Rape, Rapists, and Raped: Language Used Surrounding Cases of Violence

Sharon Marcus’ text, “Fighting words, Fighting Bodies: A Theory and Politics of Rape Prevention”, resonated with my perspectives on the significance on language: how we use it and the role it plays in the context of social issues. I found it particularly interesting when she made note of the distinction we make between “subject-subject violence” and rape:

Legislation backs up the objectifying violence of the rape script by not defining rape as an assault, which would fall under the rubric of subject-subject violence against persons, but as a sexual offense. This definition separates sexual parts from the person and views them as objects which have been violated.

Marcus articulates very well her idea that the separation of rape from standard violence and assault cases does little to address the problem at-hand. By drawing a division between violence and rape, we draw focus away from the violence which has been perpetuated by one person unto another. This type of distinction also allows for views such as that certain bodies (or sexualities) are victimized and others are perpetrators—these are naturalizing ideas. It suggests there is something natural about this type of violence and all we can do is deal with the aftermath.

Another important point Marcus makes is that social scripts play a role in cases of rape. Perpetrators commit violence because of social scripts they believe they need to fulfill:

A rapist’s ability to accost a woman verbally, to demand her attention, and even to attack her physically depends more on how he positions himself relative to her socially than it does on his allegedly superior physical strength. His belief that he has more strength than a woman and that he can use it to rape her merits more analysis than the putative fact of that strength, because that belief often produces as an effect the male power that appears to be the rape’s cause.

Here, Marcus contradicts the popular notion that rapists are enabled to commit violence because of their physical ability. Rather, it has to do with how they view themselves and their victims, in relation to one another, within the given social context.

But instead, like Marcus suggests, the perception and language used about rape is something that can and should be changed to mobilize rape prevention activities. In my opinion, there are two key ideas to be understood. First, rape cannot be seen as a crime distinct from “subject-subject violence” because it allows for views that victims’ bodies (or sexualities) and rapists’ bodies (or sexualities) to be naturalised—that one is naturally dominant over the other. Second, rapists commit violence due to a social script which is derived from our everyday language about gender and sexuality—rape is about power and the exertion of said-power.