Introduction

My present orientation is towards victimology, but I am not a victimologist. I am a critical criminologist and Foucauldian – my interest in victimology is part of a broader interest in problematising knowledges constructed within criminology and the allied disciplines. As a Foucauldian I am sensitised to recognising knowledges as socially constructed, and serving particular forms of power, in the creation of subjects for the purpose of governance – or, more accurately, governmentality. Which is to say that, for the purpose of this chapter, victimology is the target of my research, and victimological practices are the object of my study. In so doing, I am guided by Foucault’s admonition that ‘people know what they do, they know why they do what they do, but what they don't know is what what they do does’ (Foucault, personal communication, cited in Dreyfus and Rabinow, 1982: 187), and his imperative for us to ‘think differently’ (Foucault, 1984: 8). In essence then, it is useful to understand that Foucault requires that we are cognisant of the ironies incurred through the practices of ‘experts’, be they ever so well meaning, and that we free ourselves from the shackles of established ‘truth’ or truisms, recognising that these might be best understood as reflecting and perpetuating existing power relations.

Ostensibly, the focus of this chapter is Lynndie England, but the key issue for me in examining Lynndie England is not Lynndie England – not at all. My ongoing research is into male rape and male victims of sexual violence, in all forms. What I am really concerned about is their neglect, a concern inspired, in no small part, by the lack of progress in this area – particularly over the last two decades, despite key sociocultural and legislative changes in various Western contexts that really should have remedied this.

I note, with dismay, that there are recurrent patterns in research that contribute to discursive regularity around this issue. In particular, interest is frequently inspired in regards to male victims of rape and sexual violence, usually boys, in response to certain cases, which results in a momentary popularisation that then quickly wanes. This cycle, regarded as ‘treading water’ (Scarce, 1997: 104), ensures a ‘forgotten history’ for the male rape victim (Cohen, 2014: 29).