A history of ambivalence and conflict in the discursive construction of the 'child victim' of sexual abuse

This article was presented as one of the plenary addresses at the Keele Con ference on Gender, Sexuality and Law in June 1998. Speakers were asked to f ocus on how their own work had developed and changed over time. In my addre ss and in this article these issues are essentially absent because I cannot avoid the conclusion that, in my case at least, the substance of my resear ch is of more interest than reflections upon my intellectual biography. How ever, this article is, I think, a good example of what I regard as an impor tant strand of my work as a feminist socio-legal theorist and researcher. M y work over the last 20 years has moved back and forth between the theoreti cal (viz. Feminism and the Power of Law, [1989]), the empirical (Family Fra gments? [1999]) and the historical (Regulating Womanhood [1992]). Sometimes it has even managed to combine all three elements (The Ties That Bind [198 2]). There have been moments when I felt that theoretical work was the most important, because of the limits of contemporary analysis or because I fel t that my historical or empirical work had given rise to ways of thinking w hich called for expression in a transferable medium - and theory is always more widely read than empirical or historical work. But at other times I ha ve found the focus on theory to be rather sterile and unrewarding and at su ch times I have found that empirical work poses new challenges and forces m e to think in new ways. My current work on contemporary changes to childhoo d, for example, is certainly making me reconsider how we should theorise ge nder in family relationships. Empirical work, in my experience, always chan ges how one understands the social world. At other times, particularly when the rigours of fieldwork are too demanding, I return to the library and th e archives. While fieldwork is exciting and challenging, I find that I am m ost intellectually contented when I am among original documents. This artic le emerges from such a period. Historical work challenges our modem complac encies and arrogance, and brings us back in touch with the prolonged diffic ulties of bringing about social and legal change. It;also locates us, as re searchers and as sometime agents of change, in an important tradition of en deavour and struggle. The issue of how law deals with sexuality, and indeed the extent to which it is part of the historical and cultural construction of sexual behaviour, has been of interest and concern to me throughout my academic career. I remain convinced that law, understood in its widest mean ing, is still one of the most important sites of engagement and counter-dis course.