The analysis provided above does not imply that the phenomenon of sexual violence against men is present in all conflicts or practiced by all parties in a conflict. It however highlights the existence of variations in types of sexual violence against men perpetrated in various contexts, and proposes explanations for such differences. In fact, a growing body of empirical literature on the subject is shedding light on the conditions and contexts in which such practices become integral to the conflict dynamics. Yet, it seems urgent to develop a conceptual approach capable to account for variations in wartime sexual violence against men while situating them within a wider theory of masculinities, gender and power. This book also aims to encourage a more systematic integration of existing and future analyses into the theoretical discussions on the gendered dynamics of conflicts and their wider social and political implications. Such a conceptual move transcends gendered distinctions between victims, and between perpetrators, which hinder a more organic and integrated understanding of sexual violence against women and men in conflict situations.
Chapter 3
Perpetrators and Bystanders
While a few researchers have explored the motivations of perpetrators of sexual violence against women in conflict zones (see, for instance, Eriksson Baaz 2009; Eriksson Baaz and Stern 2013; Skjelsbæk 2015), very little is known about those who perpetrate sexual violence against men. Are they the same people? How do they justify these acts? What consequences does the experience of perpetrating sexual violence against men have on the social inclusion of perpetrators? Do they get access to some sort of additional “patriarchal dividend” (Connell 1987, 1995) as a result of their acts?
This chapter mostly builds on interviews I have conducted in Eastern DRC and in Burundi since 2009 with former combatants, both male and female. Collecting perpetrators’ testimonies has been a long process, complicated by the fact that I could not rely on pre-existing methods or experiences to do so. For these reasons, and before detailing the information that I have collected over time, this chapter’s first section elaborates on how I proceeded to gather primary data, and what difficulties and dilemmas I have faced.
Undertaking research on perpetrators of sexual violence entails a series of ethical, methodological, security and legal dilemmas for the researcher. As I discussed with men who had perpetrated such atrocities, I could not shy away from what they had done. At the same time, I knew that most of them had also, at times, suffered atrocities, faced the loss of relatives, lived in more than precarious conditions, known hunger and fear, been injured and so on. Some of them, in the Congo, for instance, had been kidnapped, abused and forcefully enrolled in an armed group, before seemingly embracing militarized and hyper-violent masculinity models. Some of the perpetrators I have met have expressed deep regret for what they had done, while others seemed indifferent to the suffering they had caused. The concept of perpetrator attaches a single, and deeply stigmatizing, label on individuals whose lives have been everything but simple, everything but linear. Perhaps more than any other concept used in social sciences, the category of “perpetrators” raises more questions than it clarifies, and if anything, it only sheds light on the incredible complexity of conflict settings. It obscures the important nuances existing between those who perpetrate these acts without any second thought and who sometimes take pleasure in the suffering of others, those who perpetrate those acts under duress, those who are complicit, those who resist calls for violence, those who try to help survivors and so on. Like the oppressor/oppressed dichotomy, the perpetrator/victim opposition hampers a more nuanced understanding of the tension between individual agency and coercive models of masculinity (Robinson 2002, 152). So even if I do not want to find any excuse for what they have done, it is only reluctantly that I am using the concept of perpetrator, acknowledging its practical use, but still wary of how it might be instrumentalized, and of how it might over-simplify the lives, values and motives of those who have perpetrated sexual violence against men.
As I further detail in this chapter, there is some empirical evidence of the existence of female perpetrators of sexual violence against men (and women), but although I have also conducted interviews with female former or current combatants in various locations, none of them ever admitted that they had sexually tortured or abused a male combatant, or a male civilian. This might be a reflection of my sample and of the case studies I have chosen to collect data on, but it might also be a consequence of gendered taboos and positioning, preventing my female interviewees to recognize in front of a Western, female researcher that they had committed such acts. Worth repeating also is that most of the perpetrators I have come across were interviewed as former or current male and female combatants, not as perpetrators per se. A few of them turned out to be survivors of sexual violence, even fewer admitted to be perpetrators, and most of them said they were neither. The questions I asked them related to their experience as combatants, notably their experience of fighting, of taking prisoners, of using violence or torture and so on. More often than not, they reflected upon their experience of the war, and explained their choices, hopes and regrets. Clearly none of them was comfortable speaking about sexual violence against men, and most preferred to use circumlocutions and ellipses to describe cases they had participated in, witnessed or heard about. However, I was surprised that some were willing to admit their responsibility, even if rather defensively. This suggests, as we will see in the next sections, a certain degree of normalization of the use of sexual violence against men, at least in a war setting.
In spite of all the precautions I have taken, conducting research on perpetrators has at times been challenging, both practically and psychologically. I have tried to constantly abide by international recognized principles, such as the protection of my research subjects and the minimization of risks for the researched as well as the researcher, and informed consent, among other key criteria. There are very few guidelines on how to do research with perpetrators of sexual violence (as an exception, see, for instance, Hearn, Andersson and Cowburn 2007), much less in a conflict setting, and I was sometimes left to wonder whether I should have reported cases I was hearing about. But in most of the countries where I have been conducting research, like in the Congo or in Burundi, sexual violence against men is not a recognized offence. I also had no way to find those who had been victims of the violence, and who might be needing help—though most of the acts I have been informed of had seemingly been committed in a rather distant past. Needless to say, some of these interviews were psychologically challenging, just as listening to survivors’ stories has been distressing.
Finally, as it is a question that has sometimes come up when I was presenting my preliminary fieldwork results, it is worth mentioning that I have almost never felt threatened in the presence of these “perpetrators”. I have always paid great care organizing the interviews,[1] which often took place in the premises of local NGOs or, in a few cases, in private homes. I have also tried to ensure, with the exception of the interviews for which I needed a translator, as much privacy as possible to my informants. My position as a M’zungu (a Swahili word meaning “someone with white skin”) certainly played a role in the respect and attention the people I spoke with showed, but many of them seemed also rather happy or relieved to be invited to tell their stories. Undoubtedly, as we will see in the subsequent sections, some perpetrators also wished to seize this opportunity to explain, justify or downplay what they had done.
1
Because of my interviewing strategy, I almost never knew in advance whether the person I was meeting was a survivor, a perpetrator, both or neither. So the same security measures were applied for each interview.