Angela Marinari, Restorative justice for survivors of sexual abuse

Vince Mercer

Vince Mercer is the restorative coordinator of the AIM Project, UK. Corresponding author: Vince Mercer at vincemercer@hotmail.co.uk.

Angela Marinari, Restorative justice for survivors of sexual abuse. Bristol: Bristol University Press, 2021, 185pp, ISBN: 978-1-5793-3.

I approached the review of this work from the perspective of a restorative justice practitioner whose primary focus of work has been the development and promotion of restorative approaches in cases of sexual harm. The author sets out her intention to explore survivors’ experiences of sexual abuse and reflections about their justice needs in order to inform the design of restorative justice services that meet those needs. Therefore, it felt entirely appropriate to offer a practice-focused response.
There is a dearth of research exploring and interpretating the lived experiences and unmet needs of survivors of sexual abuse, reflecting the reality that this is an element of harm traditionally shrouded in secrecy, confused by misinformation or myth, and often immersed in unacknowledged shame. Angela Marinari is ambitious in that she seeks to ‘blend research findings from theoretical insights into practical steps’ (3). As a practitioner I felt both reassured and curious.
In the introduction she clearly sets out her intent to consider a form of restorative practice which expands beyond the constrained traditional focus upon dialogue and engagement with the perspective of those harmed and the primary cause of their harm. In this vein, she highlights the need to listen and reflect upon victim/survivor’s views in relation to not just the abuser but also others around them that have contributed to the harm, directly or indirectly, either ignorantly or naively enabling the harm to occur or be maintained. In short, she goes beyond the narrow polarity of the victim/survivor-harmer dimension.
The author employs the concepts and constructs of Interpretative Phenomenological Analysis (IPA). Marinari suggests that using IPA ‘gives voice to the survivors who participated and reflects the richness of the data they provided’. She is explicit in stating that ‘the research was conducted using a feminist approach and consistent with feminist ideology’ (6).
The structure of the book represents each stage of the IPA process: initially the gaining of knowledge, followed by the gathering of voices. Chapter 4 represents the giving of voices and making sense of victims’ experiences which lead to the integration of the key insights from these accounts into academic literature, offering fresh insights and new knowledge. The final two chapters mark the transition of this new knowledge and insight into existing practice and policy with consideration of the direction of future additional research.
Marinari provides a detailed, yet concise account of what restorative justice is, how the various processes operate and more tellingly asks how far these processes meet the survivors’ justice needs. The direction of description and analysis inevitably leads to the recognition of the importance of re-orientating practice and policy from its historical, legal and resource focus upon offender-focused concerns, towards an approach which places victim/survivor interests at the centre. In this way, she considers the limitations of existing and historical definitions of restorative justice, the paucity of research on the few models of truly victim/survivor-focused restorative practice, the issues in relation to timing and victim recovery frameworks and the need for a victim referral pathway. The author offers a definition of restorative justice which is inclusive and flexible enough to ‘allow for wider forms of harm to be addressed … rather than just crime’ (34) and supports the wider inclusion of not just the harmer but enablers as well.
In the course of the research, a practitioner asked regarding the restorative justice process, ‘Does it have to be with the abuser?’ Marinari proposes an alternative approach. In considering the significance of validation as a need of victim survivors, we are reminded that this validation is evidenced in not just being heard, but in being believed. Marinari notes,

there are some indications that survivors seek validation from people around them, which in some cases is more important or takes precedence over validation from the state or their abuser (42).

This invites us to take a more considered exploration of the term ‘bystander’ since Marinari suggests that the term ‘bystander’ applies to a neutral observer, preferring instead to employ the term ‘enabler’ which encompasses the more active role in supporting the harm.
Self-evidently the most challenging element of reading this book was reading through the accounts given by the six participants whose stories are recounted in the chapters devoted to gathering voices and making sense. The phrase ‘making sense’ seems so wholly inappropriate on a simple level – how can any sense be made from these harrowing accounts of vulnerability, abuse, repeated abuse, shame, guilt, self-reproach, isolation, abandonment, loss of trust, betrayal and much more? It is difficult reading. It is, however, a powerful and moving representation of narrative development at first hand.
Through the analysis of these narratives the author considers a distinction between the validation of the objective recognition of abuse suffered and the deeper ‘subjective’ recognition, and acceptance of the harm caused by the abuse, an altogether more evasive and challenging need to meet.
Restorative practitioners reading these accounts will recognise the limitations of applying a binary ‘diatomic relationship’ as the primary relational context in cases of sexual harm. In recording the complex ‘triangulated relationships’, Marinari was able to identify the cross themes present in the six accounts in relation to failure to protect, vulnerability, intertwined relationships and the longevity of power relationships, and reveal the complexity and sensitivity of the relational context in which the abuse occurred.
The best preparation for restorative dialogue is not merely the collection and presentation of coherent and fully formed accounts, but it must be proactive in assisting the formulation of those accounts, recognising the sometimes conflicting and inconsistency implicit in beliefs, attitudes and actions. Through this, Marinari suggests we can enable participants to wrestle control over their narrative, and where participants have a strong understanding of their narrative of abuse, they will gain empowerment and hopefully a sense of closure. Although a simple model of narrative development in a circular representation of Construction-Challenge-Information-Re-orientation-Reconstruction is presented, the relationship of narrative formulation and the potential for empowerment, resilience and recovery could be explored in greater depth.
The penultimate chapter proposes a model of service development which delivers the opportunity for victims to gain recognition both ‘objectively’ and ‘subjectively’ by the delivery of twin-focus restorative processes which engages with both the enablers of the abuse and then, subsequently, with their abuser. Marinari proposes that there is greater likelihood that victims will gain a greater control over their narrative and a richer narrative development in terms of the breadth of the harm suffered, thereby enhancing their sense of achieved justice and empowerment, which assist their recovery.
She identifies a central conundrum in that, whilst the power imbalances inherent in an abusive situation can be not only managed but also addressed through restorative processes, yet ‘the power imbalances between a survivor and abuser prevent many survivors from contemplating RJ [restorative justice] as being suitable for them’ (102).
She locates the nature of these power dynamics in the complex relational context inherent to sexual abuse. Therefore, Marinari suggests, conceptualising the role of enabler rather than bystander and actively focusing the restorative process on the role and place of the enablers would facilitate a shift in their position from passive complicity towards proactive safeguarding. Marinari fulfils an important task in reminding practitioners of both the complexity of restorative work in the field of sexual harm and especially so in stressing the complexity and sometimes complicity implicit within relational dynamics.
The author stresses that she is concerned with the translation of theory, informed by research, into practice. As such, the final chapter very usefully addresses some of the core concerns related to restorative practice and sexual harm. Whilst acknowledging some other existing practice guidance, she makes additional suggestions around the importance of building multi-disciplinary partnerships with, for example, independent advocacy services to enable an informed choice to embark upon a restorative process.
The author proposes a three-tier model: the initial stage being the provision of general information about sexual abuse to victims/survivors to assist them both in the development and strengthening of their narrative and in making the informed choice to follow the restorative process. This is not a specific responsibility of the restorative practitioner during preparatory work but should be located within victim/survivor-focused services.
Whilst not being prescriptive, she shares a suggested summary of some elements that might be included in this stage, including outlining of models of victim/survivor recovery. Self-evidently, the understanding and insight gained from stage ‘one’ may well be enough for victims/survivors to choose not to progress onto stages ‘two’ and ‘three’, i.e. the direct restorative process with enablers and abusers, but Marinari is hopeful that many would choose to progress.
I hold some reservations around the need to differentiate between stages two and three; this relates to the casting of bystanders as inevitably complicit enablers. My own experience regarding intrafamilial harmful sexual behaviour suggests a much more complex and nuanced reality. Moreover, issues and complexities addressed in stage two would form part of the focus and content of any well-informed, accountable and sensitive preparatory process for a potential restorative process. In the AIM 2020 Practice Guidance (Mercer, 2021), Domains three and four of the Assessment Framework consider a much broader range of issues in relation to the Parents/Carers and Extended Family Members of both the victim/survivor and the young person who was sexually harmed. This also recognises the significance of potential non-abused siblings who I feel cannot be categorised as either bystander or enabler.
The practice guidance with regard to stage three is thin and therefore less informative or thought provoking. One surprising omission is the lack of reference to any risk/need assessment regarding the person who harmed. If we are to enable victims/survivors to make informed and safe choices about embarking on a restorative pathway, we need to have some insight into the motivations, attitudes and beliefs of the person who harmed them as well as into the potential for ongoing harm. In short, we need an independent and validated assessment of the presenting and ongoing risks that the harmer may pose.
From a practice perspective, I really appreciated the stimulus to practice reflection and development offered by the author. Marinari demonstrates a deep consideration around the wider community/familial issues and by considering the complexity of the ‘bystander/enabler’ duality reminds us of the limitations of the simple offender/victim binary position. In placing the victim survivor accounts at the centre she is able to present a narrative-focused restorative approach, which facilitates through re-narration the potential for recovery. Finally, she offers the optimism of a working model of cooperation and joint purpose between restorative practitioners, specialist victim/survivor support and victim/survivor advocacy organisations. I concur that this would seem to offer the best route for truly victim/survivor-focused restorative responses to sexual harm.

Reference

Mercer, V. (2021). The AIM restorative practice and harmful sexual behaviour assessment framework and practice guidance. Stockport: The AIM Project.The AIM restorative practice and harmful sexual behaviour assessment framework and practice guidanceStockportThe AIM Project.2021V. Mercer