim.”
I think the word victim reminds us of the full weight of what happened. It reminds us that not everyone survives - literally or figuratively. Abuse takes lives - some who experience abuse are murdered by their abusers, others die by suicide as a result of the trauma, the depression, the lack of support. The aftermath isn't always as pretty as the word survivor would have us believe. Even if you do continue living, you don't simply become someone who survived right away. There's mental health services, there's the time it took before you got the mental health services, time lost to feeling numb or broken or “crazy.” What if we stopped glossing over that? What if we were honest about it?
The word victim in the context of abuse and sexual violence also reminds us that there was a perpetrator. The perpetrator is somewhere out there still. Statistically, they are not likely to be in jail. Statistically, they probably have more victims from the past and/or future. How are we going to deal with this fact? We haven't really figured out an answer to it yet. But at the very least, I dislike that the word survivor almost makes it sound like the abuse wasn't that bad, it was survivable, so maybe the actions are forgivable - or that we should just forget that a perpetrator played a role in their suffering at all. I like that the word victim reminds us that a perpetrator has done harm to this victim, a victim who we owe support to. A victim who deserves justice but sadly, probably will not see it unless things change.
People like the word survivor because they think it sounds more empowering, and victim too self-pitying. Survivor sounds positive and victim sounds negative. I can't help but think of it all in relation to toxic positivity culture. The pressure for us to be happy, positive, inspirational, grateful all the time. Survivors are expected to have gained strength and learned lessons from their experiences. This way, they can turn something positive into something negative, and "take back" some of their power. But what if we find it more powerful to describe a horrible experience exactly the way it was? To not sugarcoat it and make it more palatable for our audience? It just seems to me like toning down the truth of what happened because another person may find it unpleasant isn't something that serves the survivor in any way. And if there is any benefit to reframing it for the survivor, that is fine and good, but it shouldn't be expected of survivors if it isn't beneficial to them. Survivors deserve agency in the way they identify and are identified by others. I'm fine using the word survivor and I don't mind being referred to as one. But as for self-identification? I wish we could get rid of the stigma of identifying as a victim of abuse instead of a survivor of it. To me, it reminds me of the reality of the situation, that there is more work to be done. What have we done as a society to prevent abuse so more people can stop becoming survivors? Not even close to enough. I'm afraid that only using the word survivor makes us stagnant, makes us think the work is over, makes us think there isn't still danger in homes, college campuses, classrooms, and places we haven't even thought to look yet that require us to take action in preventing and addressing abuse. Victim also reminds us of the storm afterwards, that survivors do not just "survive" abuse but also the traumatic aftermath of emotions and the toxic society we've created for victims of abuse, and some may not feel they've "survived." Some don't survive at all. I want us to remember those people too.
I think it's interesting how both words have come to mean different things from the original meaning. I chose to use "survivor" on my site because I liked the literal definition -"a person who survives, especially a person remaining alive after an event in which others have died." I liked that it was so neutral, surviving simply means that you're still here after the abuse. Over the years people have commented to me that they don't feel like a survivor, they feel like they just exist, and I'm like "That's what being a survivor means, you're still here." To me being a survivor is just step one. It's the base and it doesn't say anything more than you're still here, so from that base you can grow and heal, or not. In simple terms, you are a victim of a crime, and you survived that crime. I don't know why we've had to subject these words to all of these underlying meanings, but we did, and I agree that sometimes we avoid saying victim when we shouldn't.
Thanks for sharing this thoughtful piece, Rebecca. You make interesting points about what the term "survivor" obscures (namely, the assailant) and also what society demands of people who've experienced abuse.
To me, the term "survivor" obscures the harm of the abuse. It glosses over the brutality of the violence, and skips straight to the recovery. It's the term I use most often, but it doesn't always feel like the 'correct' term for my own personal experience.
I'm not sure there's a right answer, but I think it's important to respect every person's choice of the language that feels right to them in that particular moment.
I'm grateful for this piece and for the chance to think about these questions more deeply.