WEEK 9: Sex Trafficking Revisited

Last week, our focus was on the historical, political and ideological links between the WHITE SLAVERY myth during the late 19^th and early 20^th centuries and contemporary trafficking DISCOURSE. You read chapters 2-4 in Doezema and after making a list of the constitutive elements that comprise these links we, as Doezema does in her book, “[d]ecode[d] the discursive statements that masquerade as descriptions of reality in today’s discussion of trafficking” (Doezema 104). Since we’ve had some practice doing this in class, this task is one of the options that you may choose to work on for your Term Project (if you haven’t yet, be sure to check out the Term Project Guidelines).

This coming week, we’ll be continuing not only our reading in Doezema, but also our thinking about what I call in the syllabus “The Politics of Sex Trafficking.” We’ll focus, first, on the invisibility of sex workers and sex worker rights activists in the negotiations that created the 2000 TRAFFICKING PROTOCOL (ch. 5) and, second, on Doezema’s suggestions for how contemporary international trafficking myths might move beyond the notions that TRAFFICKING always equals PROSTITUTION, that PROSTITUTION is always inherently exploitative, and that TRAFFICKING ‘VICTIMS’ are always women and girls (ch. 6). “[T]he challenge,” she argues, “is to find a way similarly to move outside the constraints of consent [as abolitionists have done by arguing that there’s no such thing as consentual prostitution, because it’s all violence against women], but to do so in a way that does not involve positioning prostitutes as victims of violence” (175).

You might want to check out the Global Network of Sex Work Projects, as this advocacy organization was an integral part of the Trafficking Protocol negotiations before and during the Vienna meetings in 2000.

Questions to consider as you’re reading

For this week, pay attention to the following:

1. By what means and why did the sex workers and their allies who were lobbying during the Trafficking Protocol negotiations disappear? Who benefited? How and why? Be sure to consider the fault lines between sex workers activists and anti-trafficking activists as well as the importance of consent in definitions of trafficking. 
2. Why did the Human Rights Caucus (for which Doezema worked as a lobbyist during the negotiations) not like the term TRAFFICKING VICTIM and wanted the language changed to TRAFFICKED PERSONS instead? 
3. Doezema argues that contemporary discourses of trafficking are “grounded in prostitution” (168). What does she mean by that, and how is this connected to WHITE SLAVERY? 
4. Chapter 6 concludes Doezema’s project, and she tries to figure out in this final chapter why trafficking now? When so few of the issues that feminists care about actually ever make it to the level of national and international discourse, why has ‘trafficking in women’ “been the one that governments – even those notoriously hostile to feminist arguments – have shown themselves willing to ‘jump into bed’ with feminists over” (172)? 
5. Doezema calls for a reinscription of the subject(s) of contemporary trafficking discourse. What specific suggestions does she make for how this might happen?

Two Reminders

Don’t forget about my office hours if you have any questions, would like to brainstorm about the Term Project, or just want to chat!

Also, as always, keep track of your CRPs, which are due at the start of class on Mondays. Details about the assignment can be found here. Be sure to include all the required components as described and also remember to bring a copy to submit to me as well as a copy for yourself so that you can refer to it during class.

I’ll see you all in class! In the meantime, happy reading, and please don’t hesitate to stop by during my office hours or e-mail me at kawilliams(at)mtroyal.ca if you have any questions.