Introduction

The opening chapter discussed some ways in which the modern backlash against the exposure of child sexual abuse (CSA) has undermined protection of children at risk. Supporters of accused adults have used media and academic discourse to shape public, legal and medical opinion; and at times to discredit, intimidate and silence child and adult survivors of CSA, the children's mothers and professionals who have tried to protect or support them.

Theories promoted by proponents of the backlash against exposure of CSA have received widespread credibility and media publicity. Those who believed abused children and adults have often found themselves portrayed as gullible and naive. This chapter examines how credible some major examples of backlash theories have actually been: the ‘satanic panic’, ‘false memory syndrome’ (FMS) and ‘parental alienation syndrome’ (PAS). Some individuals particularly active against sexual abuse, and repeatedly targeted for discredit, are discussed. Continuing attempts at discredit are suggested through the example of the ‘Butner study’.

Careful academic and legal critiques already exist of FMS and PAS. As discussed later, the memory debates from the early 1990s onwards inspired valuable professional analyses of amnesia and memory issues following trauma. Rather than simply repeat these, I concentrate here on sometimes glaring weaknesses in backlash theories, which should have raised obvious doubts about their reliability and credibility, yet did not. At times, proponents’ claims have been the opposite of the truth. The ‘satanic panic’ has been less often deconstructed than the other two theories, and less often questioned. I hope to do so here.

I examine why all three such stories, despite obvious weaknesses, became persuasive to many sections of society, and why critiques of these stories which were available at the time made little impact. Finally, I offer a re-interpretation of these stories as part of an historic, concerted resistance to the exposure of sexual abuse. Such precedents place the modern backlash against exposure of CSA in sometimes vivid historical context.