Home | About Diana Russell | Pornography As a Cause of Rape (book excerpt) | Publications | Other links | |
|
1
1
THE SECRET TRAUMA
INTRODUCTION TO THE 1999 EDITION
THE GREAT INCEST WAR: MOVING BEYOND POLARIZATION
The re-publication of The Secret Trauma could hardly be more timely. Although this book was published in 1986, the survey data on which it is based were gathered in 1978-well before incest was widely talked about and covered in the media. At that time, disclosures of incest were still frequently greeted with skepticism by clinicians, law enforcement officers, child protection workers and courts, and even by parents, teachers, and social workers. Nevertheless, an unprecedented 16 percent of the 930 randomly drawn women interviewed in my study reported having been sexually abused by a relative before the age of 18. The more general finding - that just over one in three (38 percent) women in this study disclosed at least one experience of child sexual abuse - is now the most widely accepted estimate of the prevalence of child sexual abuse in the United States.
In the years following the publication of The Secret Trauma, however, the debate over incest escalated into a momentous and venomous controversy. As cases such as the 1987 McMartin Preschool trial for the alleged satanic ritual abuse of more than 350 children by six perpetrators, and the 1994 recovered memory trial in which Holly Ramona charged her father with rape after her "memories" of these assaults emerged in therapy, many people's skepticism increased about the widespread claims of satanic ritual abuse and recovered memories of child sexual abuse (mostly incest). "The memory wars," or "the Great Incest War," as these battles have been called (Armstrong 1994, and Crews 1995, respectively), pitted the child sexual abuse incest recovery movement1 against the false memory movement. This movement was led by parents, many of whom had been charged with incestuous abuse by their children, who believed that most or all recovered memories of child sexual abuse are false-the product of suggestions by therapists or other incest survivors, and/or suggestive reading material.
While the rigorous documentation of very high prevalence rates of incestuous abuse in The Secret Trauma indicates that incest is a widespread and urgent problem, I now believe that both sides of "the Great Incest War" have some validity as well as many shortcomings. I also believe that both sides have undermined the feminist effort that first brought incest to public attention. I believe that therapists in the incest recovery movement were the first culprits responsible for subverting the feminist incest revolution and transforming it into a counter revolution-a view I will explain below.
The Secret Trauma reminds us that there is a great deal of real suffering as a result of incestuous abuse that should not get lost in this controversy. Above all, I hope that the widespread prevalence and trauma of incestuous abuse documented in this book will undermine those in the false memory movement who seek to engender doubt about the validity of all or most victims' charges of incestuous abuse, not just those retrieved in recovered memory therapy or suggested by those who interview children about sexual abuse at day care centers and the like.
History
Clinicians (exemplified by Freud and the neo-Freudians) and scientists (exemplified by Kinsey and his colleagues) long denied, minimized, or covered-up incestuous abuse. But in the late 1970s when the survey data for The Secret Trauma were collected, feminists began to publish a host of books and articles challenging the sexist lens through which incest had been viewed for centuries (Rush 1974; Herman and Hirschman 1977; Armstrong 1978; Butler 1978; Rush 1980; Herman 1981). Survivors started writing their stories, educating the public, demanding reforms, confronting their perpetrators, and meeting in free and supportive self-help groups which enabled them to feel less isolated. With the help of the media-always eager for a new angle-the women who spoke and wrote about incest revolutionized thinking on the issue.
Therapists began to break with the Freudian tradition of blaming victims and treating their disclosures as fantasies, instead asking their clients directly and early in the treatment process if they had ever been sexually abused in childhood. New laws were passed, one of which required professionals to report all suspected cases of child sexual abuse. As a result of these changes, more survivors reported their victimization to the authorities and became willing to prosecute their perpetrators.
While the new openness about incest brought about undeniably positive changes, at some point the incest revolution began to go haywire. Some therapy clients who had had no memories of incestuous abuse prior to therapy, started to remember experiences in the course of therapy. Most therapists in the incest recovery movement attributed this phenomenon to repression, a Freudian concept believed to explain how individuals typically protect themselves from having to face memories of unbearably painful experiences. Therapists began to use memory retrieval techniques with their clients, particularly if they suffered from any of the symptoms that clinical experience or research had identified as associated with a history of incestuous abuse. Some therapists became quite punitive toward those who failed to "remember" such experiences (Goldstein 1992; Goldstein and Farmer 1993). Even when clients entered therapy with memories of being incestuously abused, some therapists pressed them to remember additional experiences of sexual abuse. Some therapists also urged their clients to confront their perpetrators, sever their relationships with them, and prosecute them. To accommodate survivors with retrieved memories, the statute of limitations for reporting incest was increased in many states2, setting a time limit on reporting from the moment of remembering the abuse rather than experiencing it.
In the 1980s, some therapists claimed to have uncovered a new kind of sex crime called ritual abuse. Satanic ritual abuse, which entailed macabre forms of sexual and other abuses against children and adults, was the main manifestation of this new crime. The now-notorious McMartin preschool case in Manhattan Beach, Los Angeles, was one of the cases to launch the era of accusations of ritual abuse in satanic cults that was soon to grip America and become a household word (Nathan 1990; Fukurai et al. 1994; Pendergrast 1995; deYoung, 1997). After what Mary deYoung describes as "relentless grilling" of the McMartin children by social workers, 369 of them told of experiencing
the ritual ingestion of feces, urine, blood, semen, and human flesh; the disinterment and mutilation of corpses; the sacrifices of infants; and the orgies with their day care providers, costumed as devils and witches, in the classrooms, in tunnels under the center, and in car washes, airplanes, mansions, cemeteries, hotels, ranches, gourmet food stores, local gyms, churches, and hot air balloons. And they named not only the seven McMartin day care providers as their satanic abusers, but their soccer coaches, babysitters, next-door neighbors, and even their own parents, as well as local businesspeople, the mayor's wife, who was said to drive around town with the corpses of sacrificed infants in the back of her stationwagon, news reporters covering the story, television and film stars, and members of the Anaheim Angels baseball team (Nathan and Snedeker 1995, as cited by deYoung, 1997, p. 21). |
As a result of the spread of these wildly inventive beliefs, by 1986 "there had been at least fifty 'little McMartin's across the country" (deYoung 1997, p. 22). Five years later, there were fifty more (p. 22). However, no corroboratory evidence of satanic ritual abuse was ever found in connection with these day care cases (Lanning 1989; deYoung 1997, p. 22).
Children were not alone in acquiescing to suggestions by authority figures' of ritual satanic abuse. Increasing numbers of adult women and some men also claimed that they had been subjected to brutal and grotesque experiences of ritual abuse in satanic cults. Most people's reports originated in individual therapy (Feldman-Summers and Pope, 1994), but some also arose in survivor group therapy and/or after reading accounts of satanic ritual abuse (e.g., Smith and Pazder 1980). These "memories" tended to become increasingly bizarre with the addition of more and more perpetrators added as therapy proceeded-sometimes for many years. In addition, some therapists who practiced recovered memory therapy increasingly diagnosed incest survivors as suffering from Multiple Personality Disorder (MPD), a previously very rare disorder that proliferated dramatically in the 1980s. The profession failed to monitor and sanction these increasingly outrageous practices in their midst. And, until the False Memory Syndrome Foundation burst upon the scene in 1992, therapists in the incest recovery movement were subject to very little outside criticism (Ofshe and Watters 1994, p. 12).
The Birth of the False Memory Movement
The FMS Foundation was founded in Philadelphia by Pamela Freyd and her husband Peter in 1992. Peter Freyd, who had been accused of incestuous abuse by his daughter Jennifer, maintained that her charges were false, and his wife supported his claim3. Many other members of this organization also claim they were falsely accused of incestuous abuse.
The primary goal of the FMS Foundation is to protest against false charges of incestuous abuse and satanic ritual abuse, and to assist parents and child victims of false memory syndrome (defined as a condition in which a person's identity and interpersonal relationships are centered around a memory of a traumatic experience which is objectively false but in which the person strongly believes [Kihlstrom 1994, cited by Pope 1997, p. 998]).
Most of the 48 individuals on the Scientific and Professional Advisory Board of the FMS Foundation have impressive credentials and scholarly achievements, many in areas germane to memory and psychotherapy, and some of them actually do therapy. I believe none of them has done research on child sexual abuse, but nevertheless, the list of experts has likely helped the FMS Foundation to influence the media, the outcome of legal cases involving retrieved memories, and public opinion.
Many advocates of the false memory movement claim that there is an epidemic of people suffering from this syndrome (e.g., Goldstein and Farmer 1993, pp. 8-9; Crews 1995; Spiegel 1997, p. 995). Prevalence estimates range from close to 67,000 cases to approximately 1,476,000 cases (de Rivera 1997, p. 996, and Dawes 1995, respectively). Many therapists in the recovery movement consider these estimates to be wild exaggerations (e.g., Pope 1996), but neither side has any hard evidence to support their claims.
False memory advocates believe that recovered memory therapy is the major cause of false memories. They argue that many, most, or all therapists (there is no consensus on this) who engage in this kind of therapy are guilty of using suggestive, manipulative, coercive, or even brainwashing techniques with some of their clients in order to achieve their objective.
FMS advocates are particularly critical of recovered memory therapists who use hypnosis, relaxation techniques, dream analysis, age regression, and drugs like sodium amytal, in an effort to retrieve memories. FMS advocates point out that ample scientific evidence demonstrates that these techniques heighten clients' suggestibility as well as their confidence in the correctness of their "memories"; however they do not enhance the accuracy of clients' memories (e.g., see Ofshe and Watters, 1994). False memory advocates also criticize group therapy for survivors and those who are trying to retrieve "memories" of incestuous abuse, arguing that listening to other's experiences-or alleged experiences-of incestuous abuse often induces participants to recover false memories of their own incestuous abuse.
Advocates of false memories also condemn the authors of the many books and articles that stress the importance of retrieving memories of childhood incestuous abuse. They especially attack Ellen Bass and Laura Davis' book, The Courage to Heal (1988), which they frequently refer to as "the Bible of the recovered memory movement." They ridicule the authors for making such statements as, "Many women don't have memories, and some never get memories. This doesn't mean they weren't abused" (1988, p. 81), as well as providing a long list of symptoms supposedly indicative of child sexual abuse but so broad that it is likely to apply to many others as well. After reading The Courage to Heal-often at the request of their therapists-many women have retrieved memories of incestuous abuse.
FMS advocates maintain that the central flaw in the recovered memory argument is therapists' reliance on the Freudian concept of repression. Most FMS advocates claim that there is no such phenomenon, or that there is no scientific proof for it (e.g. Loftus 1994; Ofshe and Singer 1994; Ofshe and Watters 1994; Pendergrast, 1995). At the extreme end, some even argue that genuinely traumatic experiences are not forgotten. For example, cult expert Margaret Singer maintains that, "Trauma does not cause people to repress memories. Trauma has just the opposite effect: people can't forget it" (Jaroff 1993, p. 57; emphasis added). By Singer's logic, all retrieved memories are false.
Richard Ofshe coined the term "robust repression" to conceptualize the type of repression he claims recovered memory advocates believe in. It includes the notion that the repressed information is "held in a pristine, non-deteriorating form until the anxiety with which the information is associated dissipates" (Hagar 1995, p. 9) and "that each event [of sexual abuse] is forgotten as it happens and that repeated assaults are experienced as if for the first time" (Brandon et al., p. 301). According to Ofshe: "There's about as much evidence for this kind of repression as there is for unicorns, the Loch Ness monster, the abominable snowman, and ET trying to call home" (Hagar 1995, p. 17).
In response to this kind of criticism, some recovered memory advocates have now switched to using the term dissociation in place of repression (Hopper 1998). But according to Ofshe and Singer (1994), changing the label achieves nothing: Dissociation is another Freudian concept with no more scientific basis than repression.
In an attempt to prove their theory, several incest recovery movement researchers have conducted studies purporting to show that many clients have periods of amnesia for experiences of incestuous abuse that they later retrieve (e.g. Herman and Schatzow 1987; Briere and Conte 1993.) A. Scheflin and D. Brown maintain that there are now twenty-five studies "all of which demonstrate amnesia" for experiences of childhood sexual abuse (cited in Hopper 1998, p. 11). However, these researchers overlook the possibility that the retrieved "memories" are not authentic. Nor do periods of amnesia prove what mechanism is involved in the failure to remember.
For example, in an attempt to prove the existence of repression, John Briere and Jon Conte (1993) conducted an experiment in which they asked 450 therapy clients who identified themselves as victims of child sexual abuse whether there had ever been a period in their lives before the age of 18 when they could not remember their abuse experience. Fifty-nine percent answered in the affirmative, leading Briere and Conte to advise "the clinician who has some reason to believe that his or her client was molested as a child ... to continue to entertain that hypothesis during treatment, even in the absence of specific abuse memories," and even when the clients deny such a history (emphasis added; p. 26; also see Elliot and Briere, 1995).
However, Ofshe and Watters (1994) point out that the pool of respondents from which Briere and Conte drew their subjects probably included many recovered memory clients (p.308). And,
If the memories of abuse were not 'discovered' in therapy but rather 'created' in therapy, the patient would, of course, believe that she had been amnesiac for the material. This is to say that the survey is only valid if the recovered memories are valid. Briere and Conte offer no evidence to counter this problem, saying only that due to their "clinical experience" they "doubt that abuse confabulation is a major problem in abuse research." (pp. 308-309). |
"Clinical experience," however, is totally
subjective and unscientific. I believe that both sides of the
memory wars are mistaken in treating their different views of repression
as central to their disagreement. The real problem is
not the unacceptability or unprovability of the terms "repression",
"dissociation", or "amnesia"; it is that retrieved
"memories" cannot be assumed to be authentic. The key question that
research needs to address is whether recovered memories of child sexual
abuse are true or false, and if both, what is the approximate
ratio of true to false memories.
It seems likely that research on the brain will contribute to answering these questions. According to cognitive neuroscientist Michael Gazzaniga, "it is the easiest thing in the world to implant memories into someone;" although the right brain "is very low on false memories ... the left brain is a genius at it" (Public lecture 1998). Perhaps future brain research will discover a way of ascertaining the veracity of memories of child sexual abuse.
Retractors' Suits
By 1994, dozens of suits had been filed around the country by retractors who maintained that "bad therapy led them to false memories of past abuse" (Ness 1994, p. A1). In 1994, for example, Kimberly Mark of San Luis Obispo, California, accused five therapists in a suit whom she claimed had "encouraged her to believe she had been molested" (Ness 1994, p. A1).4 The first therapist Mark went to see "diagnosed a small pain in her chest as a 'body memory' of childhood sexual abuse." Then,
under the care of a series of [other] therapists, who used hypnosis and other controversial techniques, and working with Davis' workbook, Mark came to believe she had 400 personalities and had suffered satanic ritual abuse at the hands of her father and others .... (Ness 1994, p. A1). |
After reading a Time magazine article on the recovered-memory/false memory controversy, Mark started to
"doubt that she'd ever been abused.... By then, her emotional
health had been destroyed and she couldn't work," according to
her suit (Ness,1994, p. A1).
According to Mark Macnamara (1995), "the end of repressed-memory cases is coming, and the logic is clear. The diagnosis of repressed memory ... is now professionally risky" (p. 36). Aside from the suits of retractors, recovered memory therapists have become anxious about suits against them by parents claiming they (therapists) are responsible for creating false memories of incestuous abuse in their (the parents') children. Increasing numbers of judges now rule that testimony on recovered memories of child sexual abuse are inadmissible because "the Court has concluded that the phenomenon of traumatic amnesia [is] not sufficiently accepted in the relevant scientific community" (Friedman 1996, p. 2).
Fear of being sued has had a dramatic impact on therapists' practices of recovered memory therapy. I have heard (but cannot document) that some therapists have also become wary of treating incest survivors in general.
MY EVALUATION OF THE MEMORY WARS
I have long been skeptical about the validity of reports of satanic ritual abuse, but I used to believe that recovered memories of other sorts of incestuous abuse were always authentic. Like many members of the incest recovery movement, I saw members of the FMS Foundation as a bunch of perpetrators who were part of the backlash against the incest revolution. But since then, my thinking has changed. In 1993 when I was analyzing in-depth interviews with 20 incest survivors in Cape Town, South Africa (Russell, 1995b), I felt bound to conclude that of the four cases of retrieved memory in my small sample, two were valid and two were false. Both of the women whose "memories" I considered false had retrieved them in American therapy situations. In contrast, the memories of the two cases I considered authentic had both been triggered by experiences outside of therapy (Russell, 1995a).
My thinking changed radically when I read lengthy personal accounts by retractors5 who had retrieved "memories" of incestuous abuse and/or satanic ritual abuse in therapy only to denounce them as false later in their lives (for example, see Goldstein 1992 and Goldstein and Farmer 1993; Pendergrast, 1995). Following is a brief summary of the experience of Lynn Gondolf, an emotionally fragile, bulimic woman who became a retractor:
She had never forgotten being repeatedly raped as a child by her uncle. In the mid-1980s, her therapist told her that her symptoms were too severe to be explained by the rapes alone. He encouraged her to imagine what else might have happened, and she soon visualized her parents sexually abusing her....Gondolf's therapist put her into a therapy group apparently dedicated to emotional strip-mining. Within two months, she had confronted her parents; later she tried repeatedly to kill herself and ended up on a psychiatric ward. Only when her insurance benefits ran out and her therapist abandoned her did she slowly rebuild her life, get a job, get off alcohol and drugs, and reconcile with her mother and father. (Butler's summary of a case described by Loftus 1995, p. 11) |
The immense suffering described by retractors dismayed
me and also convinced me that some of the claims being made by
false memory advocates were valid. When I mentioned this
to colleagues and friends who are advocates of recovered memories,
however, I was horrified at the callous way some of them dismissed
these retraction cases as minuscule in number and
significance. Even were there only a few such cases, this would not justify
dismissing the sometimes lethal trauma that these women
suffer because of their therapists' inappropriate methods of
so-called memory retrieval.
Some recovered memory advocates believe that the retractors have merely returned to a state of denial about their childhood traumas (Spiegel 1997; Whitfield 1995, p. 83). But the fact that retraction often results in a radical improvement in the mental health of former clients (as in the case cited above) suggests that this interpretation is incorrect (Goldstein and Farmer 1993).
Although some researchers claim that retrieved memories have never been satisfactorily corroborated (e.g., Barnes et al. 1988), the criteria they require for corroboration are much too stringent, in my opinion. Indeed, requiring such an arduous test for this crime alone smacks of sexism, just as the now defunct requirement that rape must be corroborated was considered to be in the past. In an in-depth analysis of one of the authentic retrieved memory cases in my South African sample, I described many factors that I believe validated my conclusion regarding its authenticity (1995a). I fall, then, somewhere between the hard-line positions of both camps. I believe in the high prevalence of incestuous abuse and that some recovered memories in and outside of therapy are valid, while some are not.
Believing that there are authentic cases of retrieved memories of childhood incestuous abuse both in and outside of therapy, and that the same applies to false memories, I wondered what the approximate ratio of true to false memories might be. An experiment by Stan Abrams was very influential on my thinking about this question.
Abrams (1995) examined the outcomes of polygraph tests given to two groups of accused child molesters who had been referred for testing by their defense attorneys. All of the accused molesters denied being perpetrators. Abrams compared the polygraph test results of an experimental group of 46 subjects who had been accused of being perpetrators on the basis of the plaintiffs' recovered memories, with the polygraph results of 300 subjects accused of being perpetrators on the basis of the plaintiffs' continuous memories. He found that 96 percent of the subjects accused of child molestation on the basis of recovered memories tested as honest in their claim of innocence (i.e., they passed the lie detector test) compared with only 22 percent of the subjects accused on the basis of continuous memories. These results "cast strong doubts" on the authenticity of recovered memories, indicating that they are true in only a minute percentage of cases (p. 291). Abram's experiment leads me to believe that the majority of retrieved memories are false.
Abrams also noted that in the early period of awareness about child sexual abuse, only approximately 10 percent of the charges of child molesting were estimated to be false reports whereas the percentage of false reports had more than doubled (22%) at the time that he conducted the experiment described above. Assuming this finding can be generalized, the increase in false reports over time may be yet another sign of the incest culture that has developed in the United States. This in turn may have prompted more women to embrace the now less-stigmatized identity of incest survivor for secondary gains (e.g., to get an unwanted stepfather out of the house, to find an acceptable explanation for all their suffering, to get attention and/or sympathy).
In contrast to Abrams' experiment, I find Loftus' attempts to prove that recovered incest memories are false to be wholly unsuccessful. Her most provocative experiment involved only five subjects ranging in age from 8 to 42 years who were told by a family member that they had been lost in a shopping mall when they were children (Loftus & Ketcham, 1994). With varying amounts of manipulative prompting by their relatives, Loftus' subjects claimed to remember being lost in a mall, often embellishing this experience with details of their own. Loftus believed her experiment proved that "it is possible to create false memories for childhood events" (p. 99).
Psychiatrist Lenore Terr dismissed Loftus' memory experiments on the grounds that "You can't replicate trauma in an experimental lab" (Terr 1994, p. 52). Many other recovered memory researchers concur with Terr, criticizing Loftus' mall experiment as having nothing in common with traumatic experiences of incestuous abuse. Robert Schwarz and Stephen Gilligan (1995) go even further in their criticism:
Loftus's application of her experimental research to the recovered memory debate is often reckless and misleading. She implies that since much of memory is malleable, nothing within memory is really believable. Most memory research, however, is really about the distortion of details, not central events.... Yet she plays the great debating trick of saying that since some memory is likely to be distorted, all memory is likely to be distorted, and no memory of childhood abuse should be believed unless corroborating, objective evidence can be found. (p. 22) |
Since Loftus has testified as an expert witness in court
cases more than any other false memory advocate, her shocking misapplication of her research has presumably had a
seriously negative impact on the outcome of many trials.
Although I am convinced that the prevalence of false memories comes nowhere near the prevalence of authentic cases of incestuous abuse (estimated in Chapter 4), I nevertheless believe that many therapists in the recovery movement severely underestimate the prevalence of women and children who have had, and who continue to have, false memories of incestuous and ritual abuse.
For example, an enormous number of children have had false memories of ritual abuse in satanic cults at day care centers throughout the United States (e.g., 369 at the McMartin Preschool alone). The National Center for Child Abuse and Neglect investigated 12,000 accusations of satanic ritual abuse without finding any evidence to corroborate the accusations. Presumably this means there have been at least 12,000 cases of false ritual abuse memories, many of which typically involve the alleged victims' relatives as well as many other perpetrators. Furthermore, there are often large numbers of alleged victims per case in ritual abuse cases charged by adults (e.g., see Lawrence Wright's extraordinary false memory case study described in Remembering Satan [1995]). Finally, extrapolating from Abrams' experiment (described above), approximately four-fifths of retrieved memories are false (whatever this number may be). Although this evidence is quite compelling, it may prove even more conclusive if based on a large scale methodologically sound prevalence study that is thoroughly evaluated by members of both sides of this conflict.
This is not to say that I am sympathetic to many of the claims of the false memory advocates. True, I now believe that a high percentage of memories recovered in therapy and outside of it are false. But I also believe that false memories of having had a happy abuse-free childhood can be induced. As Spiegel (1997) has noted: "If a false memory of abuse can be produced, a false memory of non-abuse is also possible" (p. 995).
A FEMINIST ANALYSIS OF THE MEMORY WARS
While my perspective on the memory wars may be construed to be a radical departure from the views of many feminists, I believe that my analysis is a feminist perspective of the false memory debate. My goal in this section is to provide some feminist insights into the memory debate, including what led up to it and the dangers ahead. This section reveals my indebtedness to Louise Armstrong who is, to my knowledge, the only person to date who has undertaken a comprehensive feminist analysis of this conflict (1994).
Many male writers have failed to give feminists credit for playing a vital role in the emergence of the incest problem in the late 1970s. For example, recovered memory advocate Charles Whitfield (1995) has a one-page chart of "landmarks in child abuse prevention and recovery" in which the words feminist or women's movement do not appear (p. 53). Instead, he gives credit to "the integrity, courage and creativity of countless survivors and many helping professionals" (p. 51).6
Goldstein and Farmer (1993) are two false memory advocates who believe that "aspects of the radical feminist movement" have contributed to the development of "a milieu in which false memories can flourish," although these authors fail to explain what aspects they are referring to (p. 7). My analysis of the major culpability for the development of false memories is very different from theirs. While these authors blame feminists, I share Armstrong's view that the major liability lies with therapists.
After feminists transformed incest into a political issue, therapists took over and recast it as a therapeutic problem that required clients to engage in intensive and often long-term treatment. As Armstrong (1994) observed:
Rather than lending support to grassroots, survivor-led existing services and fueling the already growing movement against abuse, therapists with the power of the mental health industry behind them took over. They seem to embrace the movement against violence against women and children. But their clinical focus works against any political agenda. (p. 209) |
It [the Great Incest War] is, alas, the story as well of the
power of the promise of "help" and the language of "treatment"
to infantalize massive numbers of women, emphasizing their fragility,
securing their helplessness, isolating them from the larger universe,
so cementing their focus on the purely internal that it looms
to fill their entire visual screen. All in the name of "empowerment."
(p. 3).
Finally, Carol LeMasters
(1995) has noted that the recovery movement became indistinguishable from the incest
survivor movement and, for many, from feminism itself. One
of the reasons for this was that "political action alone was not
giving women what they needed," and "the recovery movement
filled that gap" (p. 7). Unfortunately, it did so by becoming a
wolf in sheep's clothing -- with survivors and feminists being the sheep
(Pitman, personal communication, August 6, 1998,). Although
therapists may not have been aware that they had become the wolf,
they did in fact sabotage feminist principles. Consequently, many women,
including feminists, have been coopted by the therapist backlash and taken on recovered
memory therapists' perspective on incest. Ellen Bass and Laura Davis, authors of
The Courage to Heal (1988), are the most
conspicuous examples of this phenomenon. I think false memory
advocates are correct in their objections to this book, and I share
their opinion that it has done considerable harm by fostering
false memories of incestuous abuse in many women.
However, I also believe that it has helped many incest survivors.7
More to the point: I consider that Bass and Davis have only popularized the views held by many professional recovered memory
therapists. It was these therapists who embraced The Courage to Heal
and recommended it to their clients. Had therapists
and incest researchers denounced it as trash, as dangerously
suggestive, as unscientific, as the work of unqualified people (Bass
described herself on the book's back cover as a poet and workshop facilitator for survivors, their partners, and
counselors. Davis described herself as "a writer, radio producer, and
former talk-show host"), it would not have been popular.
Hence, I think FMS advocates are unfair to focus their criticism on the
popularizers as if they are more responsible for the recovered memory
movement than the professionals. I can think of at least
one well-known recovered memory therapist (Eliana Gil) who made some of
the same overly-general statements as Bass and Davis in a
self-published book that predated theirs (1988). Attacking Gloria Steinem
for making statements that obviously came from professional recovered memory
authors is even more unfair (see Ofshe and Watters 1994; Goldstein and Farmer 1992). Journalist Moira Johnston (1998) went so
far as to proclaim that if Steinem would only make a public
apology for her belief in recovered memories, this would be a very
important step toward diminishing the intensity of the memory wars.8 Misdirecting blame toward feminists rather than toward
those who are responsible for generating false memories and/or the
theory to explain them, only serves to perpetuate the myth that
feminism caused the false memory uproar, when, as I stated
previously, I believe that therapists are the main culprits. Although I believe the
false memory movement deserves credit for stopping the escalation in irresponsible therapy, I
also believe the false memory movement poses a real threat to feminists, incest survivors, and therapists.
Earlier in this introduction, I described anti-feminist attitudes among
some false memory advocates. Katy Butler (1995) charges
Ofshe and Watters in particular for sexist attitudes toward female
incest survivors: In Ofshe and Watters' book, the incest recovery movement- composed
primarily of women who have never forgotten memories of garden-variety
abuse- has 'morphed' into the 'recovered memory movement,' a quasi-cult
of hysterical women devoted to explaining away all present problems
by dowsing for a traumatic past. (p. 11) Pope (1996) contends that
"the reaction to recovered memories would likely have been quite different if those
reporting them were overwhelmingly men rather than women" (p. 128). (Unfortunately, Pope does not suggest how the
reaction might have been different.) Perhaps both male and
female therapists are more inclined to do retrieved memory work
with their female clients. Had 90% of the clients with
retrieved memories been male, would their therapists have been so relentless in their efforts to recover their memories?
According to Pope, "Historically, many therapists have been
remarkably tolerant of abuse toward women" (p. 126). And
many therapists have also been remarkably ignorant of the oppressiveness
of their "therapeutic" tactics on women, as was Sigmund
Freud, the misogynist father of psychotherapy (Pitman, personal communication, August 3, 1998). Freud as Coercer of False Memories On the basis of what
Freud has written about his early work (see Masson 1984), I now believe that he switched from
trying to impose (not always successfully) a false memory of
incestuous abuse on many of the 18 female clients he had diagnosed
as "hysterics," to imposing a vastly different
false memory -- that they had only fantasized the incestuous
"memories" as a mask for their own incestuous desires toward their fathers.
Freud appeared to forget that it was he who had imposed these "memories" on many of them in the first place
(we have no idea, of course, how many of his 18 clients had actually been incestuously abused). Ofshe and Watters (1994)
make this same point when they accuse Freud of making "two
unforgivable mistakes: coercing false memories from his clients, and
then blaming the client for the creation of these
beliefs" (p. 293). Hence, their contention that, "Freud cut the very
figure of a recovered memory therapist" (p. 293). Ofshe and Watters (1994)
describe the consequences of Freud's decision to discredit all reports of child
sexual abuse by his clients: By lumping all accounts of sexual abuse together and labeling them
fantasy, Freud gave those portions of Western society impressed
with psychoanalysis an excuse to ignore the reality of childhood
sexual assault for much of the twentieth century. (p. 293) Although I am not aware
of any study that documents whether male survivors of child sexual abuse are more likely to
be believed than females, I have gained the distinct
impression from newspaper accounts that relatively few men are charged
with false memories. What might explain this observation?
Research has established that boys are much less likely to be
incestuously abused than girls. Although incestuous abuse is
often perpetrated on more than one child in a family, large
numbers of boys are often sexually abused by the same extrafamilial pedophilic authority figure. Cases involving
multiple victims are typically judged to be more credible than solitary victimizations because of the corroboration they
provide. On the other hand sexism may also be a factor. This is
clearly a matter for future researchers to explore. The virulent anti-mother
bias evident in many of the retractors' accounts is another indication to me that
there are anti-feminist forces at work in the recovered memory
therapy camp (Goldstein and Farmer 1992; 1993). Exaggerated
mother-blaming for incestuous abuse has long been a common
manifestation of sexism in the incest literature.9 I believe it is
even more prominent in false memory cases. Retractors'
accounts often reveal therapist-manipulated accusations against mothers
as colluders or participants in the sexual abuse of their
daughters. More noticeable yet, large numbers of female caretakers
at day care centers have been charged and often found guilty of
child sexual abuse and/or bizarre and violent acts perpetrated
in satanic cult settings, despite the fact that most prior
research has shown sexual abuse by females to be relatively rare.10
In the McMartin case, for example, six of the seven day
care staff who were accused of sexual and ritual satanic abuse were
female, including a 77-year-old wheelchair-bound grandmother (Nathan 1990). I am virtually certain that such a ratio of
female to male perpetrators has never been found in any authentic
case of mass child sexual abuse. Getting Beyond the Memory Wars: The Polarization Begins
to Crumble Briere, one of the
leading proponents of the validity of repression and recovered memories (whose views were
described on page xxii-xxiii), appears to have done a 180 degree shift in his
position on these issues. According to Kenneth Pope (1998,
September 9), Briere told a hushed audience at the 12th International
Congress on Child Abuse and Neglect that there were "so many
bizarre recovered memories back in the '80s" because
Because Pope's newspaper
report on Briere's speech is necessarily incomplete, we do not know whether Briere
also acknowledged that he has been one of the prime advocates
of the theories and clinical practices of which he is now so
critical, and/or whether he acknowledged his earlier claim that
his experiments and those of other recovered memory
advocates' had provided scientific validation for these theories.
We also do not know whether Briere explained what was responsible
for the radical transformation in his views. Nevertheless
I believe that his turnabout represents perhaps the most significant
breach in the consensus of recovered memory advocates and will
likely influence many others in this camp. Feminists will probably
have to constantly remind recovered memory advocates who renounce their former views that
author and incest survivor Louise Armstrong was a voice in the
wilderness who articulated some of Briere's criticisms long before
he did. However, giving credit where it is due is not nearly as
important as Briere's contribution to the crumbling of the
polarization of the two camps involved in the memory wars. Forty-three
percent of the incest survivors in Russell's study were
incestuously abused only once by their
perpetrators.
Memory
experts typically claim that children below the age of four are not
capable of remembering.d
In Russell's study, only 11 percent were below the
age of 5 when they were abused, and
the mean age was 11-15 years For those who believe
that all recovered memories are false, the task of differentiating true from false memories
poses no problem. But for those who believe that some cases
of recovered memories are authentic (as do I), finding valid criteria
that can differentiate true and false memories is very important. Although the incest survivors in my San Francisco survey
were not specifically asked whether they had ever forgotten their
memories of abuse, none of them volunteered this information when providing often lengthy qualitative accounts of their
sexual victimization experiences. Hence, it seems
reasonable to view them as continuous memories. What can we learn by
comparing continuous memories of incestuous abuse with retrieved
and/or false memories? On reading accounts by
retractors who had retrieved their memories during therapy, I noticed that they were
strikingly different from accounts of incest survivors with continuous memories of their abuse experiences. Table 1-1
compares a tentative list of the characteristics of retrieved then
retracted "memories" of incestuous abuse with the
characteristics of continuous memories of incestuous abuse reported in The
Secret Trauma. The list in Table 1-1 suffers from several limitations, for
example, it is based on the limited number of cases available in the literature.
It is possible that only the more extreme cases of retraction have found
their way into print. Also, sexual assault survivors who seek therapy are
likely to have been more traumatized by the abuse than those who do not
(Herman, Russell, and Trocki 1986). These two factors probably serve to
magnify the contrast between the characteristics listed in the two columns
of Table 1-1. However, they are unlikely to render them invalid. Some researchers believe
that some of the characteristics listed in Table 1-1 have already been substantiated.
For example, in their report for the British Royal College
of Psychiatrists, Brandon et al. (1998) maintain that:
"Memories of satanic abuse or other bizarre events, memories from
before the age of four years and memories of repeated abuse over
many years forgotten until recovered therapy are not credible"
(p. 304). Assuming that retracted
memories start out as recovered memories that are false, then retracted and false
memories presumably share many characteristics. Hence, if
future research substantiates some or all of the differences between
retracted and continuous memories listed in Table 1-1, it could
prove to be an effective method for differentiating between
authentic and false memories of child sexual abuse. Both sides of the memory
wars need to take cognisance of the high prevalence of continuous memories of incestuous and
extrafamilial child sexual abuse documented in The Secret Trauma. My study makes it clear that even without any cases of
retrieved memories, the prevalence of incestuous abuse and child
sexual abuse in general would still be extraordinarily high
(i.e., 16% and 38%, respectively). This fact is clearly
unknown to many members of the false memory movement, many of whom are
very ignorant about child sexual abuse. For example,
when criticizing Steinem, Goldstein and Farmer quote her statement that "Perhaps a third of the children in the United States ... have been subjected to sexual and
other kinds of severe
neglect" (1993, p. 219), as if this is an outrageously high assessment.
The Secret Trauma shows that Steinem's prevalence estimate is
actually an understatement of the prevalence of sexual abuse found
in my study before the heyday of recovered memories had begun
(note, Steinem includes severe neglect in her statement).
Since participants in the recovery movement are more invested
than false memory advocates in the best prevalence estimates,
they should join with feminists in constantly bringing these
rates to the attention of false memory advocates, the media, the
legal and law enforcement professions, and the public at large. Survivors must realize
that activism around the issue that has caused them so much pain can be both empowering and
effective. For example, getting funding for feminist-run survivor centers, which can provide supportive services
similar to those that rape crisis centers provide for rape
victims, could be very helpful. A coalition of such centers could
provide a basis for a national organization committed to representing the interests of incest survivors, and to mobilizing them
and their allies to demand social changes that will help to
prevent and combat incestuous abuse. As an alternative to
therapy, survivors should consider participating in therapist-free
self-help groups like those available when feminists were still at the
forefront of the incest survivor movement. If they feel the
need for professional therapy, they should be provided with a
list of good therapists, as well as a list of danger signals to watch
out for in therapy. They should also be urged to maintain
a connection with the political movement. It is clear that more and
better research is needed. The methodology is likely to be greatly improved if
researchers on both sides of the memory wars undertake collaborative
projects. Since these wars are far
from over, I believe there is a very grave danger that the growing skepticism about all
retrieved memories will develop into greater skepticism about
incest survivors with continuous memories as well. False
memory advocates have already won over the media, many judges,
and a growing percentage of the public to their point of view.
While it is of utmost importance that the scandalous
implanting of false memories by some therapists and others, be stopped
as soon as possible, it is also vitally important that
disclosures by the far larger number of authentic incest survivors are
believed. As journalist Butler (1995) so eloquently states:
I desperately hope that
it will not become necessary once again for incest survivors to have to provide
water-tight evidence in order to be believed, as was the case with a
12-year-old girl in Phoenix. She is described as having
"tried in vain to convince someone that her grandfather had been
sexually abusing [her] since she was 8" (San Francisco
Chronicle, 1998, p. A4). She was finally believed when she took some
of her grandfather's semen in a plastic cup to the police so
DNA testing could be done. Her grandfather was subsequently
accused of five sex crimes against her and will presumably be successfully
convicted. Concern that my hope will
not be fulfilled has been magnified by the role Loftus has chosen to engage in at
the International Criminal Tribunal (ICT) for the Former
Yugoslavia in the Hague. In June 1988, she served as an
expert witness for the defense of Anto Furundzija, a member of the Croat
armed forces, who was accused by a woman referred to as
Witness A, of being her principal interrogator and torturer.
Witness A, a Muslim woman, testified that she was raped numerous
times on or about May 15, 1993, after she failed to provide
Furundzija, her interrogator, with the information he sought. She
reported that Furundzija orchestrated these rapes by another soldier
in an effort to coerce this information out of her. She
told the court that she was raped vaginally, orally, and anally; forced
to swallow sperm and urine; forced to strip naked in front
of about 40 armed soldiers; and had a knife rubbed against her
vagina accompanied by the threat that it "might be cut
out" (ICT, 1988, p. 663).
Loftus, one of the major
hired guns of the false memory movement who has testified in trials "perhaps 220
or 230 times" (ICT, 1998, p. 599), told the court that in her opinion,
those who suffer from post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD)
are more likely to be "especially vulnerable to post-event
suggestions" -- i.e., false memories (p. 615). She cited no
research to support this conjecture. The Defense subsequently argued
that Witness A's memories about Furundzija role in her torture were
untrue -- a product of reconstruction after her extreme trauma and
likely PTSD (p. 697). Serving as an expert
witness for the Defence in genuine cases of false memory is an important service.
Presumably, Loftus has often testified in such cases. What
makes her a hired gun in this particular case -- and I suspect many others
-- is that she had no reason to believe this was a false
memory case before she agreed to be an expert witness for the Defence. She admitted to the court that she had only
"skimmed" her testimony and others' in the case, and that she had not spoken to
any of the investigators involved (ICT, p. 618). Yet she
was willing to contribute her expertise to create doubt about the
validity of the memories of a known torture/rape victim in an
infamous genocidal and femicidal war. Instead of admitting
that there is no research on the relationship between false memories
and PTSD, Loftus contributed a speculation that could be used
against most victims of rape and serious cases of child sexual abuse. Moreover, Victim A had certainly never forgotten that
she had been raped and tortured. This account of Loftus'
behavior illustrates my concern that false memory advocates are going to raise doubts not
only about recovered memories of child sexual abuse, but about all
memories of child sexual abuse-and perhaps rape of adult women
as well. If we fail to be vigilant (and militant, if need be), we may
have a devastating counter revolution in store for us that is even more
destructive than the counter revolution represented by the incest recovery
movement. This is why it is especially vital that feminists reclaim incest
as a political issue. Because The Secret Trauma focuses on incestuous
abuse as a social, not an individual, problem, and provides a feminist analysis
of this crime, it can play a valuable role in this reclamation. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS I am enormously grateful
to Jo Ann Miller for deciding to republish The Secret Trauma. I was very
disappointed when this book went out of print. I am also indebted to
Louise Armstrong for her useful suggestions and support, Gayle Pitman for
her excellent substantive editing, and Roberta Harmes for
her invaluable assistance in obtaining references on the
memory wars, as well as her impressive skill at tracking down in a
very timely manner whatever information I request. I also
appreciate Ellen Kaschak's role in alerting me to Loftus' nefarious
testimony at the International Tribunal in the Hague.
1 Because
it gets too cumbersome to routinely mention both incestuous abuse and extrafamial
child sexual
abuse, the term incestuous abuse should be understood to often include
extrafamial child sexual abuse
as well. REFERENCES Abrams, Stan. (1995). False memory syndrome vs.
total repression. The
Journal of Psychology and Law, 23(2) 283-293.
Armstrong, Louise (1978). Kiss Daddy Goodnight; A
Speak-Out on Incest. New York:
Hawthorn Books, Inc.
Armstrong, Louise (1994). Rocking the Cradle of Sexual
Politics. New York: Addison-Wesley
Publishing Company.
Bass, Ellen and Davis, Laura. (1988). The Courage
to Heal. New York: Harper and
Row.
Brandon, Sydney, Boakes, Janet, Glaser, Dana, and Green,
Richard. (1998). Recovered
memories of childhood sexual abuse. British Journal of
Psychiatry, 172, 296-307.
Briere, John, and Conte, Jon. (1993).
Self-reported amnesia for abuse in adults molested
as children. Journal of Traumatic Stress, 6(1), pp. 21-31.
Butler, Katy. (1995, February 5). Did Daddy really
do it? Los Angeles Times Book
Review, pp. 1, 11.
Butler, Sandra (1978). Conspiracy of Silence; The Trauma
of Incest. San Francisco:
New Glide Publications.
Crews, Frederick. (1995). The Memory Wars:
Freud's Legacy in Dispute. New York:
The New York Review of Books.
Dawes, Robyn. (1995, January). Book review of
Return of the Furies: An Investigation
into Recovered Memory Therapy, by Hollida Wakefield and
Ralph Underwager. False Memory Syndrome Foundation
Newsletter, pp. 11-13.
de Rivera, Joseph. (1997). Estimating the number
of false memory syndrome cases.
American Psychologist, 52(9), 996-997.
deYoung, Mary. (1997). The devil goes to day care:
McMartin and the making of a moral
panic. Journal of American Culture, 20(1), 19-25.
Doe, Jane. (1992). How could this happen? In
Eleanor Goldstein and Kevin Farmer (Eds.),
Confabulations: Creating False Memories, Destroying
Families (pp. 27-60). Boca Raton, FL: SIRS Books.
Elliot, Diana, and Briere, John. (1995).
Posttraumatic stress associated with delayed
recall of sexual abuse: A general population study.
Journal of Traumatic Stress, 8(4), 629-647.
Faller, Kathleen Coulborn (1988). Child Sexual Abuse; An Interdisciplinary Manual
For Diagnosis, Case Management, and Treatment. New York:
Columbia University Press.
Feldman-Summers, Shirley, and Pope, Kenneth. (1994).
The experience of
'forgetting' childhood abuse: A national survey of psychologists.
Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 62, 636-639.
Friedman, Matthew. (1996). ISTSS files amicus
curiae brief on traumatic amnesia.
Traumatic Stress Points, 10(4), 2-3.
Fukurai, Hiroshi, Butler, Edgar W. and Krooth, Richard.
(1994). Sociologists in action:
The McMartin sexual abuse case, litigation, justice, and
mass hysteria. American Sociologist, 25(4), pp.
4-7.
Gazzaniga, Michael. (1998, October 10). Mind
matters. Public lecture/dialogue with
Philip Zimbardo arranged by the City of Arts and Lectures, San
Francisco.
Gil, Eliana. (1988). Outgrowing the Pain: A
Book for and About Adults Abused as
Children. New York: Dell Publishing.
Goldstein,
Eleanor (1992). Confabulations: Creating False
Memories - Destroying Families. Boca Raton: SIRS Books. Goldstein, Eleanor and Farmer, Kevin (1993). True
Stories of False Memories.
Boca Raton: SIRS Books.
Gudjonsson, G. (1997a). The memories of the
BFMS, the accusers and their siblings.
Psychologist, 10, 111-114.
Gudjonsson, G. (1997b). Accusations by adults of
child sexual abuse: A survey of
members of the British False Memory Society (BFMS).
Applied Cognitive Psychology, 11, 3-18.
Hagar, Laura. (1995, February 17). The power of
suggestion. Express: The East Bay's
Free Weekly, 17(19), 1, 8-10, 12, 14-15.
Herman, Judith and Hirschman, Lisa. (1977).
Father-daughter incest. Signs:
Journal of Women in Culture and Society, 2(4), pp. 735-756.
Herman, Judith (1981). Father-Daughter Incest.
Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
Herman, Judith, Russell, Diana, and Trocki, Karen.
(1986). The long-term effects of
incestuous abuse in childhood. American Journal of
Psychiatry, 143(10), pp. 1293-1296.
Herman, Judith Lewis, and Schatzow, Emily. (1987).
Recovery and verification of memories
of childhood sexual trauma. Psychoanalytic
Psychology, 4(1), 1-14.
Hopper, Jim. (1998). Recovered memories of sexual
abuse: Scientific research.
http://www.jimhopper.com/memory.
International Criminal Tribunal for the Former
Yugoslavia. (1998, June 22).
Transcript of proceedings. Available at http://www.un.org/icty/transe17-1/980622it.htm
Jaroff, Leon. (1993, November 29). Lies of the
mind. Time, 54-59.
Johnston, Moira. (1998, April 29). Public lecture
to Commonwealth Club.
Johnston, Moira. (1998, May 26). Will the memory
wars be over by the millennium?
Edited transcript of public lecture to Commonwealth Club.
The Commonwealth, 92(19), pp. 10-14.
Lanning, Kenneth V. (1989, October). Satanic,
occult, ritualistic crime: A law
enforcement perspective. The Police Chief, LVI(10),
pp. 62-83.
LeMasters, Carol. (1995, April). The incest
backlash. The Women's Review of Books,
12(7), pp 6-7.
Loftus, Elizabeth and Ketcham, Katherine (1994).
The Myth of Repressed Memory.
New York: St. Martin's Press.
Macnamara, Mark. (1995, March). Fade away: The
rise and fall of the repressed-memory
theory in the courtroom. California Lawyer, 36-41, 86.
Masson, Jeffrey Moussaieff (1985). The Assault on Truth;
Freud's Suppression of the
Seduction Theory. New York: Penguin Books
Nathan, Debbie. (1990, June 12). What McMartin
started: The ritual abuse sex hoax.
The Village Voice, 35(24), 36-38.
Ness, Carol. (1994, May 18). Self-help author hit
by suit over false memories. San
Francisco Examiner, p. A1, A10.
Ofshe, Richard J. and Singer, Margaret Thaler.
(1994). Recovered-memory therapy
and robust repression: Influence and pseudomemories.
International Journal of Clinical and Experimental Hypnosis,
42(4), 391-410.
Ofshe, Richard and Watters, Ethan (1994). Making
Monsters: False Memories, Psychotherapy,
and Sexual Hysteria. New York: Charles Scribner's Sons.
Pendergrast, Mark (1995). Victims of Memory:
Incest Accusations and Shattered Lives.
Hinesburg, VT: Upper Access.
Pope, Kenneth S. (1996a). Memory, abuse, and
science: Questioning claims about
the False Memory Syndrome epidemic. American Psychologist,
51(9), 957-974.
Pope, Kenneth S. (1996b). Scientific research,
recovered memory, and context: Seven
surprising findings. In Contratto, Susan and Gutfreund, M. Janice
(Eds.). (1996). A Feminist Clinician's Guide to the
Memory Debate. New York: The Haworth Press. (pp.
123-140)
Pope, Kenneth S. (1997). Science as careful
questioning: Are claims of a false memory
syndrome epidemic based on empirical evidence?
American Psychologist, 52(9), 997-1006.
Pope, Kenneth (1998, September 9). Recovered
memory or just a giant con trick.
New Zealand Herald, p. A13.
Rush, Florence (1974).
The sexual abuse of children: A feminist point of view. In Connell, Noreen
and Wilson, Cassandra. Eds. Rape: The First Sourcebook for Women. New York:
New American Library.
Rush, Florence (1980). The Best Kept Secret; Sexual
Abuse of Children. New Jersey:
Prentice Hall Inc.
Russell, Diana E.H. (1995a). "I didn't
remember for 33 years": An incest survivor tells
her story. The Journal of Psychohistory, 23(2), pp.
149-190.
Russell, Diana E.H. (1995b). Incestuous Abuse: Its
Long-Term Effects. Pretoria,
South Africa: The Human Sciences Research Council
Publishers.
Russell, Diana E.H. (1986). The Secret
Trauma: Incest in the Lives of Girls and Women.
New York: Basic Books, 1986.
San Francisco Chronicle. (1998, October 26). Girl,
12, accuses grandad of molestation,
p. A4.
Schwarz, Robert, and Gilligan, Stephen. (1995).
The devil is in the details: Fact
and fiction in the recovered memory debate. Networker,
21-23.
Smith, Michelle and Pazder, Lawrence. (1980).
Michelle Remembers. New
York: Pocket Books.
Spiegel, David. (1997). Memories: True and
false. American Psychologist, 52(9),
995-996.
Terr, Lenore (1994). Unchained Memories. New
York: Basic Books.
Whitfield, Charles L. (1995). Memory and Abuse:
Remembering and Healing the Effects of
Trauma. Deerfield Beach, FL: Health Communications.
Williams, Mary R. (1996).
Suits by adults for childhood sexual abuse: Legal origins of the "repressed
memory" controversy. Journal of Psychiatry and Law, 24(2), 207-228. Wright, Lawrence (1994). Remembering
Satan: A Tragic Case of Recovered Memory. New York: Vintage Books.
Diana
E. H, Russell. The great incest war: Moving beyond polarization. Introduction to
the 1999 edition of The Secret Trauma: Incest in the Lives of Girls
and Women. New York, BasicBooks/Perseus Press, 1999, xvii-xiii.
So instead of fighting male domination in the family and
the predatory sexuality and sense of entitlement males are
socialized to have in patriarchal societies, therapists
pathologized and depoliticized incest, diverting survivors away from a
political activist approach to incestuous abuse. "By
defusing the political content, it [the therapeutic ideology] serves
the status quo," Armstrong notes (p. 214), which
"readily leads to, not change but imaginary change" (p. 211). In
effect, Armstrong (1994) believes that therapy has replaced political
empowerment with infantalization:
1
While many therapists and
other advocates of recovered memories believe that the false memory movement's attack
on therapists constitutes a backlash against the incest
recovery movement, I see the therapists' takeover from feminists
of the incest issue as a backlash against feminism and incest
survivors' interests. Hence, "Rather than feminism
politicizing the issue of incest, incest-as-illness had overwhelmed and swallowed up
feminism" (Armstrong, p. 207). This may
explain why there is no survivor-led national organization to combat incestuous
abuse like there has long been for both rape (the National
Coalition Against Sexual Assault [NCASA], a national coalition of
rape crisis centers) and battery (the National Coalition
Against Domestic Violence [NCADV]).
Ofshe and Watters report
that "the large majority of recovered memory patients are women" (1994, p. 2;
also see Pope 1996, p. 124). Similarly, according to research
based on FMS Foundation data, at least 90 percent of the victims of
false memories are female (cited by Pope, 1996, p. 128).
How might we explain this? Could it be that the greater power
difference between female clients and male and female therapists as
compared with male clients and male and female therapists makes
women more suggestible than men and/or more eager to please their
therapists and hence more willing to fulfill their expectations?
If this power difference enables therapists to be more
successful at implanting memories of abuse in women than in men and in
coercing women to remain in therapy despite the terrible
deterioration in their mental health, this replicates the patriarchal
oppression women are forced to live with by promoting dependency
and passivity in women and enhancing the power and seeming omnipotence of their therapists (Pitman, personal
communication, July 30, 1998).
Unfortunately, Freud's damaging legacy spread way beyond
those who are impressed by psychoanalysis. There are
probably very few therapists and educated people who have not incorporated
some of Freud's assumptions and theories, including those who
consider themselves to be anti-Freudians. And regardless of
whether post-Freudian therapists have been eliciting or denying
reports of childhood sexual abuse, they have often manipulated
their female clients into believing whatever it is that they (the therapists) believe.
over-enthusiastic therapists thought it was vital for patients to remember
everything -- especially deeply buried traumatic experiences --
in order to get well; [these therapists thought this] possibly because
of what he [Briere] called ideological errors.
By the mid-1980s, "the idea was to liposuction
people's memories out of their brains. It was a bad idea, bad therapy,
and I don't recommend it"....
According to Pope, Briere told the audience: "'Please
don't think your job is to excavate every single memory"...
It's not the therapist's job to help patients remember anything
-- and to do so invites the most traumatized among them to simply
invent a memory to satisfy the therapist. "Treating a false
memory as a true memory can be a very, very, very bad thing. Why?
Because most of these recovered memories involve crimes such as
a child saying they had been abused by Dad. Also, an individual
then receives therapy for what did not occur." (p. A13).
And, most significant of all, Briere concluded that
"Our best guess is that if they say they weren't abused, then they
probably weren't" (Emphasis added, p. A13).
TABLE 1-1
CONTRASTING CHARACTERISTICS OF RETRIEVED/THEN RETRACTED
MEMORIES AND CONTINUOUS MEMORIES OF INCESTUOUS ABUSEa
Retrieved, Then Retracted, Memories
Continuous Memories
1.
Fathers
are typically the first to be singled out as perpetrators
by female clients or by their therapists.
Only
4.5 percent of the incest perpetrators in Russell's study
were fathers, while 12 percent were other relatives.
2.
In
one study of retrieved memory biological
fathers were accused of sexual abuse in 50 percent of the cases, whereas only 3 percent
involved stepfathers.b
In
Russell's study, stepfathers greatly predominated over biological
fathers as perpetrators of incestuous abuse.
3.
Mothers
are typically named as co-perpetrators or collaborators
with the father.
Maternal
incest perpetrators are extremely rare; many mothers are
not aware of the abuse by their husbands; and some mothers
confront or leave their husbands if they know about the
abuse.c
4.
The
sexual abuse is frequently scribed as "rape."
Only
9 percent of the incestuous abuse experiences in Russell's
study involved completed rape (i.e., penile/vaginal penetration).
5.
The
sexual abuse is never a single
incident.
6.
The
sexual abuse typically occurs frequently and over long durations.
Only
10 percent of the incestuous abuse
in Russell's study occurred more than twenty times, and
only 6 percent occurred
over more than ten years.
7.
Incestuous
abuse is frequently remembered as starting at very
young, preverbal ages.
8.
The
sexual assaults almost always
involve multiple perpetrators.
Only
3 percent of the incest survivors
in Russell's study were abused by more than one relative.
9.
Significantly
more females are accused of perpetrating sexual abuse in
retracted cases. The sexual abuse almost always involves
multiple perpetrators.
In
Russell's study, women comprised only 5 percent of the perpetrators
of child sexual abuse, and only 4 percent of incestuous
abuse.
10.
Many
of these women come to believe that they were victims of
satanic ritual abuse.
No
case of ritual abuse was disclosed in Russell's study.
11.
Many
of these women become decidedly more disturbed and unhappy
during therapy than when they
entered therapy, not infrequently attempting suicide and/or
requiring hospitalization.
Therapy
typically ends neutrally or positively for clients.
12.
Many
of these women fluctuate between believing and not believing
their "memories" during the course of their therapy.
These
kind of fluctuations were not apparent in Russell's study.
13.
Recovered
memories tend to be "built up over time. . . with more
being added at each attempt at recall, often becoming increasingly
elaborate and bizarre."e
Very
few of the cases in Russell's study were
elaborate or bizarre.
14.
Most
of the accusations based on
recovered memories have been made since 1990.f
No
comparative data are available.
15.
Many
of these women confront their
perpetrators, then sever all ties with them.
No
comparative data are available.
16.
A
small minority of these women
develop multiple personalities (MPD) during the course
of treatment or are perceived to suffer from MPD by their
therapists.
None
of the incest survivors in Russsell's study described suffering
from MPD.
17.
Hypnosis,
relaxation states, drugs, regression techniques, and dream
analysis are often used by the therapists of
these women to try to retrieve
more memories of child sexual
abuse.
None
of these techniques were mentioned in Russell's study. Indeed,therapy
was only rarely mentioned. This is not surprising since
it was a community
sample.
aMain source: Russell 1986
b Gudjonsson 1997a, 1997b
c Fader 1988
d Brandon et
al. 1998
e Brandon et
al. 1998, p.304
f
Gudjonsson 1997b
The Importance of The Secret Trauma
The danger is that books like Making Monsters [Ofshe and
Watters, 1994] and The Myth of Repressed Memory [Loftus
1994] will once again silence women and men from speaking -- and
being believed -- about very real abuse, and will create a new breed
of experts who will once again presume to know the truth. (p. 11)
Two people who read this introduction have suggested
that incest survivors may believe that my analysis of the memory
wars contributes to their being disbelieved. This, of
course, is certainly not my intention (it may likewise not be the
intention of Ofshe and Watters). Distressed as I would
certainly be if my analysis were to be misused in this way, the danger of
this does not justify my pretending to believe that every charge
of child sexual abuse is valid. Given the havoc caused by
many recovered memory therapists, incest survivor groups, some
well-meaning parents who question their children in highly suggestive
ways, some simplistic and irresponsible reading material on
child sexual abuse, as well as media reports that at one time uncritically validated the recovered memory viewpoint,
many women continue to be convinced that they are child sexual
abuse survivors when this is not the case. I am
personally acquainted with such individuals. These inauthentic victims
are as incensed as genuine victims tend to be with anyone who questions the validity of
women or children who identify themselves as victims.
2According
to attorney Mary Williams (1996), thirty-one states had enacted such statutes by 1996 (p. 210).
3 See Doe (a pseudonym for Pamela) in Goldstein and
Farmer, 1992.
4 In addition to suing her therapists, Mark's
case was the first ever to sue a written work for its contribution to her false
memories.
5 A retractor is an individual who retrieved
memories of child sexual abuse and/or satanic ritual abuse only to denounce them
as false later in life.
6 Although social worker Florence Rush and
psychiatrist Judith Herman are or were (in Rush's case) members of the helping
profession, their analyses of incestuous abuse were explicitly feminist.
7 This is not to say that these presumed positive
effects justify the misleading information and the negative effects that have
resulted. I was very critical of The Courage to Heal when I read it soon
after its publication. However, like so many others, I failed to express my
views in my publications or speeches because I had no idea then that such
material could cause so much harm.
8 Public lecture to the Commonwealth Club, April 29,
1988. This statement was not included in the edited transcript of Johnston's
lecture (May 26, 1998).
9 This is particularly evident among family systems
theorists and therapists.
10 It is true that the relatively few men who work in day
care centers have also often been charged with child sexual abuse. However, this
is consistent with research findings based on incest experiences that were never
forgotten. Males have always predominated as perpetrators of child sexual abuse.
This is not to say that there have not also been many cases of false charges
against males.